Israel’s Vitality and Vulnerability. By Peter Berkowitz.

Israel’s Vitality and Vulnerability. By Peter Berkowitz. Real Clear Books, November 18, 2013.

Berkowitz:

An engaged citizenry is demanding that government ease the harshness of economic privatization and deal with sclerotic remnants of the original socialist economy. The left has not adequately reckoned with the collapse of the 1993 Oslo peace accords, failing to see that its critique of Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, no matter how morally sensitive, does not imply that the Palestinians are willing or able to make peace.

Israeli Hospital Treats the Granddaughter of the Hamas Prime Minister. By Khaled Abu Toameh.

Israeli hospital treats Hamas PM Haniyeh’s granddaughter. By Khaled Abu Toameh. Jerusalem Post, November 19, 2013.

Hamas Prime Minister’s Granddaughter Treated in Israel. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 19, 2013.

Israel’s Policy of Erasure. By Saree Makdisi.

Israel’s policy of erasure. By Saree Makdisi. Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2013.

Millennials Lacking Interpersonal Skills, Street Smarts to Get a Job?

Millennials lacking interpersonal skills,street smarts to get a job? Video. Money with Melissa Francis. Fox Business, November 18, 2013.

Martin Bashir’s Crude Attack on Sarah Palin.

Martin Bashir: Someone should defecate in Sarah Palin’s mouth. By Melissa Quinn. Red Alert Politics, November 16, 2013. Video at YouTube.

Mark Levin Makes Mincemeat Out of Martin Bashir. Fox Nation, November 18, 2013. Also at Mediaite, Real Clear Politics, YouTube.




Martin Bashir apologizes for dirty, disgusting slam at Sarah Palin. By Howard Kurtz. FoxNews.com, November 18, 2013.

Martin Bashir: “I am Truly Sorry” for Sarah Palin Comments. By Katherine Fung. The Huffington Post, November 18, 2013.

The Sexual Life of an Eighteenth-Century Jamaican Slave Overseer. By Trevor Burnard. Sex and Sexuality in Early America. Edited by Merrill D. Smith. New York: New York University Press, 1998. Chapter 7. Also here.

Despicable: MSNBC’s Bashir Wishes Sarah Palin Would Be Defecated, Urinated On. By Noel Sheppard. NewsBusters, November 15, 2013.

Transcript:

MARTIN BASHIR: It’s time now to clear the air. And we end this week in the way it began – with America’s resident dunce, Sarah Palin, scraping the barrel of her long deceased mind, and using her all-time favorite analogy in an attempt to sound intelligent about the national debt.

 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

 

SARAH PALIN: Our free stuff today is being paid for by taking money from our children, and borrowing from China. When that note comes due – and this isn’t racist, so try it. Try it anyway. This isn’t racist. But it’s going to be like slavery when that note is due.

 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

 

BASHIR: It’ll be like slavery. Given her well-established reputation as a world class idiot, it’s hardly surprising that she should choose to mention slavery in a way that is abominable to anyone who knows anything about its barbaric history. So here’s an example.

 

One of the most comprehensive first-person accounts of slavery comes from the personal diary of a man called Thomas Thistlewood, who kept copious notes for 39 years. Thistlewood was the son of a tenant farmer who arrived on the island of Jamaica in April 1750, and assumed the position of overseer at a major plantation. What is most shocking about Thistlewood’s diary is not simply the fact that he assumes the right to own and possess other human beings, but is the sheer cruelty and brutality of his regime.

 

In 1756, he records that “A slave named Darby catched eating canes; had him well flogged and pickled, then made Hector, another slave, s-h-i-t in his mouth.” This became known as Darby’s dose, a punishment invented by Thistlewood that spoke only of the slave owners savagery and inhumanity.

 

And he mentions a similar incident again in 1756, this time in relation to a man he refers to as Punch. “Flogged Punch well, and then washed and rubbed salt pickle, lime juice and bird pepper; made Negro Joe piss in his eyes and mouth.” I could go on, but you get the point.

 

When Mrs. Palin invoked slavery, she doesn’t just prove her rank ignorance. She confirms that if anyone truly qualified for a dose of discipline from Thomas Thistlewood, then she would be the outstanding candidate.

Mark Shields: If Obamacare Fails, “This Is The End . . . of Liberal Government.”

Shields and Brooks on waning ACA confidence and its impact on liberal government. Video and transcript. PBS NewsHour, November 15, 2013. YouTube.

PBS Dem Pundit Mark Shields: If Obamacare Fails, “This Is The End . . . of Liberal Government.” By Tim Graham. NewsBusters, November 16, 2013.

Mark “Maxi” Shields in Crisis: Obamacare Failure Could Spell the End of Liberalism. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, November 18, 2013.


NewsHour transcript:

MARK SHIELDS: Judy, this is beyond the Obama administration. If this goes down, if the Obama – if health care, the Affordable Care Act is deemed a failure, this is the end – I really mean it – of liberal government, in the sense of any sense that government as an instrument of social justice, an engine of economic progress, which is what divides Democrats from Republicans – that’s what Democrats believe.

 

And that’s what Democrats believe. Time and again, social programs have made the difference in this country. The public confidence in that will be so depleted, so diminished, that I really think the change – the equation of American politics changes.

 

JUDY WOODRUFF: Is your view that dire?

 

DAVID BROOKS: I agree with that.

 

I think it’s – I don’t know if it’s permanent, but it will be a severe blow to the idea of expanded liberal governments. My big thought is, are we no longer the kind of country in which you can pass this sort of thing? And by that, I mean, when you were passing the New Deal or the Great Society, there were winners and losers.

 

But the losers felt part of a larger collective and they said, OK, I’m going to take a hit for the team. We may no longer have that sense of being part of a larger collective, so when you’re a loser, you just say, I’m a loser. And, as a result, you’re just not willing to be part of the group.

 

And the penalty for being part of the loser just makes you want to hit whoever made you the loser.

Lincoln’s Sound Bite: Have Faith in Democracy. By Allen C. Guelzo.

Lincoln’s Sound Bite: Have Faith in Democracy. By Allen C. Guelzo. New York Times, November 17, 2013.

The World of English Freedoms. By Daniel Hannan.

The World of English Freedoms. By Daniel Hannan. Wall Street Journal, November 15, 2013.

The Kerry Fiasco. By Jerold S. Auerbach.

The Kerry Fiasco. By Jerold S. Auerbach. American Thinker, November 17, 2013.

Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About. By Thomas L. Friedman.

Jerusalem, the Temple Mount.

Something for Barack and Bibi to Talk About. By Thomas L. Friedman. New York Times, November 16, 2013.

Friedman:

PRESIDENT OBAMA and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu of Israel spoke on the phone for 90 minutes the other day. Wow — 90 minutes! I wonder if Obama has ever spoken to John Boehner for 90 minutes?

 

But this is just the start of some even longer conversations. Secretary of State John Kerry is teeing up not one, but two negotiations that involve the most neuralgic issues facing Israel today: the Iran threat and Palestinian statehood. Israel soon could face two of the hardest strategic choices it’s ever had to make at the same time: trade West Bank settlements for peace with the Palestinians and trade sanctions on Iran for curbs on its nuclear program. I’d say Obama and Netanyahu better get one of those unlimited minutes plans — or maybe just install a hotline.

 

Given this situation, I can think of no better time for a good book about Israel — the real Israel, not the fantasy, do-no-wrong Israel peddled by its most besotted supporters or the do-no-right colonial monster portrayed by its most savage critics. Ari Shavit, the popular Haaretz columnist, has come out with just such a book this week, entitled “My Promised Land: The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel.”

 

Shavit is one of a handful of experts whom I’ve relied upon to understand Israel ever since I reported there in the 1980s. What do all my Israeli analytical sources have in common? They all share a way of thinking about Israel — which is expressed with deep insight, compassion and originality in Shavit’s must-read book — that to understand Israel today requires keeping several truths in tension in your head at the same time.

 

First, that Israel, at its best, is one of the most amazing political experiments in modern history, so much better than its critics will ever acknowledge. Second, Israel at its worst, is devouring Palestinian farms and homes in the West Bank in ways that are ugly, brutal, selfish and deceitful, so much worse than its supporters will ever admit. Third, Israel lives in a dangerous region — surrounded by people who hate it not only for what it does but for what it is, a successful Jewish state — but its actions matter, too. It can ameliorate or exacerbate Arab antipathy.

 

Shavit winds the history of Israel through these truths, starting with his own family. His great-grandfather, a lawyer, was a founding father; his grandfather helped to build Israel’s education system; his father, a chemist, worked among the scientists who built Israel’s nuclear program. He then weaves in the next waves of immigrants, the broken survivors of World War II who joined up with the idealistic Zionists to rebuild the Jewish commonwealth in its ancient homeland. Israel’s founders were a remarkable lot. They were modest — Golda Meir died in a two-bedroom apartment — pragmatic, but utterly focused builders, who laid the foundations for a country that absorbed Jewish immigrants from 100 nations, built world-class universities and hospitals, its own Silicon Valley and 12 winners of the Nobel Prize.

 

“Zionism’s goal,” writes Shavit, “was to transfer a people from one continent to another, to conquer a country and assemble a nation and build a state and revive a language and give hope to a hopeless people. And against all odds, Zionism succeeded. If a Vesuvius-like volcano were to erupt tonight and end our Pompeii, this is what it would petrify: a living people. People that have come from death and were surrounded by death but who nevertheless put up a spectacular spectacle of life.”

 

But this miracle also produced a nightmare. There was another people there when the Jews returned, who had their own aspirations: the Palestinian Arabs. In a brutally honest chapter entitled “Lydda, 1948,” Shavit reconstructs the story of how the population of this Palestinian Arab town, in the center of what was to become Israel, was expelled on July 13th in the 1948 war.

