Yourish.com

11/03/2009

“Slap in the face”

Filed under: American Scene, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 8:30 am

Meryl noticed this yesterday. (See the end of the post.)

Barry Rubin summarized the administration’s efforts in the Middle East like this:

The president of the United States has said that he wants talks resumed immediately and believes it possible to make a breakthrough. The Palestinian leadership is thwarting him on both points. In other words, they are responsible for the failure of a major U.S. policy.

So when the administration, specifically, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton points this out and it brings howls of protest from the Arab world what is the administration’s response?

The New York Times:

Arab officials expressed alarm that the United States seemed to be easing pressure on Israel after Mrs. Clinton said in Jerusalem on Saturday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s proposal of restrained settlement building was better than anything previous Israeli governments had offered.

Mrs. Clinton said the administration would not stop pushing Mr. Netanyahu to do more. But she said that in trying to revive a stalled peace process, she wanted to offer Israel encouragement for moving in the right direction, even if that movement fell short of what the United States wanted.

“I will offer positive reinforcement to the parties when I believe they are taking steps that support the objective of reaching a two-state solution,” she said here, on the eve of a conference of Arab and Western countries. “I will also push them as I have in public and private to do even more.”

The Washington Post:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to soothe Arab uneasiness Monday over weekend statements she made praising the Israeli government’s offer to “restrain” growth in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, saying it “falls far short” of the Obama administration’s hopes and is “not enough.”

Reflecting her concern over the Arab reaction, Clinton decided to extend her week-long trip to the region, scheduled to end Tuesday, with a previously unplanned stop in Cairo on Wednesday to meet with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. On Sunday, Egypt backed the Palestinian stance that negotiations cannot resume until Israel stops all settlement construction.

Clinton insisted that the administration still considers settlement activity on disputed territory “illegitimate” and advocates a freeze. But she repeated at a news conference here that Israel’s offer was “unprecedented” and that it “holds the promise of moving a step closer to a two-state solution.”

So faced with Arab displeasure, the administration backtracked. But the Washington Post observed:

Clinton’s comments represented a shift in the dynamics since Obama took office, with initial pressure on Israel giving way over the past several weeks to apparent impatience over the refusal of Palestinian officials to resume peace talks in the absence of a settlement freeze.

And the NYT quoted Arab League Secretary General, Amr Moussa:

Amr Moussa, the secretary general of the Arab League, urged the administration not to accept what he called a “slap in the face” by Israel. He said he hoped the Americans would “try hard and in a firmer way.”

And how would you characterize the official Palestinian response to Secretary of State Clinton’s remarks in Israel?

“Why, Mrs. Hillary? How much did the Zionists pay you as a bribe?” taunted an article in today’s edition of Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, which is controlled by the office of PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

That’s the “moderate” Palestinian response. And check out the cartoon. The Arab world actually slapped the administration in the face and the administration meekly backs down. The Palestinians, supported by the Arab world, show that they’re uninterested in peace and the administration simply tolerates it.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

11/02/2009

Taking the smart out of smart diplomacy

Filed under: American Scene, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Washington Post reporter Scott Wilson writes of President Obama’s new approach to diplomacy “Shared interests define Obama’s world. Wilson starts:

President Obama is applying the same tools to international diplomacy that he once used as a community organizer on Chicago’s South Side, constructing appeals to shared interests and attempting to bring the government’s conduct in line with its ideals.

Obama’s approach to the world as a community of nations, more alike than different in outlook and interest, has elevated America’s standing abroad and won him the Nobel Peace Prize. But on the farthest-reaching U.S. foreign policy challenges, he is struggling to translate his own popularity into American influence, even with allies that have celebrated his break from the Bush administration’s emphasis on military strength, unilateral action and personal chemistry.

Of course as a community organizer he could claim that all sides shared the same goals, but if he was organzing against a business, the business likely had self interest involved. Its goals would not have been shared with those Obama was representing, but the business likely would have preferred to cede some of its own interests rather than getting labeled as insensitive or uncaring.

We actually get some wisdom from Tom Malinowski of Human Rights Watch:

“There’s an appropriate reaction to the crusading moralism of the Bush administration, but it sometimes goes too far in the direction of hoping that reasoned and quiet persuasion will convince cynical and self-interested authoritarian governments to change their ways,” Malinowski said.

Thought I don’t agree the first part, he has the second part exactly right..

In September, taking a tangible step to improve relations with Russia, Obama abandoned Bush-era plans to station a ballistic-missile defense shield in the Czech Republic and Poland designed to protect the United States from Iran’s arsenal. The Russian government had for years complained that the system posed a security threat to the country, already squeezed by NATO’s expansion, in a region it has long considered part of its sphere of influence.

Obama announced a scaled-back system that he said would better protect Eastern Europe from attack. The Czech and Polish governments accepted the new plans last month, but conservatives argue that the shift only rewarded an aggressive Russian government to win its help with Iran.

“This was a clear signal that Washington is more interested in currying favor with its strategic competitors than in building or even maintaining its alliances with its traditional allies,” said Nile Gardiner, director of the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “There is no evidence the Obama doctrine is reaping benefits. On the contrary, the United States is increasingly viewed as weak and unreliable by some of its traditional allies.”

U.S. and Iranian officials held the highest-level talks in three decades in early October, and later that month they agreed to a plan that appeared to mark a victory for Obama’s approach.

Under the draft agreement, Iran would ship most of its low-grade nuclear fuel to Russia for further enrichment so it could be sent back to Iran later for use as medical isotopes. The deal, conceived by the Obama administration, would leave too little uranium inside Iran to produce a nuclear weapon in the short term.

But last week Iran’s government reversed course in a sign that its own domestic calculations are still exerting more influence than Obama’s brand of international diplomacy.

In other words it didn’t work.

Towards the end of an article Wilson writes:

Obama also has spoken candidly to Israel’s government, calling its West Bank settlements “illegitimate” while asking Arab nations to make a series of diplomatic and economic gestures toward the Jewish state. His call for Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to freeze settlement construction — a Palestinian condition for opening peace talks — has so far been ignored.

This inaccurate. Barry Rubin writes:

In fact, at the time it signed the original peace process agreement–often called the Oslo accord–in 1993, that’s 16 years ago–Israel put forward its interpretation of the agreement. It said that there would be no new Jewish settlements and no geographical expansion of existing settlements. But Israel made it clear that it would continue to build apartments on existing settlements. That position was not challenged by the Palestinians at the time and it has never held up talks before now.

It only became a condition because President Obama made it one. Barry Rubin again:

Indeed, another Washington Post article of November 1, this one by Howard Schneider, pointed out–though only indirectly–why things got even worse:

“However, Obama’s election raised expectations among Palestinians and throughout the Arab states that the peace process would yield quicker results from an administration willing to openly criticize Israel and, it seemed, elevate Palestinian interests.”

