The Middle East Today: Ha, Ha, Ha! Stop! It’s Too Funny! I Can’t Take It Any More!

By Barry Rubin

There’s a saying that goes something like this: When things are bad, a Jew cries. When they get even worse, a Jew cries more. And when they even get worse, a Jew laughs. As indelicate as this may seem, the current situation makes me want to laugh.

That’s so because things are more ridiculous than they are scary. As the advice and claims of others get increasingly absurd, you have no desire to listen to them. You just have to do what you know is right and stop having any doubts about it precisely because the arguments on the other side are just so historically inaccurate, factually false,.and illogical.

For those joining the story late–a group that seems to include Western politicians, media and academic “experts”–here’s a little background. In 1993, Israel made an agreement with the PLO to try to achieve peace. It turned over the Gaza Strip and much of the West Bank to a Palestinian government. Israel accepted the establishment of large security forces, the supply of guns, and the transfer of billions of dollars of aid.

Israel made major offers of territory and concessions to Syria and the Palestinian Authority in 2000, after almost a decade of negotiation. The other side rejected those compromise solutions. The Palestinian leadership instead launched a five-year-long war of terrorism. They lost. Then Israel was attacked by Hizballah. The world intervened and made promises to Israel. These were broken. Then Israel was attacked by Hamas. It defended itself. Again it won, but the world rushed in to save Hamas and to condemn Israel.

Of course, you can say that Israel did mean things and didn’t keep every commitment it made. Yet any balanced and honest assessment has to acknowledge the basic accuracy of the preceding summary. And any that doesn’t is basically worthless as a guide to policy or education.

Now, what are the latest developments? Well, let’s see:

–Turkey’s government has gone beserk (in fact, a product of its Islamism and a celebration of breaking the armed forces that posed the last barrier to their total control of the country) and has started acting as if it is at war with Israel. There is a real possibility that Turkish naval vessels will escort ships organized by terrorist groups to violate a legal blockade to strengthen a regime in the Gaza Strip that openly talks about killing all of the world’s Jews. That government, behaving as if it is at war with Israel, is simultaneously being used by the U.S. government to help direct Syria’s future and lead its main new counterterrorism project.

Feel the chuckles coming on yet?

–The Palestinian Authority, allied with the aforementioned antisemitic, genocidal Hamas, violates all of the agreements it made during the last 18 years—after refusing to negotiate for 2 years—by seeking unilateral independence in the UN. This would mean it will never have to negotiate with Israel or compromise in any way. Thus, this stratagem will kill any chance of negotiations.

Nevertheless, countries are lining up to vote in favor of this proposal. It’s the ultimate embodiment of “social justice” and endless entitlements. The Palestinians “deserve” a state and don’t have to do anything at all to obtain one except to demand it.

–Egypt’s revolution is baying for Israel’s blood. Palestinian-Egyptian terrorists cross Israel’s border and kill Israeli civilians; a mob attacks the Israeli embassy as the authorities stand by and do nothing. Hysteria returns to the country as if the Camp David peace agreement never happened. The Muslim Brotherhood—which we were told is weak and not Islamist—is now heading toward either a takeover or at least becoming the country’s most powerful force.

–What is the reaction in much of the Media, Universities, and Governments? Let’s use the appropriate acronym for this trio—MUG. Guess who is getting mugged?

Let me limit myself to one example of the genre. The former failed and minor Jewish organizational politician Seymour Reich writes in the NewYork Times:

“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gained nothing—except placating his right-wing coalition — by rebuffing President Obama’s proposal in May for negotiating Israeli-Palestinian borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, although some reports indicated that he may have later softened his stand.”

This is an amazing paragraph, if only for the fact that Reich attacks Netanyahu for taking a position that Reich admits he didn’t actually take! And after many occasions on which Netanyahu did precisely what Reich wants failed. Of course, there’s no mention about years of Palestinian intransigence or of the previous risks and concessions made by Israel and even by Netanyahu.

I do not mean this as a direct reference to Mr. Reich but as an observation to the current institutional set-up. In Biblical times, one sold out for a bowl of stew (“mess of pottage”) while today one does so for a New York Times op ed piece, or perhaps a tenured professorship, or admiring media coverage of oneself. Christians speak of “the wages of sin.” Well, those salaries are at all-time highs, with great fringe benefits, and extremely low unemployment.

Reich continues. “Mr. Netanyahu must step back from the brink. He should cast aside his far-right coalition members, form a government with moderate parties and add a freeze on settlement construction to an offer to negotiate without preconditions. This would demonstrate seriousness.”

Why does Israel or Netanyahu need to show at this date that they are serious? Doesn’t the virtually daily efforts of Netanyahu to restart negotiations show seriousness? The nine-month-long settlement freeze? The quick acceptance of Obama’s proposal for a summit conference at the end of 2009?

I will pay no more attention to these people. They are not serious. They are deaf to what we say and blind to what we do. They are not dealing with reality. As our next-door neighbors say: Let them go drink the Nile!

They only have one note: It’s all Israel’ fault! If it only had offered more and accepted a Palestinian state everything would be fine. If it gave everything and demanded nothing—since the PA is unwilling to make any concession—then everything would be fine.

As to everything else in the region from Palestinian intransigence to the alliance with Hamas to events in Egypt and Turkey, there only response is to say that it’s not really happening! The Muslim Brotherhood was real sorry about the attack on the embassy (then how come it endorsed the assault?) The moderate secularists will win everywhere. Turkey is just miffed that Israel didn’t capitulate totally.

Israel is isolated! So rather than be isolated it should make every concession demanded of it? And then everyone will love it and give up the war against it.

The fact that this is what we have been told repeatedly and it hasn’t happened means nothing! Oh, no. This time, once Israel goes back to the pre-1967 borders, recognizes the Fatah-Hamas regime, and doesn’t make trouble over little things like the Palestinians refusing to end the conflict even under those conditions; the military build-up in Palestine; and the demand that a few million Palestinians can come live in Israel then everything will really be great!

Are we supposed to take this seriously? Starting to understand why I’m laughing?

Let me take one example out of hundreds to show the absurdity of the situation. The sufferings of which Palestinians so upsets and animates Egyptians, Turks, and the Western left? Those in the Gaza Strip. What is the strategy of the Gaza Strip’s government? Kill the Jews. It is more openly radical than the policy of the PLO in the 1960s and1970s. How many Israeli soldiers and settlements are in the Gaza Strip? Zero. How many rockets from the Gaza Strip are in Israel? Thousands! So this is why I’m laughing.

First, the claims, arguments, and demands being made against Israel are ridiculous.

Second, they have become so ridiculous that maybe people should start to notice.

Third, since there is no alternative in the face of this nonsense, we know that our course is a correct one. We know that more risks, concessions, and apologies will have no positive effect for Israel’s interests or security. We know that courting death and disaster will not even win applause or sympathy.

Please listen very carefully and I will put the following conclusions in boldface:

The Palestinians and Arab regimes have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us any closer to a stable and secure peace. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default goal of wiping Israel off the map.

The Western democracies have given us no reason to believe that more concessions and risks will bring us greater support and more help from them if and when those actions backfire against Israel. They have given us every reason to believe that they will quickly forget what Israel has done and go back to their default position that it is all Israel’s fault

Today, Israel gives up south Lebanon, the Gaza Strip, the Sinai, and most of the West Bank as well as offering all of the Golan Heights to Syria. Tomorrow they will say that Israel has done nothing. The radicals claim that Israel does not want peace; the relative moderates that Israel hasn’t shown that it wants peace.
Consequently, with full good conscience, we can justify our laughter on pragmatic realpolitik or on spiritual terms. Regarding the former, an idiotic analysis fails; the truth comes out; those who follow foolish policies fall.

And for those of you who are spiritually inclined: “The wicked plot against the righteous, and threatens him with his teeth. The Lord doth laugh at him; for He sees that his day is coming.” –Psalm 37

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com 

It Isn’t Israel in Danger of Disappearing, It’s The People Who Threaten Her In Danger

"…never send to know for whom the bell tolls

It tolls for thee."

