web analytics
December 6, 2016 / 6 Kislev, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘Jimmy Carter’

Carter and Obama: ‘He Who Is Merciful to the Cruel Ends Up Cruel to the Merciful’

Thursday, October 25th, 2012

When the Iranian student revolutionaries took American hostages in 1979, U.S. President Jimmy Carter chose a path consistent with his character, but inconsistent with the American character.  He tried desperately, again and again, to prove to the Islamist revolutionaries and their ruling Mullahs that the big bad United States would not be a bully or resort to violence to enforce its views or to protect its assets, even when those assets are American citizens.  His strategy failed.

That strategy is still a failure. And, by all accounts, our current president is hell-bent on employing it whenever he can.

In a book that shows clearly the parallels between the dilemma posed to America by Iran during Carter’s regime and the one Iran presents to our current president, To Hell in a Handbasket: Carter, Obama, and the “Arab Spring,” Ruthie Blum brings the not-so-distant-history alive.

Blum’s book is a must read for those who lived through and remember that first Iranian assault on American leadership. But it’s also for those too young to remember that episode – and really, it’s for everyone now living through the current Iranians’ attack on America’s role as leader of the free world and bulwark against the unfree world.  In both cases the Iranians have played America for a fool, and in both cases they had a U.S. leader who willingly, maybe even eagerly, took on that role.

For those old enough to remember, in 1979, when Jimmy Carter was president, he was furiously engaged in an effort to persuade the Islamists in Iran that the United States harbored only “genuine good will” towards them.  What he most sought from them was “dialogue,” not disagreements.  His timidity encouraged rather than discouraged those who sought to overthrow America’s long-time ally, the Shah of Iran.  Instead of reaching out to meet U.S. overtures, Ayatollah Khomeini and his followers refused to meet, let alone negotiate, with Carter’s emissaries.

Sound familiar?

Blum’s clear writing, coupled with her ability to convey the real drama of the historical events she describes, allow the reader to place the complicated series of diplomatic falters, Iranian acts of aggression and the parading of blind-folded Americans for more than a year, in a comprehensible context.

Blum then juxtaposes America-Under-Carter’s response, to that of the Obama administration’s fawning over the Arab Spring and reluctance to meddle in the efforts of today’s revolutionaries across the Arab Middle East – other than to hand millions of dollars to Islamists organizing these nationwide riots that our President seems to think are events of national liberation.  Blum’s book is essential reading for those who want to understand why, this time around, we should have known better.

Blum’s book shows that what look to some uninformed Westerners, including the president of the United States, like progressive, democratic impulses, have turned out instead to be determined flights backwards to the Middle Ages.

Tunisian pushcart merchant Mohamed Bouazizi’s self-incineration as the spark for the greatest upheaval in the Middle East in modern times is laid out in Blum’s book.  She illuminates the path from Tunisia to Libya, to Yemen and Bahrain and, where it remains hovering, over Syria and, possibly, hopefully, back toIran.

After reviewing Carter’s misguided and disastrous Middle East strategy, it is painful to then read how closely our current administration’s strategy tracks the Carter debacle in its mindset and its failures.

Blum reveals the perfect consistency between Carter’s craven posture before Ayatollah Khomeini and Obama’s whiplash-like series of always-off-kilter responses to the Arab Spring: his cutting ties with former ally Tunisian president Ben Ali, his refusal to do more than mouth platitudes to support the outraged Iranian citizenry when their election was stolen by the tyrannical Ahmadinejad, his delivering a swift kick out the door to our former close ally Egyptian President Hosnai Mubarak. And so on.

The admonition from Kohelet Rabbah 7:16: “Those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind” is perfectly illustrated by the misguided efforts of two recent American leaders who thought they could convince truly evil adversaries to refrain from doing evil if only the powerful America would treat them more nicely.

Although To Hell in a Handbasket is very consciously launched during this election season, it would be a shame for it to be relegated to merely a momentary flash in the literary pan.  At fewer than 200 pages and written from hard historical sources that might otherwise seem dry to an average reader, Blum’s book moves like a novel.  It will be an invaluable addition to any college or sophisticated high school student’s library as a tool for understanding America’s place in the geo-political moment.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Jimmy Carter: Palestinian State “Unviable”

Monday, October 22nd, 2012

According to YNet, former US President Jimmy Carter, in a visit to Jerusalem on Monday said that the prospects for peace are “vanishing” and that a Palestinian state has become “unviable”.