More than that, it was the Obama Administration which called for a total freeze, distances itself from Israel, and took other steps leading the PA and Arab states to believe that by being intransigent they could get Washington to deliver Israel on their own terms. In other words, while everyone is being too polite to say so, the Obama Administration was responsible for the situation deteriorating.

Similarly, Meryl wrote:

But if you look at those words, and the words of Obama’s Cairo speech, there is a cognitive dissonance that explains why the Palestinians continue to use the lack of a freeze as a reason to halt negotiations. Because the Obama administration opened the door for it use. And the Palestinians have never, ever not used an excuse to refuse to negotiate with Israel.

Later on Barry Rubin observes in regard to events in the Middle East:

And so we have come to the point where it is becoming clear even to those who have been ruled by wishful thinking that there is not going to be any peace and that the Palestinian-Arab side is responsible for this situation.

It is quite probable–and this is extremely important to understand–that there is nothing the Obama Administration can say or do in order to make them change their mind. After all, this is the ideal position from the standpoint of the PA, Egypt, Jordan, and others. Refuse to support talks, reap benefits by showing their militancy, and be able to blame it on Israel.

After all his efforts and alleged popularity, Obama has absolutely zero credit and no leverage in the Arabic-speaking world.

How is this going to affect Obama Administration policy and thinking?

If the conclusion of Wilson’s article is any indication, not at all.

“Our interests are the same with our allies and our adversaries,” Rhodes said. “We’re saying the same thing to everybody. Our interests are the same no matter what country we’re talking to.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

11/01/2009

J-street cleaning

Filed under: American Scene, Israel — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 9:30 am

What happens when you try to present yourself as something you’re not, and then events conspire to show your true colors? Well you go to a sympathetic reporter and get him to present your side of the story. It’s very easy, really.

After its first annual convention last week, J-Street stands exposed as left wing organization that is very attractive to critics of Israel. So its leaders went to the New York Times, presented their talking points and got reporters Neil Lewis and Mark Landler to write a sympathetic press release Moderate in America’s Jewish Lobby Causes a Stir

Did I get the headline correct? J-Street is moderate? Let me quote from two sources who are not as far to right as I am. First David Bernstein:

Opposing the war in Gaza put JStreet far outside the mainstream of Jewish opinion in Israel (and the U.S., for that matter); even the left-wing Meretz party supported the war, as did over 90% of the Jewish Israeli public. So JStreet is respositioning itself from left of Meretz to right of Labor?

and Yaacov Lozowick:

In spite of the difference between them, they are both pro-Israel. What stuck me was the degree of their disconnect (both) from the Israeli reality. Certainly Yglesias, and probably also Chiat, would fit into the Meretz part of the Israeli political spectrum – yet there’s a reason Meretz hovers on the edge of political extinction these days. I’m not saying the Meretz position is illegitimate – but it does have to deal with a whole set of facts known to every Israeli; most deal by abandoning the Meretz positions, and a small number deal and manage to maintain their positions. These two fine young men – I’m not being facetious – are engaged in a conversation about Israel that doesn’t relate to the world Israelis live in.

No matter how many times Jeremy Ben Ami and his associates say “we’re moderate” the truth is that they are way out of the mainstream of the Israeli political spectrum. They also are not in the mainstream of American Jewish politics. In fact most of the people who associate with J-Street’s positions are in fact anti-Zionists and hostile to Israel as the J-Street bloggers panel showed. (h/t Israel Matzav)

Here’s the meat of the NYT’s report:

J Street has only a small fraction of the resources and membership of more established pro-Israel groups, like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, and it remains unclear how potent it will be in presenting itself as an alternative. Nonetheless, it has had great success in quickly becoming a major reference point in the complicated debate over President Obama’s Middle East policy as well as the more emotional issue of the appropriate role for American Jews in supporting Israel.

While opinions in the Jewish community have never been uniform or monolithic, several analysts, elected officials and pollsters said the debate over Mr. Obama’s approach to Israel and its neighbors has sharpened boundaries between those who strongly support him and those who have grown more wary.

J Street has tried to position itself as a counterweight to groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, which J Street supporters say require the United States to support the Israeli government too reflexively.

This sounds a lot more like J-Street’s talking points. Since when does an objective news report use the phrase “it has had great success?”

The reason J-Street has had great success in getting its message out is because it is 1) well funded 2) politically connected and 3) can find sympathetic reporters to reprint their main talking points.

Landler and Lewis also write:

The issue of how much any American administration should press an Israeli government to make concessions for peace is at the heart of delicate and long-unresolved questions among American Jews. At the least, say the traditional supporters of Israel, any disagreements should not be aired publicly.

I think that debate’s been over for some 30 years at least. No what’s at issue is how pressure on Israel will help the cause of peace, when there’s no reciprocal pressure on the Arabs. Or how further Israeli concessions will further the cause of peace, when Israeli concessions over the past 16 years have not led to any softening of the Palestinian position.

Towards the end of the article, one more bit of support is brought for J-Street:

Jim Gerstein, one of J Street’s founders, said his research and other polls found that most American Jews were uncomfortable with Israel’s settlement policy. But he said Orthodox Jews generally did support it.

Glad that the reporters acknowledged that Gerstein is affiliated with J-Street, but as Noah Pollak observed, this means:

So J Street not only commissions polls—it writes the questions, conducts them, analyzes the results, and then carries out promotional campaigns with the findings. If you were wondering how it was possible that J Street could repeatedly produce “polling data” that almost perfectly complements the group’s political agenda, now we have one important clue.

Given how battered Jeremy Ben Ami must have felt after his convention was over, he must feel relieved that there were two New York Times reporters he could count on to help rehabilitate his organization’s image.

UPDATE: One last thing. The Times fails to report one of the more bewildering aspects of J-Street’s “pro-Israel” approach. Its university outreach arm, decided to drop “pro-Israel” from its self description. I know that the J-Street leaders have since said that they are undoubtedly “pro-Israel,” but really here is an example of actions speaking louder than words. J-Street U knows that its pool of potential recruits is very small among those who consider themselves pro-Israel. That speaks volumes about where J-Street actually stands in the pro-Israel constellation. In a different galaxy altogether.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

10/30/2009

Time after Time about Israel

Filed under: American Scene, Israel, Media Bias — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 7:00 am

I was looking for something else when I found an article about published in the June 9, 1967 issue of Time Magazine. (Despite the publication date, the article was clearly written beforeThe tone towards Israel was a lot more sympathetic than it is nowadays. And can you imagine any publication writing this nowadays?

In fact, one trouble is the profoundly emotional and irrational nature of many of the Arab demands and expectations—almost an inability to recognize the hard facts of life. The Arabs have seen Israel prosper on soil from which they barely scratched a living when they had it; Israel’s success is not only a blow to their pride but a constant rebuke to the dismal poverty in which most of the Arab world lives.

Then I started searching through Time’s archives to get a sense of how Time’s attitude towards Israel changed over the years. I’m just going to take arbitrary paragraphs. Some are from news stories; others from opinion pieces. And, of course, you can follow the links to see the whole context.

