And you thought that the idea that a political party could have honest, moral positions was an oxymoron. An honest political party? A moral political party? A political party that does the right thing, even if it costs them politically? Meet the Conservative party of Canada. I cannot tell you how impressed I am with this interview with senior member Jason Kenney.
The Times of Israel: In light of
Harper’s very supportive speech, many Israelis think he was spot on,
broadly speaking, and that the rest of the world doesn’t get it. Why is
there a gulf between Canada and very few other countries on the one
side, and the rest of the world on the other, where Israel is concerned?
Jason Kenney: Partly because
as our prime minister said, “it’s always easier to go along to get
along” — that is to say, [to follow] the path of least resistance. That
certainly characterized Canada’s status quo-ante policy.
It’s no secret that the foreign ministries of
most Western countries have an institutional bias against Israel that is
probably informed by the fact that there is one Jewish state and dozens
of other Islamic and Arabic states. That frankly informs the
professional public service in most Western foreign ministries.
You mean there are 20 times as many diplomats who have served in Arab countries?
And 40 times more in Muslim countries. That’s
right. The prime minister more or less intimated that in his speech.
That means you’ve got dozens more diplomats and foreign policy wonks who
absorb a particular perspective which is frankly and obviously hostile
to Israel.
So that becomes the default position. It takes
a profound act, it takes great intentionality on the part of political
actors, to overcome that kind of institutional bias to begin with.
Secondly, the political incentives are not in
favor of this. In the United State of course, with a large constituency
of Christian Zionists, and the not insignificant influence of the Jewish
community, there’s always been a strong political constituency
generally to support Israel, but that doesn’t exist in Western Europe
and it doesn’t exist in Canada.
The Jewish community constitutes 1% of our
population at most, and there’s no Christian Zionist constituency to
speak of. For most people, if they’re not familiar with the complicated
politics and history of the region, they don’t understand why a
government would want to take clear positions on this.
So you’ve got an institutional bias built into
most Western foreign ministries, you’ve got a lack of political
incentives to take these positions. I think that helps to explain it.
Those are the only two factors, or
would you bring other factors into the mix? Is anti-Semitism in there
somewhere, if not the dominant feature? Demographics — the fact that,
for instance, there are 10 times as many Muslims as Jews in France? That
hardly encourages a French MP, say, to take a fair-minded position on
Israel and the region.
The positions that we have taken have been demonstrably against
our electoral advantage. Some of the superannuated foreign policy
establishment in Canada have grasped for an explanation as to why our
government has taken these arguably contentious positions. And the
simplest explanation they can come up with, which is really the dumbest,
is that the Conservative Party has taken this position to advance our
electoral interests. Nothing could be further from the truth. The truth
is this: With the Jewish community representing less than 1% of our
population, it tends to be concentrated in urban core electoral
districts which have typically been inaccessible to the Conservative
Party.
During the Lebanon conflict in 2006, our prime
minister was flying to his first G8 summit, in Saint Petersburg, the
day after the IDF began its operation in Lebanon, and he was asked by
our media to respond. He was advised by officials to take a pass: Get to
Saint Petersburg, hear what the consensus is, and follow it. That’s the
Canadian modus operandi. He said no, I think under the circumstances we
need to assert Israel’s right to defend itself. So he went to the back
of his plane and said in a press scrum, he said, Under the circumstances
I think that Israel’s reaction is restrained. Well, this quote was
considered verboten by many, and it was played along with images of the
devastation in Lebanon for the next several weeks and our party lost
over the course of the six weeks of that conflict I think about eight
percent in the public opinion polls.
So right from the very beginning we’ve been willing to spend political capital to do what’s right on this issue.
On anti-Semitism, one thing that’s not recognized here perhaps is that
in addition to the positions we’ve taken on Israel and the politics of
the Middle East, we’ve also become a global leader in combating
anti-Semitism and promoting Holocaust commemoration, education and
research. This year Canada’s chairing the International Holocaust
Remembrance Alliance. We hosted the last meeting of the
inter-parliamentary coalition for combating anti-Semitism. That led to
the Ottawa protocol, that essentially said that not all criticism of
Israel is anti-Semitic, but those who tend to single out Israel for
opprobrium or condemnation or question the legitimacy of the Jewish
state are arguably giving expression to hateful views.