Carter was upset that east Jerusalem has become more isolated from the “West Bank”.

Carter blamed Netanyahu for not doing enough, and of course his favorite target, the Settlements.

Jewish Press News Briefs

Egypt Kicks Sand in Obama’s Face

Tuesday, September 4th, 2012

I could write a 300-page book on how the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy has damaged Israel. I could write an 800-page book about how the Obama Administration’s Middle East policy has damaged U.S. interests. But why bother?

This is all you need to know:

The U.S. government asked its good buddy Egyptian President al-Mursi to inspect an Iranian ship suspected of carrying arms to Syria while it passed through the Suez Canal. Remember that to do so is arguably in Egypt’s own interest since Cairo is supporting the rebels while Tehran backs the regime. But it is also possible that the U.S. government blundered, or was badly timed, since international agreements dictate that Egypt is not supposed to inspect ships in the Canal itself.

The Egyptian government despite three decades of massive U.S. aid, licensing to produce advanced American tanks and other equipment, strategic backing, and an invitation to Washington to meet Obama—refused. Indeed, al-Mursi headed for Tehran to attend a “non-aligned” conference.

Does this mean Egypt is going to ally with Iran? No, Egypt will fight Iran for influence tooth and nail. The two countries will kill the others’ surrogates. But it means al-Mursi feels no friendlier toward America than he does toward Iran. And Cairo will not lift a finger to help Washington against Tehran unless by doing so the Egyptian Brotherhood advances its own cause of putting more Sunni Islamists (anti-Americans, of course) into power.And right now that means Syria. Indeed, at the Tehran meeting al-Mursi called for the overthrow of the Syrian regime while the Iranian media mistranslated that as a statement of support for Syria’s government. (Wow, that will make the Egyptians mad!)

In other words, under Jimmy Carter’s watch we got Islamist Iran—and, yes, things could have turned out very differently—and under Obama’s watch—and, yes, things could have turned out very differently— we got Islamist Egypt.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important single country, has been turned from an ally of America against the Iranian threat into, at best, a neutral between Washington and Tehran that will do nothing to help America.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important single country, has been turned from an ally of America—albeit an imperfect one of course—in maintaining and trying to extend Arab-Israeli peace into a leading advocate of expanding the conflict and even potentially going to war.

Egypt, the Arab world’s most important single country, has been turned from an ally of America in fighting international terrorism into an ally of most international terrorist groups except those that occasionally target Egypt itself.

But here’s one for the 600 rabbis who front for Obama: The destruction of the Egyptian natural gas pipeline and deal, as a result of the instability and revolution that the U.S. government helped promote, has done as much economic damage to Israel as all the Arab and Islamic sabotage, boycotts and Western sanctions or disinvestments in its history.
But wait there’s more, lot’s more.

After meeting Egypt’s new president, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said, “I was convinced that President Mursi is his own man,” adding that the new president is committed to democratic reforms and to representing all Egyptians.
Question: How does Panetta know this?

Answer: This is what Mursi told him.

Of course, by endorsing Mursi before he does anything, the U.S. government puts its seal of approval on the Muslim Brotherhood regime. Shouldn’t it have to do something to prove itself before Obama gives up all that leverage? What next? Perhaps Mursi will get the Nobel Peace Prize after a couple of months in office.

Note the phrase “his own man.” What does that mean? Why that Mursi won’t follow the Brotherhood’s orders. He will even stand up against it, presumably to be more moderate, right? There is no reason to believe that this is true.

Panetta added: “They agreed that they would cooperate in every way possible to ensure that extremists like al Qaeda are dealt with.” Of course, they are more likely to cooperate against al-Qaeda, a group they don’t like. But will they cooperate against Egyptian Salafist terrorists, Hamas, and lots of other terrorists? Of course not.

Indeed, at the precise moment Panetta was meeting Mursi, the new president was releasing Islamist terrorists from Egyptian prisons. These include terrorists from Islamic Jihad which is part of the al-Qaeda coalition! How do you square that one, Secretary Panetta?

And finally, Mursi pointed out to Panetta that his own son was born in California, when the future Egyptian president was studying there. His son, Mursi pointed out, could be the president of the United States one day.

I’ll let you, dear readers, pick up on that previous paragraph.