Israel and its enemies (June 22, 1970) focused on the threat presented by the Arab world armed by Russia.

It is on the ground that the odds are longest against the Israelis—at least in terms of numbers. With a population of 2,800.000 v. 51 million Arabs, Israel can mobilize an army of 275,000 against Arab armies of 398,000 men. The Israelis depend on air superiority and wits to protect themselves. One reason that Israeli soldiers have hunkered down for so long on the Bar-Lev Line under barely tolerable siege conditions is that their string of hedgehog forts and minefields serve as a kind of trip wire. The line, using relatively few men, is designed to delay any kind of major Egyptian cross-canal attack until troops stationed in the desert behind them can come up to help.

For a mobile army whose motto has always been “Attack,” the static warfare of the Bar-Lev Line is an often demoralizing experience. So is the war of attrition that Israel is being forced to fight on all its borders. Casualties have been heavy. In May, 61 soldiers and civilians were killed, the heaviest one-month toll since the 1967 war; on the basis of population, this is the equivalent of losing 4,300 U.S. troops in one month in Viet Nam. During the six days of the ‘67 war, 777 soldiers and 26 Israeli civilians were killed. Since the war, 558 soldiers and 112 civilians have died, and the nation is feeling uneasy. “Before the Six-Day War,” says Bar-Lev, “there was general danger but day-to-day security. Today we have general security but day-to-day danger.”

A Nation sorely Beseiged ( 1974) also seems rather sympathetic, but has a mention of the “occupied West Bank.”.

The weekend alert could prove to be merely the opening drum roll of yet another crisis. Nov. 30 is the expiration date of the mandate for the presence of some 1,250 United Nations troops stationed along the Golan Heights cease-fire line, placed there last June under the cease-fire agreement worked out by Kissinger. Israel emphatically favors renewal of the mandate by the Security Council and might in fact regard nonrenewal as a casus belli.

To the ultrasensitive Israelis, the present period is all too reminiscent of the situation that existed in May 1967. Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser loudly proclaimed his revocation of the U.N. mandate in the Sinai, the Israelis mobilized, and U.N. Secretary-General U Thant precipitately withdrew U.N. forces, thereby setting the stage for the Six-Day War.

American Jews and Israel, ( March 10, 1975) I think, serves as a marker for when attitudes started to change.

Belatedly, the Arabs discovered public relations and began to cultivate U.S. opinion. For all of these reasons, Americans paid more attention to the area’s problems than ever before and began to examine the Arab cause more sympathetically.

Partly because of their continued insistence on security through territory, the Israelis suddenly seem intransigent to many people. The perception comes at a time when, globally, Israel is increasingly isolated. The nations of Western Europe appear willing to bargain away Israel’s security in return for access to Arabian oil. Arab petropower seems aimed at blacklisting Jews from many transactions in international finance, causing President Gerald Ford last week sharply to condemn such practices (see ECONOMY & BUSINESS). Last fall UNESCO voted to exclude Israel from some of its activities, and the United Nations General Assembly applauded the Palestine Liberation Organization’s Yasser Arafat, who frankly spoke at the U.N. of generations of war against Israel, as a legitimate spokesman for Palestinians.

In this atmosphere, minor and major events are seen as portents. Kissinger jokingly tries on an Arab headdress in Jordan; to some Jews this symbolizes his wooing of the Arabs (and because he himself is Jewish, he is believed by some other Jews to be bending over backward to demonstrate his impartiality). General George Brown, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, declares that there is strong Jewish-Israeli influence on Congress (true) and that Jews dominate most U.S. banks and newspapers (false). The simplistic statement is seen as a harbinger of antiSemitism. There is also alarm when such longtime friends of Israel as Senators Charles Percy and Henry Jackson dare to urge Israel to be flexible.

(Charles Percy was once considered friendly to Israel! I didn’t know that.)

Stroke Talbott took a sharply anti-Israel stand in What to do about Israel ( September 7, 1981):

Israel argues that it is strong, stable and pro-Western, while most of the Arab states are weak, fractious and radical. But one reason the Arabs are that way, and becoming more so, is precisely because of their impasse with Israel. The tragedy and chaos that have engulfed the once peaceful, prosperous nation of Lebanon are a direct spillover of the Palestinian problem. Anwar Sadat’s position both within Egypt and among his Arab brethren elsewhere will remain precarious unless he can point to some success in the Palestinian autonomy talks initiated by the Camp David agreements and due to resume in three weeks. By and large Sadat has shown forbearance over Israel’s annexation of East Jerusalem and flexibility over the delicate issue of West Bank water rights. Israel, for its part, has done everything it could to prevent the West Bank Arabs from genuinely governing themselves—a goal set by the Camp David accords.

That’s a much different attitude from what was reported in 1967! In 1967 it was the lack of Arabi realism that was the main problem in the MIddle East, but fourteen years later it was Israel’s failings that were responsible for Arab radicalism.

And in an essay title Israel at 40: The dream confronts Palestinian fury (despite the date, it must be from 1988) we have this:

Herein lies Israel’s biggest dilemma. When the virtues of Israel are enumerated, almost the first to be mentioned by Israelis and their supporters is the fact that it is the only democracy in the Middle East. But when it comes to the Palestinians who live in the occupied territories, the Israelis are anything but democratic; Arabs have been denied fundamental civil and political rights. If present trends continue, Israel will have to choose between its democratic principles — which would eventually require sharing political power with Arabs — and its other profound ambition, to offer to Jews around the world a land they can always call their own. The Palestinian problem cannot be brushed aside by rhetoric or obliterated by military force.

Finally, in the February 26, 1990, Charles Krauthammer took aim at the prevailing media biases regarding Israel, in Judging Israel:

Last fall Anthony Lewis excoriated Israel for putting down a tax revolt in the town of Beit Sahour. He wrote: “Suppose the people of some small American town decided to protest Federal Government policy by withholding their taxes. The Government responded by sending in the Army . . . Unthinkable? Of course it is in this country. But it is happening in another . . . Israel.”

Middle East scholar Clinton Bailey tried to point out just how false this analogy is. Protesting Federal Government policy? The West Bank is not Selma. Palestinians are not demanding service at the lunch counter. They demand a flag and an army. This is insurrection for independence. They are part of a movement whose covenant explicitly declares its mission to be the abolition of the state of Israel.

Bailey tried manfully for the better analogy. It required him to posit 1) a pre-glasnost Soviet Union, 2) a communist Mexico demanding the return of “occupied Mexican” territory lost in the Mexican War (Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah, Nevada and California) and 3) insurrection by former Mexicans living in these territories demanding secession from the Union. Then imagine, Bailey continued, that the insurrectionists, supported and financed by Mexico and other communist states in Latin America, obstruct communications; attack civilians and police with stones and fire bombs; kill former Mexicans holding U.S. Government jobs (”collaborators”); and then begin a tax revolt. Now you have the correct analogy. Would the U.S., like Israel, then send in the Army? Of course.