 

“By noon, a mass evacuation is under way,” writes Shavit. “By evening, tens of thousands of Palestinian Arabs leave Lydda in a long column, marching south past the Ben Shemen youth village and disappearing into the East. Zionism obliterates the city of Lydda. Lydda is our black box. In it lies the dark secret of Zionism. . . . If Zionism was to be, Lydda could not be.”

 

Shavit wrestles with this contradiction, arguing that it is vital for every Israeli and Zionist to acknowledge Lydda, to empathize with the Palestinians’ fate. “But Lydda does not make Zionism criminal,” he insisted in an interview. History has produced many flights of refugees — the Jewish refugees of Europe were one such wave. Israel absorbed those refugees. European countries absorbed theirs. For too long, the Arab world kept the Palestinians frozen in victimhood. “It is my moral duty as an Israeli to recognize Lydda and help the Palestinians to overcome it,” said Shavit, by helping them establish a Palestinian state that is ready to live in peace with Israel. But, ultimately, “it is the Palestinians’ responsibility to overcome the painful past, lean forward and not become addicted to victimhood.”

 

Shavit’s chapter on the Oslo peace accords, which he first supported but later denounced, challenges the Israeli left. The great mistake of the Israeli left was that it was right about the evils of Israel’s occupation, he said, “but it was wrong that ending the occupation would end the conflict with the Palestinians, because the Palestinians have not overcome the trauma of 1948 and many still oppose a Jewish democracy in this region, no matter what the borders.” But Shavit argues that Israel can’t afford to just wait for every Palestinian to embrace a Jewish state. It must find a way to separate from the West Bank, as it did in Gaza, otherwise the spreading Jewish settlements there will be the virus that kills the original Israel.

 

FOR the Jewish people to have a sustainable home, he insists, it must be “just” and enjoy the support of the world — and the West Bank occupation is not just — and Israel must be democratic, and an endless occupation will lead to Jews being a minority in their own home. “Settlements endanger both these foundations for a Jewish state,” he says.

 

The uniqueness of Shavit’s book is that when you’re done with it you can understand, respect or love Israel — but not in a dogmatic or unthinking way, and not a fake or contrived Israel. Shavit celebrates the Zionist man-made miracle — from its start-ups to its gay bars — while remaining affectionate, critical, realistic and morally anchored. There’s that tension again. But it’s the only way to truly appreciate Israel. It’s why his book is a real contribution to changing the conversation about Israel and building a healthier relationship with it. Before their next 90-minute phone call, both Barack and Bibi should read it.

When the Obama Magic Died. By Fouad Ajami.

When the Obama Magic Died. By Fouad Ajami. Real Clear Politics, November 16, 2013. Also at the Wall Street Journal.

Anti-Semitism in Europe Is Getting Worse. By Cathy Young.

Anti-Semitism in Europe Is Getting Worse. By Cathy Young. Real Clear Politics, November 16, 2013.

Young:

Is hostility toward Israel linked to hostility toward Jews? A report on anti-Semitism in Europe, released on November 8—the day before the anniversary of the Kristallnacht pogrom that marked the start of the Nazi war on Jews 75 years ago—addresses this contentious question. While Israel’s supporters have long warned of a new strain of anti-Semitism camouflaged in pro-Palestinian advocacy and opposition to Israeli policies, Israel’s critics complain that charges of anti-Jewish bigotry are used to silence dissent. Yet the latest study, “Discrimination and Hate Crime Against Jews in EU Member States,” strongly suggests that “the new anti-Semitism” is not a propagandist myth but a depressing reality.

 

The evidence is especially compelling since it comes from a neutral source: the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). The agency surveyed nearly 6,000 self-identified Jews in eight European Union countries (Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and the United Kingdom). While the online survey, publicized through Jewish community organizations and media outlets, did not have a random sample of respondents, it was designed with expert input to be as representative as possible.

 

A few findings:

 

* Two-thirds of respondents said that anti-Semitism was a serious problem in their country; three out of four felt it had worsened in the past five years.

 

* One in four said they had personally experienced anti-Jewish harassment in the past twelve months; while this included verbal attacks on the Internet, almost one in five had been harassed in person.

 

* During the same period, three percent said they had been targets of anti-Semitic vandalism; four percent reported hate-motivated physical assaults or threats.

 

* Nearly half worried about anti-Jewish harassment or violence; two-thirds of those with school-age children or grandchildren were concerned that the children might experience such harassment at school or on the way to school.

 

* Close to a quarter said they sometimes refrained from visiting Jewish events or sites out of safety concerns. Nearly two out of five usually avoided public displays of Jewish identity such as wearing a Star of David.

 

* Almost one in three had considered emigrating because they did not feel safe as Jews.

 

Even if the self-selected the pool of respondents was skewed toward those affected by or strongly concerned about anti-Semitism, these are still disturbing results.

 

The survey also reveals some interesting—and not entirely surprising—facts about the face of anti-Jewish bigotry in 21st Century Europe. Most of those who reported anti-Semitic harassment identified the culprit or culprits as having either “Muslim extremist views” (27 percent) or left-wing political views (22 percent); only 19 percent said it came from someone with right-wing beliefs.

