Israel Matzav

The Times' designated dhimmi: 'Vote Obama'

In Sunday's New York Times, designated dhimmi Tom Friedman urged the Jewish community to continue its tradition of voting blindly Democratic, and to cast its vote in November for the presumed Democratic nominee: Barack Hussein Obama.

Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama once said there has to be “an end” to the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank “that began in 1967.” Yikes!

Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama said that not only must Israel be secure, but that any peace agreement “must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people.” Yikes!

Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama once said “the establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it.” Yikes! Yikes! Yikes!

Those are the kind of rumors one can hear circulating among American Jews these days about whether Barack Obama harbors secret pro-Palestinian leanings. I confess: All of the above phrases are accurate. I did not make them up.

There’s just one thing: None of them were uttered by Barack Obama. They are all direct quotes from President George W. Bush in the last two years. Mr. Bush, long hailed as a true friend of Israel, said all those things.

Friedman goes on to try to convince us that Obama is as strong a supporter of Israel as the current occupant of the White House, George W. Bush:

To me, U.S. presidents succeed or fail when it comes to Arab-Israeli diplomacy depending on two criteria that have little to do with what’s in their hearts.

The first, and most important, is the situation on the ground and the readiness of the parties themselves to take the lead, irrespective of what America is doing. Anwar Sadat’s heroic overture to Israel, and Menachem Begin’s response, made the Jimmy Carter-engineered Camp David peace treaty possible. The painful, post-1973 war stalemate between Israel and Egypt and Syria made Henry Kissinger’s disengagement agreements possible. The collapse of the Soviet Union and America’s defeat of Iraq in the first gulf war made possible James Baker’s success in putting the Madrid peace process together.

What all three of these U.S. statesmen had in common, though — and this is the second criterion — was that when history gave them an opening, they seized it, by being tough, cunning and fair with both sides.

I don’t want a president who is just going to lean on Israel and not get in the Arabs’ face too, or one who, as the former Mideast negotiator Aaron D. Miller puts it, “loves Israel to death” — by not drawing red lines when Israel does reckless things that are also not in America’s interest, like building settlements all over the West Bank.

It’s a tricky business. But if Israel is your voting priority, then at least ask the right questions about Mr. Obama. Knock off the churlish whispering campaign about what’s in his heart on Israel (what was in Richard Nixon’s heart?) and focus first on what kind of America you think he’d build and second on whether you believe that as president he’d have the smarts, steel and cunning to seize a historic opportunity if it arises.

I read this article on Sunday and asked myself, "could I take him down? Sure. But I'd rather try to get the Celtics-Cavaliers 7th game on Sopcast." And so I let Tom Friedman go for the day.

Fortunately, Freedom Fighter is apparently neither a Celtics' nor a Cavaliers' fan, and so he decided to spend his Sunday afternoon fisking Friedman. He did quite a job of it. Here's a sample:

Let's move on, as Friedman continues to try to make the case for The Chosen one:

I don’t want a president who is just going to lean on Israel and not get in the Arabs’ face too, or one who, as the former Mideast negotiator Aaron D. Miller puts it, “loves Israel to death” — by not drawing red lines when Israel does reckless things that are also not in America’s interest, like building settlements all over the West Bank."

Now, I admit to being puzzled about this one, especially since the supposedly pro-Israel Barack Obama also said substantially the same thing, that the so-called 'settlements' were not helpful."

Not helpful to whom?

Israel is one of the most densely populated countries in the world, and housing is at a premium. So obviously building homes for Israel is is helpful for the people of Israel.And just why would building homes for Israelis be 'unhelpful' to the Palestinians? Even if the area where these new homes are built eventually becomes part of 'Palestine', don't they and their population represent a boost to the Palestinian economy and infrastructure that can be taxed? After all, Arabs who live in Israel pay taxes to the Israeli government and contribute to the Israeli economy, don't they? And doesn't that kind of mutual, neighborly tolerance jibe with America's interests in the region?

Or - could it just be, just maybe - that since the Palestinians insist that not a single Jew be allowed to live in the areas they want for their lil' reichlet, that what Tom Friedman, Barack Obama and those who ascribe to these views are really promoting is an apartheid state in the Middle East? Yet another restricted neighborhood with No Jews Allowed?

And that gives rise to another interesting question.What kind of 'peace' is being promoted here if the Israelis are going to make dangerous strategic concessions to people that openly hate them so much that they're unable to even tolerate having Jews live amongst them?

Is supporting that kind of racism somehow in America's best interests? Tom Friedman, it seems, would have you think so, and it appears Obama largely agrees with him. And by the way, before I sign on the dotted line and buy that shiny ObamaMobile, could you explain to me how critically damaging the security of one of our closest allies to create another radical Islamist state is in America's best interest?

Read the whole thing.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 10:53 AM