Of course, the Obama Administration can claim one success in Egypt: the regime pulled its forces out of eastern Sinai in accord with the Egypt-Israel peace treaty. The problem is that it has been reported in the Egyptian media—a good source though not confirmed—that the regime made a deal with the al-Qaida terrorists who attacked Israel. If they promised to stop fighting (for how long?) the Egyptian government would release all of their gunmen.

Meanwhile the most important (formerly) pro-Islamist moderate intellectual in the Arabic-speaking world has defected, an event of monumental importance that is being ignored in the West. The Egyptian sociologist Saad ed-Din Ibrahim hated the Mubarak regime so much that he joined with the Islamists as allies and insisted that they were really moderate.

Now here’s an interview he just gave (view this clip on MEMRITV) spoke as follows:

Interviewer: “You indicated that the Muslim Brotherhood are hijacking the country, not merely the top political posts. Is the Muslim Brotherhood indeed about to hijack the country?”

Ibrahim: “Well, this is how it seems to me, as well as to other observers, some of whom are more knowledgeable than me about the Brotherhood,” long-time members, who have now helped him understand the Brotherhood’s “desire to hijack everything and to control everything.”

I assume Ibrahim is referring to relative moderates in the Brotherhood–and some of these individuals have also spoken publicly–who have either quit the Brotherhood in disgust or been expelled.

I suggest Ibrahim and these people, not to mention the liberals packing their bags and the Christians piling up sandbags, know better than Panetta.

Barry Rubin

Jimmy Carter Unites Democrat and Republican Jews who Renounce his Convention Message

Thursday, August 9th, 2012

Imagine this: two Jews, one opinion!

And not only two Jews, but two Jewish organizations, one representing Jewish Democrats and one representing Jewish Republicans, and there is still only one opinion.

Who accomplished this miracle?  None other than former US president Jimmy Carter.

In what may be a first, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the National Jewish Democratic Council agree on something, and it is something important.  They agree that former US president Jimmy Carter should not be speaking at the upcoming Democratic Convention which will take place September 3 – 6 at the Time-Warner Cable Arena in Charlotte, North Carolina.

The Democratic National Committee announced this week that Carter will be appearing via videolink in a prime time slot during the upcoming convention.  The announcement included a quote from Carter who expressed his “steadfast” support for President Obama and who looks forward to “the progress he will make in the next four years.”

Given President Obama’s recent outreach efforts to assure Jews they still have a comfortable berth in the Democratic party, it is hard to understand why a platform would be given to Carter.  Jimmy Carter is the only Democrat to have garnered fewer than fifty percent of the American Jewish vote in any presidential election since 1924.   In 1980, when Carter ran against Ronald Reagan, Carter received only 45 percent of the Jewish vote.

In the press release announcing Carter’s participation in the convention, the 2012 Democratic National Convention Chair, Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, described Carter as “one of the greatest humanitarian leaders of our time and a champion of democracy around the globe,” and a “lifelong champion of human rights.” However, not everyone — even within the Democratic party — was quite so enthusiastic.

NJDC chair and CEO David Harris called Carter’s record on Israel and the Middle East an embarrassment.  Harris also described former President Carter as “harmful to the peace process.”

Speaking from the same page as his Democrat Party colleague, Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, responded to the news of Carter being headlined at the Democratic convention in only a slightly more hostile tone.  In an email to Jennifer Rubin of The Washington Post, Brooks described Carter as “openly hostile to Israel,” and having publicly equated the Jewish Homeland to the South African Apartheid regime.  In 2006 Carter published a book about the Middle East peace process which largely blamed Israel for the conflict.  The title of Carter’s book is Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

The Jewish Republicans also took the opportunity to blast the Democratic party for showcasing someone who is widely seen as anti-Israel.

But the NJDC’s Harris was still hoping to minimize the fallout from Carter being showcased at the Democratic convention.  While clearly distancing himself from Carter, Harris said he was “confident” that the former president would not be using his speech to talk about Middle East policy.

Perhaps Harris has not read the Democratic National Committee press release announcing Carter’s slot at the convention.  It promises Carter will be providing “his unique insights about President Obama as a global leader,” and lauds Carter for being “a champion of democracy around the globe.”  It is hard to imagine that Carter will not devote at least some air time to promoting his version of peace in the Middle East.

