Blog | Yourish.com | Cutting straight to the point

Briefs

Posted on 03/25/2010 by Meryl Yourish

UN promoting blood libel: Awesome. Libya’s managed to get a document accusing Israeli doctors of stealing Palestinian organs on the UNHRC agenda. Which just goes to show you, the UN isn’t worth the land it’s sitting on. What next, a document accusing Jews in Europe of poisoning the local wells?

When you can’t back it up, make it up! Say, remember a couple of weeks when the big news was that General Petraeus said that the lack of an Israeli-Palestinian peace was risking American lives? Turns out he never said that. So which blog made it up in the first place? Why, Foreign Policy, the home of Stephen Walt, the infamous author of the latest Protocols of the Elders of Zion—sorry, The Israel Lobby. Oh, and Petraeus said that Max Boot was on the money when he showed it was a lie a week ago.

UNHRC slams Israel again—and again—and again. Say, remember how the UNHRC was supposed to be different this time? How it wasn’t going to just, say, pick on Israel and ignore pretty much all of the rest of the world’s human rights abuser? Yeah, not so much. Three anti-Israel resolutions, three resolutions passed. The U.S. voted against all three. I guess Obama doesn’t quite dare give up completely on Israel—yet.

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel Derangement Syndrome, United Nations | Tagged Anti-Semitism, Israel, United Nations | 1 Comment

The return of the Lost episode summary

Posted on 03/24/2010 by Meryl Yourish

I haven’t done this in years, but last night’s episode spurred me to recap it in my own style.

JACK: And when they got home, they found a hook on the passenger door!
HURLEY: Dude, that wasn’t even scary when we were kids.
SUN: Um, can we get back to the subject at hand?
ILANA: Hey, after a flashback to a scene where I was suffering from a horrible trauma and Jacob came and talked to me—that’s right, he effing TALKED to me, didn’t HEAL me, the bastard—I’m going to tell you all that you’re candidates.
HURLEY: Dude, we already figured that out, but we’ll pretend we’re stupid and say, “For what?”
JACK: For what?
HURLEY: Oh, right, I forgot. Jack’s as dumb as a brick.
ILANA: I have no idea, but as I’m a fanatic follower of Jacob and I always do what he tells me, I have to tell you that Richard will know.
BEN: And Richard’s really, really old. Oh, and he doesn’t age!
HURLEY: Duuuuuuude.
BEN: No, he has really great make-up people. I mean, look at how much older Jack looks after six years on the island. Go ahead, check out our first season—I mean, first year—flashbacks.
HURLEY: Dude, shut UP.
ILANA: Well? What’s our next step, Richard?
RICHARD: The hell with you, the hell with them, and the hell with me!
ILANA: What? What did we do to piss you off?
RICHARD: No, hell!
HURLEY: You mean “hell, no”?
RICHARD: No, hell! Aw, hell. We’re all in hell, so I’m going to go see the devil now if you don’t mind.

[CUT TO: The Canary Islands, 1867, Richard in a REALLY ugly beard and long hair, riding his horse hell-for-leather to a cottage where his wife is dying of consumption or TB or whatever makes you cough up blood in 1867. Long, boring scene about how much he loves her (in Spanish, with subtitles, making it even more boring to the average American!). He rides off through the rain to Evil Doctor’s house.]