--John Dunne

By Barry Rubin

Rome, Italy

I’m standing on the edge of the Roman Forum, by the Arch of Titus. This is the marble structure built by the Empire to commemorate the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple about 1941 years ago. Legionnaires are shown carrying off the Menorah and other items from the sanctuary. The inhabitants are sold into slavery, The Jews are finished.

Well, not really. Today, the great empire has long vanished and Israel is not just a living country but by every social, economic, and security standard a successful country.

In the late 1960s, more than 40 years ago, the Palestinian and Arab leaders were certain that Israel would not survive. The fact that they were completely wrong has not prevented a whole new rash of contemporary speculations.


The PLO view, shared by virtually all Arabs at the time, was very clearly defined. The two main points boil down to the following. First, Israel would not survive because there was no real basis for such a state and people. Second, the Arabs would destroy it using various strategies.


Here is the ultimate quote from Yasir Arafat in1968—that’s 43 years ago--on why this would work:

Terrorism would “create and maintain an atmosphere of strain and anxiety that will force the Zionists to realize that it is impossible for them to live in Israel….The Israelis have one great fear, the fear of casualties….”

The PLO's attacks would "prevent immigration and encourage emigration....to destroy tourism, to prevent immigrants becoming attached to the land, to weaken the Israeli economy and to divert the greater part of it to security requirements.” This would "inevitably" prevent Israel's consolidation and bring its disintegration. The final step would be “a quick blow by the regular armies at the right moment" to finish Israel off.

All of these things failed. More immigrants came than expected and were successfully integrated. People weren’t frightened into fleeing. Casualties were absorbed and limited. The country became economically successful and militarily victorious. Thus, today Israel is stronger—far stronger—than ever.

And who were the biggest losers in this conflict? Naturally, Israel has lost a great deal, especially in lives. But the biggest losers have been the Arabs who wasted resources, lost more lives, faced repeated humiliations, and ended up with dictatorship and stagnant societies. And they will be the biggest losers if they spend the next 60 years playing the same game.

And if Arab states that were relatively united and had a superpower sponsor couldn’t destroy Israel in 60 years how are they going to do so today? With Israel outpacing its neighbors on every index of social and economic development, with so much oil money spent without really advancing Arab societies, who has the advantage today?

Remember what happened in 1948. True, all the Arab states invaded the new state of Israel But they didn’t coordinate with each other and all wanted to grab territory for themselves. With Iran and Turkey all jostling for power and leadership today, the conflict and disorder is intensified.

Yet now there is a revival of the claim—sometimes among ill-informed well-wishers, more often among antagonistic haters—that Israel might not survive. This is based partly on wishful thinking, partly on ignorance. Underlying these factors, however, is a basic disbelief that Jews are a people and can be a state.

And that reflects a lack of knowledge—often among Western Jews themselves—about Jewish history as well as a naïve acceptance of anti-Israel propaganda, claims that have proven to be false for decades.

Actually, then, the shoe is on the other foot entirely from what is being claimed. It is not Israel’s existence that is threatened but that of its adversaries and in some ways of Western Europe, too.

Its enemy neighbors and near-neighbors are about to embark on a decades’-long horrifying series of civil wars: Islamists against Arab nationalists; Sunni against Shia Muslims; economic collapse; and much more. Syria is on the verge of an inter-communal bloodbath; Egypt faces not some bright new economic dawn but a terrible reckoning. At some point the oil will run out with much of that wealth squandered. Recent discoveries even suggest that Israel itself will be a rising exporter of petroleum and natural gas.

Periodically, some radical Muslim writes that if only each Muslim would kill one Jew then Israel would vanish. High hopes are held for nuclear weapons that Iran still doesn’t have. But such schemes never get off the ground. Indeed, it is Arab nationalism that is endangered with extinction under a wave of revolutionary Islamism. By leaving the path of pragmatism for that of doctrinaire Islamism, Turkey is likely to lose the success it enjoyed for so many decades.

There is not one regime in a Muslim-majority country that should feel confident about its future; not one such state whose continued existence can be taken for granted.

In contrast, there are only two ways Israel might perhaps disappear. First, it might happen if Arabs and Muslims dropped radicalism, ideology, and bickering to concentrate on technological and economic progress for 50 years, only then turning on Israel. That would require, for example, the Palestinians quickly dropping all of their rejectionism and demands to make a compromise agreement with Israel that they had no intention of keeping.

Yet quite the opposite is happening now. It is radicalism, not pragmatic development strategies that is in control. Besides, the problem is that a focus on material development and moderate democracy would erode Arab and Muslim tempers to the point that they would no longer want to engage in such a foolish and futile life-and-death struggle, which is why the Islamists reject that approach.

The other way Israel might be wiped off the map is if its leaders heeded the advice they are getting from the West. That’s the irony of the situation. Those stubborn, stiff-necked people are not going to doom themselves by implementing the mistaken ideas told to them by Western media, experts, intellectuals, and governments who claim such policies are the road to safety.

Part of the problem here is that all too many Western intellectuals no longer believe in fighting—or even sacrificing--for your country; patriotic pride or nationalism or religion; or even the nation-state itself. Consequently, while many Arabs and Muslims don’t believe Israel can exist because of contempt for Jews and belief in the superiority of their nations and religion, many Westerners now believe in the wickedness of their countries and religion and the unviability of the national model.

In thinking about Israel, both these opposite arguments amount to the same thing. Yet they tell more about those having these ideas than about Israel.

When a European cabinet minister says his country has no distinct culture and another urges the locals to be nice to Muslims so they will reciprocate after they take over; when a European country’s counterintelligence chief .tells me his country has no future, and a quartet of professors from another remark to me over cocktails that they believe their country is finished, is it Israel that is in danger of collapse?

Who’s really facing the abyss? That doesn’t mean destruction will come to Europe’s existing states and societies but it does mean they are more likely to go than Israel is. You want to talk about demographic threats? In Europe, the majority is often having children at half the rate needed for mere replacement of the existing native population.

Yet all of this also shows why Israel is the key to understanding today’s world. Israel’s survival shows that democratic societies can fight and defeat dictators and totalitarian ideologies, Western religions do have a continuing place in Western societies and nation-states are still a viable—perhaps the most viable—way to organize many political structures.

That’s precisely why so many are working so hard to demonize and discredit Israel. If people in the West understand what Israel is and what it is doing, they will comprehend the value of those approaches and values. And if they understand how Israel is lied about and mistreated they will comprehend much wider problems with the people, ideas, and institutions governing their own lives today.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, will be published by Yale University Press in January. Latest books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com  

73 Years Ago Today Arabs Massacred 21 Jews in Tiberias, The British Reacted With Appeasement

Three Victims of the Massacre -Deborah,Rebecca and Haya Mizrahi

Tiberias is one of my favorite cities in Israel. It was the home of many Great Rabbis who lived in or were buried in there. The Sanhedrin, the famous Jewish court, fled from Jerusalem during the Great Jewish Revolt against the Roman Empire, and after several moves eventually settled in Tiberias. Many scholars believe that the Mishna and the Jerusalem Talmud was compiled in by  Rabbi Judah haNasi in Tiberias.

One part of Tiberias history occurred 73 years ago today. On October 2 1938, an organized groups of Arab attackers massacred 21 Jews three of the victims were women and ten were kids younger than twelve.  The victims were stabbed shot and burned.

The New York Times described the brutal rampage:

Not since the riots of 1929, when Arabs fell on Jewish men, most of whom were rabbinical students, as well as women and children, in the ancient towns of Hebron and Safed, has there been in Palestine such a slaughter as the attack of last night. The main synagogue of the town was destroyed by fire, and the district offices, the police station and the British police billet were fired on.

The attack apparently was well organized, since the Arab gang, before descending on Tiberias, cut all telephone communications. Coming in two parties from opposite directions at a given signal, which was a whistle blown from the hills surrounding the town, the firing began simultaneously in all quarters...

...The bandits rushed to the central synagogue and, finding there a beadle named Jacob Zaltz, killed him and then set the building afire...

...the Arabs broke in and stabbed and burned to death Mr. Kabin [an elderly American Jew who had recently come to Palestine] and his sister...