Ron Radosh analyzes why Mitt Romney lost the election.. While most of it deals with Romney's faulty campaign strategy (and should certainly be read by everyone in the US), I wanted to point this out to you.
In foreign policy, which is the most dangerous of the coming crises that
will face the Obama administration, conservatives should relentlessly
forge ahead on issues like the failure of the White House in the murders
of our diplomats at Benghazi, which candidate Romney foolishly failed
to deal with in the last days of the campaign, and to see to it that
there is a change in direction from the failed policies of the past four
years. It also means a continuing effort to raise the issue of the
danger to the world of the growing radical Islamic movements abroad, to
attack their ideology, and to make it clear that although Bin Laden is
dead, his death did not put an end to a regrouped al-Qaeda.
Read it all. I will continue to harp on those issues (Romney didn't raise Benghazi? Really? Pretty dumb if you ask me....)
Posting for the next few hours will be a bit less frequent, since I am attending the funeral of my friend R. Yisrael Landsman zt"l (may the memory of the righteous be a blessing). I am setting up posts in advance. The actual funeral is at 6:45 pm (estimated) from the Shamgar funeral home to the Mount of Olives.
**********
The possibility of Condoleeza Rice being Mitt Romney's Vice Presidential candidate was raised last week at the meeting with Ari Fleischer and Matt Brooks, and Fleischer dismissed it out of hand. That was right before I started to hear a lot of talk about it.
We here in Israel don't feel very fond of Condi (hence the name at the top of this post). We have memories of Annapolis and of her comparing the 'Palestinians' to the blacks in the Jim Crow south of the '60's and of her ambivalent (at best) response to the Second Lebanon War. We recall that from the time that she became Secretary of State, George W. Bush seemed a little less pro-Israel right up to his last year in office. And it was she who seemed to be constantly fighting opposite the neocons who seemed so much more on our side.
Then try this Rice comment on for size. She also said when defending Iraq policy that it is the kind of people who "once believed that blacks were unfit for democracy" who say "that the people of the Middle East, perhaps because of their color or their creed or their culture or even perhaps because of their religion, are somehow incapable of democracy."
Now, we know it was Rice's job under George W. Bush to defend his administration's policies, but the above simply was not an intelligent defense. How can you conflate an inborn physical characteristic such as skin color with creed, culture and religion, which involve belief? Does Rice not understand why John Adams stated, "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"? If a people's beliefs don't influence its compatibility with democracy, what does?
Following Rice's logic out, we'd have to say that a people imbued with Nazi or communist doctrine couldn't be unfit for democracy, either, as such things are simply "creeds." Translated, her comment means that beliefs simply don't matter. Of course, I don't think this actually is her belief; she surely just didn't think things through. But is it intelligent to make public pronouncements on matter of import without thinking things through?
Add to this the fact that Rice described herself as "mildly pro-choice," wishes the U.S. would have signed on to the global-warming scam treaty the Kyoto Protocol, and was so enthusiastic about Barack Obama's 2008 win that it indicated she might have voted for him, and what kind of profile emerges? She simply is not a conservative -- except maybe in the European sense of the term. And, we have to ask, is this an intelligent political ideology?
Anyway, in the past we did ask the Factor panel a couple of questions about Rice, and the verdict was not very favorable. In 2008, when we asked the panel to identify the better candidates to be “special peace envoy” for the Obama administration, Rice was at the bottom of the list:
And even lower regard was saved for the person now running the peace process - Condoleezza Rice. The view of this panel is quite clear: Those who want a more vigorous process think that she’s just not up for the job, those who think it’s a waste of time will generally consider here to be too much into it. Thus, Rice gets low marks from almost all panelists.
In 2006 and in 2007, when Rice was included in our survey of potential Presidential candidates, her ratings were also not very high, and for similar reasons:
Various panelists gave different answers about what’s bothering them, so there is no alternative but to assume that Rice is just a miserable victim of circumstances. The panelists who are worried by the possibility of American pressure on the Palestinian issue lowered her grade because they believe that some of her statements show she is over-committed to the establishment of a Palestinian state. Others, who really have no diplomatic problem with Rice or with a certain amount of American pressure, lowered her grade because their estimation of President Bush is very low and her loyalty to his policy causes them to doubt her intelligence.
She doesn't talk about Israel (although note what she's wearing around her neck), but Sarah Palin's keynote speech to Right Online 2012 is well worth your time.