But even this analogy falls flat because it is simply impossible to imagine an America in a position of conflict and vulnerability analogous to Israel’s. Milan Kundera once defined a small nation as “one whose very existence may be put in question at any moment; a small nation can disappear and knows it.” Czechoslovakia is a small nation. Judea was. Israel is. The U.S. is not.

A recent ADL poll shows that Americans support Israel roughly at three times the rate they support the Palestinians. It’s quite remarkable that the ratio is that good given the propaganda that is so often passed off as news. It makes me wonder what support for Israel would be if the media made any effort to be evenhanded.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Addendum from Meryl: Then there’s this little gem from 1977 that made me cancel my subscription then and forever.

His first name means “comforter.”

Menachem Begin (rhymes with Fagin) has been anything but that to his numerous antagonists.

My grandfather had been telling me for years that Time was anti-Semitic. This was the item that proved it to me.

10/23/2009

You know you’re a redneck when…

Filed under: American Scene, Humor — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

You get charged with a DUI in a motorized La-Z-Boy.

A Proctor man driving a motorized La-Z-Boy lounge chair hit a parked vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.

There’s a picture at the link.

Anderson claimed he was driving the chair fine until a woman jumped on it and knocked the chair off course. He has one prior DWI conviction. He couldn’t be reached for comment Wednesday.

Proctor Deputy Police Chief Troy Foucault said the chair was powered by a converted lawnmower with a Briggs & Stratton engine. It has a stereo, cup holders and other custom options, including different power levels.

Happy Friday, folks. I have a twin b’nai mitzvah to attend tonight and tomorrow. My ex-students are all growing up. Hopefully, none of them will grow up into anything like this guy.

09/23/2009

Ich bin kein Berliner?

Filed under: American Scene, Politics — SnoopyTheGoon @ 11:10 am

The more assuredly President Barak Obama’s administration settles into its routine and stable mode of operation after a few pretty chaotic months, the more questions about the White House foreign policy are being raised, both by the friends and by the enemies.

I want to be careful, but there is an increasing feeling that the main thread of the foreign policy is favoring extreme caution and even direct “disengagement” steps all over the world where there is a chance of political collision with other major players.

Recently I read an interesting article by a Russian journalist Vladimir Abarinov*, touching on several aspects of Obama’s foreign travails. With the author’s kind permission and with some assistance from Google, I’ve translated the article and am posting it here in its entirety:

It’s unfashionable to recall Barack Obama’s Berlin and Prague speeches today in Washington. Then he needed the sympathy of Europeans and to show Americans aTV picture of the crowd cheering the coming of the messiah. Today it doesn’t matter anymore. In response to the mention of Berlin and Prague’s speeches displeased Obama’s administration officials cringe and blush, as if caught in an unseemly act.
(more…)

09/12/2009

Demolishing the opposition

Filed under: American Scene, Life — Meryl Yourish @ 10:00 pm

This is where Meryl was on Saturday night:

Demolition derby

I’ll bet you thought from the headline this was a political post. Nope. I was at the Amelia County Fair, which featured a Demolition Derby tonight. This is the picture of the end of the derby.

It was awesome.

I have had great times at county and state fairs before, but nothing like this. The Amelia County State Fair has just gone on our must-go list. Sarah and Larry and the kids and I had an absolute blast.

More pictures, and video, if I have time to post them tomorrow. Otherwise, I’ll find time during my downtime next week. (Vacation time for me. Can’t wait.)

09/11/2009

Memories of 9/11

Filed under: American Scene, Terrorism — Meryl Yourish @ 7:21 pm

Allah’s post is superb.

All I can add is this: Eight weeks later, on November 15th, my friend, her son, and I went out to dinner at my favorite steakhouse in Montclair, NJ, twelve miles west of Manhattan. The wind was blowing from the east. When we left the restaurant, Brenda said, “What’s that smell? Is that the grill from the restaurant?”

No. It was the towers, still on fire, on November 15, 2001.

Never forget.

I won’t.

09/06/2009

Sunday morning briefs

Filed under: American Scene, Iran, Israel, The One, World — Meryl Yourish @ 8:49 am

If you won’t meet with me, then I don’t want to meet with you! The Swedish foreign minister has canceled his trip to Israel after hearing that Benjamin Netanyahu was about to snub him. It’s good to know that the man entrusted with Sweden’s foreign relations is acting just like a teenage girl. The article says there may be consequences to Israel for this missed meeting. What, you mean like Sweden refusing to condeman an article falsely accusing the IDF of stealing Palestinian organs or something?

World’s tiniest violin orchestra: We’re supposed to feel sorry for someone who is defaulting on a $24 million loan? Excuse me? I don’t give a damn if Annie Liebovitz loses the copyrights to her photos. Anyone too stupid to figure out how to pay bills after reaching adulthood—that doesn’t have the excuse of mental incompetence—deserves whatever happens to them. And that goes double for millionaires.

Oh, look. Another Uzi Mahnaimi piece about Israel to ignore: The Times never gives up on letting this proven liar lie some more. Double bylines notwithstanding, we’re onto you. Now, am I saying that I think the Mossad didn’t have anything to do with hijacking the Russian ship? Nope. Just that anything you read in this piece is suspect, because all of Mahnaimi’s articles are.

Van goes under the bus: Obama’s 9/11 Truther green jobs czar has resigned, issuing a statement late on a Saturday night of a holiday weekend. No, Obama isn’t trying to skip the news cycle on that at all. Why do you ask?

09/03/2009

Thursday SNB

Filed under: American Scene, Israel, News Briefs — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 12:00 pm

And the SNB stands for Snark News Briefs, not Sinuses Now Broken (the reason I’ve been low on posts lately; damn those allergies and sinuses).

The Obama administration: Let’s threaten our ally some more! Let’s see. This is Netanyahu’s “moment of truth.” Netanyahu’s decision will “greatly influence ties” with America. It’s a “pivotal moment” for Bibi. And what, pray tell, is the most important decision that Benjamin Netanyahu will ever make in his life? Whether or not to freeze settlements. Because it’s not like Iran is trying to get nuclear weapons or anything like that. Once again: 78% of American Jews voted for this administration. It’s on your heads.

The rescue will be Tweeted: Some moron jumps off a Carnival cruise ship, gets rescued by a Disney cruise ship crew, and the rescue was Tweeted. I’m sure someday someone’s going to write a graduate thesis about this, but I find it interesting only because the idiot survived.

Manson follower gets the same choice she gave Sharon Tate: Susan Atkins, one of the Manson followers who murdered Sharon Tate, is dying of cancer and wanted to be released so she could die outside of prison. She was refused. Good for the prison. Atkins didn’t allow Tate to choose where she would die. Sounds about right to me.

08/25/2009

NJ to Gadhafi: Libyan, go home

Filed under: American Scene, United Nations — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi wants to pitch his tent at a Libyan-owned estate in Englewood, NJ. But the residents want nothing to do with the man who gave a hero’s welcome to the Lockerbie bomber.