RICHARD: I need medicine. My wife is dying of consumption or TB or whatever makes you cough up blood in 1867.
EVIL DOCTOR: Do you have enough money? Because I’m an Evil Doctor and I only help people for money. I am obviously the Lost writing staff’s commentary on nationalized healthcare.
RICHARD: This is all I have. Plus this cross necklace, which should be worth something because it’s pretty and golden.
EVIL DOCTOR: This necklace is fake! You can’t have the medicine. Plus, we have to have a reason to get you to that island from this island, so please be gentle when we struggle and you kill me.
RICHARD: Uh—
[They fight. Doc hits head on table and dies. Richard runs. Gets to cottage with medicine, but wife is already dead.]
[CUT TO: Jail cell. Richard is reading the Bible.]
EVIL PRIEST: Can I see your Bible?
RICHARD: Uh—
EVIL PRIEST: Hey, it’s in English! You can read English?
RICHARD: I’ve been teaching myself. I want to go to the New World, even though this is 1867 and all of the countries in North and South America have names that people, you know, use. But hey, let’s give people the impression that I’m, like, four hundred years old instead of only two hundred, because that would be so different. Say, Padre, I’d like to make my confession and receive absolution.
EVIL PRIEST: Nope.
RICHARD: What? Hey, it says right here—right here [points to Bible] that you have to forgive me.
EVIL PRIEST: And it says right here [points to script] that I don’t.
RICHARD: Damn.
EVIL PRIEST: Yep. Say, let me blindfold you and introduce you to…
EVIL CAPTAIN: He speaks English? Okay, I need another slave that understands English.
RICHARD: Hey, wait. Evil Doctor, Evil Priest, Evil Captain—I’m beginning to sense a pattern here.
HURLEY: Dude, I think we found someone as dumb as Jack.
[CUT TO: Long, boring scene below deck where Evil Captain put slaves. Storm. Shipwreck. Oh, NOW we know why the statue is just a foot now, and hey, great CGI, stupid story.]
EVIL CAPTAIN: I must now kill all the slaves, because it’s not like I could use them to built huts or find food or something like that. It’s a lush, green island which simply demands that there’s tons of fresh water and food, but hey, I’m evil. So, die! Die! Die!
RICHARD: No! Stop! Hey, wait a minute—why am I shouting? That will only attract his attention. Go ahead, they’re only redshirts anyway.
MAN IN BLACK: Raarh! Roar! Blegh!
CAPTAIN: What’s happening? Why am I standing under dripping blood and too stupid to understand what it means? I think I’ll go upstairs and check why my men just screamed and dripped blood on me.
RICHARD: Good idea. Leave the keys, will you?
[CUT TO: Long, boring scene of Richard dying of thirst and hunger while trying to free himself from the shackles.]
MAN IN BLACK: Hey, I can get you out of here, but you have to kill someone for me first. Because you’re already damned and in hell, and he has your wife.
RICHARD: Okay.
MAN IN BLACK: But do it FAST, or I’m stuck here for another 140 years or so.
[Richard goes through jungle, finds the foot, gets beat up by Jacob.]
JACOB: You can’t kill me.
RICHARD: I know, Ben’s gonna do it in, like, 140 years.
JACOB: I can make you live long enough to see it.
RICHARD: After the beat-down you just gave me, I think I’ll take that deal. By the way, everyone thinks you’re a dick.
JACOB: But at least I’m a mysterious, all-knowing, and powerful dick.
RICHARD: Oh, so you’re the representation of Obama for this episode.
JACOB: Shut up and go bury your wife’s necklace so you can dig it up 140 years from now absolutely untarnished and without mold or dirt.
RICHARD: Okay. But I have one more condition.
JACOB: Name it.
RICHARD: I get to be short-haired and clean-shaven from now on.
AUDIENCE: Thank Heaven!
[CUT TO: Present, where Richard digs up the untarnished necklace.]
RICHARD: Hey, Man in Black, I’m ready to join you now!
HURLEY: Dude, wait. I’m going to talk to your dead wife and tell you what she’s saying first.
DEAD WIFE: You look SO much better in short hair and clean-shaven. Oh, and you’re not in hell.
RICHARD: Okay. I’ll stick with Jacob for now, even though he’s dead and Smoke-Guy is obviously more powerful.
HURLEY: Dude, this was just one big, long [AUDIENCE: BORING!] background episode. Now we know how old you are. Like, we coulda done this in ten minutes, but nooo, the writers wouldn’t listen to me!
RICHARD: Hey, you’ve had a whole boatload of background episodes. This was my first and last.
HURLEY: Point, dude. So let’s go back to the others and figure out who’s gonna die in the series finale.
RICHARD: If we kill Jack, you get to be the island’s guardian.
HURLEY: Richard, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

