Articles

Saturday, February 24, 2007

Democratic Party Israel-Bashing Hits a New Dishonest Low

In another milestone for mainstreaming Israel-bashing, shielded by an incredibly dishonest excuse, we have the following piece from Wonkette. Just parsing the dishonesty requires beginning with the headline.

"John Edwards Expresses Concern Over Israel-Iran War, Loses Nomination"

This is the beginning of Wonkette's sarcastic tantrum. Like the rest of her post, it's completely dishonest. It implies that John Edwards was discussing a conflict between Israel and Iran, when his statement focused on Israel attacking Iran.

It minimizes his statement to "expressing concern." John Edwards did not do something as mild "express concern." He described Israel as the Greatest Threat to World Peace. That is a galaxy away from expressing concern. Describing a country that way suggests you consider it the enemy, or at least the biggest danger at the moment.

"Handsome boy John Edwards blew it by mentioning Israel in a possibly not-100% flattering light at a Hollywood talent agency meet & greet last month."

Of course calling a country the Greatest Threat to World Peace, is a long way from the "not-100% flattering light" Wonkette snidely mentions. Anymore than calling Wonkette the Greatest Idiot in the Blogsphere would be describing her in a not-100% flattering light."

But a typical component of Israel bashing is to claim that dialogue on Israel has been so suppressed that critics are persecuted for the mildest remarks. Then the bashers can argue that any criticism of them is motivated by this vast Jewish conspiracy. What they actually contrive to do, is do to their critics, what they claim their critics are trying to do to them, illegitimately stifle criticism.

This strawman is propped up by absurd posts like Wonkette's.

"But stating anything so obvious requires taking your lips off Israel’s ass for a few seconds, and that’s fatal for any American politician with presidential ambitions."

And so we've already switched over into portraying every politician as a slave of Israel. Especially Presidents. Of course we were already there in the previous paragraph. And once Senator Edwards' remarks are minimized as failing to kowtow to Israel, anyone who objects to them clearly wants every politician to kowtow to Israel. This is the kind of rhetoric you expect from David Duke or Paul Findley, or the extreme right or extreme left. But these days it's becoming mainstreamed in the Democratic party.

The dishonesty of this strawman isn't original, but it's the next paragraph where Wonkette really achieves a new plateau of dishonesty. Since she's just laid out a classic bit that leads up to the Jews controlling Washington, that sort of thing might be a turnoff to the remaining Jews in the Democratic Party who still haven't realized that the party these days, is filled with people who think like Wonkette does.

"This isn’t because Jews get upset or Israel’s feelings will get hurt or anything. It’s because of bats__t insane evangelical American Jesus Freaks who have to love and protect Israel so Jesus will come back and destroy it."

See how this justification works now. Wonkette can't possibly be engaging in a little Anti-semitic tirade about the ZOG, since she's now declaring that Israel and the Jews won't possibly be troubled by a Presidential candidate declaring Israel to be the Greatest Threat to World Peace. It's only the Christians who will object.

Israel-bashers have been using Christians for a while now to prop up their claim that they're not Anti-Jewish, just Anti-Zionist, which includes Christian Zionists. Wonkette, trying to continue playing to a liberal Democrat base, goes one step further by eliminating the Jews from the equation altogether.

Now the only victims of Israel-bashing will somehow be the Christians who don't actually live there, and not the people who do. The bizarrely convoluted nature of this position comes from a Democratic party unwilling to sink into open Israel-bashing just yet, no matter how much it may be simmering under the surface. That requires dishonest excuses like this one.

The question of whether Jewish liberals will be willing to grab onto that pretext will be decided by the measure of their desperation and their unwillingness to break ties with their old comrades. That kind of desperation can breed a denial that will even encompass a justification as baldly false as Wonkette's.

No one can be free, unless they choose it. And no one who chooses to be a slave, can ever be free.

29 comments:

Keli Ata said...

Sultan, this is all so sad. Reading through the lines and on the surface, I get the feeling they'd just like Israel to committ mass suicide so they're no longer a "threat to world peace."

That is what the world is asking Israel to do, to disappear, as if that would somehow improve the middle east and world when the converse is true.

A world without Israel? The dark Middle East without the light of Israel? How horribly dark the world would be. I sometimes wonder if the reason Hashem chose Canaan because He knew how dark the surrounding nations would become.

Can you imagine how beautiful the middle east could be if only arabs truly sought and made peace with Israel; if only they decided in good faith to 'come let us reason together'? How much of its heart Israel would extend to them if they were truly desire peace with Israel and work towards it in good faith?

And why can't liberal Jews and liberals in general do something productive such as fighting genuine arab aggression, and while they're at it protest the corruption in Israel government?

Then again...maybe they are silent on the matter for a reason. They don't care about Israel's survival or futute. They really don't care.

Sad. Very sad.
I know...most of what I ask is rhetorical and cannot be answered.

Thank you again for letting me express myself here.

Shalom uvracha

Keli Ata said...

Did my comment go through?

neo-Zionoid said...

To be fair, Edwards didn't say Israel was the greatest threat.

He said any attack that Israel makes on Iran. Presumably because it would result in Iranian blowback.

Personally, I think that his statement was ludicrous, because he is focusing on a country's defense (Israel) rather than on the aggressor (Iran).

But be aware it is not 100% accurate to claim Edwards said Israel is the greatest threat.

Sultan Knish said...

he said the greatest short-term threat to world peace comes from an israeli action

that puts the burden of the greatest threat on israel and makes israel the greatest threat

it's possible to debate endlessly what, if anything else, he really meant to say but the bare bones of it come down to that

Sultan Knish said...

k.a.

they pretty much do, we're seeing more and more 'the world would be better if israel had never existed'

it's not clear how it would be better, except the arabs and islam wouldn't be upset and homicidal anymore

apparently a thousand years of homicidal arab\muslim expansionism, was all motivated by israel

Sultan Knish said...

and you are of course always welcome to speak out and express yourself here

Keli Ata said...

Thank you very much :)

A couple of days ago I read an article on A7 that depressed me. The title alone was enough to do it:

"World-Wide Blitz against Israel"

That seemed to convey what is happening to Israel. The word blitz was loaded with imagery.

The article read, in part,

"A U.N. report accuses Israel of apartheid and terrorism. Media blame Israel for PA woes. Arab states slam Temple Mount work as anti-Muslim..."

Over the weekend I was reading Tehillim 55. One of the verses really stood out and reminded me of two-faced people like Edwards but more importantly the arab muslims that are cozying up to anti-Israeli liberals.

55:21:

"The words of his mouoth were smoother than butter, but war was in his heart; his words were softer than oil, yet were they drawn swords."


And for the good, decent people of the world who see the truth and love Hashem:

"As for me, I will call upon G-d; and the Lord shall save me. Evening, and morning, and at noon will I pray, and cry aloud; and He shall hear my voice."

An emotional weekend for a number of reasons. Keep that in mind if you watch the video I posted.

neo-Zionoid said...

Sultan,

I agree with you that John Edwards put the burden on Israel, and that is why I think it was ludicrous.

And I agree it leaves Edwards open to people drawing valid conclusions like you did.

However, I don't think Edwards was Israel-bashing or is an Israel-basher.

I reserve that description for people like Jimmy Carter who do more than use a single comment but write an entire book that is a targeted attack on Israel.

Like the movie Spinal Tap, if you always go to 10, then you have nowhere else to go. (Unless you have 11 on your dial).

I'd put Ahmadinejad at 10, Carter at 5, but Edwards at about 1 or 2.

Yobeeone said...

It all makes about as much sense as someone saying the greatest threat to Europe was to attack hitler. I'm sure some said it, since there's nothing new under the sun.

Thankfully it's hard to grasp why some people are such cowards they'd prefer to let the terrorists of the world rule rather than value freedom and independence. If I understood why, I'd really worry about myself. LOL

Anonymous said...

I bet edwards has more love for israel than that witch condi rice.

Keli Ata said...

It's hard to tell which politician or christian zionist or anyone professing love for Israel really loves the nation and its people. How do any of them show their love? By making false and ridiculous attempts at peace that only end in Israeli Jews being killed, injured or forced out of their homes? Or tricking them into converting to christianity?

A lot of politicians and religious leaders claim they love Israel. But their words and actions don't really show it.

Regarding Edwards and his highly inflammatory statement about Israel being the greatest threat to world peace--that's more than enough ammunition for wacko neo nazi types. I'd bet anything if you did a search of Edwards' quote and the words neo-nazi you'd get many neo-nazi, anti semitic websites.

Edwards is trying to sit on both sides of the fence, no doubt. But in pandering to liberals who don't have Israel's best interests at heart, he could also be fanning the flames of anti-semitism.

And for John Q public sitting in a trailor park drinking a six-pack, it's enough for him to tell his buddies "See? it's all Israel's fault."

Lemon Lime Moon said...

Politicians have love for neither the USA or Israel.
Their primary love is money and most of them are on the dole from special interests who guide their decisions and love of the moment.
Europe is home to Esav, so wondering why they don't like Israel is just being silly.

I believe in this times a clear distinction is being made between Esav(evil) and Israel(good).

Sultan Knish said...

you never know what a politician really thinks, until he's often well out of office or hits senility or a tape recording comes out after his death

I doubt Edwards has any strong passionate feelings against Israel like Carter does, so he doesn't go to 11

but he did engage in the kind of convenient Israel bashing that has long since become the norm in Europe and is creeping through the Democratic party, which is my point

Sultan Knish said...

k.a.

with politicians or anyone else, words usually mean little and actions are what really count

anyone can give glib speeches, but it's what they actually do in office that defines them or out of office or in their daily life

AHa said...

exactly, which is why thus far, the candidate with the best actions in support of Israel happens to be none other than hillary clinton

Sultan Knish said...

it would be a stretch to argue that Hillary has a track record of action on Israel

She's never held executive office and she's the Senator from New York, a state with a huge Jewish population she has to win over

Just like John Kerry's 98 percent AIPAC record, it doesn't mean very much

Being pro-israel is cheap and easy for Congressmen and Senators in Jewish areas, it means voting for and sponsoring the occasional bill, most of them having little to no impact on actual policy

once they get to the presidency, that's when you begin to see dramatic changes, as they begin answering to a whole other international electorate and begin seeing Israel as an easy sacrifice to make

Keli Ata said...

True Sultan. Still, words can be an indicator.

Regarding Hillary...call it gut instinct but given the support she and Bill have received in Hollywood in the past I just don't see her being very pro-Israel (at least once she became president).

Sultan Knish said...

yes .k.a. they can be an indicator, just sometimes takes reading between the lines and seeing what they say in more private settings or unguarded moments

especially with politicians

Anonymous said...

Hey, it just isn't cool to be pro-Jew anymore.

Sultan Knish said...

it was never cool

doing the right thing never is

aha said...

except that she doesnt need the votes of the pro israel jews in parts of new york in order to win. in addition to her perfect pro israel record in the senate she has a record of action and initiative. as a senator and as a first lady. surely she has done more for israel than edwards, obama, giuliani, romney, etc.
Surely she has had a much greater positivie impact for israel than bush before and during his time as president.
and now he and rice are pressuring israel to do things they dont want to do?

Sultan Knish said...

Hillary certainly needs Jewish votes, especially in key Democratic battleground states

she has no meaningful record on Israel, certainly not compared to Bush who actually took pro-israel actions, how much actual impact has Hillary had?

And the pressures the Bush administration has put on Israel, pale before the pressures that Clinton put on Israel

aha said...

"she has no meaningful record on Israel, certainly not compared to Bush who actually took pro-israel actions, how much actual impact has Hillary had?"

NO significant record??? are you that oblivious? look it up, it is all there for the world to see.
Unlike bush who had no record at all, and still doesnt with his stupid roadmap. you really nkow nothing about american politics at all, and are a hopelessly one sided partisan who refuses to acknowlege the truth.
Look it , its all ther in black and white.

Sultan Knish said...

hillary's record is purely legislative, not executive

voting pro-israel for a new york senator is a no brainer, show me one who hasn't

and last I checked hillary is pushing "engagement" with Iran. Sure that should work great. will she be getting engaged to mahmood personally?

aha said...

Actually it is much more than just votes. she has taken active initiative on many issues. take a look at the palestinian media watch and see who the most vociferous active advocate is.

Anyway, how is pushing talks with iran bad? the idea is essentially talk first before dropping a bomb on them. what about the 25,000 jews still in iran?

FYI, prominent Republican Chuck Hagel jsut addressed the Jewish Council of Publica Affairs convention in washington and he too is puring engagement with Iran.

but i guess it is only bad when democrats like edwards and hillary suggest the same thing.

Sultan Knish said...

she's talked a lot yes, but what bottom line real world results has she actually achieved?

the 25,000 jews in iran, what about the millions of jews in irael and new york?

holding talks buys iran time to develop and deploy nuclear weapons, at which point the price for stopping it will be horrific

iran is the biggest terrorist state in the world and it wants one thing and one thing only, and that's nuclear weapons to use against israel

that point has been made over and over again by the iranian regime, which annually spends a major chunk of its budget on terrorism against israel, which has carried out attacks against jews in argentina and abroad and is running conferences on a world without israel, or holocaust themes

candidates pushing engagement with iran, are pushing breathing room for iran to arm itself and then use those weapons

it's the chamberlain\Czechoslovakia scenario

as for Hagel, any politician who says that goes in the same category, but Hagel isn't a front runner for the Presidency, Hillary is.

Sultan Knish said...

and as for republicans, you'll note how critical I am of the Bush administration for lying down on the iran issue and pressuring israel

aha said...

but everyone said "bush would never pressure israel" despite the idea that he would appoint an idiot like rice to be secretary of state.

of course she (hillary) talked, thats her job. she has taken this specific issue of palestinian indoctrination head on for years and he received tons of flack from arabists and peacniks, but she believes in right and wrong and wont back down when she sees even now new palestinian textbooks that teach kids hate for israel and america.

Talking to iran first might not be such a bad idea in liue of just dropping osmething on them, creating massive chaos and whos knows what kind of deaths. Right now ahmedinejad is all talk. There was something called the cold war which lasted a long time, because it was all just words and inaction.

The premise of your thread is just wrong. The democratic party does not hate israel. If anything they are better for israel than the entire bush administration. to imply that they are all bad is just silly.

Sultan Knish said...

I never said Bush would never pressure Israel. Every US president has pressured Israel. Some have been worse than others. Clinton was far worse than Bush, outrageously lying, deceiving, protecting Arafat and openly interfering in an Israeli election.

As bad as Condoleeza Rice is, there's no comparison to a genuine nightmare like Madeline Albright, or heaven help us, Richard Holbrook , who was due to be Gore's pick.

Unsurprisingly then I put very little stock in Hillary talking. Bill also talked a lot and he talked well about Israel, but in reality he was nearly up there with Carter.

Bottom line, you can't point to anything Hillary has actually accomplished for Israel, on the ground. And I can point to a dozen Republican Senators who have done more... even with barely any Jews in their states.


Talking to Iran? Again, the only thing Iran is doing is playing a delaying game, while they continue advancing toward a nuclear bomb. Talking to them buys them more time to surprise us with a bomb, and if you think we'll know for sure what their timeline is, consider how India and Pakistan surprised us with their nuclear capability.

Ahmedinejad is all talk? Did you notice the little war we had recently in Lebanon? That was his doing and thousands are dead on both sides, Israeli towns and cities were hit.

Iran continues to develop advanced missile technology and the latest Shahab has enough range that he won't have to rely on Hizbullah to do his dirty work for him.

There was something called the cold war which lasted a long time, because it was all just words and inaction.

You'd have to remind the people of Hungary of that. Also Czechoslovakia. And Afghanistan. And Israel, since the Six Day War and Yom Kippur War, were also proxy wars.

Post a Comment