Nonetheless, perhaps Jimmy Carter deserves another peace prize – forget about the enmity between Israel and Egypt, now he is the impetus for two sets of many Jews to have the same opinion.  That opinion: Jimmy Carter should not be speaking at the Democratic Convention.

Carter will give his videolinked convention speech on Tuesday night, September 4th.

Lori Lowenthal Marcus

Video: White House Kitchen Goes Kosher

Wednesday, December 21st, 2011

In honor of the annual White House Hanukkah celebration, Rabbi Levi Shemtov, Director of American Friends of Lubavitch,  kashered the White House kitchen.  Shemtov – with the help of the White House kitchen staff and Chef Tommy Kurpradit, prepared the White House to host 550 guests for the annual celebration.

The  first conducted by President George W. Bush in 2001.

Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, members of the House of Representantives and Senate, Supreme Court Justices, rabbis,  artists, astronauts, members of the military, Democratic activists and donors gathered in anticipation of Hanukkah at the White House on December 8, enjoying traditional foods such as latkes, jelly doughnuts and smoked salmon as well as new Jewish favorites such as sushi.

Guests were treated to a jazz rendition of “Rock of Ages” and a musical tribute to Jewish-American Composers by the U.S. Marine Chamber Orchestra and lit a Chanukah menorah – a little early – which had been salvaged from a synagogue ravaged by Hurricane Katrina.

President Jimmy Carter was the first to recognize Hanukkah, when he lit the National Menorah in Lafayette Park erected by Chabad-Lubavitch.  The first Hanukkah lighting ceremony at the White House was conducted by President William J. Clinton.

Malkah Fleisher

Time To Kick The One-Party Habit

Wednesday, October 27th, 2010

For Jewish-Americans, the December date that lives in infamy is December 17. For on that day in 1862, Major-General Ulysses S. Grant issued General Order 11.

The order, which covered Grant’s military district in portions of Tennessee, Mississippi and Kentucky, declared that “Jews, as a class violating every regulation of trade established by the Treasury Department and also department orders, are hereby expelled from the [Military District] within twenty-four hours from the receipt of this order.”

Those who dared to return would be “arrested and held in confinement until an opportunity occurs of sending them out as prisoners.”

The order was countermanded by Abraham Lincoln before anyone was expelled. But it became an issue when Grant ran for president in 1868. How to justify the wholesale expulsion of an entire people? Grant asserted that he was furious over illegal smuggling of Southern cotton to the North and that “the order was issued and sent without any reflection and without thinking of the Jews as a set or race to themselves, but simply as persons who had … violated an order.”

This rather curious defense was apparently enough for America’s tiny Jewish community. In 1868, a majority of them cast their ballot for the Republican candidate for president – General Ulysses S. Grant.

Time has softened the hard choices facing Jewish Americans. It would be somewhat more difficult today for a candidate to win nomination after advocating a mass expulsion. But the Jewish practice of voting for candidates who work against Jewish interests lives on.

A politician could play out his career in a thousand arenas where working against his supporters is suicide and only one where it isn’t. But that one applies when he works against Jewish Americans. In the 19th and early 20th centuries this phenomenon worked to the benefit of Republicans like Grant. Since that time it has worked to the benefit of Democrats.

One of the first to benefit from this trend was Franklin Roosevelt. He and Harry Truman never drew less than 75 percent of the Jewish vote and sometimes gained as much as 90 percent of it.

How did Franklin Roosevelt repay the Jewish community? By obstructing the issuance of visas to Jewish refugees seeking to flee Europe. In June 1940, Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long ordered American consuls “to put every obstacle in the way [to] postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of visas” in order to “delay and effectively stop” all such immigration.

Roosevelt knew, however, how to grant entry to refugees when he wanted to. In August 1940 he exploited a loophole in America’s immigration law for British children, declaring them “visitors” who intended to return home.

The story of Roosevelt and the Jews grew even darker during the war. I am prepared to concede that any reasonable cost-benefit analysis argued against bombing the rail lines to Auschwitz. The Germans would have repaired them quickly and hundreds of hard-to-train flight crews would have been lost – flight crews that were needed to win the war. What I cannot concede, indeed what I cannot understand, is why Roosevelt didn’t simply announce to the world what was going on in Auschwitz. Eli Wiesel once said something that I recall hearing from many others when I was growing up: Roosevelt knew what was going on the camps, but the Jews didn’t. Why didn’t he go on the BBC or Voice of America – which everyone in Europe listened to – and warn them not to get on the trains? For that matter, why didn’t he warn the Germans that those involved in the killing would be brought to justice after the war?