Plans to set up a tent and allow him to stay at a Libyan-owned estate in the upscale community of Englewood, New Jersey, located 12 miles north of Manhattan, were attacked Monday by neighborhood residents and public officials, particularly after the hero’s welcome Libya extended last week to the lone man convicted in the 1988 bombing of Pan American Flight 103.

Why is Gadhafi coming to America? To address the UN next month. Last year Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, this year the Gadhafi—who’s next? Idi Amin is dead, but I’m sure that they could find someone equally as evil.

Even Shmuley Boteach doesn’t want him there.

Shmuley Boteach, an orthodox Jewish rabbi, family counselor and star of the mainstream television series “Shalom in the Home,” lives next door to the Libyan estate.

He was initially supportive of the idea of Gadhafi coming to the US, but that changed after the release of al-Megrahi.

“I don’t want him as a neighbor,” said Boteach. “The events of the past few days have changed everything. Gadhafi has shown his true colors.”

The fight has been joined by Senator Frank Lautenberg. But I’m going to make a prediction: The State Department is going to allow the dictator in NJ, even though when the estate was bought, then-mayor (and now Congressman) Steve Rothman fought having the dictator stay there.

Rothman was mayor of Englewood 26 years ago when the city learned the Libyan Mission to the United Nations had purchased the Palisade Avenue estate. He said local officials worked out a deal with the US State Department limiting its use to the recreational activities by the ambassador and his family. Gadhafi was expressly forbidden to live there, he said.

Adding insult to injury, the Libyans pay no property taxes to the town, either. So if the dictator does stay, Englewood will be paying for the extra police that will be needed to protect him.

Soon after the purchase, Libya sought to be exempt from local property taxes, prompting a long court battle with the city. A federal appeals court in Philadelphia ruled in favor of Libya in 1985. Englewood officials estimate that the estate would have generated more than $1 million in property taxes by now.

I can’t believe I’ve found yet another reason to loathe the UN. I didn’t know that their ambassadors could purchase property in the U.S. and not pay taxes. It’s just us citizen schlubs who have to do things like that.

I’ve got a simple slogan for the people of Englewood: Libyan, go home.

08/18/2009

Palestinian refugee creates Obama Joker poster

Filed under: American Scene, Politics, The One, palestinian politics — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

A reader of Glenn Reynolds points out that the artist who created the Obama Joker poster is a Palestinian-American. I would note further that he is a Palestinian refugee, as defined by the United Nations.

Under UNRWA’s operational definition, Palestine refugees are persons whose normal place of residence was Palestine between June 1946 and May 1948, who lost both their homes and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli conflict. UNRWA’s services are available to all those living in its area of operations who meet this definition, who are registered with the Agency and who need assistance. The descendants of the original Palestine Refugees are also eligible for registration. When the agency became operational in 1950, it was responding to the needs of about 750,000 Palestine refugees. Today, 4.6 million Palestine refugees are eligible for UNRWA services.

Of course, for me, the real irony is that the guy who critiqued—and slammed—the Joker poster is the guy who created the poster of Bush as a vampire.

08/13/2009

The nail in the coffin of “astroturfed” town halls

Filed under: American Scene, Politics, The One — Tags: — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

Sixty-one percent of Americans think that it’s perfectly okay to yell at your Congressional representative when you think s/he’s not listening to you. (Via Hot Air.)

Of those who had heard at least a little about the meetings, 61% say they think the way people have been protesting is appropriate; 34% say they see the protests as inappropriate. Not surprisingly, there is a large partisan divide: 80% of Republicans see the protests as appropriate, compared with 40% of Democrats and 64% of independents. A majority of Democrats (56%) say the way people have been protesting is inappropriate, compared with 15% of Republicans and 30% of independents.

Democrats are not in the mainstream opinion on this, but look at the stat for independents. (Here, too.) At this rate, 2010 could be a game-changer election. That 60-vote majority in the Senate seems likely to change.

And Obama’s approval ratings keep on falling.

But it’s worse than he realizes: If you’ve lost USA Today, you’ve lost America. The media are actually fact-checking Obama’s contentions now.

PETA steps into it again: attacking McDonald’s or our kids?

Filed under: American Scene, EATAPETA, Juvenile Scorn — Tags: — SnoopyTheGoon @ 8:00 am

(Never dreamed I will be defending McDonald’s, even in a roundabout way…)

I am tired of repeating myself, but there is no alternative:

When you think that cheap and revolting propaganda cannot get any cheaper and more revolting, here come PETA puppets – a pitiful result of accidental cross-breeding between STD and Ebola – with a new idea.

It started with fanfares:

Nine years after calling a truce with McDonald’s Corp., People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals says it is going on a new offensive against the Oak Brook-based fast-food giant, this time over the most humane way to kill a chicken.

And here we are now:

Around noon today, people coming to McDonald’s for lunch found “unhappy meals.” Inside the box they found a bloody rubber chicken, packet of ketchup blood, knife-wielding Ronald McDonald, and a tee-shirt. PETA said it was all part of a bigger message.


Of course, this is effective. Especially with kids…

I hope that the clip doesn’t disappear, but the kid in it said loud and clear what he thinks about this new idiotic venture of PETA: it was kind of crazy. And I shudder at the thought about this “bigger message”. If the above was only a part, what is coming yet? Who are the next people whom PETA hadn’t yet offended, insulted or plainly pissed off?

Anyhoo, I had me a dream after the last non-vegetarian lunch: I was running along a street in Ronald M. uniform, with blood-dripping knife in my hand after a PETA member. I will skip the gory details, but the last scene was where I am sitting at a table in McDonald’s eating PETA nuggets from a bucket. Yummy…

Cross-posted on SimplyJews

08/03/2009

The Nanny State: Alive and well in the U.K.

Filed under: American Scene, World — Meryl Yourish @ 9:00 am

What if, instead of taking children out of the homes of lousy parents (drug addicts, alcoholics, abusers), there was a way you could monitor the family 24/7 and try to influence their behavior that way? Do you think that American family services programs would ever try this?

Well, the U.K. already has.

The Children’s Secretary set out £400million plans to put 20,000 problem families under 24-hour CCTV super-vision in their own homes.

They will be monitored to ensure that children attend school, go to bed on time and eat proper meals.

Private security guards will also be sent round to carry out home checks, while parents will be given help to combat drug and alcohol addiction.

Around 2,000 families have gone through these Family Intervention Projects so far.

George Orwell was so right when he set 1984 in the U.K. Europeans have never had a tradition of individual liberties in the way Americans understand them. The state comes first. It’s the heritage of nations that aged in the tradition of monarchy and the powers of the king, which evolved into the power of the state to interfere in your lives. Which gives us this example of the Nanny State at its worst—trying to influence human behavior by force.

But Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling said: “This is all much too little, much too late.

“This Government has been in power for more than a decade during which time anti-social behaviour, family breakdown and problems like alcohol abuse and truancy have just got worse and worse.”