Posted in Television | Tagged Lost episode summary, Television | 3 Comments

Barack Obama’s hypocrisy on Israel

Posted on 03/24/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Barack Obama the candidate, at the 2008 AIPAC conference said this:

We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work, but 60 years later we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as President I will never compromise when it comes to Israelâ€™s security.
Not when thereâ€™s still voices that deny the Holocaust; not when there are terrorist groups and political leaders committed to Israelâ€™s destruction; not when there are maps across the Middle East that donâ€™t even acknowledge Israelâ€™s existence and government funded textbooks filled with hatred towards Jews; not when there are rockets raining down on Sderot and Israeli children have to take a deep breath and summon uncommon courage every time they board a bus or walk to school.

And this:

And then there are those who would lay all the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel and its supporters as if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the root of all trouble in the region. These voices blame the Middle Eastâ€™s only democracy for the regionâ€™s extremism. They offer the false promise that abandoning a stalwart ally is somehow the path to strength. It is not; it has never been and it never will be.

Yesterday, President Barack Obama met with Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. There were no pictures of the two shaking hands. There was no official protocol. There was no press conference, all the trappings of the usual state visit. And it was all deliberate snubs.

But the meetings were shrouded in unusual secrecy, in part because U.S. officials, who just ten days earlier called the surprise announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem an â€œinsultâ€ and an â€œaffront,â€ made sure to reward Netanyahu with a series of small snubs: There were no photographs released from the meeting, and no briefing for the press.
And as of late Tuesday evening, neither side had released the usual â€œreadoutâ€ of the meetingsâ€™ content â€“ a likely indicator of the distance between the sides.

That’s a far cry from Candidate Obama’s attestation of his love for Israel—the “unbreakable bond” he quoted so often throughout his speech:

… my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, unbreakable tomorrow–unbreakable forever. … And as President I will work with you to insure that it is this bond that is strengthened.

As Jim Geraghty said, every campaign promise Obama made comes with an expiration date. Israel’s expiration date was, well, the day after the AIPAC speech, I presume. Here, however, is the most interesting quote of the entire affair:

Netanyahu â€œis too smart not to understand that Washington has changed,â€ veteran Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller told POLITICO on Tuesday. â€œAnd that a potentially transformative president who is now king of the world for a day is facing off against Benjamin Netanyahu, king of Israel. And the fight between the two is not today. What we see now is positioning.”

That’s a very unconsciously telling analogy. As a person of faith (and particularly as a person of the Jewish faith), if I were to choose the more powerful of the two kings—the king of the world or the king of Israel—I would absolutely go with the man who has G-d behind him.

Barack Obama’s hypocrisy on Israel is actually meaningless in the long run. Presidents come and go. Kings come and go. Israel remains. When we say “Am Yisrael chai,” we’re kinda not exaggerating.

Posted in Israel, The One | Tagged Barack Obama, Israel | 5 Comments

Sometimes anti-Israel is anti-Israel

Posted on 03/24/2010 by Soccerdad

Robert Wright sets up many straw men and knocks them down in Against pro-Israel. He cynically lists “symptoms” of being anti-Israel.

Symptom no. 1: Believing that Israel shouldn’t build more settlements in East Jerusalem. President Obama holds this belief, and that seems to be the reason that Gary Bauer, who sought the Republican presidential nomination in 2000, deems Obama’s administration “the most anti-Israel administration in U.S. history.” Bauer notes that the East Jerusalem settlements are “entirely within the city of Jerusalem” and that Jerusalem is “the capital of Israel.”
That’s artful wording, but it doesn’t change the fact that East Jerusalem, far from being part of “the capital of Israel,” isn’t even part of Israel. East Jerusalem lies beyond Israel’s internationally recognized, pre-1967 borders. And the common assertion that Israel “annexed” East Jerusalem has roughly the same legal significance as my announcing that I’ve annexed my neighbor’s backyard. In 1980 the United Nations explicitly rejected Israel’s claim to possess East Jerusalem. And the United States, which normally vetoes U.N. resolutions that Israel finds threatening, chose not to do so in this case.