A simple announcement like that would have cost the allies nothing and would have saved countless lives. Why didn’t he do it? This is one of those questions that have no answer.

* * * * *

Harry Truman has often been portrayed as a great friend of Israel because of his recognition of the Jewish state. In truth, this was an empty gesture that had little influence on events. What had far greater influence was the arms embargo he imposed against Israel. It was precisely because of that embargo that the Soviets tilted in favor of Israel and allowed Czechoslovakia to sell weapons to Jerusalem. The Czech arms deal was the decisive event outside the field of battle and it would have happened whether Truman had recognized Israel or not.

During the fighting that followed Israel’s declaration of independence, Israeli troops had Egyptian soldiers surrounded in the Negev. Truman demanded that Israel free the Egyptians without getting a peace treaty in return. The Israeli army also held a large chunk of the Sinai Peninsula as well as two villages in Lebanon. Truman likewise demanded that Israel withdraw immediately and unconditionally from both.

At the same time, Syria held three small pieces of Israeli territory. David Ben-Gurion asked that the Truman administration work with similar dispatch to bring about a Syrian withdrawal. If Israel was being forced to hand over Arab land in the Sinai and Lebanon, it seemed only fair that Syria be forced to hand over Israeli land near the Kineret. The Truman administration refused. It never pressured Syria, choosing instead to broker an agreement to have that territory, and other territory in Israel, left demilitarized.

In other words, the Truman administration took the position that the Syrian army did not have to withdraw from Israeli territory unless the Israeli army withdrew from an equal amount of Israeli territory. This outrageous double standard bedevils the region to this day because Syria now takes the position that in return for peace Israel must withdraw not only from the Golan Heights but from the demilitarized zone as well.

It’s true that Truman’s successor, Dwight Eisenhower, displayed similar hostility toward Israel following the ’56 Sinai War. But Eisenhower didn’t get 75 percent of the Jewish vote as Truman had.

In the 1960s a Jewish American could feel good voting for the Democrats. John Kennedy was the first American president to sell arms to Jerusalem. Yes, they were defensive arms only, and Kennedy’s Mideast record was troubling in several areas. But Kennedy did choose as his vice president Lyndon Johnson, who had been one of Israel’s staunchest defenders in the Senate. And when Johnson succeeded Kennedy as president, he maintained that close relationship; indeed, a plausible argument can be made that LBJ was the best friend Israel’s ever had in the Oval Office.

The Jewish people will forever owe a debt of gratitude to Johnson, as they do his successor, Richard Nixon, who came through for Israel when it mattered in 1973.

* * * * *

But in 1976 Democratic voters (not just Jews) should have been made to wear dunce caps and sit in the corner, having nominated for president Jimmy Carter instead of Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson and sending him to the White House.

In fairness, it should be said that even if Scoop Jackson had been elected, the Camp David Peace Treaty probably would have turned out the same: full withdrawal from Sinai in return for full peace, and agreeing to disagree on Jerusalem.

That doesn’t change the fact that Jimmy Carter treated Israel with nothing but unbending hostility. In his diary, Carter blamed Israel for every impasse, saw a Jewish lobbyist hiding behind every bush, and wrote that Sadat deserved the Nobel Peace Prize while Begin did not. The Israelis were particularly enraged by Carter’s insistence that a letter be included in the Camp David Accords stating that East Jerusalem was occupied territory that would have to be returned.

“Why,” Moshe Dayan asked in his memoirs, “was the Jewish Quarter in the Old City regarded as ‘conquered territory,’ held by us in contravention of international law? Simply because the Jordanian Arab Legion conquered it in 1948, destroyed its synagogues, killed or took captive the Jewish civilians who lived there? What was there holy about the military conquest by the Jordanian Army in 1948, and profane about our victory in the 1967 war – a war which also started with Jordan’s attack on Israel?”

None of that seemed to have fazed America’s Jewish community. At a particularly low point, the United Jewish Appeal honored Lillian Carter, Jimmy Carter’s mother, as its Outstanding Humanitarian of the Year. She declared, “I’ve never been around so many Jews before” – and got a standing ovation. Incredibly, Carter received a plurality of the Jewish vote when he ran against Ronald Reagan in 1980, garnering 45 percent to Reagan’s 39 percent. (Third party candidate John Anderson picked up the rest of the Jewsih vote.)