He is bemoaning the fact that the British government has allowed people to be free. No, I don’t approve of bad parenting, and yes, I sure wish that alcoholics and drug addicts didn’t have children. But in America, the best way to fix that is to take the children out of the bad environment instead of leaving them there with their drug-addicted or alcholic parents. In the U.K., apparently, they intend to force a change in human nature. Yeah, good luck with that.

And here’s the punchline of the entire story: Grayling is a member of the Conservative Party—the so-called conservatives in the U.K., thus proving that you can call yourself a conservative, and actually be nothing of the sort. He’s complaining that the Labor Party has not interfered enough into the lives of Britain’s citizens over the past decade. The program itself is being expanded by the current ruling party.

But we’re not done yet. The government will be sending parents contracts specifying parents’ duties while theire children are enrolled in school.

I think all of us have said, at one point or another, “The government should license people to have children!” The fact that it doesn’t gives us women like the Octomom, who obviously should never have had a single child, let alone fourteen. But the flip side of a free society that allows freaks like the Octomom to thrive is a society in which every mistake you make as a parent is monitored, recorded, and judged—by bureaucrats. I don’t think I’ll ever wish for parent licenses again.

The only bright spot about this story is the comments by British citizens who are decrying this invasion into the lives of their countrymen. But so far, the citizens of the U.K. have done little more than complain. I think, however, a storm is coming. You can only push people so far before they push back.

The really frightening thing about this story is that I’m sure we can find some members of Congress who would love to initiate a program like that here.

(Via Rantburg.)

07/29/2009

When Bill Maher says “stupid,” he means, “They don’t think like me”

Filed under: American Scene, Politics — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

Bill Maher called America a “stupid country” yesterday, and when given a chance to retract it, repeated it. (H/T: Hot Air.)

WOLF BLITZER: Do you think she has a future nationally as a presidential candidate?
BILL MAHER: I don’t know about a presidential candidate, but I would never put anything past this stupid country.

Later in the interview, Blitzer gave Maher the chance to change or retract his words.

BLITZER: So, uh, people are already complaining that you’re calling the United States a stupid country. I’m giving you a chance to clarify.
MAHER: I don’t need to clarify. It is.
BLITZER: Tell me why you think the United States is a stupid country
MAHER: Because Sarah Palin could be president. [laughs] Do I need to clarify any more?

And then he digs the hole a bit deeper:

It’s a big country, that’s the great thing about it. There’s 300 million people here. So, uh, within this large country, there are tens of millions of very bright, intelligent people. You know, the ones who are watching us. Not the ones who are writing the emails. But, you know, in general, um, gosh, uh, you know, this country just gets dumber and dumber by the day, and, uh, I don’t think I have time on your show to list all the reasons.

And yet, he does list the important reasons. And let’s be clear about this: Bill Maher doesn’t think Americans are stupid because they’re stupid. He thinks they’re stupid because they don’t think like him. They voted for George W. Bush, and he didn’t. But when given one last chance to recant, he doesn’t. Maher really does think that overall, America is just full of stupid people. His closer:

“Just because Americans elected a bright guy [Barack Obama] doesn’t mean they’re bright.”

Let’s be honest: Elitism is nothing new. And frankly, elitism from the left is as old as elitism from the right. It just comes off as a lot more hypocritical when the left, who are all for egalitarianism and equality, suddenly revert to type and dismiss the little people as a bunch of less-than-equal, ignorant, stupid yokels who simply don’t know what’s good for them. Not to worry, though—their betters, like Bill Maher, will tell them what they should think.

This sense of elitism came out in a big way during the Clinton impeachment. Many of you may have forgotten this, but I haven’t: The media and political elite were outraged and appalled that even while they tried to force Bill Clinton from office, the American public overall, in poll after poll, said that he should not have been impeached, and should not be removed from office.

Bill Maher is just this year’s version of the same elitists. Americans don’t think like him; therefore, they are stupid. Americans don’t vote like him; therefore, they are stupid. And oh, yeah—they’re not really all that smart in the first place.

Unless, of course, you’re one of the ones who watch CNN, Bill Maher’s show on HBO, vote for the right candidates (those would be the ones he approves of), and hate Sarah Palin, Republicans, and all things conservative.

Guess I’m just one of those stupid Americans. I voted for John McCain.

07/28/2009

Tuesday SNB

Filed under: American Scene, Hamas, Israel, News Briefs, Syria — Tags: , , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

Mitchell reports to his master: I’m sorry, but that’s the way it looks to me. Mitchell is in Israel, talking settlements with Netanyahu, and he’s reporting back to Abbas that there’s “still a gap” in negotiations about what to freeze. Roll over, George! Play dead!

Another day, another mortar from Hamas: Gee, I thought they were building up their PR, not firing deadly weapons into civilian areas. And while they’re doing that, the peaceful, moderate Palestinians of the West Bank are still trying to murder civilians as they drive nearby. Funny how they never seem to come up when Obama is discussing obstacles to peace.

The real skinny on Syria: Tony Badran explains why Syria, contrary to the Obama administration’s view, is not the key to peace in the Middle East.

Alabama police tase a deaf and mentally disabled man for refusing to leave a store bathroom: Your police force at work, showing that not listening to police officers is a tase-able offense.

Aluf: Don’t be aloof

Filed under: American Scene, Israel — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 10:00 am

While I don’t totally agree with his perspective, Ha’aretz columnist Aluf Benn has an excellent op-ed in the New York Times today, Why won’t Obama talk to Israel?

Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

Second, Mr. Obama’s quest for diplomacy has appeared to Israelis as dangerous American naïveté. The president offered a hand to the Iranians, and got nothing, merely giving them more time to advance their nuclear program. In Israeli eyes, he was humiliated by North Korea’s nuclear and missile tests. And he failed to move Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel. Conclusion: Mr. Obama is a softie, eager to please his listeners and avoid confrontation with anyone who is not Mr. Netanyahu.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis. We are close emotionally and politically, but we are different. We speak Hebrew and not English, we live in the Middle East and have separate historical narratives. Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

I’d back up Benn’s second point with an observation from Steven Rosen:

The theory of “tough love” toward Israel is also failing the test, if it is intended to win concessions from the Palestinian side. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who just completed intensive negotiations with an outgoing Ehud Olmert government that was continuing “natural growth” of settlements within the agreed Bush limits, now says the incoming Benjamin Netanyahu government must “stop all settlement activities in order to resume peace talks over final status issues.” His chief negotiator, Saeb Erekat, adds, “There can be no half-solutions with regards to the settlements.”

This is a hardening of the Palestinian position. Abbas did not cut off negotiations when Olmert said publicly to Israeli newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in April 2008, “It was clear from day one to Abbas … that construction would continue in population concentrations — the areas mentioned in Bush’s 2004 letter. … Beitar Illit will be built, Gush Etzion will be built; there will be construction in Pisgat Ze’ev and in the Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem … areas [that] will remain under Israeli control in any future settlement.” Abbas continued meeting with the Olmert government. In fact, Erekat boasted to a Jordanian newspaper a few weeks ago that he and Abbas achieved considerable progress with the Olmert government between the November 2007 Annapolis talks and the end of 2008 in as many as 288 negotiation sessions by 12 committees — all while the limited growth permitted by the Bush understandings continued.

