PDavidHornik

Why do they hate?

David Horowitz has this truly great piece countering Christopher Hitchens's Obama-support and Palin-hatred. I've often heard it said that if liberal American Jews hate conservative-religious figures like Palin, it's because of an ingrained fear of Christianity albeit irrationally applied. Why, then, do non-Jewish left-wingers like Hitchens (Hitchens being a left-winger with a few hawkish elements) have the same kind of hatred? I was never convinced by the "Jewish" explanation for American Jewish liberals' hatred for two reasons--first, as mentioned, non-Jewish liberals are similar; and second, most American Jewish liberals are only tenuously connected to Jewishness anyway. It looks to me like the more general phenomenon of malicious snobbery. Highly secularized liberals and leftists think they're the crown of creation and are full of the hubris and arrogance of people who scorn the deeper, older, larger frameworks of values.

Foolish fence

Though defending it against charges of being an "apartheid wall" by Israel's deadly enemies, I was always a skeptic about the value of the security fence. Quite simply--terror in our cities dropped sharply in a process beginning in spring 2002 and lasting a few years. What happened in those years? In spring 2002 the Israeli army finally began returning to Judea and Samaria on a large scale in Operation Defensive Shield. One can also say that it was approximately at that time that the fence began to be built. So which factor brought about the drop in terror? Simple logic: to this day, large parts of the fence have not yet been built and those large areas are still wide open--physically, geographically--to terrorist infiltration. Yet the infiltrations, for now, aren't happening (possible infiltration of sleeper cells that most of us don't know about is something else.) So the factor that's stopping them doesn't seem to be the fence--it's the hard work of the Israeli security forces stationed in Judea and Samaria. Now along comes former minister Moshe Arens with this great, iconoclastic piece about why the fence is indeed a boondoggle and a folly. As he says:

There is good reason to believe that it was the IDF's entry into Judea and Samaria, after the Park Hotel massacre in Netanya on the night of the 2002 seder, that largely ended the terror, and that the IDF's continued presence in Judea and Samaria is still Israel's primary defense. Without that presence, terrorism would be striking cities in central Israel. If that is the case, the fence is worse than useless. It is no more than the product of momentary hysteria and a Maginot-line mentality that seized some of our politicians, who deluded themselves into thinking that terrorism could be "fenced out."

The whole thing is essential reading.

A MUST read

Thomas Smith quoting Clare Lopez on nutty Bush-administration policy toward Lebanon, Israel etc., and where it stems from--State Dept. anti-Semites nurtured in Wahabi-funded study programs. Under Barack Obama it's likely to get even worse--possibly much, much worse. Of course, the large majority of American Jews will vote for him. They have no connection to reality or at least not to the realities I care about.

Philippe Karsenty, betrayed hero

Middle East Quarterly runs this pungent, very worthwhile interview with Philippe Karsenty, the French media watchdog who almost single-handedly exposed the vicious anti-Semitic fraud known as the Muhammad al-Dura affair. Among other things, Karsenty in trying to get help from the Israeli government has found out what some of us critics have been saying for years--that the Israeli governments of the 21st century (and some of those of the 1990s) are worthless cowards, a disgrace to the Zionist movement that was supposed to produce a proud Jew resolute about standing up for Jewish rights. Instead these recent Israeli governments have been content to let the al-Dura blood libel stand, rather than rock the boat of what they think are their cosy relations with the West. Karsenty says, "...because of the Israeli government's horrible reaction and attitude, I decided this will be my last fight for Israel." He should know that there are Israeli citizens who appreciate him, though our number is limited by the fact that the Israeli media--another swamp of morons and wimps--has only barely reported on his case. Karsenty says he also still hopes to get some help on the case from Nicolas Sarkozy--another twerp and fraud.  

Israel's "demographic problem": a hoax

Yoram Ettinger, a tireless activist and journalist for rational causes who makes a huge positive contribution to the world, reports here on the "Demographic implosion in Muslim societies." As part of that implosion, Palestinian Arab and Israeli Arab birthrates are declining while--extraordinarily, against the grain of all other Western countries--Israeli Jewish birthrates are increasing. Is this just because of high birthrates among ultra-religious Israeli Jews? No; Ettinger notes that: "The secular sector--and  particularly the olim [immigrants] from the former Soviet Union--has by and large been responsible for such an impressive rise." Ettinger also notes:

Recent demographic trends bode well for the solid, long-term Jewish majority of 67% in the "Green Line" and in Judea and Samaria, compared with a 33% and 8% Jewish minority in 1947 and 1900 respectively between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean.

