Before I start, I’d better introduce the piece of rubbish that I’m about to attack. It is this bit of drivel from the editor of the New Republic, posted in the Jerusalem Post.
Before I start, he does say something sensible, “As many folk, including me (right here in The Jerusalem Post) have pointed out, the only high American official who is still motivated to cajole Israel and plead with disingenuous Palestinians is Condoleeza Rice. She is desperate.”
Very, very true. This is the outcome of the “realist” school who took over from the flawed but effective “neocon” (not a very accurate label but oh well) school of Rumsfeld, Powell and Cheney. The Realists can only recognise enemy power, not the comparative strengths, so theirs remains a counsel of despair.
The first half of the article broadly sensible.
Here’s where it gets stupid.
“Jews should not be dissenters when America is about to start a new chapter in the long and painful book of group relations.” He’s just accused Jews who disagree with St.Barack the Transcendent of being racist – note the phrase “group relations”. He means that those who do not go along with identity politics are racist because they refuse to treat each group unequally – sorry, I mean differently. This is a call to voting as a “Jew”, not as a human being who might be inherently equal to another human being.
“Sociologically, Jews are not in the camp of ignorance or of bias.” Here he means group identity again.
“It is against science; it is against tolerance; it is against egalitarian law; it is against the tradition of the prophets; it is against religious and intellectual liberty; it is hypocritical.”
Here he talks about the Republican Party, at least I think he is – he might not be restricting himself to the Republicans but also to their wider supporters and those who have doubts about Obama. Since when were Republicans against science? Don’t use the Sarah Palin creationism rubbish, that’s been debunked as the fevered dreams of liberal bloggers.
Against tolerance? Sarah Palin, who while not being enamoured of homosexuality has done a lot to advance the cause of gay civil rights in Alaska and who has a longstanding lesbian friend. Or Dick Cheney whose second daughter is lesbian and has been out for nearly thirty years and who (DC) is not in the anti-homosexual crowd.
Egalitarian Law? You mean against law that discriminates unfairly between different groups? How about Affirmative Action – that’s discriminatory. Or equal rights in the work place? When’s the last time anyone heard a mainstream Republican advocate paying women less or allowing for racial preferences in hiring policy?
Against the tradition of the prophets? Well, the prophets were against sodomy… work that one out to a liberal agenda.
The last is the most ridiculous. Against religious and intellectual liberty? Why is it that David Horowitz and others are trying to get an Academic Bill of Rights passed into law in order to clamp down on intellectual straightjacket teaching and marking in US universities? And solely practised by the leftist academics? Which liberal group in Canada created the HRCs? Who is trying to silence critics? It is not the Right.
The Democratic Party…has its fantasists, people who believe that the United Nations is the path to Eden. People who recognize no enemies of America except our best friends. The truth is that the Democratic Party was once held captive by these people: George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, Jesse Jackson being their tribunes... Yes…and the Clintons and Obama?
Bill Clinton and Al Gore put an end to this captivity. And Barack Obama and Joseph Biden have made this end permanent. Aha… Clinton and Gore both pushed for the Oslo treaty to implemented, both pushed and assisted Ehud Barak in trying to make peace with an Arafat who did not want peace but wanted and needed war. I’d call that pissing into the wind of reality.
The second sentence really is wishful thinking… Biden, who advocated running away from the Iraqi people? Obama who would talk unconditionally to Ahmadinejad. What proof has been offered that Obama represents a permanent end to the idiocy of the Democrats on foreign policy?
The Republicans are still tied to their failures of the last eight years that are based on the assumption that the Palestinians actually want a livable peace with Israel. So is Obama and the Democrat attempt on this basis goes back to Carter. Obama has uttered the same cant or rhetoric on the conflict as every other politician. By contrast to this smokescreen thrown up by the editor, McCain has never actually stated one way or the other on Israel and the “Two state solution” and has courted groups and individuals actually opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state. His advisors have said that he would not continue the “peace process” – yet to hear anything as decisive from Obama.
Commenting on Secretary Rice’s single-minded pursuit of discarded formulas, Dennis Ross has observed that the only individuals he knows who are in synch with her are Olmert and Abbas… to whom I add a few columnists from Ha’aretz. And in this, Bush and Rice are completely out of step with the Republican party – this is the “realist” school of foreign policy. Almost everyone with any sense is staring at those mentioned and wondering what planet they’re living on but then we must also add Biden to this list – he still supports the Two State Solution.
I’ve a question for Obama. What happens when rockets from Ramallah fall on Jerusalem and will you be willing to back without reservation the Israeli need to destroy the Palestinian terrorist groups once and for all?
Biden may be a passionate and thoughtful defender of Israel – but is Obama? We’ve heard lots of nice words but who are his advisors? Zbigniew Brzezinski is one – Samantha Power was another. These people put the blame on Israel and hold to the fallacy of “a tiny minority” – not to mention that a former Obama advisor was in the Muslim Brotherhood.
This article was pure bias and ignorance. Nice bit of projection to display the editor’s prejudices.