From there the bandits went on to the house of Joshua Ben Arieh, where they stabbed and burned to death Joshua, his wife and one son, and then shot dead his infant son. In the same house three children of Shlomo Leimer, aged 8, 10, and 12, were stabbed and burned to death. Proceeding farther, the Arabs broke into the house of Shimon Mizrahi, where they killed his wife and five children, ranging in ages from 1 to 12 years, and then set fire to the house.... [New York Times, Oct. 4, 1938]

Three weeks later (Oct. 27th) Tiberian Arabs murdered the Jewish mayor, Isaac Zaki Alhadif.


The Tiberias massacre was part of three years of terrorism conducted by the Arabs living in or near the holy land.  There was no Israel, no disputed territories, just some communities of Jews, many of which housed people who had been living in the land for generations. Rather than put down the violence, the British Government decided to appease the terrorists with a British White Paper limiting Jewish immigration into Palestine just as Hitler was beginning his final solution. As a result, the British Government sentenced many Jews to death at the hands of the Nazis.  The attitude of the British and indeed most of the western world toward Arab terror hasn't changed in the intervening 73 years, it is still all about sacrificing Jewish blood to appease the Arabs involved in terror.

May the memories of those slain in Tiberias 73 years ago always be for a blessing.

Another Survey Shows Obama's Deteriorating Jewish Support (and Its not Just Because Of Israel)

Another opinion poll was released reporting s a deterioration of Barack Obama's support in the Jewish Community.  What makes this set of results surprising is the poll was conducted by the American Jewish Committee, a group who's leanings are so liberal,  it chastises more conservative Jewish organizations that criticize Obama's Israel policy. Another surprise in the survey (at lease for those unfamiliar with Jewish voters) is that Israel is just one of the issues driving Jews away from Obama.

For the first time since his inauguration, the annual  AJC poll shows more Jews disapproving of Obama's performance than approving. Approval of Obama’s performance declined to 45 percent, and disapproval rose to 48 percent. Last year's AJC survey reported 51 percent approved, and 44 percent disapproved.

Key areas of  Jewish voter disapproval are the economy (duh), and immigration. Foreign policy is a wash and most Jews approve of  the President's performance with National Security and Energy.As expected, the President's Israel Policy meets with disapproval.

Note: the only people who believe that Jews approve of his policy are members of the Democratic caucuses in either house of Congress, people who work for the DNC, or Obama reelection campaign or members of the National Jewish Democratic Council. Of course the NJDC wouldn't criticize Obama even if he woke up one day and (God forbid) decided to bomb Tel Aviv.

 It would be hard for those folks to deny the objection to Obama and Israel now as the results aren't even close.Do you approve or disapprove of the Obama Administration's handling of U.S. -Israel relations?

Interestingly the Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu, not a favorite amongst the liberal Jewish Community in the US has a better approval story than Obama.Do you approve or disapprove of the Netanyahu government's handling of Israel-U.S. relations?The poll also asks how they would vote in an Obama election against:

• Romney (Obama 50%, Romney 32%, Neither 16%)

• Perry  (Obama 55%, Perry 25%, Neither 18%)

• Bachmann (Obama 59%, Bachmann 19%, Neither 21%)

A few things to point out, Obama beats each of the above, but in each case his percent of the vote is lower than his 2008 total. Based on the poll Obama's 2012 performance with Jews  depends on who the Republicans put up. It is very early, and actual Jewish support for each of these GOP candidates could be much higher or much lower because Jewish Democrats are not  familiar with the GOP candidates (except for what the mainstream media slanders about them).

In the end this study doesn't show that Obama will lose the Jewish vote in 2012, nor should it.  I would be very surprised if  Obama lost the Jewish vote in 2012. What it does show is the GOP has an opportunity to steal enough  Jewish votes to make a difference in some key states.  The large "none of the above" numbers reflect the possibility that Jewish voters may become so frustrated with the choice of candidates that a big segment of them may stay home. This hurts the Democrats.  Based on historic trends 70-80% of those Jews who stay home will be votes lost to the Democratic candidate.And most important IMHO, is that it kills the argument of many  unfamiliar with Jewish voters.  Israel  is not the only issue that shapes their election picks.

The American Jewish Committee's Motto "Shhh Don't Upset the Goyim"

The American Jewish Committee should have a mission statement saying that whenever and where ever Jews are in trouble, they will act by putting its head in the sand and pray that the non-Jews don't hurt them. They did it during the Holocaust, they did it during the first twenty years of Israel's existence and they did it again yesterday with this press release:

AJC criticized a full-page ad, headlined "Tell President Obama: Enough. It's time to stand with Israel," in today's New York Times. The ad was sponsored by a group called Emergency Committee for Israel.

"Let me be absolutely clear, AJC is a strictly non-partisan advocacy organization," said AJC Executive Director David Harris. "But we cannot be silent. This ad is highly objectionable, indeed counter-productive, to its stated aim of supporting Israel. As the UN session begins and high diplomatic drama is expected, to choose this moment to assail the Obama administration, when it laudably has announced its intention, come what may, to block Palestinian ambitions in the Security Council and work against a Palestinian-initiated resolution in the General Assembly, makes us wonder what are the true goals of the sponsoring group."

 The Ad in question criticizes President Obama's one-sided anti-Israel policies (read the text here)

It is interesting that the AJC chose to interject itself into a "conversation that it wasn't invited into."

Their contention was that they are non political and every Jewish organization should be. It reads like the warning Jews used to make in times of Antisemitism, "Shhhh! Don't upset the Goyim (non-Jews).

In fact that is a phrase the AJC has lived by.

When Jews were dying at the hands of the Nazi' the AJC discouraged open talk of the Holocaust, afraid that if Jews spoke out it would create a backlash lead to heightened anti-Semitism in the U.S. (Cohen, Naomi Wiener. Not Free to Desist: The American Jewish Committee, 1906-1966 (1972), a standard history).

From 1949 to the Six-Day-War in 1967, the AJC described theme selves as "non-Zionist" afraid that support of the Jewish State would create charges of dual loyalty in the United States.

The AJC has never been non-political, they prefer to be non-verbal with their heads in the sand.  Where was the AJC three years ago when, in a blatant political move leaders of major Jewish organizations dis-invited Sarah Palin from a rally. Where was the AJC when President Obama took it upon himself to decide who represented the Jewish people by inviting George Soros' anti Israel group J-street to Presidential meetings while dis-inviting the more conservative Zionist Organization of America.

Israel is at a crucial point in her history, she is surrounded by terrorists who are appeased by most of the world, and her historic friendship with Israel is being thrown into question by a President who because of incompetence or intention is throwing the Jewish state to the woods, and where was the AJC?

I will tell you where they were. The AJC was where it always is when it is time to stick its neck out for the Jewish people, they were in the back whispering "Shhh Don't Upset the Goyim."

Gallup's Analysis of Obama Approval Rating in Jewish Community is Dishonest

A helicopter was flying around above Seattle yesterday when an electrical malfunction disabled all of the aircraft's electronic navigation and communication equipment. Due to the clouds and haze the pilot could not determine his position or course to steer to the airport. The pilot saw a tall building, flew toward it, circled, drew a handwritten sign and held it in the helicopter's window. The sign said "WHERE AM I ?" in large letters. People in the tall building quickly responded to the aircraft, drew a large sign and held it in a building window. Their sign said, "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER." The pilot smiled, waved, looked at his map and determine the course to steer to SEATAC (Seattle/Tacoma) airport and landed safely. After they were on the ground, the co-pilot asked the pilot how the "YOU ARE IN A HELICOPTER" sign helped determine their position. The pilot responded, "I knew that had to be the MICROSOFT building because they gave me a technically correct but completely useless answer."

That story was written about Microsoft, but could have been written about Gallup's recent report on Obama's approval rating in the Jewish community. They provided information that was technically accurate, but totally useless.

The Headline of their story was:

Jewish Support for Obama Down, but Not Disproportionately Current 13-point gap between Jewish and national support is about average

That headline is absolutely true, but its the wrong comparison.

Assuming  the overall Jewish American approval numbers are correct, Jews gave President Barack Obama a 54% job approval rating in September, down from 68% in May,  and drastically below the 83% at the beginning of 2009, but its the comparison to the general population that is disingenuous.

There is little sign that President Obama is suffering disproportionately in support among Jews; 54% approved of his job performance from Aug. 1-Sept. 15, 13 percentage points higher than his overall 41% approval rating during that time, and similar to the average 14-point gap seen throughout Obama's term.

There's the problem, Jews can't be compared with total US Voters, because they don't vote that way.  Jews are far more liberal-Democratic than the average voter.  According to Gallup US Party affiliation as of May 2011 44% of American voters are Democrats.

The latest Gallup figure I could find for Jewish party affiliation (Sept 2009) shows that American Jews are almost 50% more likely to be Democrats than the average American.

Why is this important? Because Obama's approval rating has not fallen off with Democrats as fast it has for Republicans.  Using numbers from May 2011 and August 2011 Gallup reports the Democrat approval fall off is less the total US figures. Total US fell by 20% while total Democrats fell by fell by 12%

A more reasonable national baseline to compare the Jewish vote to would be 
to create a weighted average figure based on the general population approvals but weighted by the party affiliation of Jewish voters(66% Dem, 27% GOP and 7% independents)

That weighted average comes to 63.7% approval in May and 54.9% in August a drop of  almost 9% or a -13% difference in President Obama's approval rating

At the same time Obama's approval rating amongst Jewish voters dropped from 68% to 54% a drop of 14 percentage points or -16% difference.

Based on this more realistic comparison President Obama's job approval is falling faster than the national average.  While the president enjoyed a higher approval rating this May in the Jewish community than the national average (based on Jewish party affiliation), his approval today is slightly lower than the national average.

That's where Gallup gets it wrong. By comparing the drop in Obama's approval in the Jewish community to that of the overall voter, it does a disservice to it readership and creates a dishonest story.

The old proverb says there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics. Friday's Gallup look at Obama Approval Rating amongst Jewish voters has  proven that proverb to be very true.

The New Democratic Meme Jews Opposing Obama Are Evil, Greedy, and Have Dual Loyalty

by Barry Rubin

I was horrified by reports that the powerful congressman, Henry Waxman, had said that Jews in the ninth New York district voted against President Barack Obama “to protect their wealth.” Could the obsession with backing Obama have led a leading Jewish politician to make such a stereotypical antisemitic remark?

In fact, Waxman’s statement was taken out of context. As usually happens, however, a proper understanding of what someone is saying teaches far more than stereotyping their argument.

Let’s examine Waxman’s statement as quoted in The Hill newspaper:

“I think Jewish voters will be Democratic and be for Obama in 2012, especially if you get a Republican candidate like [Texas] Gov. [Rick] Perry. But there’s no question the Jewish community is much more bipartisan than it has been in previous years. There are Jews who are trending toward the Republican Party, some of it because of their misunderstanding of Obama’s policies in the Middle East, and some of it, quite frankly, for economic reasons. They feel they want to protect their wealth, which is why a lot of well-off voters vote for Republicans.”

Let’s consider this statement. The first part is correct: More Jews are voting against Democrats and will vote against Obama, but the majority will continue to support them. The problem comes in the second part and an accurate reading teaches us several things.

First, the Democratic Party has taken a sharp turn to the left and much of which passes for “liberalism” nowadays is in fact a radicalism that opposes traditional liberal ideas. American liberalism has never been systematically or doctrinally anti-capitalist, much less anti-American.

There is a vast scam going on that represents the current left’s success in doing what the Communist Party tried to do in the 1930s. That’s why many liberal—and especially Jewish—intellectuals have turned against what’s happening now. Even many of those Democrats and Jews in general who vote for radicals-pretending-to-be-liberals do so with deep doubts.

Hey, Mr. Waxman, I’d love to vote Democratic but I can’t because your party and president advocate and implement policies that endanger the United States, destroy the economy, create unemployment, and destabilize the world. They also damage Israel’s security, Middle East stability, the struggle against revolutionary Islamism, and even build anti-Israel views and hatred among many American supporters of your side. If you want my vote, get rid of Obama and change your policies.

Instead, what we’re getting is the manipulation of habit and fearmongering to make Jews–and others–think that conservatives and Republicans as a blend of country club antisemite, Nazi storm trooper, and religious fanatic. The administration and its supporters are doing everything possible to spread hate, fear, and arrogant snobbishness toward fellow Americans.

The reference to Perry is an example. Is the fact that Governor Rick Perry is a pious Christian really some threat to Jews? Definitely not, but how many Jews will believe that? Well, under 50 percent for sure. There is, however, a new paradigm, at least in the United States, in which believing Christians are more friendly to Jews and Israel on the whole than are atheists.

Second, it is absurd to say that Jews “misunderstand” Obama’s Middle East policy. They understand it all too well. I want to stress, however, that the problem is not just U.S .-Israel relations but the wider regional approach taken by the administration that makes Israel’s situation far worse and more dangerous.

Let’s remember that Waxman campaigned hard for Obama by telling Jews that the candidate loved Israel and was no problem for it. Waxman lied; the peace process died, thanks not to Israel but to Obama. Equally, Obama has been soft on or actually favored the forces most inimical to Israel: Egyptian revolutionaries including the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, the Islamist regime in Turkey, and the Syrian government. His policies have helped to block any discussion of Islamist and Islamic antisemitism, the main threat to Jews in the world today.

Thus, while many have overstated the problems Obama’s policies have brought to Israel–for example, military ties are as good as they have ever been; Obama will veto the unilateral Palestinian independence move in the UN–the dangers and damaged arising from Obama’s administration have been gigantic. Incidentally, in three years I don’t think Obama has made a single statement ever that combined support for Israel with blame for its enemies.

Finally, there is the big controversial point. Waxman doesn’t say that Jews are voting based on their wealth but only Jews who vote against Obama and his supporters. This is an old theme: anyone who doesn’t support this administration is doing so because they are greedy while supporters vote for it because they are noble and altruistic.

This mirrors Obama’s own claim that those who vote against him are merely reactionaries, racists, religious fanatics, and gun nuts. When he said that, Obama was speaking to a wealthy crowd of rich people in San Francisco ridiculing the less affluent. In some ways, despite the pejoratives, it was more truthful than what Waxman said, implying that Jews who don’t vote for Democrats are “bitter clingers” to Israel and their wallets.

Of course, this misrepresents points that people like Waxman want to hide.

I would bet that on the whole the income of Jews who will vote for Obama in 2012 is higher than those who will oppose him. A large proportion of those opposing Obama are not affluent but are hurt by his policies. I wouldn’t be surprised that if one only counts white voters, the average income of Obama supporters is higher than that of Obama opponents.

While the most wealthy people are probably disproportionately anti-Obama (though by a smaller margin than many would think), the upper middle class is disproportionately pro-Obama. Among white workers, at least, Obama supporters come from what Marxists used to call the “labor aristocracy,” highly paid union members. The ninth district of New York is a good example. Those voters are not affluent at all.

I cannot prove the above points statistically but there is undeniably a lot of truth in them.

In addition, Obama supporters are also acting “for economic reasons” and “to protect their wealth.” On one hand, there are the beneficiaries of government spending, many of whom don’t pay taxes. Those who work for government and those who benefit from handouts are also voting for their material interest. What do they care if taxes go up and debt becomes dangerous? And what of crony capitalism, in which favored fat-cats get billions in taxpayer money? Bureaucrats of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your entitlement claims.

A useful way of thinking about it is that Americans who vote against Obama are indeed thinking about their wealth. If the depression continues, if the economy collapses, if they cannot find a job or lose their job, if the dollar is reduced in value, if energy and other prices rise due to administration policy, then these people will certainly have less wealth. Since the administration’s policies are so damaging, there are likely to be more people worried about losing their life style or livelihood than those who think the administration will give them “free” (that is, funded by other American) goodies.

Of course, Waxman is still playing with dangerous antisemitic concepts. Similarly, the demonization of Israel by Obama supporters also feeds antisemitism. What is one to make of such common themes as Israel doesn’t want peace, is oppressive and brutal, etc. How far is the distance between that and saying that terrorism against Israeli citizens is justifiable or that Israel should be a pariah?

We haven’t gotten to the point where Waxman is saying that Jews who oppose Obama kidnap little Democrats and use their blood to make matzot but—and, yes, I’m joking—we may see something like this before November 2012.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>    

Obama's National Jewish Support Continues to Erode

Fresh off the big Democratic party loss in NY-9, Gallup has shared its latest national polling data on Jews with Poltico which shows Obama's support in the Jewish community continues to erode.


Obama’s approval rating among Jewish Americans is down to 55 percent - a five point drop from June and a 13 point drop from May which is when he made the demand that Israel use the 1949 Armistice lines as the starting point for negotiations instead of as the goal of negotiations. 

Four out of 10 Jewish Americans currently disapprove of Obama, according to polling data provided to POLITICO by Gallup, which has yet to post the numbers on its website.

This 40 percent disapproval rating is 8 percent higher than the 32 percent disapproval rating among Jewish Americans that was last reported by Gallup in June.

Together, the rise in disapproval and dip in approval ratings are a net negative 11 point downturn for Obama among Jews.

When the June numbers were released, most pundits felt it was meaningless that Jews would never abandon the Democratic Party not even to the extent they did with Jimmy Carter (who got 45% of the Jewish Vote in 1980).  Last week as attention turned to the Turner-Weprin race the scuttlebutt changed. It seemed as if pundits were now predicting that Jewish voters were going to abandon Obama in droves and the only Jewish votes Obama will get are David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.
.
Truth be told the pundits were wrong in June and are wrong today. Here are the facts:

• It is true that Jewish voters are angry with Obama's anti-Israel policies, but it is not true that Jews base their votes on that one issue.  If that was the case, George Bush would have gotten much more that 24% of the vote when he ran against the weak-on-terror John Kerry in 2004. Bush was probably the most pro-Israel President in US history. 

•  Even when Jewish voters rejected Jimmy Carter, it was not solely because of his stance on Israel. The economy was in the crapper big-time inflation and unemployment were both high.

• A close look at the NY-9 race shows that Israel wasn't the only reason for the switch of the Jewish vote.  It took at least one additional issue on top of Israel for the voters to switch.

When push comes to shove the fate of the Jewish vote in 2012 depends on three things, the economy, Israel and who the GOP offers.  Two of the three (the economy and Obama's anti-Israel policies) will not  improve before election day. The third is left to be seen. A candidate seen as moderate such as a Romney or a Gingrich would probably be the most attractive to the Jewish Vote.

A big segment of the Jewish Vote is ripe for the picking, that doesn't mean they are going anywhere.  Depending on who the Republicans pick, I would suspect that the GOP garners between 35% (what Nixon got in 1972) and 40% of the Jews (what Reagan got in 1980).  Which is a huge gain but not the total abandonment predicted in some circles.

Frankly, the bigger danger for the Democratic Party is the shift to the GOP is accompanied by disillusionment, the Jews stay home.  In that case it not only causes the President to lose votes, but also the candidates down the ticket.

Even if a major segment of liberal Jews stay home ord vote GOP,  the entire Jewish population represents only 2.2% of the U.S. population what kind of impact could they have? (NY-9 is 40% Jewish).  In a close election, a shift of Jewish votes could lose key battleground states for Obama.  States where there is a relatively larger Jewish population such as

Other states with a big Jewish populations New York, Massachusetts and California wouldn't shift from Obama even if he was caught in bed with the proverbial "dead woman or live sheep."  And as a favorite son of Illinois  he can count on that state's electoral votes.  But a  shift of 73 electoral votes, 20% of his 2008 total of 365 will make it much more difficult for President Obama to be reelected.

In summary, 2012 will see a shift in Jewish voting patterns, but not a total abandonment (and not only because of Israel). While a small percentage of total voters, a change in a few key battle ground states  may lead to some blue states moving into the red column and the presidency shifting party's. But to suggest a total shift or an effect in more than a few states (and only if those states are close) is being irresponsible.

What Jews should know about Christians

By Barry Rubin


Most Jews today (or should I merely say many?), even the most secular among them, have a tremendous fear of Christians—especially fervent believers of the type represented today by Evangelicals--and conservatives. There is a material basis for this fear based on past Jewish experience. But it is the year 2011; things have changed; and it is time to reconsider these assumptions and see if they still make sense.

Let me begin by mentioning two specific situations I have witnessed that show the foolishness of this blindness:

• In a particular city a group of Jews organized a march for Israel. Several Christian groups wanted to participate. Since some elements among the Jews disagreed with the Christians on other political issues, they cancelled the march rather than participate alongside pro-Israel Christians.

• In a particular other city, an Israeli speaker was invited to speak by the main pro-Israel Jewish group. He was also invited to speak by a respectable pro-Israel Christian group. The potential speaker was informed that if he spoke for the Christian group the pro-Israel Jewish group would refuse to have him as a speaker .

This kind of behavior is simultaneously shameful and stupid. We are not speaking here of political sophistication but about a mode of thinking equivalent to a fear of catching cooties.

True, in general, for almost 2000 years many Christians and their institutions have often persecuted Jews, either materially or at least had very negative views toward Jews. In this short space I will not attempt to review that history or get beyond generalizations. Readers are able to do that for themselves.

For 200 years, modern conservative and nationalist thought in the West has also often persecuted Jews, in words, attitudes, and actions. A good starting point for that phase is the triumph of German nationalists over Napoleon and the reversal of the French revolution’s grant of rights to Jews in those lands. And of course the culmination was in the Nazi death camps.

It is understandable, then, that Jews supported parties of the liberal and left type where they were welcomed, where modernity was extolled, and where Jews believed they could integrate with the masses and thus defuse grassroots’ antisemitism. That strategy made perfect sense.

With Communism’s betrayal of the Jews, the contemporary tendency for the far left to take over traditional social democratic and liberal institutions, and the left’s romance with Third World (and particularly Palestinian, Arab, and Islamist radicalism), the world has change. The left has largely abandoned Israel as a cause, often become antagonistic, and even evinces antisemitism.

There is still hope for reviving the social democratic and liberal tradition of being pro-Jewish and pro-Israel, but that won’t happen until the infiltration and seizure of intellectual hegemony of the far left is defeated.

Meanwhile, there has also been a change among many Christians (especially those called Evangelicals) and conservatives toward a greater friendship regarding Jews and Israel. A key reason for this shift—and proof of its authenticity—are a set of transformations in the thinking of these groups.

Before discussing the details, though, let me make it clear that Jews do not have to become conservatives or even agree with them—or with Evangelical Christians—on a wide range of issues. What is worthwhile, however, is to accept the offer of friendship on certain specific issues, respectfully disagree on others, and not demonize such people.

As noted above, many conservatives and pious Protestants have changed their view of Jews. Factors that once made for antisemitism have now been reversed. Here is a brief summary:

• Formerly, Jews were seen as subverting Christianity. Now, in an increasingly secular world, Jews (even only slightly religious ones) are seen as fellow believers, allies in preserving religiosity in the face of huge challenges.

• A key element in antisemitism were Christian doctrines defining Jews as the “suffering servant” whose humiliation proved Christianity to be correct and “replacement theology” which says that Jews are no longer a “chosen people” but their role has been replaced by Christians. These ideas have been widely abandoned by Evangelicals. There is a new interest—and gratitude—at the Jewish roots of Christianity and a view of Jews as fellows in a Judeo-Christian religious community.

They are very much aware of Biblical verses that, for example, say that the creator of the universe will not bless those who attack or hate the Jewish people. There is also a real understanding of the history of the Holocaust and past antisemitism along with a desire to make amends. While there are those seeking converts, of course, and some who believe that supporting Jews will bring Armageddon, these are largely outdated concepts

• Conservatives tended to view Jews as cosmopolitan anti-nationalists, leftists, and pacifists. Today, however, the existence of Israel has given a different perspective on this. Jews, in the eyes of most conservatives, have created a model nation-state, a country that is willing and able to fight in its self-defense, where religion is respected as an important element in Jewish peoplehood

• An especially important question has been how conservatives deal with the fact that there are so many Jews on the left, that is, among their political opponents and those who fight against religion in various ways. In the twentieth century especially, this was a huge source of antisemitism and a central element in Nazi doctrine.

Contemporary conservatives have, however, developed a new way of viewing this issue. First, of course, they have observed the left’s growing antagonism against Israel and even against Jews. Most importantly, they view leftist and anti-religious Jews as enemies of their own people. This neatly dispenses with a traditional core issue of antisemitism.

Someone like, say, Noam Chomsky is not seen as part of the Jewish conspiracy against America but as a person who has so broken with his Jewish roots and the interests of his people to be as much against the Jews as he is against his country or conservative values. In a sense, this concept parallels what most Jews—especially the religious and the pro-Israel majority—also think of such people.

In France and Italy, Holland and Spain, the United Kingdom and Scandinavia, conservative parties are more pro-Israel than their counterparts on the left[Jeff note: In the US also] . This has less to do with Israeli or Jewish behavior—whatever claims are made to the contrary—than it does the philosophical and political evolution of politics within those countries.

Let me make this absolutely clear: to cooperate with liberals on supporting Israel one need not be a liberal; to cooperate with conservatives on supporting Israel one need not be a conservative. To cooperate with Christians on supporting Israel one need not be a Christian.

Of course, a distinction must be made between much larger conservative forces and smaller neo-fascist ones. The Le Pen party in France, the British National Party, and other forces continue the historic antisemitism of the right-wing. In the United States, right-wingers like Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul also still hold traditional antisemitic concepts.

Yet the Jewish people have always survived by a willingness to understand the world as it is and to act as necessary without sacrificing core principles. While working to maintain and rebuild relations with real liberal and moderate social democratic forces where possible, Israel and Jews should also shake the extended hand of conservatives and Christians which is so often sincerely offered.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>   

Intellectual Nonsense from the NY Times: Author Knows Zero About Sharia Except That It's No Problem

Jerry [Seinfeld]: “I wanted to talk to you about Dr. Whatley. I have a suspicion that he’s converted to Judaism just for the jokes.”

Priest: “And this offends you as a Jewish person.”
Jerry: “No, it offends me as a comedian.”
–Seinfeld, “The Dentist” episode

The New York Times has run (still another) article about how Sharia law coming to America is nothing to fear. Question: Will the New York Times ever run an op-ed opposing Sharia law in the United States? Twenty years ago I would have said: Of course, any responsible newspaper publishes one piece on each side of an issue. Today, of course, we know there is no chance of balance.

Eliyahu Stern, an assistant professor of religious studies and history at Yale, seems to be an expert on Jewish history. In fact, Stern is so ignorant of the topic on Islam that he states most Muslims in America “don’t even come from the Middle East (the majority have roots in Southeast Asia).” Really? That’s a geographical term usually applied to Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos. Perhaps he meant Pakistan, a well-known locale of moderate Islam? If anyone on the other side said something so obviously ridiculous they would never be taken seriously.

And the fact that the Times editors left in such a glaring factual error shows professional inadequacy and ignorance. But then this is the newspaper that let Tariq Ramadan claim that the Muslim Brotherhood (then headed by his grandfather) was an anti-fascist organization when every serious historian knows that it collaborated with the Nazis in preparing to turn over Egypt to Hitler and massacre the Jews there. (The documentary proof of this is in my book –written with Wolfgang Schwanitz – Nazis, Radical Arabs, and the Making of the Modern Middle East to be published by Yale University Press in 2012.)

Why then is Stern writing that there’s no need to fear Sharia law in America? Well, he apparently has just one argument: once people warned about Jewish law being dangerous, that was wrong, and we all know where that ended up. This is not exactly a brilliant argument for many reasons. The proportion of Jews was far lower than Muslim populations in the West are quickly becoming; Jews do not expect anyone else to observe their law or change behavior; there was never any question of compulsion within the community. Most Jews were not so religious and did not view themselves governed by Jewish law, except perhaps in the matter of very narrow issues regarding marriage and divorce that had no effect on the wider society.

To cite one famous incident that sort of reveals the difference, the baseball player Hank Greenberg became an American Jewish hero for refusing to play in the World Series on Yom Kippur. No Jew would have thought of demanding the World Series be changed to another day. Or, to give another example, Jews would never think of demanding that public facilities install special equipment or rooms for their needs at taxpayer expense, nor insist that work places shut down to permit them to pray, nor that kosher food had to be provided or else, nor that publications better censor themselves or they would face legal action and perhaps violent retribution. If passengers in taxi cabs were regularly bringing pigs into the vehicles–the equivalent of Muslim cabdrivers with guide dogs and even alcohol in some cases–Jewish cabdrivers wouldn’t have refused them service — they would have found another line of employment.

And then there are those little details like Jews not periodically kidnapping and murdering women for their social behavior or coreligionists who wanted to convert to other religions. Jews didn’t demand time off in the work day to pray and sue if it weren’t granted to them. They “knew their place” instead of demanding that others yield to them. Well, over 2000 years of being a dominated people had taught them to keep a low profile and avoid trouble. In contrast, Islam really does have the sense of being a ruling religion before which others must make concessions.

Such points do not reveal some irrational fear or hatred of Islam but are merely well-known facts. I often reflect that the phrase “Politically Correct” should be contrasted to the usual democratic, Enlightenment and Western norm of being Factually Correct. Political Correctness–as opposed to just plain politeness–is an approach that advocates telling lies because that’s really “better” for us all. But that’s not true, even for Muslims themselves who are the most frequent victims of Islamic practices being imposed on them or dominated by intolerant radicals.

It’s like the extensive arguments about why “Islamophobia” exists that never mention anything about terrorist attacks. You know, sort of like the upcoming official commemorations of the tenth anniversary of September 11 that will be careful not to say anything about who did it and why. Would Stern write or the New York Times publish an article about how mosques are the institution most likely to spread antisemitism today, or the prevalent hatred of Jews that comes from even the most sophisticated circles in the Muslim-majority world? Of course not.

The simple truth is that Stern has no valid or serious argument to make on this Sharia issue. He simply felt like writing an op-ed and the Times published it because it said the “right” thing. The Times has no professionally journalistic reason to run this op-ed except that it takes the only side the newspaper deems worthy of airing and may be seen as shoring up its Jewish readership and taking advantage of any repugnance to the Holocaust and antisemitism to sell the issue stance the newspaper wants.

Actually, the real issue is less that the application of Sharia law is far more problematic for Muslims than for society in general. It would greatly restrict the freedom of Muslims and contradict American law on many points. We have already seen precedents in which Sharia law is forced on non-Muslims. But the real victim would be Muslim women who would be forced by parents and community pressure–including threats of violence–to give up rights they possess as American citizens.

The argument that Sharia law is equivalent to letting Jews mediate over a “get” (divorce decree) is pretty ridiculous, but then so are many of the arguments put forward in American public debates nowadays by the establishment. Why did I write this article? Because such nonsense should not go uncriticized. Since the Times won’t provide a balance to its op-eds, someone has to do it.

Oh, and one more thing. “Islamophobia” is not inspired by honest discussion about radical Islamism. The truth is the exact opposite: because the establishment doesn’t make a truthful distinction between revolutionary Islamism and its Muslim victims that many people generalize about all of Islam and all Muslims. The obvious contradiction between the ludicrous insistence that Islam is always a “religion of peace” and no real problems exist causes more suspicion and hatred than any actual balanced account of the civil war among Muslims would have done.

I have no position on the passing of specific legislation by states or what U.S. law should be, but–parallel to Jerry Seinfeld’s stand on the dentist–as an academic, intellectual, and expert on Islam I resent antisemitism being exploited by people who never mention Islamist antisemitism, standards being corrupted by professors saying silly things, and the mass media turning itself into a one-sided propaganda operation.

And if one day, for example, Muslim women are beaten and intimidated into accepting Sharia law mediation in which their rights as human beings and as Americans are trampled, will Professor Stern take responsibility for that?

Da Lid On Da Tech Guy Radio Show

This weekend I had the absolute joy of being a guest on Da Tech Guy show our conversation went from Media Matters attack on the Jews, to the budget debate and even a discussion with a moonbat who decided that tea partiers should take responsibility for the horrible terrorist attack that took place in Oslo a few days earlier If   you would like to listen to the fun, it is embedded below. (if you cannot see the video below click here)




Along with being a great radio host, Pete (Da Tech Guy) has a great blog which should a regular read of yours, it is one of the places I go to regularly.

Why Does Media Matters Hate The Jews And Israel?

I get it! Media Matters for America (MMFA)  is being paid by George Soros and other progressive money-men to make sure the progressive point of view is protected.  That's why they work so hard to fight the few conservative media sources trying to tell the truth about progressive policies. What I don't understand is if they are so busy trying  to take down media sources such as Fox News and Breitbart's "Big" sites, why do they feel the need to spend so much time pushing anti-Semitic stereotypes such as "the Jews control the government and the media" and  creating anti-Israel spin to the latest news?

The really sick part of it is,  along with their campaign against the Jewish people and the Jewish State, MMFA falsely attacks conservatives on Jewish issues in an attempt to brand them as Jew haters. The year-long MMFA campaign trying to falsely label Glenn Beck as an Anti-Semite is well known and readers of The Lid have read of the MMFA trying to brand this blogger as a Jew basher (a charge I didn't hear about until hours later because it was made on the Sabbath), but MMFA has written inflammatory headlines to imply that there is  is a concerted effort by right-wingers to bash Jews. For example they wrote this about Jim Hoft, the Gateway Pundit.

Hoft The Latest Right-Wing Media Figure To Attack American Jews For Supporting Obama

What what the content of Jim's horrible attack on American Jews? It was a comment on a recent Gallup poll, which said that Jews were sticking with Obama:

Sad.
The destruction of Israel is at hand and Jewish Americans still march blindly behind Obama.

 That's all! Beyond that reader's of Jim's blog (as I am) will report that Gateway Pundit is strongly pro-Israel and regularly "has the back" of American Jews.

The truth is if you really want to see attacks on Israel and American Jews become a regular reader of MMFA. Here are just a few examples:

• 6/14/10 Media Matter's Senior Policy Fellow MJ Rosenberg created a piece for Huffington Post claiming that Helen Thomas'  was not being anti-Semitic when she told Israeli Jews to go back to Russia and Poland. I wonder what he thinks about Thomas' claim
  

  "We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.

• 7/12/10 An  article written by Lara Friedman, of Americans for Peace Now, and Isaac Luria from J Street (both groups regularly demonize Israel) we learned that the years of Hamas rocket attacks against civilian towns in the Negev were Israel's fault (because the left Gaza),  Israel should negotiate with HAMAS, and Israel doesn't need to be recognized as the Jewish state (a key for  peace).

• 8/16/10 Criticized Fox News for having Bill Kristol on the air. Kristol's offense was forming a pro-Israel PAC.  Funny thing is, you never heard them complain about MSNBC having Al Sharpton on as a regular.  Sharpton incited two anti-Semitic pogroms in NY which lead to a total of nine deaths. If MMFA truly cared about conflict of interest, why wouldn't they write about President Obama receiving foreign policy advice from Samantha Power who has called for a US invasion of Israel.

• 1/28/11 Promoted the anti-Semitic meme that Jews control foreign policy. Senior Fellow MJ Rosenberg demonstrated why he defended Helen Thomas as not being anti-Semitic...he  echoed some of her claims. Using the term Israel Lobby  (its more PC than "Those Dammed Jews) MMFA claimed it was that foreign policy controlling lobby that caused the Egyptian uprising.
  

  If one needs additional proof that the "pro-Israel" lobby and the policies it dictates to US policymakers are bad for both the U.S. and Israel, look no further than what is happening in Egypt.
  
  
  The regime that the Israeli government and its U.S. lobby have depended upon to enforce the status quo is going down. It is not clear when, but it's going to be soon, much sooner than anyone ever anticipated. And you can be sure that any democratic government that takes Mubarak's place is not going to play the role of America's (let alone Israel's) enforcer in the Middle East.

  And later in the same article the MMFA writer implies the Jews control the media:
  

  I am often accused of harping on the lobby's baleful influence. I plead guilty. But it's my obligation because (1) I know from personal experience — 15 years on Capitol Hill and four at AIPAC — how it operates, (2) I know how little it really cares about Israel, and (3) I am free to tell the truth about it. If I worked in the mainstream media or in the U.S. government, I wouldn't be.

• 2/15/11 and 2/17/11 Promoted falsehood that the Muslim Brotherhood does not want to attack Israel.  Forget for a moment that the terrorist organization Hamas was created by the Muslim Brotherhood, since the Egyptian uprisings started there has been many examples of different Muslim Brotherhood figures attacking Israel. For example On Russian television, one Brotherhood leader, Rashad al-Bayoumi,  said that when they came to power they will abolish the treaty altogether. Another, former spokesman Doctor Kamel Helbaoui, explained how they might get out of it. 

• 5/11/11 Senior Fellow MJ with anti-Israel propaganda again.  He says it doesn't matter if Hamas recognizes Israel as long as Hamas recognizes the 1949 Armistice lines.But why does it matter whether Hamas recognizes Israel or not, so long as it agrees to permanently end terror attacks against Israel? Who needs its recognition?  Per his usual style of half truths, MJ omits the fact that Hamas continues to promise the destruction of the "Zionist entity." In other words they are cool with a State called Israel, as long as it is a Muslim State Of Israel.

• 5/20/11 MMFA's Rosenberg promotes the anti-Semitic meme of a "Dual Loyalty" of American Jews, calling critics of Obama's May 2011 Middle-East Address "Israeli-Firsters."
  

  But he failed. Arabs saw the speech as a bunch of empty words. And the Israeli firsters went ballistic. Why? Because of one paragraph.
  
  
  The president said: 

  The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their full potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

While I disagree with the official MMFA interpretation of Obama's speech, they have every right to have their opinion.  What is disgusting is their challenge to the patriotism of the Jews who disagree with Barack Obama's Middle East policy.

MMFA is quick to bash anybody who uses a Hitler reference (except for George Soros), and I am not by any means saying they are a bunch of Nazis, but they do use a lot of the same themes.  MMFA claims the Jews control the Media and American foreign policy, in Mein Kampf, Hitler introduced to Nazi ideology "the idea of the Jews as an evil race struggling for world domination."

The MMFA charges that American Jews who criticize Obama are "Israeli-firsters." Hitler said:

The struggle for world domination will be fought entirely between us, between Germans and Jews.....Even when we have driven the Jew out of Germany, he remains our world enemy  (Rauschning,Hitler Speaks,p. 234)

Understand, there is no claim here that MMFA has any intention of promoting another Holocaust against the Jewish people. What the argument is that the progressive organization will do and say anything to protect President Obama.  In many cases the lack of a factual argument forces their writers to rely on old stereo-types to sell their point.

It is easy for MMFA to claim that the statements provided above as evidence  were not anti-Semitic, after all its Sugar Daddy George Soros is a Jewish Holocaust survivor and all of the MMFA writers mentioned are at least Jewish-born and I assume still Jewish. That of course is an easy out, "some of their best friends...."

One example maybe, but there's lots more examples of MMFA use of anti-Semitic themes and the twisting of facts about Israel.  I would not claim to know if the Soros-funded group is anti-Semitic, its impossible to look into their hearts, but the constant attacks on American Jews made in its name,  it is clear that MMFA leadership must know about and endorse those attacks.  They are just too numerous to ignore.







gg

Washington Post Fact Checker, Gets His Facts About Israel and the GOP All Wrong

The 2012 Election is still sixteen months away, but the discussions about whether President Obama will be able to retain the same large portion of the Jewish vote as he did in 2008 remains a hot topic for the third straight week. Today the article comes from the Washington Post, whose fact checker Glenn Kessler wrote a piece today about Jews and the Presidential vote which contained major factual mistakes.  These mistakes are designed to call into question the motivation of Republican candidates who support Israel as well as the American Jews who oppose the President's Middle East policy.

The article, "Obama and Israel: stalled diplomacy or ‘suspicion and distrust’?" begins with quotations from GOP presidential candidates Romney, Pawlenty and Bachmann, all criticizing Obama's policy toward Israel.

The latest Gallup poll shows that President Obama has 60 percent approval rating among Jewish Americans. Jews generally are a reliable vote for Democrats, and in the 2008 election, exit polls show Obama received 78 percent of the Jewish vote. That gap has sent GOP hearts aflutter, though the polling should be viewed with caution; 60 percent approval is still 14 percent higher than the president’s overall approval rating.

Still, GOP candidates for president sense an opening. A line attacking Obama and his policies on Israel is now a standard part of their stump speeches. The question is whether these attacks are fair or accurate?

Kessler has a logic flaw here.  He is correct in saying that Jews are generally a reliable vote democrats (according to Gallup 66% of Jews are Democrats), since that is the case, why would he compare it to the total population of which only 45% of which are Democrats. Obama's support from Democrats is much more stable than that of independent and GOP voters. If the Jewish support of Obama is compared to a re-weighted general population approval (66% Democrat) we find that Obama is losing Jewish support much faster than the general population (the full explanation and analysis can be found here).

Should Obama receive only 60% of the Jewish vote in 2012 (which is unlikely), it would be the lowest Democratic total since Jimmy Carter in 1980).

I would also take issue with Kessler's contention that these candidates are attacking Obama on Israel because they see an opening.  While my knowledge of Governor Pawlenty's Israel history is weak, the other two candidate's history of supporting Israel is very strong.  Michele Bachmann spent time living in Israel on a kibbutz, and Romney made similar strong statements regarding Israel during the 2008 campaign, before Obama was even nominated.  Maybe he can't comprehend the fact that Israel is not just a "Jewish issue." Some politicians even support Israel because it is the right thing to do for America. Granted it is a foreign concept for a progressive newspaper such as the Washington Post, but it does happen.

For example, regarding the scheduled peace conference at Annapolis between Israelis and Palestinians, Romney's statement was

“How could you possibly have a peace conference at this stage?” he asked. “Who would you talk to?” (Republican Jewish Coalition forum of GOP presidential candidates, JTA, October 16, 2007)

Kessler goes on the make the GOP criticism of Obama a bigger deal than the candidates have made it:

We would be foolish to venture an opinion on each side’s collection of historical facts because, seriously, it is a no-win situation. But Obama’s treatment of Israel has become such a key part of the GOP arsenal that it is worth exploring the president’s performance.

 While it is always relevant to evaluate a president's performance during a reelection campaign, his characterization of Obama's treatment of Israel becoming a key part of the GOP arsenal belies the truth. If he were following the same campaign as the rest of us, Mr. Kessler would understand that the "key part of the GOP arsenal" is the economy, number two, three, and for are the economy, the economy and the economy.

 Obama, perhaps because of his name and his background, found his views on Israel under scrutiny even during the last election. He didn’t help matters then by making observations that antagonized some of Israel’s more loyal supporters: “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”(Ironically, once he became president, Obama ended up with a Likud prime minister with whom he has had a testy relationship.)

Kessler is claiming that the people who questioned Obama on Israel during the 2008 campaign, did so out of racism. A few days before the 2008 election, I posted An Election Plea To Those Who Love Israel  which summarized the reason Israel supporters might not want to support the future President. Neither his name (which translates to blessed in Hebrew) nor his upbringing was given as examples. The evidence provided included a look at his foreign policy advisers who were extremely anti-Israel and his stated positions on Israel-related issues from appeasing terrorists, to Iran, to Jerusalem, settlements etc.. The piece concluded with:

A Barack Obama Presidency would return US/Israel relations back to the days of James Baker's "They have my number they can call me." A US trying to impose a dangerous one-sided solution on the Jewish State.

A look at the last two years has proved my prognostication correct.

The Israeli-Palestinian issue is often considered a central test of a president’s diplomatic skills. Former president George W. Bush was criticized for appearing to ignore the issue until the last months of his administration; he was reacting in part to the unsuccessful, last-gasp efforts of Bill Clinton to strike a deal. Obama decided to take on the challenge from day one, appointing a special envoy to prod the parties toward peace. 

Actually this criticism of Bush is unfair. There were many issues with the way George W. Bush ran Middle East policy. But George W. Bush was the first president who considered a terrorist attack in Israel just as bad as one elswhere it the world. He constantly supported Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, and praised her as America’s number one ally in the Middle East. Bush's desire to avoid appeasing terrorists is often seen as inaction by left wing WAPO writers, but fighting Palestinian terror is an action just as President Obama's appeasement of those same terrorists is also an action.

The administration further upped the ante by immediately pressing Israel to suspend settlement construction, believing such a gesture would help bolster Arab support for the peace process. Few people appear to remember this now, but the administration’s pressure tactics initially had the support of congressional Democrats, who ambushed Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu with “harsh and unequivocal statements” about settlements when he visited Washington.

But the pressure backfired. Israel eventually agreed to a partial, temporary freeze, but that was not good enough for emboldened Palestinians. Arab leaders balked at offering incentives to Israel. The administration ended up looking weak. 

Obama's  policy on settlements was not only broke an agreement between the United States and Israel, but it was another example of his naivete regarding foreign policy. What the President and his advisers perceived as a minor concession, a settlement freeze, was not perceived by Israel as a minor one, a major error by the Obama team. When he added Jerusalem to his demands it just compounded the situation. His insistence for a freeze and the constant public berating of the Jewish State turned the Israeli population against Obama, and increased the support of Prime Minister Netanyahu even with the Israeli left, no fans of Bibi.

At the same time the President's demands have gave the Palestinians an excuse to avoid negotiations and the other Arab nations an excuse to avoid making the "gestures" Obama wanted.


An important fact that Kessler omits is that Israel declared a ten month building freeze which the Palestinians ignored for the first nine months. Even as the freeze was about to expire, the Palestinians rejected a deal where Israel would extend the freeze indefinable if they would recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Interestingly while President Obama has demanded Israel use the 1949 armistice lines as a starting point for negotiations, he has never demanded that the Palestinian side recognize Israel as a Jewish state.

Obama and Netanyahu had a major breakdown in relations in early 2010 over a perceived snub of Vice President Biden while he was touring Israel. Despite a lack of agreement on the parameters of talks, late in 2010 Obama then pressed the Israelis and Palestinians into talks that lasted barely two weeks. The administration again looked ineffectual. 

The timing of Israel's building announcement could not have been worse, and the administration was right to be angry. But they overreacted. Not only did the Secretary of State (on Obama's orders) spend almost an hour on the phone reaming out the Prime Minster, but during the next Netanyahu trip to DC, he kept the Israel delegation in a conference room for three hours while he went to a non-existent dinner with his family (Michelle and the girls were in NYC at the time).

In May, Obama again tried to jump start the peace process by saying that peace talks should begin with Israel’s 1967 borders, with swaps of land agreed by both sides. His remark created a firestorm and within days he sought to clarify his statement. In the annals of diplomacy, compared to how other presidents had discussed the issue, we thought his statement was a significant shift. One key reason is that he did not pair it with similar demands on the Palestinians or reiterate language about Israel being able to keep some settlements. But the statement has also been misinterpreted, particularly in light of Obama’s clarification.

It wasn't misinterpreted, what was originally an end point of negotiations, Obama is trying to make the starting point, thus undercutting a key Israel negotiation point. Since his may speech the President has unsuccessfully pressured Israel to rid herself of her negotiation chips. That is a key point.  He is expecting Israel to start by giving up Judea, Samaria and  Jerusalem, and then try to get some of it back through negotiation. Think of it as the US ceding Texas back to Mexico, then trying to come up with an idea that will make them give it back.

Kessler ends his piece with:

So, we will leave this to readers. Having read the history above, what is your conclusion? Is this a matter of good intentions and poor follow-through? Or do Republicans (and some Democrats) have a point?

 Sadly because they haven't been given the real facts, WAPO readers cannot develop a sound conclusion because the world of vote-hungry GOP candidates appealing to racist pro-Israel supporters only exist in the minds of progressives. Kessler's inaccurate detailing of Barack Obama's Israel policy only exists in the minds of the President's supports and is not corroborated by the facts.

Mr. Kessler's "fact-check" of the GOP positions on Israel was actually just another defense of President Obama by a progressive media vehicle and should be treated more like a campaign piece than a "fact check."