Israeli capitulationists like Olmert and Livni have cited the "demographic problem" as dictating a suicidal withdrawal from Judea and Samaria, and it was used to justify the suicidal withdrawal from Gaza. However, if you listen to Israeli capitulationists lately, you notice that they cite the "demographic problem" less. Some of the factual information that Ettinger and his colleagues have marshalled has seeped through. However--a typical sign of the workings of the irrational--Olmert and Livni find other reasons; if we hold onto our indispensable security assets and historical heritage, they claim, the world will start treating us like South Africa, blah, blah. Note that, if there's any truth to that, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy: what if Israelis like Olmert and Livni, seen by the jaundiced world as among the more moderate and enlightened, were--a la Yoram Ettinger--to have the courage to call attention to the facts, instead of simply being cowards?

Why do they hate her?

I particularly like this elegant, subtle, insightful piece by Joseph Epstein on liberal women's Palin-hatred.

Promises, promises

"Does anyone still remember," asks Evelyn Gordon, "George W. Bush's April 2004 letter to Ariel Sharon? At the time, it was touted as Israel's main quid pro quo for uprooting 25 settlements, expelling some 10,000 Israelis from their homes and withdrawing the army from Gaza. Yet today, it is never mentioned - and for good reason: In the ensuing four years, the Bush and Olmert administrations between them have systematically eviscerated every 'achievement' it allegedly granted Israel."

And that can be calmly, factually, irrefutably demonstrated in the space of an op-ed--as Gordon proceeds to do. What are the implications? Diplomatic promises do not mean anything even when they come from Israel's one ally, the U.S. George W. Bush has not been a "great friend" of Israel and in many ways has promoted its possibly catastrophic weakening and endangerment. Capitulationist Israeli leaders like Olmert also do not care about documents, promises, and niceties; once an Israeli leader (Peres, Barak, Olmert, Livni) becomes entranced by the vision of peace glimmering at the end of a tunnel of Israeli concessions, the tunnel vision takes over and is not sidetracked by anything under the sun. And yet, November 4 may well usher in for Israel a far worse nightmare, one even the most weak-kneed Israeli leaders might not be able to comply with. Gordon's piece spells out the truth and is essential reading.

Listen to your own inner voice

Naomi Ragen says: Stick with your own perceptions and your own reasoning powers. It doesn't matter how many academics, intellectuals, and "experts" talk and believe utter nonsense. Israel has "learned" some terrible lessons (but the learning process is still far from complete and among key Israeli leaders still hasn't occurred at all--my interjection). America in Barack-land may now be on the same terrible trajectory.

It's not a pretty picture

Middle East scholar Barry Rubin offers this concise and clear view of the state of the Arab world. It's not the way we want it to be; but it's the way it is. I think that's called the Reality Principle. Many adults, certainly in the political sphere, don't live by the Reality Principle but just say "I want it to be like this, ergo it is like this." It regularly drags democracies into disaster.

Lefties, maybe your dream is coming true

I'm amazed to see people writing that, with this latest severe financial meltdown, the era of American dominance is coming to an end. I suspect this is exaggerated, but I don't know. However, all my life I've been hearing moronic liberals and lefties saying America is the bad guy in the world and the source of its woes (in Israel there are fewer who say this than in Europe or the U.S. itself, but there are some, on the fringes). Ask them what they would have preferred instead--Hitler? Stalin? Mao? Bin Laden? Ahmadinejad?--and, if they had any coherent answer at all, they'd somehow insist America was at the root of all the world's problems and what drove people to despair and extreme ideologies.

If the current doomsayers are right and America is in free fall, soon these people will have a world more like the one they've dreamed of. Whoever fills the void--Putin? Beijing? Ahmadinejad?--it should, ideally, make them think twice about whether having a democratic power in the dominant role was really a bad thing, if they think at all.