The construction “settlements in East Jerusalem” is odd. First of all, last I checked there’s no place on the map named “East Jerusalem.” (He capitalized “East” as if it were part of the name of the place. And if it isn’t capitalized, well, then it’s geographically incorrect.) And what does he mean by “settlements?” Does he mean new neighborhoods. Wright has so loaded his language. But he’s obfuscating here.

Until the Obama administration made an issue over Ramat Shlomo, it was agreed that areas such as Ramat Shlomo would be part of Jerusalem in any final status arrangement. So appealing to Israel’s “international recognized borders” confuses the issue rather than clarifying anything.

Symptom no. 2: Thinking that some of Israel’s policies, and America’s perceived support of them, might endanger American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan (by, for example, giving Jihadist recruiters rhetorical ammunition). This concern was reportedly expressed last week by Vice President Joe Biden to Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. And General David Petraeus is said to worry about the threat posed to American troops — and to America’s whole strategic situation — by the perception of American favoritism toward Israel.
Identifying threats to American troops is part of a general’s job, and it seems to me Petraeus could honestly conclude — without help from dark “anti-Israel” impulses — that some of those threats are heightened by the Israel-Palestine conflict and America’s relationship to it. But Max Boot, writing on Commentary’s Web site, seems to disagree; if Petraeus indeed holds such opinions, that’s a sign of “anti-Israel sentiment,” in Boot’s view.

Gen. Petraeus said – whether in the prepared statement or in his shorter actual presentation – a lot of other things too. He pointed out that Iran is aiding Al Qaeda. He noted that Hizballah was subverting the government of Lebanon and acting in violation of Security Council resolution 1701. Somehow these observations escaped the notice of the anti-Israel community. The only part of the Petraeus report they’re aware of is the general’s claim that Israeli actions were endangering American soldiers, a report that was explicitly denied by General Petraeus.

Wright continues:

Actually, it seems to me that if we were all “pro-Israel” in this sense, that would be bad for Israel.
If Israel’s increasingly powerful right wing has its way, without constraint from American criticism and pressure, then Israel will keep building settlements. And the more settlements get built — especially in East Jerusalem — the harder it will be to find a two-state deal that leaves Palestinians with much of their dignity intact. And the less dignity intact, the less stable any two-state deal will be.

Huh? What does he mean by “especially in East Jerusalem” (aside from the absurdities mentioned above)? Israel, as noted above, will keep Jerusalem in any final status deal; so the presence of Jews in Jerusalem even in Wright’s fictional “East Jerusalem” won’t affect the sacrosanct “contiguity” of a future Palestinian state. It’s funny that he’s so concerned about Palestinian dignity but ignores Jewish dignity that’s assaulted on a daily basis by the official Palestinian media. Wouldn’t that endanger the possibility of a two state solution? And “Israel’s powerful right wing” is a fiction. It’s a convenient boogeyman for shallow thinkers like Wright, but as I’ve pointed out many times, PM Netanyahu is a lot closer now to the views of Peace Now than to the views of Yitzchak Shamir. The right in Israel has shifted pretty far to the left in the past twenty years.

There’s really no more that Wright writes, that isn’t some version of this drivel. But he adds a postscript in which he describes (appropriating Roger Cohen’s words) Jeffrey Goldberg as “Netanyahu’s stenographer.” That’s beyond ludicrous. Goldberg is just as anti-settler as is Wright. He is however not anti-Israel. And Goldberg is not especially sympathetic to Netanyahu either.

Wright argues that the new “pro-Israel” is really “anti-Israel” or vise versa. He is based on misperceptions and driven by a blind hatred of Israel. There is no way to contort his argument as being “pro-Israel.”

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Posted in Anti-Semitism, Israel, Israel Derangement Syndrome | Tagged Robert Wright | 2 Comments

Hillary’s peculiar speech

Posted on 03/23/2010 by Soccerdad

Yesterday, Secretary of State Clinton addressed the AIPAC conference. A number of points she made were questionable.

In her speech to AIPAC, she said:

The inexorable mathematics of demography are hastening the hour at which Israelis may have to choose between preserving their democracy and staying true to the dream of a Jewish homeland,” Clinton said. “Given this reality, a two-state solution is the only viable path for Israel to remain both a democracy and a Jewish state.”

This is dishonest. Charles Krauthammer observed in August 1997:

Let’s be clear. This guerrilla war is not about Israeli occupation. Ninety-eight percent of all Palestinians on the West Bank and in Gaza now live under Arafat’s rule. These are tactics in an enormous subterranean struggle underway between Arafat and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu over the shape and details of a final settlement.
At stake are the borders of Arafat’s future state and Jerusalem. Every bomb, every threat, every riot (like ones Arafat had been orchestrating in Hebron) is pressure. The goal is to see which side has more nerve, more will to hold out against making preemptive concessions.
This is what underlies the unending violence and instability. It is not “frustration,” as many in the West fatuously claim. It is strategy.

For all practical purposes the occupation is over and has been over for more than a decade. Except out of military necessity, Israel stays of the PA controlled areas. The only question is how much of the territory from Judea and Samaria will make up the Palestinian state. Besides the so called “demographic threat, is exaggerated, if not bogus.

But this pretension of knowing what’s better for Israel than Israelis themselves. If she thinks back to her husband’s term in office she’d remember that the initial success of the peace process led to a series of terror attacks in early 1996 and that the failure of the Camp David summit convened by her husband was followed by the so-called “Aqsa intifada” in 2000. The Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon in 2000 allowed Hezbollah to arm itself leading to the 2006 war and the withdrawal from Gaza led to Operation Cast Lead three years later. Israeli sacrifices for peace have invariable led to more threats not less. And those same folks who are telling Israel now that they know what Israel needs to do were telling Israel that they needed to recognize the PLO twenty years ago. What they forgot to do was insist that the PLO recognize Israel in deeds not just in perishable words.

Another questionable remark she made was:

When a Hamas-controlled municipality glorifies violence and renames a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis, it insults the families on both sides who have lost loves ones in this conflict.

But as Elder of Ziyon points out:

But the naming of the square was purely a Fatah initiative and a Fatah celebration. Mughrabi was a Fatah terrorist. The entire episode was a damning indictment of Fatah – the party whose leader happens to be so-called “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas has nothing to do with it.
Which means that the US government is knowingly misinterpreting and downplaying the glorification of terrorism by Fatah.

Barry Rubin pointed out another problem with the speech.

What is unacceptable, however, is the point that every reporter and observer should be making: The United States, as we have seen recently, is willing to attack construction on settlements (even construction the administration has previously agreed to let happen!) at the highest level and in the loudest voice. It is willing to make this issue the number one issue in the world, a basis for pressuring Israel and verbally attacking it.
I have yet to hear a single word spoken by this administration on the subject of the bloodthirsty incitement to murder that goes on every day. For this incitement not only produces violence a lot more directly than construction on settlements (which also provides stability by employing thousands of Palestinian workers), it also prevents progress toward peace.
The Palestinian Authority’s failure to undertake any educational or media campaign in 16 years to promote compromise with Israel has been almost completely ignored in the West. And while such an effort wouldn’t be easy, only by building a public base of support for compromise and conciliation could the Palestinian Authority (even if it wanted to do so) make peace with Israel.
Bashing Israel over construction on settlements while doing absolutely nothing about Palestinian Authority incitement is not going to persuade Israelis of the administration’s credibility or make any advance toward peace. Forget about asking this administration for a “pro-Israel” policy, how about just having a truly evenhanded policy?

I would add that “settlement” building is an obstacle to peace only because the Palestinians say it is. By focusing on Jewish communities in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, the administration (and much of the media and academia) is saying, “We accept the Palestinian grievance.” Knowing that the Palestinians have no reason to compromise. On the other side, the incitement is an obstacle to peace by any objective standard and yet it is ignored.

Still with all this Dana Milbank insists:

Clinton, the former senator from New York and one of the strongest supporters Israel has in the U.S. government, deserved better. The cool treatment of an old friend is something AIPAC can ill afford at a time when there are so many actual foes to deal with.

Well, yes. As Senator, Hillary Clinton honored Yochai Porat and presented Itamar Marcus to the Senate to present his findings on the incitement – she now denies – in Palestinian textbooks. But she’s now in an administration that sees fit to lean on Israel and ignore bigger threats to the United States (and world) than apartment buildings. This administration is hardly friendly to Israel and Secretary of State Clinton has been very much a team player in this regard.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | Tagged Secretary Clinton | 1 Comment

Briefly

Posted on 03/23/2010 by Meryl Yourish

The British Dubai hissy fit: The Brits can’t prove the Mossad stole their dual citizens’ IDs, but they’re throwing out an Israeli diplomat anyway. Of course they are. They have to protect their Arabist credentials. This is, after all, the country that made an oil deal with Libya after releasing the Lockerbie bomber, the country whose former Prime Minister is making hundreds of millions fronting for Arab nations, and the country that still has a law on the books allowing its citizens to arrest Israelis for “war crimes” charges. British anti-Semitism has simply transformed into British anti-Israelism.

The Obama Iran initiative backfires again: Awesome. The Arab League wants closer ties with Iran. Looks like Obama’s outreach to the Muslim world is working just swell! ‘Cause it’s not like the Arabs think that those Persians down there in the Arab Gulf are Shia heretics or anything like that, or that they’ve hated each other for centuries. Oh. Wait. Good job, Obama! And in only 14 months.

By the way, the Palestinians are still attacking Israelis: The AP and the other wire services never seem to notice that Palestinians are still trying to kill Israelis on a daily basis. It’s not always kassam rockets. Sometimes it’s a stone thrown at a car or a bus that is traveling fast enough for the stone to become a deadly missile.

Focusing on the important issues: Awesome. The Iranian nuclear threat’s getting worse: But yes, definitely, take Netanyahu out to the woodshed over new housing projects in northeast Jerusalem. Because that’st what’s important.

Posted in Iran, Israel, Israeli Double Standard Time, Terrorism | Tagged Dubai hit, Iran, Israel, Mossad | Comments Off

The Netanyahu AIPAC speech

Posted on 03/23/2010 by Meryl Yourish

It’s worth watching in full, but here are some of the highlights.

On Jews and Israel:

The future of the Jewish state can never depend on the goodwill of even the greatest of men. Israel must always reserve the right to defend itself.
The connection between the Jewish people and the Land of Israel cannot be denied. The connection between the Jewish people and Jerusalem cannot be denied.
The Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 year ago and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.

On the peace process:

Last year, I spoke of a vision of peace in which a demilitarized Palestinian state recognizes the Jewish state. Just as the Palestinians expect Israel to recognize a Palestinian state, we expect the Palestinians to recognize the Jewish state. In the past year, my government has removed hundreds of roadblocks, barriers and checkpoints in the West Bank. As a result, we have helped spur a fantastic economic boom there. Finally, we announced an unprecedented moratorium on new Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria.
This is what my government has done for peace.What has the Palestinian Authority done for peace? Well, they have placed preconditions on peace talks, waged a relentless international campaign to undermine Israel’s legitimacy, and promoted the notorious Goldstone Report that falsely accuses Israel of war crimes.

On Israel and America’s relationship:

For decades, Israel served as a bulwark against Soviet expansionism.Today it is helping America stem the tide of militant Islam. Israel shares with America everything we know about fighting a new kind of enemy. We share intelligence and we cooperate in countless other ways that I am not at liberty to divulge. This cooperation saves American lives.
Our soldiers and your soldiers fight against fanatic enemies that loathe our common values. In the eyes of these fanatics, we are you and you are us. … Militant Islam does not hate the West because of Israel. It hates Israel because of the West Because it sees Israel as an outpost of freedom that prevents them from overrunning the Middle East. When Israel stands against its enemies, it stands against America’s enemies.

Politico has the transcript. Watch or read the speech in full. It’s worth it.

Posted in Israel | 3 Comments

The “Galaxy Quest” president

Posted on 03/22/2010 by Soccerdad

Why did the administration escalate a political mistake into a diplomatic crisis?

According to Secretary of State Clinton it helped move talks forward. A less kind way of putting it, would be that she boasted of putting PM Netanyahu in his place.

But Elder of Ziyon in an op-ed quality post makes a fascinating observation:

Obama believes that a president, the leader of the free world, must act strong. But the problem is he cannot act that way when he cannot predict how the other parties will react to his show of strength. As in the movie Galaxy Quest, he may be acting but the other side is dead serious, and in such circumstances he is over his head. Upsetting a billion people or another nuclear power is something to be avoided at all costs.
So he acts like a parody of a strong leader – against his friends. He knows they won’t start a war or a terror spree against American interests. He calculates that by acting tough with his friends, there is little downside while he builds up his street cred as a resolute but fair leader. He hopes that Iran and Syria (and Russia and China) will interpret his actions as a message for them, avoiding actually making decisions that could set a course from which the US cannot go back.
But what he cannot do is actually make any real foreign policy decisions. If he did, he would be burning a bridge and opening himself up to the chance that he is making a mistake. Worse yet, he would be revealing to the world that he doesn’t have a clue.
For an actor playing the role of President, changing the status quo is scary. Taking a real stand is frightening. Instead,the emphasis is to make it through your term without blowing up the world. You buy time and hope and pray for the best. You rely on your advisors to guide you and you hope they are not acting the way you are.
And you continue to act how you think a President would act, hoping that your charade is not exposed.

Now you could dismiss this as a pro-Israel activist mocking a politician he doesn’t agree with. That may be true. But what’s truly disturbing is that an unnamed administration official seems to have confirmed this!

President Obama made little progress with the Chinese during his visit to Beijing in November. When Obama visited Saudi Arabia in June to raise money for the Palestinians, he was given a polite but firm no.
When Clinton visited Brazil this month to try to win support for tough new sanctions on Iran, Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim announced in a public appearance with her that his country simply would not go along.
One senior U.S. official acknowledged that the tough U.S. position is not just about Israel and the settlements issue, but about “sending a message more broadly about what we’re willing to put up with. . . . This couldn’t continue.”
Aaron David Miller, a former U.S. Middle East peace negotiator, said the policy has “clearly been informed by concerns about an image of vacillation and weakness.”

So something what would seem to be a parody mocking the President – that he’d diplomatically beat up on an ally in order to prove his seriousness to America’s enemies – has been confirmed by an administration official.

It would be funny if …

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel, The One | Tagged Galaxy Quest, Israel | 1 Comment

There is hope for British Jews yet

Posted on 03/22/2010 by Meryl Yourish

A British university rejected a motion to “twin” itself with Hamas’ Islamic University of Gaza. And they did this even though the Jewish-Israel society, which has only 70 members, was unable to actively campaign against the move.

More than 1100 students at the University of Warwick have rejected a plan to twin with the Hamas-backed Islamic University of Gaza.
It is thought to be the first time a twinning motion has been defeated at the union.
[…] Although 878 voters supported the twinning, 1,155 voted against.
Economics student Daniel Schwarz said: “The Islamic Society has around 800 members, Friends of Palestine has around 100 and the Jewish-Israeli Society has only 70.

Good on you, Warwick students.

Posted in Gaza, Israel | Tagged Hamas, Israel | 1 Comment

Ahmadinejad channels Cabaret

Posted on 03/22/2010 by Meryl Yourish

This is almost frightening in its unconscious nod to the portrayal of the rise of Nazis in Cabaret. Granted, Cabaret isn’t history. It’s a movie. But the symbolism of the infamous But compare this:

“The government is determined to assert its presence in managing the world wisely and powerfully in order to restore the Iranian nation’s honorable position….All of you should be ready, as tomorrow belongs to us.”

to this. Embedding was disabled, you have to click the link. It’s “Tomorrow Belongs to Me” from Cabaret.

And yes, absolutely, the greatest threat to peace in the Middle East is 1,600 new apartments in Ramat Shlomo in northeastern Jerusalem. Not the new Nazis of Iran.

Posted in Holocaust, Iran | Tagged Iran | 1 Comment

What hasn’t and has been learned

Posted on 03/22/2010 by Soccerdad

To the Washington Post’s David Ignatius, the crisis between Israel and the United States was a necessary fight, that put Israel in its place.

Jerusalem is the hardest issue of all in the Israeli-Palestinian negotiation, and for that reason, would-be peacemakers have wanted to save it for last. But this month’s crisis makes that strategic waffling impossible. Thanks to the Israeli right, the Jerusalem issue is joined.
What’s needed now is for Obama to announce that when negotiations begin, the United States will state its views about Jerusalem and other key issues — sketching the outlines of the deal that most Israelis and Palestinians want. If Netanyahu refuses to play, then we have a real crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations.

The short Ignatius: The main impediment to peace in the Middle East is Israel (or at least Israel’s so called “right wing” government and the United States must dictate the terms of Israel’s surrender to the Palestinians for there to be peace.

Jackson Diehl, though, has a somewhat fuller understanding of what’s going on. It’s not just Israel – though I think he assigns too much fault to Israel – but Israel’s partner too:

Behind Obama’s deliberate fight with Netanyahu last week seemed to lie a calculation that a peace settlement will require the United States to bend or break Israel’s current government. That might be true; it’s almost certainly the case that Netanyahu would not accept the terms that Olmert offered. But behind that obstacle lies another — the recalcitrance of Abbas — that the new administration has been slow to recognize. It’s all there in the annals of Rice’s diplomacy — but then, that was the Bush administration.

Diehl suggests that Netanyahu’s refusal to as far as Olmert is a problem. I can’t agree. But he’s correct. Abbas (and Arafat before him) refused deal(s) that would have ended the occupaton. But the Palestinians continue to refuse to reach a settlement with Israel. The Obama administration only strengthened their resolve and contrary to Ignatius, made peace even more distant.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Posted in Israel | 1 Comment

Briefly

Posted on 03/22/2010 by Meryl Yourish

If it’s Monday, it’s time for another Palestinian whitewash from the AP: Wow, look! A Palestinian crusading against corruption! It’s almost as if the Abbas government isn’t continuing the Arafat tradition of stealing billions in aid and hiding them in Swiss bank accounts. Meantime, no story about the kassam rockets fired over the weekend. Quel surprise.

Liar, liar, pants on fire: How Hillary Clinton can say these words and not have her nose grow a foot is beyond me.

“For President (Barack) Obama, for me, and for this entire administration, our commitment to Israel’s security and Israel’s future is rock solid,” Clinton said.

Uh-huh. As long as Israel does exactly what Rashid Khalidi’s best bud says it should do. Say, how about we get to see that tape, L.A. Times reporter? He’s been elected now. I’d love to see what he said.

Israelis say: Build, baby, build! Compare this poll to any poll of the Palestinians, and you will see who the real obstacles to peace are. Israelis say building in east Jerusalem is fine, and they also say a two-state solution, with land swaps, is good. What’s the percentage of Palestinians who want peace with Israel now? Has it reached 25% yet?

Posted in Israel, Media Bias, The One | Tagged Israel, Terrorism | 2 Comments

Belated Happy Birthday to Gracie

Posted on 03/21/2010 by Meryl Yourish

Monday was a super-busy day for me, and I didn’t even realize that I forgot something very important—Gracie’s thirteenth birthday!

I realized it a few days later, when I was looking through my Cats category posts. I decided we’d just celebrate today. Gracie and Tig got tunafish. And my readers get this picture of my thirteen-year-old girl, luxuriating in the morning sun in my office, in her brand-new cat bed.

Gracie in the sun