How fortunate that the American people could see what American Jews could not. The 1980s were a particularly difficult time for Israel. Those years witnessed the destruction of Saddam’s nuclear reactor, the First Lebanon War, the Sabra and Shatilla massacre, Israel’s economic collapse in 1985, the arrest of Jonathan Pollard, the leak by Mordecai Vanunu of Israel’s nuclear capability, and the First Intifada. I shudder to think what might have happened if even one of those events had occurred on Jimmy Carter’s watch. Ronald Reagan never wavered in his support.

As Moshe Dayan tells it in his memoir, there was only man in the Carter administration even more hostile to Israel than Carter himself. “What I resented most,” he writes, “was the part played by Vice President Mondale . I was disgusted.” In 1984, when Reagan was reelected to a second term with 59 percent of the general vote, Jews gave 67 percent of their votes to his Democratic challenger – Walter Mondale.

In more recent times, no one talked with greater emotion about Israel than Bill Clinton. He bid “shalom” to his chaver Yitzhak Rabin and never tired of quoting his pastor, whose dying words were “Don’t forget Israel.” I saw him tell the pastor story in New York City. There wasn’t a dry eye in the house.

One can only wonder, then, what Clinton was thinking in 1993 when Hizbullah started a border war with Israel. At a time during which Hizbullah had murdered more Americans than any other terror group – this was before 9/11 – Clinton decided to pressure his chaver Rabin into a cease-fire agreement after just ten days. He did the same thing in 1996 to Prime Minister Shimon Peres after just seventeen days. Hizbullah concluded that Washington would always come to the rescue. Not surprisingly, after each such rescue it went right back to shooting at Israel.

When Hizbullah attacked Israel in 2006, kidnapping Regev and Goldwasser and killing eight other soldiers, the group told Lebanon’s prime minister not to worry. The infidel Jews would bomb for a few days and then they’d be forced to stop.

What Hizbullah failed to take into account was that this time there was a Republican in the White House. George W. Bush reasoned that if other countries had the right to fight back, then Israel should enjoy that right as well. With no American pressure to speak of, the war lasted 34 days. It was the only war in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict that Jerusalem started on its own terms and ended on its own terms. When the guns fell silent, there was rubble piled high in Beirut and a new set of rules on the ground. The border between Israel and Lebanon has been almost totally quiet ever since.

The contrast between Clinton and Bush was just as stark with respect to the Palestinians. When Baruch Goldstein killed 29 Palestinians on Purim in 1994, the Clinton administration sprang into action. Despite the fact that Goldstein acted alone, the administration allowed the Security Council to condemn Israel and even set up an international observer force in Hebron to help protect Palestinians.

When Palestinians attacked Israelis in an organized fashion with claims of responsibility, the response from Clinton was of a different kind altogether. After Benjamin Netanyahu, in his first go-round as prime minister, opened the door to the Kotel Tunnels, Yasir Arafat started a mini-war that left dozens dead. Clinton blamed the episode on a startled Netanyahu and demanded concessions from Israel.

The same thing happened after Netanyahu announced new building in Har Homa. Arafat responded by emptying out Palestinian jails, a caf? in Tel Aviv was bombed – and the Clinton administration blamed Netanyahu. In September 2000, after the trumped up “provocation” of Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount, Arafat almost certainly figured he was back in the driver’s seat. The next day he started the al-Aksa Intifada.

George W. Bush, derided by the vast majority of American Jews, stood up for Israel’s right to defend itself, granting Jerusalem the leeway it needed to win the war against Arafat’s suicide bombers. (Try to imagine the outcry if Israel had entered Jenin on Clinton’s watch.) Israel even hurried to finish up Operation Cast Lead in January 2009 on the last day of Bush’s administration. It had good reason to do so. A Democrat was about to assume office.

* * * * *

All of which brings us to Barack Obama. In December 2008 Israel offered the Palestinians the two-state solution once again, including an unprecedented offer to absorb thousands of refugees. The Palestinians said no, made no concessions and offered no counter-terms.

Obama assumed office a month later. The Great Man determined that the real problem was – what else? – the settlements! He then took a position that was even more anti-Israel than the Palestinians had taken. Until then, the Palestinians accepted the idea that Israel could build in the three settlement blocs. Obama demanded that Israel freeze building everywhere, even in East Jerusalem. The peace process has been in a ditch ever since.