Can Israel take the support of US conservatives for granted?
Here's an interesting take on Republican support for Israel from Oded Eran and Owen Alterman (yes, I am swamped with work).
To a large extent, the new winds in the Republican electorate on the wider anti-terror issues have not touched candidates’ stances on policy toward Israel, and Republican candidates continue to criticize Obama as not supportive enough. Most of the Republican candidates have vied with each other for the position of most outspoken supporter of Israel.
Still, for Israel, the new attitudes among Republicans portend a shift. For the past decade, Israel’s outreach efforts in the United States have relied on forging a connection in the campaign against terrorism. Israel’s leaders have become accustomed to declare, in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu in his address before Congress in 2011, “We stand together to fight terrorism.” With at least part of the US electorate that connection worked, as terrorism was at the forefront of public concerns and how to approach the terrorism issue was at the forefront of the public debate. Especially in the years after 9/11, much of the US public supported a hawkish response to radical Islam; in that context, Israel was right to sell itself as a logical partner in that fight.
With the changing public mood in the US, however, the anti-terrorism mantras may have become jaded and worn. Even among Republicans, the “war on terror” has faded as a call to arms. If trends in US public opinion continue, Israel will need to change its message to US politicians and to the American public. Fortunately, Republican voters who once mentally linked support for Israel with the anti-terrorism issue seem to have found a new (or additional) basis for their pro-Israel views, perhaps through evangelical religious beliefs. Still, Israel’s leaders must not be complacent.
In the short term, Iran may remain the focus, but the life span of that issue depends on the degree of success in putting an end to the nuclear effort. Success, whether resulting from a military operation or diplomacy and sanctions, would be the emblem of US-Israeli cooperation. Anything less might mar relations for years to come, especially given the US public’s unease about Middle Eastern wars.
Israel needs a new message to the American public. In recent years, much outreach has focused on minorities and liberals, as the partisan gap in support for Israel has widened. These efforts should continue. But Israel’s leaders risk a fundamental surprise if they take conservatives’ support for granted. The 2012 campaign might be bringing the first, subtle stirrings of new foreign policy currents among conservatives. For Israel, the lesson is that its message must adjust to suit the new mood and not be hitched too tightly to the anti-terrorist mast.
I'm not sure I buy this. I believe that Israel's relationship with US conservatives is based on values and is much stronger than this article depicts it to be. I wouldn't take that support for granted, but I certainly don't see US conservatives supporting our enemies in the foreseeable future.
I wish I remembered my defining moment as a conservative as clearly as Tammy Bruce remembers hers (Hat Tip: NY Joo via Twitter). I really do. Perhaps because my defining moment was not associated with cataclysmic world events like hers were, I don't remember it as well. But I can tell you approximately when it happened.
It was sometime in the fall of 1980. I had just returned from two years in Israel, where just a few months before I had a friend murdered in cold blood for the crime of singing Sabbath songs on the streets of Hebron on a Friday night. I started law school at NYU because that's the best school that accepted me. Until I got there, I knew nothing of NYU's politics, and that the hard Left in those days turned down Harvard and Yale for Washington Square.
I hung out with a small crowd of religious Jews. We each had our set seats in the stacks in the basement beneath the main library floor. We even managed to turn one room into a Talmud study hall. Most of the guys were my age, but were in their third year of school because they had not spent two years of Israel after college like I had. There was Mordy and Morris and Shimon and Shmeel and David (more than one) and Reuvain. And there was Mark whom I'd known since Kindergarten, but he was an upstairs kind of guy. And some others I am forgetting. Reuvain was probably the most conservative politically of all of us (and lives in Israel today). We studied Talmud and studied for exams. And there was Mrs. Carl who started hanging around the library toward the end of first semester.... Yes, I met my wife - who went to that other school uptown where I had gone to college too - when I was a first-year law student and 'didn't have time.'
Sometime during the first half of that semester (before Mrs. Carl started coming around), we became hooked on the idea that Jimmy Carter would sell Israel down the creek if he were reelected. And so, we started walking around with Ronald Reagan buttons. In Hebrew.
It took a while until someone who actually read Hebrew told the Leftists what the buttons said. And the acrimony soon followed. It's been too many years - I don't remember what was said. But that semester I became the first member of my family to vote for a Republican since my forebears landed at Ellis Island. Yes, I supported Nixon in 1972 (I had the same queasy feelings about McGovern that I had about Carter, and in response to my parents' complaints - having come of age in the '50's - that Nixon was a crook, I said 'maybe, but he's our crook'), but I was too young to actually vote then. I had voted for Carter in 1976, but I voted for Reagan in 1980, and I'm proud I did.
That's my how I became a conservative story. Tammy Bruce's story is here.
Former speaker-of-the-house Newt Gingrich promised that upon election, he would immediately shake up the State Department and demand that the US embassy in Israel be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, garnering loud applause from his audience. He also promised to offer the reins of the State Department to ambassadorial maverick John Bolton, an announcement that was also greeted with ringing enthusiasm from his audience.
Gingrich said that he would try to restore America's ability to carry out covert operations, particularly in Iran and promised that, if elected, he would work to destabilize Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's regime by sabotaging the state's fuel supply and supporting anti-regime movements.
The former speaker, who has re-emerged as a right-wing favorite after the suspension of restaurant executive Herman Cain, roused the crowd early on by slamming recent Obama administration remarks seen as anti-Israel. He blasted last week's comments by the US ambassador to Belguim, as well as comments made by Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and a planned meeting at the State Department with “those who would censor the world on behalf of Islam.”
Criticizing what he described as a “one-sided disarmament of the Judeo-Christian civilization”, Gingrich also devoted part of his talk to domestic issues, promising to abolish the capital gains tax, repeal Obama's health care program and re-scale the federal government.
Less than a month before the primary season kicked off, Gingrich was far from the only candidate to propose a tougher stance on Tehran. Front-runner Mitt Romney said that he supported both covert and overt activities to push Tehran to abandon its weapons program.
"Ultimately, regime change is what's going to be necessary," said Romney, also garnering a standing ovation from the audience. "I will travel to Israel on my first foreign trip. I will reaffirm as a vital national interest Israel's existence as a Jewish state. I want the world to know that the bonds between Israel and the United States are unshakable," he added.
Gingrich slammed US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for "ordering" Israel to resume its negotiations with the Palestinians: "Can you imagine if our next-door neighbor were firing missiles at us and we said 'Oh, can we come to the table?' How about saying to Hamas: 'Give up violence and come to the table?'" Gingrich said.
"It's always Israel's fault no matter how bad the other side is, and it's got to stop," he stated.
Romney, yet again, said that Obama's actions have "emboldened Palestinian hard-liners who now are poised to form a unity government with terrorist Hamas and feel they can bypass Israel at the bargaining table.
"President Obama has immeasurably set back the prospect of peace in the Middle East," he said.
GOP hopeful Michele Bachmann said that she too will relocate the US Embassy to Jerusalem should she be elected, adding that "A Bachmann administration will recognize that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people.
"My administration will fully recognize Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital, and… will also recognize Israel's 1980 annexation of the Golan Heights and any settlements, which Israel, as a sovereign state, chooses to annex. Simply put, my administration will accord Israel the respect to which sovereign, democratic nations are entitled."
You get a very different perspective on the Presidential race from the US (where I am now) than you do in Israel.
The car I am using has only one station that works - WRKO talk radio. In the last two days, I've listened to Laura Ingraham, Michael Savage and Howie Carr, and the amount of bickering you hear among both the hosts and the callers over whether this candidate or that candidate is conservative enough is something we hear little about in Israel. My two biggest fears are that Romney gets the nomination and the conservatives stay home, giving the election to Obama, or that Gingrich or Bachmann (or Santorum - who is not a frontrunner right now) gets the nomination and many Republicans cross over to vote for Obama because they're 'too conservative.' As far as I am concerned, the most important outcome of the election is, "Obama must go."
Eric Erickson charges Jennifer Rubin with dual loyalty, then backtracks
On Wednesday, Red State's Erick Erickson made a not-so-veiled charge of dual loyalty against Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin (Hat Tip: American Power).
Jenn Rubin, when not pushing out Romney talking points is in favor of freeing traitors, claims to be a conservative covering the conservative movement, though she has nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists. A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it. (Please be sure to read this update regarding this reference)
The update to which he refers took 16 hours to get there, and includes this:
I nor the friend of mine who offered that up are anti-Semitic, but it has apparently hit a nerve that I did not intend to hit and I feel I do need to apologize for that. A friend of mine explains to me that a Jewish-American might find it insulting because it suggests they put Israel ahead of the United States.
I had not thought of that when writing it and was not my intention. Where I finally had enough of Jenn Rubin was her position on Jonathan Pollard that I cannot in any way, shape, or form comprehend as being the right position. It was that position of hers and her positions on national security, terrorism, and Israel (all three of which she and I see eye to eye on) that didn’t make me think twice about using the Likud comparison. Apparently I should have. Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy, and that’s what I intended by the comparison, not a suggestion of misplaced loyalty. And certainly not anti-semitism.
I would not call the Likud 'liberal to left' on fiscal policy - the forces arrayed against the free market in this country are far different than in the US, and there is a very different balance of power here. But that's not the point of this post.
What I want to get to is Erickson's labeling of anyone who advocates for Jonathan Pollard's release as having dual loyalties (yes, that still comes through in his apology) and of automatically not being a conservative. Over the last year, Lawrence Korb (formerly Caspar Weinberger's number 2 at the Defense Department), former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former US Secretary of State George Schultz, and Harvard Professor Charles Ogletree have all come out in favor of releasing Pollard. Of those, to the best of my knowledge, only Mukasey is Jewish and only DeConcini and Ogletree are not Republicans.
Additionally, some 500 American Jewish and Christian leaders called for Pollard's release in a letter to President Obama in January. That letter cites all of the following (some of whom are already listed above) as favoring Pollard's release:
Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Senators Charles Schumer and Arlen Specter, Harvard Law Professors Charles Ogletree and Alan Dershowitz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP, former federal Judge George Leighton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, Pastor John Hagee, and Gary Bauer.
And 39 members of Congress.
Would Erickson accuse all of them of dual loyalty? Are none of them Republican or conservative enough for Erickson? Surely Hagee and Bauer (at least) ought to be. And if that's the case, why is Erickson going after Jennifer with a charge like this and not after any of them?
Pollard committed a crime and he's paid for that crime disproportionately. It's long past time to let him go. Unfortunately, much of the American Jewish community cannot find its voice on this issue precisely because it is intimidated by the type of dual loyalty charges made by Erickson against Jennifer Rubin. But the American Jewish community ought to find its voice.
Jonathan Pollard continues to sit in jail today precisely because he spied for Israel and not for Russia or China or Cuba. Jonathan Pollard continues to sit in jail today because of Caspar Weinberger's antipathy for Israel and Jews. Here's what Lawrence Korb had to say about that when he came out for releasing Pollard.
"Based on the knowledge that I have first hand, I can confidently say that the punishment was so severe because of lack of sympathy for Israel by the U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time, my boss, Caspar Weinberger," the letter stated.
According to Korb, Weinberg made great efforts to convince the judge to punish Pollard severely. "Although Pollard pleaded guilty, cooperated with the government and asked for clemency - he received disproportionate punishment," wrote Korb. "In the end Weinberg himself did not put the Pollard story in his biography. Weinberger said that the reason for this is because the affair had been exaggerated beyond minor importance - that is, he finally understood and admitted that the story had been blown beyond proportions. "
Korb emphasized that the average penalty for the offense Pollard committed is two to four years, and even today when the law changed - the average sentence is 10 years. "So if he was sentenced today he could not sit 25 years in prison. Justice will be done if the sentence is shortened to what has already been run to date," Korb's letter concluded.
Mr. Erickson should stop bullying people who disagree with him.
Israel is becoming more Jewish, more hawkish and more rightist
On Monday evening, the Knesset will vote on the second and third readings of a bill that would allow citizens to bring civil lawsuits against people or organizations who call for economic, academic or cultural boycotts against the Jewish state, Israeli institutions or regions under Israeli control (read: Judea, Samaria, 'east' Jerusalem and the Golan Heights). The bill would also prevent the government from doing business with companies who initiate or participate in such a boycott.
The bill is being brought to a vote because its chief sponsor, coalition chairman Zev Elkin, believes that he has enough votes to pass it.
The fact that the government is going to enact an anti-Boycott law is just one symptom of a relatively new phenomenon. In the aftermath of the Gaza expulsion of 2005, the 2006 Second Lebanon War and Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09, and the reaction of the 'international community to the actions that Israel had to take to protect itself, Israelis have become more Jewish, more hawkish and more rightist than was previously the case.
Part of that is demographics. Look at my biography and compare it to the biographies of some of the Leftist bloggers. If I have eight children and they have one (and a dog), eventually the Right is likely to gain (only four of my children are currently eligible to vote, but if this government serves out its term, a fifth child will be eligible to vote the next time, God willing). But it's more than just demographics. It's a change in the way people think about the chances for peace.
Several processes are slowly making Israel’s Jewish society more conservative. This is not just a result of demography, which is working in favor of the haredim and traditionalist Jews and against the seculars. We are dealing with a plethora of cultural tendencies that have nothing to do with births.
The Jewish bookshelf is sweeping many groups and is turning into an element that holds ideological, not only cultural, influence on those joining the trend. The “Jewish new age era,” a sort of counter-reaction to the “candle era” of the peace children, is lifting geographical boundaries.
Samaria is suddenly turning into a site that belongs to “every Jew.” Workshops and trips there constitute the settlers’ “quiet revolution.” Even celebrities who “discovered” the synagogue at the heart of Tel Aviv are starting to arrive.
Meanwhile, the Russian and Ethiopian communities, as well as residents of the periphery, are mostly holding clear hawking views, despairing over the chance to see peace from the Palestinians, and are eager to see us using our power and producing deterrence. Territorial concessions are not perceived as a move that would affect the end of the conflict.
...
Similar phenomena are taking place among some groups within Israel’s leftist camp; the moderate Left, known as “activist” in the past, which lives in “border areas.” The Gaza-region kibbutzim, which in the past granted the leftist Meretz party many Knesset seats, are showing ongoing support for Lieberman’s positions ever since the current government’s establishment. No less surprising: Even among these leftists, a majority characterizes the settlement enterprise as Zionism in every way.
Meanwhile, Meretz and Labor, which produced “Oslo,” are turning into niche parties. Kadima, which is led by people formerly associated with the Right, is the only dovish element with aspirations to take power.
Jewish perception and heritage are penetrating civics studies and the military and national service. The education minister is bringing awareness of Hebron to Tel Aviv. Moreover, members of the religious Zionist community are increasingly active in academia and in the film industry; they produce culture and convey their messages.
Israelis are becoming more spiritual. And no, this is not the spirituality associated with the flower children. It is the kind of spiritually associated with Rabbi Kook. It comes with love for the land and great belief in the ban on renouncing it.
This will also have some impact on our relations with diaspora Jewry, at least in the United States where much of the Jewish community is affiliated with non-Orthodox movements, the Democratic party and liberalism. If anything, the choice between supporting the liberal value of the week and supporting Israel may become even starker than it is today.
And while I have argued many times on this blog that American support for Israel depends far more on American Christians than it does on American Jews, a decline in or indifference to Jewish support for Israel has other implications we won't necessarily like. For example, Israel restricts the ability of missionaries to operate here. What will happen when and if American Christians decide to contest those laws or to 'lobby' us to change them?
Please don't get me wrong. I believe that Israel's shift to the right is a good thing. I believe that it makes us more unified and more idealistic in the struggle against our enemies. But I also believe that we need to be prepared to deal with the side issues that may arise.
Yours truly gets a shout out as one of the important Jewish blogs in the conservative new media (Hat Tip: Cheryl H) along with Jeff Dunetz, Pam Geller, Dan Greenfield, Ted Belman, Matt Drudge and many others. No links given but maybe this is why my number of Twitter followers started jumping late yesterday afternoon.
This is actually the 7th in a series of videotapes done by Bill Whittle about what Conservatives believe. This isn't directly connected to Israel (although on a per capita basis, we're probably the only country that comes close to a lot of the statistics he cites), but there are some lessons here for us about big and small government.
Let's go to the videotape.
I understand that the entire series is available on DVD (seven DVD's). You can find more details here.
During his visit here this past week, British Foreign Secretary William Hague signed a treaty with a non-existent country.
British Foreign Secretary William Hague signed a “treaty between nations” with Palestinian Authority leaders on Wednesday. “This agreement is the first ever bilateral treaty between the two nations,” the British Consulate-General site proclaimed.
The treaty covers cooperation in the film industry. Hague signed a similar agreement with Israel.
Aside from its reference to the “treaty between nations,” the UK Consulate site also referred to Hague's trip to visit PA leaders in Ramallah as “his first visit to Palestine,” apparently recognizing a new country of “Palestine” before even PA leaders have declared one to exist.
The Conservatives are no better than Labour. They may even be worse.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