Now, Obama has generated inflated and unsatisfiable expectations in the Arab world, a belief that the U.S. president can and will force total Israeli capitulation and an absolute freeze.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Nancy Pelosi and her negative numbers

Filed under: American Scene, Politics — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

Inspired by this report on how Nancy Pelosi simply doesn’t care what the little people think.

I’m speaker of the house, you know
As such I have my highs and lows
The polls say people don’t like me
That won’t affect my life, you see:

People hate me, but I don’t care
People hate me, but I don’t care
People hate me, but I don’t care
I’m speaker of the house

Oh yes, I am the number one
In Congress I get big things done
Last year we passed the TARP bill true
And now we’re pushing healthcare through

People hate me, but I don’t care
People hate me, but I don’t care
People hate me, but I don’t care
I’m speaker of the house

So if you want to hate my guts
Go right ahead, you’re not all nuts
But ask me if I give a damn
’bout opining Americans

*Sung to the tune of “Jimmy Crack Corn”

07/27/2009

The Gates affair

Filed under: American Scene — Meryl Yourish @ 6:00 pm

I’ve been trying to figure out a way to verbalize what I think of the arrest of Henry Louis Gates. I think that Radley Balko has essentially got his finger on the pulse of the issue. (H/T: Glenn Reynolds.)

Police officers deserve the same courtesy we afford anyone else we encounter in public life—basic respect and civility. If they’re investigating a crime, they deserve cooperation as required by law, and beyond that only to the extent to which the person with whom they’re speaking is comfortable. Verbally disrespecting a cop may well be rude, but in a free society we can’t allow it to become a crime, any more than we can criminalize criticism of the president, a senator, or the city council. There’s no excuse for the harassment or arrest of those who merely inquire about their rights, who ask for an explanation of what laws they’re breaking, or who photograph or otherwise document police officers on the job.

What we owe law enforcement is vigilant oversight and accountability, not mindless deference and capitulation. Whether or not Henry Louis Gates was racially profiled last week doesn’t change any of that.

Put yourself in his place. You find yourself locked out of your house, and you try to break in. The police arrive. Words ensue, and the police arrest you for disorderly conduct in your own home.

I get that Gates mouthed off to a cop. But that’s what’s been bothering me about this whole thing: Since when is it against the law to mouth off to a cop? It may be unwise, but it’s not illegal. And I have no intention of jumping on the bandwagon of people who say that you must always defer to the man with the badge and the gun. There’s more than enough police corruption out there that proves otherwise.

Was Gates an ass? Probably. Once again, that’s not against the law. Should he have kept his temper? Of course. Should he have been arrested?

NFW. The fact that charges were dropped prove that the cop was in the wrong in that respect.

Monday SNB

Filed under: American Scene, Israel, Lebanon, News Briefs, Politics, Syria — Tags: , , , — Meryl Yourish @ 11:00 am

(That’s Snark News Briefs to you, buster.)

Weapons cache? What weapons cache? Lebanon is doubling down on the next war with Israel by (of course) siding with Hezbullah and insisting that the arms cache that exploded was arms “left behind by the Israelis.” Even the UN is unable to cover up this blatant violation of 1701. However, nothing will be done about it. You know it. I know it. The UN will manage to find a satisfactory excuse for allowing Hezbullah to keep arming south of the Litani, in violation of 1701, because, well, the UN is virulently anti-Israel. The Lebanese are placing themselves squarely at fault for anything that happens next. Old Chipmunk Cheeks has emerged (vocally, anyway) from his secure, nondisclosed location and threatened Tel Aviv. Not many people will remember this the next time Hezbullah invades Israel or sends rockets that way, and Israel goes after non-Hezbullah areas. But I will.

Speaking of Lebanon: The IDF built a Hezbullah city to train its troops for the next war. This, of course, is why the IDF will continue to succeed against Israel’s enemies. Well, that, and a little help from above.

U.K. groveling to Arab world: I’m currently reading Benny Morris’ 1948, and you know, the Brits haven’t really changed at all in regards to Israel. They’re currently expressing “regret” that they sold Israel arms that were used to defend herself in the Gaza war. It’s almost as if the Brits are really, really sorry they allowed any Jews to settle in their ancestral homeland at all. Oh. Wait.

U.S. groveling to Arab world: George Mitchell is in Syria, talking to the man who is responsible for the murder of American soldiers in Iraq, asking him to cut a peace deal with Israel. Here’s my prediction: Assad will not closed down the offices of Hamas and other terror groups in Damascus. He will not break ties with Iran. And he will not stop sponsoring Hezbullah and trying to run Lebanon. But he will, of course, blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East, and demand the return of the Golan Heights, plus territory that never belonged to Syria in the first place. Why not? It’s worked all along. The world will not see Syria as part of the problem. Only Israel’s refusal to turn over the Golan. That would be the same Golan from which Assad’s father used to regularly shell Israeli civilians while they were working on their farms and living their lives.

Sarah Palin: Free at last. Sarah’s no longer governor of Alaska. Expect to hear even more from her now that her enemies can’t charge her every move with ethics complaints. Really, the SOB’s actually tried to say that her raising money for her defense against ethics charges was unethical. Can you say, “Set-up”? I knew you could.

Snakes in a drain: Just for something different, a 14-foot python was hiding in a storm drain in Florida. You know, the alligators are bad enough. I may never visit Florida again.

07/16/2009

Can I call myself a Southerner yet?

Filed under: American Scene, Life — Tags: , — Meryl Yourish @ 1:00 pm

Last week marked my seventh anniversary as a resident of central Virginia. Since I’ve moved from New Jersey, I have done a number of things in Virginia that I never did in NJ. They are, in part:

  • Voted for a Republican for President (twice)
  • Voted for a Republican for Congress
  • Went to a shooting range and fired a handgun
  • Went to a shooting range and fired a rifle
  • Went to a gun show
  • Bought a handgun
  • Bought a rifle
  • Keep a loaded handgun in my home, easily accessible at all times
  • Spent Fourth of July on an Army base
  • Discovered beef barbecue
  • Went to a county Beef Festival
  • Joined a synagogue
  • Taught religious school
  • Attending synagogue regularly
  • Bought a condo
  • Changed my political leanings from liberal to centrist, with some issues on the right (and a few still left)
  • Muttered “Damn NJ driver” when a NJ driver annoyed me on the road
  • Went to two Republican political rallies
  • Say “That’s fine” instead of “Okay.”
  • Added “Yes Ma’am” to my vocabulary

So my question to my fellow Southerners is: Can I call myself a Southerner now, or am I still one of those damned Yankees who came to stay? (A Yankee comes to visit. A damned Yankee comes to Virginia and stays here.)

07/14/2009

A masterful assuaging

Filed under: American Scene, Iran, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Jews, Politics — Tags: — Soccerdad @ 9:00 am

Last year those of us Jews who didn’t support President Obama in his bid to be elected president were subjected to ridicule. If we didn’t support him it was because we were prejudiced or misinformed. This mocking didn’t just come from his partisans, but also from the media. In a particularly blatant bit of electioneering, the New York Times’s Jodi Kantor reported from Florida that Jews who supported Obama were generous and wonderful but that those who opposed him were narrow minded bigots. In it we got this lecture:

Mr. Obama is Arab, Jack Stern’s friends told him in Aventura. (He’s not.)

He is a part of Chicago’s large Palestinian community, suspects Mindy Chotiner of Delray. (Wrong again.)

Mr. Wright is the godfather of Mr. Obama’s children, asserted Violet Darling in Boca Raton. (No, he’s not.)

Al Qaeda is backing him, said Helena Lefkowicz of Fort Lauderdale (Incorrect.)

Michelle Obama has proven so hostile and argumentative that the campaign is keeping her silent, said Joyce Rozen of Pompano Beach. (Mrs. Obama campaigns frequently, drawing crowds in her own right.)

Mr. Obama might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan, worried Sherry Ziegler. (Extremely unlikely, given his denunciation of Mr. Farrakhan.)

No substantive reason for doubting the candidate’s concern for Jewish issues was raised. After all candidate Obama sat in church where the pastor expressed antisemitic sentiments for twenty years. Instead the Times manufactured a false “factoid” that it could dismiss. A politician who was praised by Rolling Stone for being a radical is not one who is going to be sympathetic to Israel.

Since the election we’ve been subjected to slightly more honest reporting. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post has written admiringly of the President’s Jewish influences. One of them was Rabbi Arnold Wolf who advocated for a Palestinian state back in 1973, which was way out of the Jewish mainstream.

When he prepared for his speech to the Muslim world, the President seemed to gather a pretty wide range of Muslims in order to ensure that he didn’t offend his target audience. But yesterday when the President gathered Jewish leaders, giving offense wasn’t really a concern. The President convened a mostly receptive audience. While there were certainly mainstream Jewish organizations represented, the President made sure that partisan organizations such as the NJDC, J-Street and APN – all headed by Democratic Party activists – were there. Even AIPAC is now headed by individuals who are allied with the President..

So yesterday’s gathering was less a matter of assuaging Jewish leaders as the blog entry at the New York Times is headlined, but rather to declare to American Jews that he knows best how to bring peace to the Middle East. And his mostly worshipful audience complied.

The only reported sour note was that Malcolm Honlein questioned the President’s commitment to put Israel on the spot.

Participants said some of the toughest questioning of Mr. Obama came from Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations. Two said that Mr. Hoenlein told the president that diplomatic progress in the Middle East has traditionally occurred when there is “no light” between the positions of the United States and Israel. But Mr. Obama pushed back, citing the administration of his predecessor, George W. Bush.

“He said, ‘I disagree,’ ” said Marla Gilson, director of the Washington action office of Hadassah, the women’s Zionist organization. “He said, ‘For eight years, there was no light between the United States and Israel, and nothing got accomplished.’

The proper response to such glib obfuscation is that during the Clinton administration, when there were clear disagreements between Israel and the United States ended up in the violence of the so-called “Aqsa intifada.” Even if President Obama denies that Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza even happened during President Bush’s term in office – given the President’s commitment to end all settlements, one wonders why he ignored this – is open warfare really a better result than nothing?

Additionally Yaacov Lozowick points out:

Nothing got accomplished? Let’s see. The Palestinians launched the worst wave of suicide murders anyone had ever seen (the various factions in Iraq later outdid them). Israel figured out how to beat them, in spite of the 100% of contemporary observers worldwide who said this couldn’t be done and Israel must cave in. Later on, Israel unilaterally left Gaza, disbanding all its settlements on the way out. The Palestinians responded by democratically electing Hamas to govern them, and cheered as Hamas and it allies (including some Fatah elements) escalated the rocket attacks on Israel.

Of course that would confirm something the President would never acknowledge: that there is a military solution to terrorism.

While Ira Forman of the NJDC and Jeremy Ben Ami of J-Street both described the President’s performance as “masterful,” Jennifer Rubin points out that his commitment to engagement with Iran was hardly reassuring.

On that front, representatives of two groups in attendance related to me that there was little resistance to the plan of the president looking for positive signals by September from Iran before looking at sanctions. One explained that “if the Iranians will demonstrate seriousness on the nuclear issue, we have a package for engagement.” (Does a single one of the sixteen not understand that the mullahs are expert at giving positive and entirely meaningless signals, thereby indefinitely stringing us all along?)

While the President complained that it’s a “misperception” that he’s unduly pressuring Israel, the fact that he stacked his meeting with organizations that are sympathetic to his policies and excluded two organizations that were likely to be critical shows that the President’s idea of outreach to Jews is to dictate to them. That’s what happens when the President knows he can take your support for granted.

The question those American Jewish organizations who uncritically support President Obama’s Middle East policy now have to answer is this: given that the President has decided to reset America’s relationship with Israel in a way that a vast majority of Israelis – including leftists – object to, how can still describe yourself as pro-Israel?

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

07/10/2009

Cap-and-trade dead in the water, for now

Filed under: American Scene, Politics — Meryl Yourish @ 7:00 am

The massive tax that the Obama administration was pretending is a jobs program is dead in the water. And that’s a good thing, because it actually was going to regulate—that’s right, put into law—the kind of bulbs you could put in your chandeliers.

But that’s not what killed it. It was the taxes that were going to increase the cost of coal, and electricity overall. Obama thinks that by doubling our electric bills, Americans will start conserving a lot more. Yeah, because that’s the problem—we’re not paying enough for our electricity.

I have changed my views on taxes so drastically that they are unrecognizable from the younger me. I used to believe that taxing something highly was a good way to force people to change their behaviors. Now I just want the government to keep its damned hands out of my pocketbook. I work hard for my money, and I get to be the one that dictates my behaviors—not the nanny state.

Particularly not on a bogus, trumped-up, unscientific hoax like global warming.

Take the money from Al Gore. He’s certainly made enough as the Prophet of Global Warming to not miss it.

By the way, try this thought experiment: Ask someone you know voted for Obama if they think the cap-and-trade bill is a good thing. When they say, “Of course,” point out to them that one of the things that will probably happen is a doubling of their electric bills, rising gas prices, and an explosion in regulations about simple things like lightbulbs. Then watch them change their minds. (I just did something similar last week over ObamaCare with the receptionists at my chiropractor’s office.)

Once the people know how much Obama and the Dems are trying to put over on them, they wise up pretty fast.

07/04/2009

Happy Fourth of July

Filed under: American Scene, Holidays — Meryl Yourish @ 9:51 am

Have a Glorious Fourth!

Old Glory waving in the breeze

This year, more than others, we should remember this:

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

May the words of freedom give heart to those struggling under tyrannies everywhere, but especially in Iran.

Powered by WordPress