Monday, April 20, 2015

Jimmy Carter and Red Meat

Michael L.

carter peace not apartheidTamar Pileggi of the Times of Israel reports:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Reuven Rivlin have turned down invitations to meet with former US president Jimmy Carter during his upcoming visit to Israel over his “anti-Israel” views.

Both the president and prime minister declined the invitations after consulting with the Foreign Ministry and the National Security Council.

A senior diplomatic official told Channel 10, which broke the news, that Carter is “a disaster for Israel,” and that all Israeli leaders should refrain from meeting the former president, due to his “anti-Israel positions.”

The official was also quoted as saying that while Netanyahu and Rivlin refused to meet with him, Israel had approved Carter’s request to visit the Gaza Strip.
I have to say, I feel no particular desire to take a gratuitous slap at ex-US President Jimmy Carter... although it is tempting.

{Maybe you guys can pick up the slack on that front, I don't know.}

I will say, however, that the very cover of his book did much damage to the cause of Jewish self-determination and self-defense.

It put Jewish people and friends of Israel into the position of endlessly having to explain to people the myriad of ways that Israel is nothing like an apartheid state.  I have not read the book, but I have read - and perhaps someone can confirm - that the word "apartheid" actually only comes up a few times in the text and that he never makes a case that Israel actually is an apartheid state.

When I used to participate at Maryscott O'Connor's now defunct My Left Wing blog there was an anti-Zionist there who went under the moniker of Shergald.  Shergald's avatar was exactly the picture above and Shergald had the audacity to claim, before innocent liberals and left-wing radicals, that Hamas was an organization devoted to social justice for the Palestinian people.

Some people bought it and some people did not.  The majority were silent because they did not know who to believe.

That is just one semi-anecdote, but it should be obvious that if Carter did not defame Israel in the text, his publishing house most certainly did on the cover and he could easily have prevented it.

He didn't.

And it is that cover that probably had a greater influence on people's thinking than anything that he had to say in the book, itself.  This book was a significant book and this man was the President of the United States, after all.

When the book came out and people passed it by in the aisles of Borders Books and Music and saw that title it planted in their minds that Israel is an apartheid state.

So, should Israel roll out the red carpet for this guy?

Were I PM, he would not be allowed falafel in Haifa, because he would not be allowed access to the country without an apology to the Israeli people.

Good for Netanyahu and Rivlin.

If there was ever a time to demonstrate Israeli backbone, it is now.

Politicide: How the Western Left is Killing the Israeli Left

Michael L.

{Originally published at the Elder of Ziyon.}

FingerThere is much discussion, particularly after Benjamin Netanyahu's recent re-election, about Israel's continued slide politically toward the right.  Anti-Zionists and Israel-Haters generally attribute this move rightward as a reflection of the inherent nefarious nature of Zionism, if not Jews. On the left, in the United States and Europe, Jews who care about the Jewish state are sometimes tolerated, and sometimes not, but always subject to charges of racism by the element on the left that dislikes Israel and Zionists and AIPAC and the Anti-Defamation League and all other Jewish organizations that are not either anti-Zionist or contemptuous toward the Jewish state.

J Street is usually acceptable, but J Street is not a pro-Israel organization.

Leftists, however, who do not share the anti-Zionist contempt for Israel, and who know a thing or two about the Arab-Israel conflict, will usually acknowledge that the failure of the Oslo process and Arafat's unleashing of the Second Intifada played a big role in moving Israel toward the political right.  Anyone who understands the history of the conflict knows that during the 1990s, when Arafat and Ehud Barak and Bill Clinton were sitting around the big table, there was considerable optimism within Israel that they would be able to broker a negotiated settlement with the local Arabs and thus bring peace to the region.

It all seemed so rational and sensible, after all.  The notion of land for peace seemed like it should work.  Give the Palestinian-Arabs 100 percent of Gaza, nearly 100 percent of Judea and Samaria in a contiguous area with land swaps, and the Arab sections of eastern Jerusalem as a capital.  When Arafat rejected this more than generous offer, refused to make a counter offer, and unleashed the equivalent of 9/11 every two weeks for over three years upon the Jews of the Middle East, those Jews became demoralized with the non-peace process and thus began to move toward the right.

Would anyone expect anything else?  It is just so easy to sit in our comfortable offices, houses, and apartments in the United States, almost completely safe within one of the largest and most powerful countries on the planet, and lecture those Jews, in that tiny beleaguered nation, on morality and politics.  The Second Intifada destroyed the Israeli left because the Oslo peace process was the baby of the western left and it led to nothing but violence, death, and a furious denunciation of Israel.  Between 2000 and 2005, the Palestinians launched a civil war against the Jews, featuring suicide bombings.