A personal note: I am embarrassed to admit it now, but I was a Democrat myself for almost twenty years. I once hosted an event for a Democratic candidate that raised $25,000. It was Bill Clinton and his treatment of Israel that cured me once and for all. I am now a Republican. And I have all the zeal of the converted.

In a democracy, you get the government you deserve. The Jewish people have long deserved better. This Tuesday, we have an opportunity to stand with those who have stood with us. We owe ourselves nothing less.

Uri Kaufman is the author of “Low Level Victory,” scheduled for release early next year.

Uri Kaufman

Help The Monitor Decide

Wednesday, September 16th, 2009

Beginning in 2005 the Monitor has awarded annual recognition to a Jewish individual who, by his or her statements, displays contempt for the Jewish people, disregard for historical truth, a desire to sup at the table of Israel’s enemies, or who otherwise plays into the hands of the enemies of Jews and Israel.

As can be imagined, such a decision is hardly an easy one, what with the seemingly inexhaustible supply of Jews given to fatuous and foolish pronunciamentos. We call our little honor the Henry Schwarzschild Award, named after the late civil liberties activist (he did in 1996) who, in the wake of the Israeli siege of Beirut in the summer of 1982, wrote a letter to the journal Sh’ma in which he renounced Israel, declared himself its enemy, and termed the creation of the Jewish state “a tragedy of historical dimensions.”

In the past the Monitor chose each year’s honoree with no input from readers. This year we’re inviting readers to send in their nominees, along with the offending quote(s) made by those nominees during calendar year 2008. The winner of the Schwarzschild Award is announced in January or February, so readers have until the end of the year to submit their suggestions.

The winner of the Monitor’s first Schwarzschild Award (for the year 2004) was Uri Avnery, the granddad of Israel’s hard-core Left. In an interview with Haaretz shortly after the death of Yasir Arafat, Avnery waxed lyrical about the wonderful qualities he’d found in the terror chief who championed and orchestrated the killing of countless men, women and children.

The second Schwarzschild Award went to ADL National Director Abraham Foxman, who, in a speech at the ADL’s national conference, tore into the Christian Right – Israel’s most faithful support group in the U.S. outside the Jewish community (actually, some would argue, more faithful than the Jewish community itself) for what he described as its efforts “to ‘Christianize’ all aspects of American life, from the halls of government to the libraries, to the movies, to recording studios, to the playing fields and locker rooms of professional, collegiate and amateur sports, from the military to SpongeBob SquarePants.”

The third annual Schwarzschild Award went to Michael Lerner, publisher of the far-left Tikkun magazine, who took offense at the widespread negative reaction among supporters of Israel to Jimmy Carter’s atrocious book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

“Jimmy Carter,” wrote Lerner, “was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States…. Carter is speaking the truth as he knows it, and doing a great service to the Jews. It’s time to create a new openness to criticism and a new debate. Jimmy Carter has shown courage in trying to open that kind of space with his new book, and he deserves our warm thanks and support.

The winner of the Monitor’s fourth Schwarzschild Award was Haaretz editor David Landau, who told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that Israel needed to be “raped” by the United States, adding, in sexual terminology too vulgar to repeat in a family newspaper, that conveying this sentiment to her had always been his fantasy.

Actor Ed Asner won the fifth annual Schwarzschild Award. A hard core leftist, Asner last year took up the cause of Israelis who refuse to serve in the IDF, penning an article that appeared on The Huffington Post and other left-leaning websites and blogs in which he approvingly cited the “courage” of Omer Goldman, a young Israeli woman who has already served two terms in an Israeli military jail for, in Asner’s words, “standing up to the government.”

Asner excitedly quoted Goldman’s observation that “the most dangerous thing in Palestine is the Israeli soldiers, the very people who are supposed to be on my side” and then offered his own bit of wisdom: “I find it hard to believe than anyone can look Omer in the eye and tell her that she has to risk her life and her future for Israel whether she wants to or not. It’s just not right. Especially during this time of year [Chanukah] when many of us are getting ready to celebrate a holiday about freedom….”

Who will be honored with the sixth annual Schwarzschild Award? Please help the Monitor decide.

Jason Maoz can be reached at jmaoz@jewishpress.com

Jason Maoz

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/media-monitor/help-the-monitor-decide/2009/09/16/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: