Yesterday, I wrote a blog piece titled “American Jews Must Be Stupid ...” in which I point out that “American Jews must be stupid if they continue to support President Barack Hussein Obama after he has just requested that Israel turn its back on decades of history and common sense and commit suicide.”
Today, I present further proof by quoting a well-known progressive, Michael Tomasky, who, in the very best progressive tradition, appears to use Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals to frame the debate. By his own words, Tomasky has said …
“As I've written many times, Democrats in general still tend to think that you win political fights by having superior arguments. This of course is manifestly not true. You win political arguments by framing the question the media decide to take up. That means being aggressive in your framing, creating conflict (which the media love), and making sure that reporters will go to the other side and ask them well, how do you respond to this?” <Source>
So why should anyone be surprised when comrade Tomasky attempts to throw Netanyahu under Obama’s bus – defending Barack Hussein Obama’s Arab-centric viewpoint even though it places the democratic and productive people of Israel in great jeopardy of being overrun by those who have contributed nothing but death, destruction, chaos and mayhem to the world at large.
As reported in the Daily Beast …
“Bibi’s White House Tantrum”
“Netanyahu's rejection of Obama's Mideast speech underestimated the president's strength—and could hasten the Israeli leader's political demise.”
Nothing more than wishful thinking on behalf of the radical progressives who are attempting to divert attention from the existential threat facing Israel – and the sad state of our domestic affairs – to their own pipe dream of progressive domination of world events.
“Bibi Netanyahu could have reacted any number of ways to Barack Obama’s mention of the ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.’ Let’s say, actually, four ways—embrace, circumspection, suspicion, tantrum. That he chose the last—saying immediately after the Obama speech that he ‘expects’ to hear Obama in essence renounce what he’d just said before the entire world!—tells us a lot about the man’s shortcomings and (lack of) political instinct.”
On the contrary, I feel that there was a fifth way – politically imprudent, but something that I would have welcomed. Netanyahu could have simply told Barack Hussein Obama that he did not appear to understand the history of the region and when he got his head out of his ass, Netanyahu would return for “consultations.” Imprudent because oil-poor Israel is the recipient of a significant amount of United States foreign aid. But, still a position that I would have enjoyed very much. The fact that he did not pursue this course of action, tells us a lot about the man’s strength and political instinct.
“All political is local, and Netanyahu undoubtedly scored points with his Likud base back home. But he has a base here in America too, and I think he misjudged that base badly.”
Personally, I think that it was Tomasky who misjudged the level of support for both Netanyahu and Israel. To think that American Jews, mostly progressives in the democrat party, would weaken Israel to support a man who believes that America is, as best, unexceptional and, at worst, complicit in crimes against international norms is wrong. Or, I really hope it is wrong.
Using Alinsky to put forth a position that assumes facts not in evidence in order to provoke controversy …
“One senses here a big public-relations, and possibly public-opinion, shift from two years ago.”
Starting from a true observation …
"Right after he took office in 2009, Obama pushed Israel too hard on settlements, thinking that he had more political capital on the issue than he had. He got slapped down, by Netanyahu and AIPAC and members of Congress from both parties. At the same time, Syria was rebuffing administration overtures, and the new president was learning the hard way that the Middle East wasn’t the staff of the Harvard Law Review, and it wouldn’t quite so pliably prostrate itself to his will and aura.”
And framing the debate in the form of a question…
"But now, is it Obama who’s going to suffer the PR blow? Something tells me that this time, the pressure will mount more on Bibi than Barack. His behavior these last 48 hours has verged on, if not been, petulant."
Invoking a “who does he think he is” sense of nationalism …
“A foreign leader (no less one of a state whose existence depends on the United States) isn’t supposed to talk like that to a president.”
Perhaps Tomasky should consider that his profession (journalism) has severely compromised their own role in politics by choosing sides and refusing to pursue their time-honored tradition of “speaking truth to power.” For that’s what Netanyahu did – he did not insult the President of the United States so much as to explain to the world that the President’s unilateral assertions were historically unsound and that he expected them to be retracted after further study and consideration.
Let us not forget who this man is: This is the Prime Minister of Israel, a distinguished scholar, soldier, diplomat and statesman – the man standing between Israel’s enemies and his people – not one of Obama’s ass-kissing sycophants hoping for a personal payday.
Leveraging bin Laden …
Barack Obama is speaking as if he arranged and executed the mission that killed the world’s number one terrorist. Overlooking the fact that the mission had been in the planning stage for years and it was conducted, not by the White House from the situation room, but by the CIA from Langley, Virginia. Yes, the President gets brownie points for reluctantly giving the order – but little else. How many people have considered how carefully the photo-op in the White House situation room was stage-managed and how almost everyone in the administration was leaking details for the greater glory of Obama and his Administration. Failing to note that they were putting American soldiers, in this case SEAL Team Six and their families, in greater jeopardy by revealing operational details, methods and sources?
“Add to the bargain: Obama’s a stronger president now on foreign affairs than he was in 2009, partly because of the bin Laden coup and partly because the speech was generally well received across the American political spectrum.”
The political bump of bin Laden’s death was fleeting and his speech was generally poorly received by most – with the exception of the terrorists and Arab supporters who seem to hate Obama altogether. Let us not kid ourselves, Obama is viewed as a weakling throughout a world that respects little else other than power and the will to use it. Obama, no matter how his PR team spins the issue, is still a zero, not a hero, in the Arab world.
If you can’t blame George Bush, attack the Republicans …
Has anyone else noted that the word “partisan,” as used by the hyper-partisan progressive democrats, is a pejorative. That is, a term of derision when it is used by the democrats who openly define the word by their actions.
“The criticisms of Obama on the borders statement have been entirely partisan, led by Republican presidential candidates. That has had the effect of cheapening the criticism of Obama and making it more dismissible: Do Americans, and Israelis and Palestinians, really care what Tim Pawlenty thinks about the situation?”
You need to admire the craftsmanship of Tomasky as he turns the issue into a political campaign issue rather than an existential threat to the sovereign nation of Israel. Personally, I do care what the presidential candidates think about defending our only ally in the region. And I believe, contrary to Tomasky’s assertion, that most Americans do care about foreign affairs.
But, in the Orwellian world of Obama, where the war on terror has become a “foreign contingency operation” and the war on Libya has become a “kinetic action,” you cannot disguise the fact that Obama appears to be hurting our allies and providing aid and comfort to our enemies. Black is white, up is down and evil is good.
“The Anti-Defamation League’s Abe Foxman, never shy about criticizing the administration on these matters, came out Friday to The Washington Post’s Greg Sargent and judged the speech a defense of Israel: ‘The speech indicated to me that this administration has come a long way in better understanding and appreciating the difficulties facing both parties, but especially Israel in trying to make peace with the Palestinians.’”
This statement appears to be little more than a polite response to a difficult political situation. Trying to place a spin on the story that nothing has really changed – Obama has not really done anything drastically wrong and still supports Israel. Sort of saying, we forgive you if you are trying to mend fences in the Arab world – and just so you realize where your loyalties should be placed. An innocuous statement that says nothing.
Tomasky’s spin …
“This may be a sign that the usual cordon won’t hold around Bibi this time. Oh, he’ll receive a thunderous welcome from Congress Tuesday, mostly from Republicans who want to embarrass Obama by backing the prime minister. But the applause will only mask temporarily what everyone knows—that he is in total denial about the future.”
One, I believe that most members of Congress are well aware of the existential threat facing Israel and know how much Israel has contributed to the benefit of humanity – in the arts, sciences and, yes, ethics of daily living.
Two, I also believe that most members of Congress are well-aware of the coming clash of the civilizations, one based on the modern Judeo-Christian freedom/tolerance mandate and the Muslim 12th Century one of obedience or death mandate. And the choice is clear.
Three, like a good progressive, Tomasky knows that the story must be spun as an “us versus them” issue and that the members of Congress want to embarrass Obama rather than demonstrate appreciation and accord with Netanyahu.
Four, we know that those not applauding will most likely be the progressive democrats of the Black Caucus who appear to be proponents of the socialistic black liberation theology and have harbored and promoted anti-America, anti-White, anti-Israel viewpoints to their audience.
Five, as for Netanyahu being in denial about the future, we should remember Netanyahu’s elemental and existential truth: “If Arabs were to lay down their weapons, there would be peace. If Israel were to lay down their weapons, there would be no more Israel.”
Seeking to legitimize his progressive screed …
“Israel, of course, has legitimate security concerns, especially in light of the recent Fatah-Hamas entente. And there’s nothing, really, to prevent Netanyahu from running out the clock if that’s what he wants to do. But things have changed. Two years ago, politically speaking, time was on his side. Now it’s against him. Having thrown this tantrum, it seems unlikely that he can come back in two weeks, or two months, or a year, and say gee, the ’67 borders with swaps is actually a good idea after all. It seems like the peace process will have to wait for a new prime minister. And he may have hastened that day, too.”
What Tomasky doesn’t consider in his article is how one negotiates with an enemy whose charter calls for the annihilation of the State of Israel. Or whose actions – continual rocket bombardment of a civilian population – make discussions impossible.
As for waiting for a new prime minister, the same thing can be said about President Barack Hussein Obama – there are those right-minded individuals who recognize Obama for what he really is: a radical socialist who cares little about the United States as he favors world dominance by an international cabal of socialists and communists.
Bottom line …
More people respect Netanyahu for having the guts to stand up to the world in defense of his people – and civilization in general. More people are beginning to understand that Obama is using any foreign issue, especially the Middle East conflagration, as a diversion from his party’s abysmal failure on the domestic agenda. He has replicated RomneyCare, which threatens to bankrupt Massachusetts, into ObamaCare, which threatens to bankrupt the United States. He has extended the polices of George Bush and simply renamed them for political purposes.
Whereas Netanyahu is a man of substantial substance, in comparison Barack Hussein Obama is an empty suit – with a dubious history of associations and achievements. And if given the opportunity, I would take Netanyahu over that poseur in the White House in a heartbeat.
Reference Links …
Netanyahu’s Ill-Advised White House Tantrum Over Obama’s Mideast Speech - The Daily Beast