Thus it was that Israel turned away from Meretz and Labor and began to look more and more toward Likud and right-leaning political parties.  What virtually no one acknowledges, however, is that a major part of the reason that Israelis rejected the left is because it was during the height of the Second Intifada, the height of the Palestinian orgy of violence and killing of Jews in the Middle East, that the left's hatred for Israel reached toward hysteria, as Paul Berman has pointed out.  As Jews were being slaughtered in pizzerias by fools who wanted to die for their religion, western leftists were jumping up and down, pointing the trembling finger of blame at those Jews, and telling them that IT IS ALL YOUR FAULT!

Israelis, for the most part, are not stupid people.  They know who their friends are and they know who their friends are not.  When the western left turned against Israel and laid the entire blame for the conflict on the Jews of the Middle East, even as those Jews were being slaughtered in a frenzy of Palestinian violence, Israelis came to understand the international left was, if anything, their enemy.  It came to look more and more like the western left was simply siding with the Arabs in their ongoing war against the Jews.

So, naturally Israelis moved to the right.

By essentially siding with suicide bombers and Jihadis and Hamas, the western left killed the Israeli left.

The question for left-leaning diaspora Jews today is, do we side with Israel or do we stick with left?  It is, however, becoming increasingly difficult to do both.  How does one support a political movement, or a political party, that is unjustly aggressive toward one's own people?  Because, if I have to choose between the Jewish State of Israel and the western progressive-left, that choice could not be easier.

Sunday, April 19, 2015

A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words


Daily Kos is a popular American political blog whose purported purpose is to elect Democrats.

However, certain of us familiar with the workings of that site also know that it serves as a not insignificant front-line organ in the mainstreaming of contemporary antisemitism on the left in the form of fanatical demonization of Israel, while the range of its staff's response to this unfortunate fact runs from banning those who point it out, to mostly ignoring its practitioners, or sometimes even condoning it altogether.

Daily Kos user 'subir' is a relatively new favorite amongst the antisemitic anti-Zionist masses at that site.

During a period of time in which the Arab-Israeli conflict was 'relatively' quiet -- aside from yet more car-jihadism in Jerusalem just a few days ago, in which one Israeli was killed and another remains in serious condition, as a result of another Palestinian-Arab deliberately driving his vehicle into Jews waiting at a bus stop -- yet while the Islamic State has taken over the Palestinian-Arab Damascus suburb of Yarmouk in Syria, in the process of which they have also been busy undertaking the task of liberating Palestinian-Arab heads from Palestinian-Arab bodies, you'd think that those who claim to care so much about the Palestinian-Arabs would have plenty to say on the matter.

You'd think that they'd be filled with the sort of righteous indignation and rage regarding Yarmouk that only the internet can assuage.

Well, let's just take a look at the reaction of the Daily Kos community to the six most recent diaries this gentleman has written there over that time.

One of these things is not like the others.  Let's see if you can spot the difference?

Boy, those "pro-Palestinian activists" sure have a rather unique way of demonstrating their deep 'concern' about the Palestinian-Arabs, don't they?  It's totally convincing that their curiously selectively-voiced outrage has nothing whatsoever to do with the Jews, no sir...

Friday, April 17, 2015


I am guessing that our non-American friends won't recognize the grinning face of this palooka!

But, then, I was impressed that you guys immediately recognized the young Hunter S. Thompson from a few Sabbaths back.

Do you know who is most likely to recognize this smiling visage?

Jay in Philadelphia.

If I had to place a bet, it would be on Jay.

In any case, the sun is beginning to go down and there is pasta to be boiled off and tossed with various forms of deliciousness.

Racist Heart


An old video but still catchy and true and it is important to keep Greens voters aware that there is a real issue with this party that can't be shrugged off with a few glib, comfortable, self indulgent furphies about "Palestinians" and "Settlers" as if this was a 1940's Western full of Cowboys and Indians.

And the bit players.

This video  is about four years old. Since then we've had Libya, Iraq and Syria. Tunisia, Iran, Lebanon, Afghanistan and Yemen. Gaza. Lebanon, Sudan, Darfur and Nigeria.  Again and again . Round after round. Missiles, attack tunnels and terrorism. War, murder, kidnapping and genocide. 

It can't all be Israel's fault. It is anti-Arab racism to say it is.

It also appropriate right now because the British branch of the Greens franchise has just declared as policy the cancellation of EU trade arrangements with Israel. Cool. Lift the sanctions on Iran.  No racism there.

Take any opportunity to confront Australians with what this is about. A charge of racism is a serious one. It should cause some reflection especially when it comes from people with good cause to know what they are talking about.

We know that leftists throw allegations of racism around like confetti but that is because of the type of people they are. Loose allegations of racism are contemptible.

No need for the rest of us to deprave the standard.  On the contrary it is more reason than ever to confront those who project their easy, lazy, bigotry on to the rest of us.

Who do the Greens side with in those old black and white films of theirs? Who do they hate. The Cowboys or the Indians? The Blacks, the Mexicans, the Chinese or the Jews? 

It doesn't really matter. Like the old Westerns this is racist to all. It is equal opportunity racism, perhaps the Greens most celebrated and jealously guarded  achievement. Their highest value. Back to the forties.

This is because they are progressives.

Hat tip Daphne Anson  .