 

This tendency is even stronger for anti-Semitic hate speech, from Holocaust denial to claims that the Jews “exploit Holocaust victimhood” or have too much power. (The exceptions are Latvia and Hungary, where anti-Semitism is more likely to be of the traditional far-right variety.) Among Western European Jews who reported encountering such slurs in the past year, 57 percent had seen or heard them from left-wingers; 54 percent, from Muslim extremists; 37 percent, from right-wingers; 18 percent, from Christian extremists. Moreover, the most common anti-Jewish comment reported in the survey was that Israelis act “like Nazis” toward the Palestinians—rhetoric European institutions have repeatedly condemned as anti-Semitic.

 

Of course criticism of Israeli policies does not equal anti-Semitism: All states are fallible, and the state of Israel is locked in an excruciatingly complex conflict with the Palestinians in which there is very real suffering on both sides. Yet the Israelis-as-Nazis metaphor is a stark illustration of how far such criticism has gone beyond the pale. Such analogies do not get thrown at states with far worse human rights records, such as China or Russia; even South Africa’s racist apartheid regime, however reviled, was not routinely attacked as Nazi-like. The Israelis are singled out for this comparison precisely as Jews—the primary targets of Nazi genocide—who have supposedly traded places with their murderers. If this is not anti-Semitism, what is?

 

Yet such parallels are creeping into mainstream left-wing discourse, even in the United States. The new book, Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel by Max Blumenthal, heavily promoted by The Nation—the leading magazine of the American left—features such chapter titles as “The Concentration Camp” and “The Night of Broken Glass.” (Even Nation columnist Eric Alterman, himself a vocal critic of Israel, has slammed Goliath for, among other things, the “implicit equation of Israel with Nazis.”)

 

There are even more striking examples of the fusion between Israel-bashing and Jew-bashing. A 2011 tract called The Wandering Who? by Israeli-born British musician and self-styled “self-hating Jew” Gilad Atzmon not only asserts that Israel is “far worse than Nazi Germany” but suggests that historical anti-Semitism in Europe must have been the Jews’ fault. Atzmon brags about getting suspended from school as a child for asking the teacher how she knew that Jews didn’t really murder Christian babies for ritual use of their blood. He also blames American Jews in the 1930s for provoking Hitler by calling for a boycott of German goods.

 

While some anti-Zionist leftists and pro-Palestinian activists denounced Atzmon’s book, it received a disturbing amount of praise—including a blurb from University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer, co-author of the controversial book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy. A major British newspaper, The Guardian, carried The Wandering Who? in its online bookshop before pulling it in response to criticism.

 

In this toxic climate, the lines between “new” and “old” anti-Semitism keep getting more and more blurred. Last year, veteran Norwegian academic Johan Galtung, the founder of “peace studies” and a distinguished professor at the University of Hawaii, came under fire for some eyebrow-raising statements. Among other things, Galtung had described the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, a 1903 hoax “documenting” a Jewish world domination plot, as a useful tool for understanding the modern world; he had also made outlandish claims about Jewish control of the American media, apparently drawn from neo-Nazi guru William Luther Pierce.

 

Sympathy for the Palestinians, who are seen as Third World victims of pro-Western colonialists, has led many on the left to condone anti-Jewish attitudes presumably driven by anger at Israeli oppression. Take Alterman, the anti-Goliath polemicist, who in a recent blogpost writes that he himself has often been attacked and tarred with the anti-Semitism brush by Israel sympathizers. I am one of those polemicists, and I regretfully admit that in a 2005 column I made some inappropriate comments about Jewish self-hatred. Yet there remains the fact that Alterman has written off anti-Jewish violence by young Arab immigrants in France as a backlash against the Israeli occupation of the West Bank (rather than real anti-Semitism) and defended a British Muslim group’s decision to boycott a Holocaust remembrance event. Whatever the motive, such excuses effectively amount to enabling anti-Semitism. And as long as such enabling continues, the problem will keep getting worse.

People Thought the Industrial Revolution Was Servile Too. By Walter Russell Mead.

People Thought the Industrial Revolution Was Servile Too. By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 16, 2013.

The Demise of Pax Americana. By Caroline Glick.

The Demise of Pax Americana. By Caroline Glick. Townhall.com, November 15, 2013. Also at the Jerusalem Post.

Iran Negotiations Coming to a Head? By Walter Russell Mead. Via Meadia, November 9, 2013.


Glick:

What happened in Geneva last week was the most significant international event since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The collapse of the Soviet Union signaled the rise of the United States as the sole global superpower. The developments in the six-party nuclear talks with Iran in Geneva last week signaled the end of American world leadership.

 

Global leadership is based on two things – power and credibility. The United States remains the most powerful actor in the world. But last week, American credibility was shattered.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry spent the first part of last week lying to Israeli and Gulf Arab leaders and threatening the Israeli people. He lied to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and the Saudis about the content of the deal US and European negotiators had achieved with the Iranians.

 

Kerry told them that in exchange for Iran temporarily freezing its nuclear weapons development program, the US and its allies would free up no more than $5 billion in Iranian funds seized and frozen in foreign banks.

 

Kerry threatened the Israeli people with terrorism and murder – and so invited both – if Israel fails to accept his demands for territorial surrender to PLO terrorists that reject Israel’s right to exist.

 

Kerry’s threats were laced with bigoted innuendo.

 

He claimed that Israelis are too wealthy to understand their own interests. If you don’t wise up and do what I say, he intoned, the Europeans will take away your money while the Palestinians kill you. Oh, and aside from that, your presence in the historic heartland of Jewish civilization from Jerusalem to Alon Moreh is illegitimate.

 

It is hard to separate the rise in terrorist activity since Kerry’s remarks last week from his remarks.

 

What greater carte blanche for murder could the Palestinians have received than the legitimization of their crimes by the chief diplomat of Israel’s closest ally? Certainly, Kerry’s negotiating partner Catherine Ashton couldn’t have received a clearer signal to ratchet up her economic boycott of Jewish Israeli businesses than Kerry’s blackmail message, given just two days before the 75th anniversary of Kristallnacht.

 

Kerry’s threats were so obscene and unprecedented that Israeli officials broke with tradition and disagreed with him openly and directly, while he was still in the country. Normally supportive leftist commentators have begun reporting Kerry’s history of anti-Israel advocacy, including his 2009 letter of support for pro-Hamas activists organizing flotillas to Gaza in breach of international and American law.

 

As for Kerry’s lies to the US’s chief Middle Eastern allies, it was the British and the French who informed the Israelis and the Saudis that far from limiting sanctions relief to a few billion dollars in frozen funds, the draft agreement involved ending sanctions on Iran’s oil and gas sector, and on other industries.

 

In other words, the draft agreement exposed Washington’s willingness to effectively end economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for Iran’s agreement to cosmetic concessions that will not slow down its nuclear weapons program.

 

Both the US’s position, and the fact that Kerry lied about that position to the US’s chief allies, ended what was left of American credibility in the Middle East. That credibility was already tattered by US fecklessness in Syria and support for the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

 

True, in the end, Kerry was unable to close the deal he rushed off to Geneva to sign last Friday.

 

Of course, it wasn’t Iran that rejected the American surrender. And it wasn’t America that scuttled the proposal. It was France. Unable to hide behind American power and recognizing its national interest in preventing Iran from emerging as a nuclear armed power in the Middle East, France vetoed a deal that paved the way a nuclear Iran.

 

Kerry’s failure to reach the hoped-for deal represented a huge blow to America, and a double victory for Iran. The simple fact that Washington was willing to sign the deal – and lie about it to its closest allies – caused the US to lose its credibility in the Middle East. Even without the deal, the US paid the price of appeasing Iran and surrendering leadership of the free world to France and Israel.

 

Just by getting the Americans to commit themselves to reducing sanctions while Iran continues its march to a nuclear weapon, Iran destroyed any remaining possibility of doing any serious non-military damage to Iran’s plans for nuclear weaponry. At the same time, the Americans boosted Iranian credibility, endorsed Iranian power, and belittled Israel and Saudi Arabia – Iran’s chief challengers in the Middle East. Thus, Iran ended Pax Americana in the Middle East, removing the greatest obstacle in its path to regional hegemony. And it did so without having to make the slightest concession to the Great Satan.

 

As Walter Russell Mead wrote last week, it was fear of losing Pax Americana that made all previous US administrations balk at reaching an accord with Iran. As he put it, “Past administrations have generally concluded that the price Iran wants for a different relationship with the United States is unsustainably high. Essentially, to get a deal with Iran we would have to sell out all of our other allies. That’s not only a moral problem. Throwing over old allies like that would reduce the confidence that America’s allies all over the world have in our support.”

 

The Obama administration just paid that unsustainably high price, and didn’t even get a different relationship with Iran.

 

Most analyses of what happened in Geneva last week have centered on what the failure of the talks means for the future of Obama’s foreign policy.

 

Certainly Obama, now universally reviled by America’s allies in the Middle East, will be diplomatically weakened. This diplomatic weakness may not make much difference to Obama’s foreign policy, because appeasement and retreat do not require diplomatic strength.

 

But the real story of what happened last week is far more significant than the future of Obama’s foreign policy. Last week it was America that lost credibility, not Obama. It was America that squandered the essential component of global leadership. And that is the watershed event of this young century.

 

States act in concert because of perceived shared interests. If Israel and Saudi Arabia combine to attack Iran’s nuclear installations it will be due to their shared interest in preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear arsenal. But that concerted action will not make them allies.

 

Alliances are based on the perceived longevity of the shared interests, and that perception is based on the credibility of international actors.

 

Until Obama became president, the consensus view of the US foreign policy establishment and of both major parties was that the US had a permanent interest in being the hegemonic power in the Middle East. US hegemony ensured three permanent US national security interests: preventing enemy regimes and terror groups from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm; ensuring the smooth flow of petroleum products through the Persian Gulf and the Suez Canal; and demonstrating the credibility of American power by ensuring the security of US allies like Israel and Saudi Arabia. The third interest was an essential foundation of US deterrence of the Soviets during the Cold War, and of the Chinese over the past decade.

 

Regardless of who was in the White House, for the better part of 70 years, every US government has upheld these interests. This consistency built US credibility, which in turn enabled the US to throw its weight around.

 

Obama departed from this foreign policy consensus in an irrevocable manner last week. In so doing, he destroyed US credibility.

 

It doesn’t matter who succeeds Obama. If a conservative internationalist in the mold of Harry Truman, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan is elected in 2016, Obama’s legacy will make it impossible for him to rebuild the US alliance structure. US allies will be willing to buy US military platforms – although not exclusively.

 

They will be willing to act in a concerted manner with the US on a temporary basis to advance specific goals.

 

But they will not be willing to make any long term commitments based on US security guarantees.

 

They will not be willing to place their strategic eggs in the US basket.

 

Obama has taught the world that the same US that elected Truman and formed NATO, and elected George H.W. Bush and threw Saddam Hussein out of Kuwait, can elect a man who betrays US allies and US interests to advance a radical ideology predicated on a rejection of the morality of American power. Any US ally is now on notice that US promises – even if based on US interests – are not reliable. American commitments can expire the next time America elects a radical to the White House.

 

Americans uninterested in surrendering their role as global leader to the likes of Tehran’s ayatollahs, Russia’s KGB state and Mao’s successors, must take immediate steps mitigate the damage Obama is causing. Congress could step in to clip his radical wings.

 

If enough Democrats can be convinced to break ranks with Obama and the Democratic Party’s donors, Congress can pass veto-proof additional sanctions against Iran. These sanctions can only be credible with America’s spurned allies if they do not contain any presidential waiver that would empower Obama to ignore the law.

 

They can also take action to limit Obama’s ability to blackmail Israel, a step that is critical to the US’s ability to rebuild its international credibility.

 

For everyone from Anwar Sadat to South American democrats, for the past 45 years, America’s alliance with Israel was a central anchor of American strategic credibility. The sight of America standing with the Jewish state, in the face of a sea of Arab hatred, is what convinced doubters worldwide that America could be trusted.

 

America’s appalling betrayal of Jerusalem under Obama likewise is the straw that has broken the back of American strategic credibility from Taipei to Santiago. If Congress is interested in rectifying or limiting the damage, it could likewise remove the presidential waiver that enables Obama to continue to finance the PLO despite its involvement in terrorism and continued commitment to Israel’s destruction. Congress could also remove the presidential waiver from the law requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. Finally, Congress can update its anti-boycott laws to cover new anti-Israel boycotts and economic sanctions against the Jewish state and Jewish-owned Israeli companies.

 

These steps will not fully restore America’s credibility.

 

After all, the twice-elected president of the United States has dispatched his secretary of state to threaten and deceive US allies while surrendering to US foes. It is now an indisputable fact that the US government may use its power to undermine its own interests and friends worldwide.

 

What these congressional steps can do, however, is send a message to US allies and adversaries alike that Obama’s radical actions do not represent the wishes of the American people and will not go unanswered by their representatives in Congress.

The Israeli-Palestinian Conflict Can Be Managed. By Ophir Falk.

Conflict can be managed. By Ophir Falk. Ynet News, November 14, 2013.

Falk:

Every Israeli would like to wake up tomorrow morning and hear that the century-old conflict with the Palestinians is over; that the leaders have reached a viable agreement on the outstanding issues and now we can all live happily ever after.

 

That is not going to happen.

 

The core issues are currently irreconcilable. This basic truth can be ostracized by overly optimistic or pathetic politicians, but at the end of the day – it is what it is. Israel has made concessions and is willing to make more, but no Israeli leader, (unless he’s under criminal investigation), will be willing to withdraw to pre-1967 borders.

 

Such borders were long ago depicted by legendary Labor Foreign Minister Abba Eban as the “borders of Auschwitz,” and the topography has yet to change. Neither has the demography. Israel’s prime minister will not divide his nation’s capital and will insist that Israel be recognized as the Jewish state by its partners to peace.

 

Concurrently, the current Palestinian president will not detract from his demand for the return of refugees and isn’t even willing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state alongside a Palestinian one.

 

In fact, even if the Palestinian leader would be willing to compromise, he lacks the legitimacy to do so. He is a persona non grata in Hamas-held Gaza and almost a decade has passed since he was elected in Ramallah. Abbas may represent his political party, but not his people. That weakness, binds him to a “no-budge position” on all the core issues.

 

Despite political stalemate, Israelis and many Palestinians want peace and quiet. The politicians need to facilitate that.

 

The conflict cannot be resolved at this time, but it can be managed. Many international disagreements and border disputes are being managed peacefully, and have been for decades. There are border disputes between Spain and Morocco, the United Kingdom and Ireland, France and Italy, China and India, Russia and Japan, Singapore and Malaysia, the Netherlands and Germany, Ukraine and Russia and many more. There are even seven different territorial disputes between Canada and the United States, which share the longest non-militarized border in the world.

 

Israel and its Palestinian neighbors can also manage their conflict by agreeing on agreeable issues and agreeing to disagree on issues that are currently unsolvable. A stable economic environment and a sustainable security situation are in the common interest of both sides. It is especially important for the Palestinians, and they would be wise to act accordingly. The imbalance of power between Israel and the Palestinians and economic comparisons with neighboring Syria, Jordan and Egypt make that observation crystal clear.

 

The earth will not quake if the status quo continues in Jerusalem and if Jews and Palestinians are permitted to continue living where they live.

Israel Increasingly Courting China as an Ally. By Dan Levin.

Israel Increasingly Courting China as an Ally. By Dan Levin. New York Times, November 12, 2013.

A New Wave of Palestinian Violence Is Not a Third Intifada. By Ron Ben-Yishai.

It’s not a third intifada. By Ron Ben-Yishai. Ynet News, November 14, 2013.

Kerry, give it a rest. By Alex Fishman. Ynet News, November 10, 2013.

George W. Bush’s Jewish Problem. By Tevi Troy.

George W. Bush’s Jewish Problem. By Tevi Troy. Real Clear Religion, November 15, 2013.

George W. Bush, Messianics, and the Left. By Jonathan S. Tobin. NJBR, November 8, 2013.

Does the U.S.-Israel Alliance Have a Future? By Jonathan S. Tobin.

Does the U.S.-Israel Alliance Have a Future? By Jonathan S. Tobin. Commentary, November 14, 2013.

Israel Has No Alternative to U.S. Alliance. By Jonathan S. Tobin. NJBR, November 12, 2013.

Tobin:

Perhaps a week when the U.S. secretary of state told a Senate committee to “stop listening to the Israelis” and to ignore their concerns about the existential threat from the Iranian nuclear program wasn’t the best timing to write about the importance and the permanence of the U.S.-Israel alliance. But bad timing or not, my post about the rumblings from some in Israel about an alternative to their ties to the only true superpower in the world has provoked some interesting comments and led me to think a bit more about the topic as well. In fact, weeks such as the one we’re currently experiencing may be the best time for those who care about the relationship to explore how to shore it up and the stakes involved for both countries. Even as Kerry seems to be doing everything to downgrade the relationship, it’s important to point out that not only is there no rational alternative to it from Israel’s point of view but that it is of vital importance to the United States as well.

 

First, let me address the question of whether it is wise to inextricably link Israel’s wellbeing to America’s standing in the world. Martin Kramer wrote here that he agreed with me that it is dangerous for anyone in Israel to even consider trying to play China or Russia off the United States in a vain attempt to outmaneuver Washington when it comes to questions like the nuclear peril from Iran. But he disagreed with this passage from my post:

Israel’s long-term safety must be seen as linked to the ability of the United States to maintain its status as the leader of the free world. Even at times of great tension with Washington, Israelis must never forget that it is not just that they have no viable alternatives to the U.S. but that American power remains the best hope of freedom for all nations.

Kramer believes that American power, like all power, “waxes and wanes.” He goes on to write the following:

More than six years ago, before Obama even declared his candidacy, I told the Conference of Presidents that “America’s era in the Middle East will end one day,” and that “it is possible that in twenty years’ time, America will be less interested and engaged in the Middle East. What is our Plan B then?” Obama accelerated that timetable, but the long-term trend has been clear for years. And one doesn’t have to be a “declinist” to realize that the United States can lead the free world and still write off the Middle East, which isn’t part of it. That’s precisely the mood in America today.

That’s a sobering thought and the possibility can’t be entirely discounted, especially with figures such as Senator Rand Paul rising to prominence in a Republican Party that has become a bulwark of the alliance in the last generation. Moreover, he’s right when he says that the history of Zionism teaches us that in order to survive, the movement has had to be flexible in its alliances with world powers. A century ago, many Zionists were looking to tie their future to that of the Ottoman Empire. A few years later, after the sick man of Europe collapsed, they cast their lot with a British Empire. But after a few short years when London seemed ready to make good on the promise made in the Balfour Declaration, they were abandoned. Gradually America became the focus of Zionist diplomacy, but until that alliance became a reality after the Six-Day War, Israel relied on a brief yet crucial period of Soviet friendship during the War of Independence and after that a fruitful friendship with France that lasted until 1967.

 

Israel’s leaders must, as Kramer says, be prepared for all eventualities and they should not, as I wrote, be blamed for seeking to foster ties with other countries. But the problem with planning for a theoretical period of American withdrawal from the world is that the answer to his question about a “Plan B” is that there isn’t one.

 

Though he is right to assert that the point of Zionism is, to the greatest extent possible, to make sure that Israel can defend itself, no “agility” or ability to “read the changing map of the world” can substitute for an alliance with America. Without a strong United States that is engaged in the world, Israel will not disappear. But it will be weaker and far more vulnerable. For Israel there is not and never will be—at least in the foreseeable future—a viable alternative to the alliance with the United States.

 

But the key question here is not so much whether Israel appreciates how important the U.S. is to its future—and there’s every indication that Israel’s leaders understand that—but whether Americans understand how important the Jewish state is to it.

 

The flip side to this discussion is that for all the talk from anti-Zionist conspiracy theorists like those who promote the Walt-Mearsheimer “Israel Lobby” in which the Jewish state is supposed to be the tail that wags the American dog, we don’t talk enough about how Israel is a valued ally of the United States.

 

After the end of the Cold War, the value of having what many consider to be a regional superpower allied with the United States has been largely ignored. But the notion that the U.S. doesn’t need strong allies in an era in which it is challenged by Islamist terrorism as well as rogue states like Iran is farcical. Moreover, the traditional meme of critics of the alliance—that Arab states are hostile to the United States because of its friendship with Israel—has been exploded both by the Arab Spring and the regional concerns about Iran that have made it clear that they fear Tehran more than they do the Jewish state.

 

Israel’s intelligence capabilities have long been a boon to the U.S. But its technological resources—both in terms of military and commercial applications—are now just as if not more important. Israel, the “start-up nation,” is a vital partner for the U.S. economy.

 

But even if we ignore the utilitarian aspects of this friendship, it should be remembered that the core of American foreign policy has, contrary to the slanders of the left, always primarily been moral rather than a nation bent on conquest or empire. As such it needs nations that share its democratic values. That means Israel remains part of the select few countries that will always be natural allies. It is true that Israel cannot always count on the U.S. to do the right thing at the right time. Nor can the U.S. assume that Israel will disregard its interests in order to serve American convenience. But the relationship is both mutual and rooted in something stronger than Lord Palmerston’s famous dictum about permanent interests. Support for Israel is part of the political DNA of American culture. The same is true of Israel’s affinity with its fellow democracy.

Obamacare Architect Jonathan Gruber: Genetic “Lottery Winners” Have Been Paying an “Artificially Low Price.”

Obamacare Architect: Genetic “Lottery Winners” Have Been Paying an “Artificially Low Price.” Video. Real Clear Politics, November 13, 2013.

Are You a Genetic Lottery Winner? By alanjoelny. RedState, November 15, 2013.

Obamacare Architect Introduces Eugenics: “Genetic Lottery Winners” Must Pay. By Rush Limbaugh. RushLimbaugh.com, November 15, 2013.

White America and the Burden of Slavery. By Vincent Intondi.

White America and the Burden of Slavery. By Vincent Intondi. The Huffington Post, November 13, 2013. Also at the History News Network.

Slavery Isn’t Just Black People’s Burden. By Natalie Hopkinson. The Root, November 11, 2013.

Chris Christie’s Tea-Party Problem. By Richard Cohen. NJBR, November 12, 2013. With related articles.

12 Years a Slave: What Art Says About the Past. By Richard Cohen. NJBR, November 5, 2013.

America’s Original Sin: The Legacy of White Racism. By Jim Wallis. NJBR, October 24, 2013. With related articles.

In Hookups, Inequality Still Reigns. By Natalie Kitroeff.

In Hookups, Inequality Still Reigns. By Natalie Kitroeff. New York Times, November 11, 2013.

A Critic Takes On the Logic of Female Orgasm. By Dinitia Smith. New York Times, May 17, 2005.

Sexual Hookup Culture: A Review. By Justin R. Garcia, Chris Reiber, Sean G. Massey, and Ann M. Merriwether. Review of General Psychology, Vol. 16, No. 2 (June 2012). Also here, here, here.

Abstract:

“Hookups,” or uncommitted sexual encounters, are becoming progressively more engrained in popular culture, reflecting both evolved sexual predilections and changing social and sexual scripts. Hook-up activities may include a wide range of sexual behaviors, such as kissing, oral sex, and penetrative intercourse. However, these encounters often transpire without any promise of, or desire for, a more traditional romantic relationship. A review of the literature suggests that these encounters are becoming increasingly normative among adolescents and young adults in North America, representing a marked shift in openness and acceptance of uncommitted sex. We reviewed the current literature on sexual hookups and considered the multiple forces influencing hookup culture, using examples from popular culture to place hooking up in context. We argue that contemporary hookup culture is best understood as the convergence of evolutionary and social forces during the developmental period of emerging adulthood. We suggest that researchers must consider both evolutionary mechanisms and social processes, and be considerate of the contemporary popular cultural climate in which hookups occur, in order to provide a comprehensive and synergistic biopsychosocial view of “casual sex” among emerging adults today.

Reality Catches Up to President Obama. By Jim Geraghty.

Reality Catches Up to President Obama. By Jim Geraghty. National Review Online, November 15, 2013.

Why Liberals Are Panicked About Obamacare. By Charles Krauthammer.

Why Liberals Are Panicking. By Charles Krauthammer. National Review Online, November 14, 2013. Also at the Washington Post.

The right’s wild, new fantasy: “Obamacare is killing liberalism!” By Elias Isquith. Salon, November 14, 2013.

The Entrepreneurs of Outrage. By Michael Gerson.

The Entrepreneurs of Outrage. By Michael Gerson. Real Clear Politics, November 15, 2013. Also at the Washington Post.