He doesn't get it

David

Fog in the Channel, Continent cut off, eh Mel?

The idea that it's you that needs to reassess your conclusions never crosses the mind......

Carlos Perera

I believe Ms. Phillips is right to think as she does that many American Jews have an ideological blind spot that does not let them see enemies on the left. But in the case of many intellectuals (or would-be intellectuals), the disease has progressed well beyond a mere blind spot. More and more, I have found myself--a pro-Zionist Roman Catholic since hearing Abba Eban's impassioned (but historically unimpeachable defense) of Israel's right to defend itself during the 1967 Six Day War--in the uncomfortable position of defending the fundamental right of Israel to exist, against American Jewish anti-Zionists (which should be, but unfortunately no longer is, an oxymoron). The ideological rot that has taken hold of the left in general has not spared Jewish leftists, at least in the U. S. I tremble for the future of Israel and the West.

Brian O'Connor

Melanie wrote:

Acknowledging the anxiety among some American Jews about Obama’s attitude to Israel, Dershowitz concludes uneasily that there isn’t really a problem here because all Obama is doing is putting pressure on Israel over the settlements, which most American Jews don’t support anyway. But this is totally to miss the point.

I like your use of the word "uneasily." I sensed in reading his piece that he was struggling to defend his support for Obama, having recognized all the indicators of what Obama's orientation was before the election, and then having chosen to ignore them.

The good professor is faced with a contradiction between what his eyes, ears and logic tell him now, which is consistent with what he saw before the election, or what Obama, the MSM and his own bleeding heart says to him.

I think he's uncomfortable with his choice, and I think he knows precisely why.

Let him stew.

Amidut

As a liberal American supporter of Israel, I share your concern about the direction of Obama's Middle East policy. The presence of Jews in a politician's entourage is no guarantee of his/their understanding for Israel's predicament.

I voted for Obama last November, however, because the Republicans bear most of the responsibility for the economic disaster we faced. They were incompetent, reckless with the public purse, and ideologically rigid in the face of widespread suffering and institutional disarray. Sorry, but free markets will not magically by themselves solve our health care crisis and energy insecurity. When will American conservatives come to their senses? They should become more Edmund Burkean, as David Brooks suggests, and pander less to the economically privileged, the libertarian ideologues and the religious fundamentalists.

Ron Ptaceksie

Sorry, I've been to Israel, worked in Jerusalem and worked with the NE Jewish community. The American Jewish community is NOT interested in Israel. They are committed leftists and members of the democrat party. Dershowitz is making a 'show', he hasn't a clue and doesn't want to know. TO face up to the reality of the anti-Jewish left would challenge his and the communities most fundamental (misdirected) passions.

John Anthony

I think he is starting to get it. But it may be too late!Israel may also lose its friends on the right. As James Baker said " they don't vote for us". Israel needs to look after its own interests and not trust the US left to assure their survival. They won't be there.

houyhnhnm

Dershowitz has done a masterful job in trying to formulate a left Democrat position so he can remain in the Party. He can certainly fight for Israel much better within the Democratic party than on the sidelines sniping.
We republicans are in such disarray that we might not regain any part of government for 20 years or more, unless an absolute disaster like a terrorist nuclear attack.

davidrev

Two points; the left, that includes US Democrats, get every issue wrong every time and it is said that American Jews live like Episcopalians but vote like Puerto Ricans.

Jewish paleoconservative

Of course Melanie Phillips is correct in what she says. I have so many thoughts, but one that sticks in my mind is the Holocaust business. I only wish that the Germans had treated the Jews as "badly" as the Israelis treat the Palestinians. I only wish that the Nazis had made sure that the Jews had water, food, access to international aid, and of course, the right to lob rockets at the Nazis without fear of retribution.

paul anderson

Great article Melanie. It's clear that America's liberal Jews are now a greater threat to Israel than the Palestinians are. They are the deluded enemy within who will bring the Jewish state down. It is to combat this deluded tendency to think that appeasing gentiles will guarantee our safety that Israel was established to fight against in the first place. Obama has tempted Emanuel, Ross and now Dershovitz to sell their people short for the blandishments of celebrity and office. You are alone, utterly alone in speaking the truth

Miranda Rose Smith

American liberal Jews are born with a genetic neurological disorder that prevents them from pressing the "Republican" lever on a voting machine.

solemnman

Melanie has driven home all the nails.Dershowitz is a stalwart defender of Israel until it comes into coflict with his primary identity.He is a democrat and for American Jews that trumps everything.

Just Louise

There's a factor in all this which deserves to be better known and heeded: the pernicious influence of post-Zionism spread by some ex-patriate Israelis, especially those in academic circles, should not be overlooked in influencing the young in Diaspora communities. There are such people in high academic posts at universities here in the UK - people who advocate Israel's replacement by a single state.
Even in Melbourne, Australia, a highly pro-Israel community, people of such views are teaching in Jewish Studies courses; there is one who specialises in translating far left post-Zionist Hebrew literature and colluding with groups that want an end to Israel as we know it and the return of the Palestinian "refugees" complete with monetary compensation.
What does this person teach? Hebrew Literature, of course. Who knows how much poison is being fed to Jewish students by such post-Zionists in academic posts!
Soon, at this rate, we will all be like the American Jews.

Andre

I completely agree with Carlos Perera. The underlying problem for Israel with Obama is that he is not a Christian and has no sense of history. He trained as a lawyer, a fixer, a worker for the social progress of Afro-Americans. Laudable though that may be domestically he comes across as politically immature on the world stage. He believes you can cut efficient deals with reasonable people. Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians are not like that, not now. I too am concerned not only for the future of Israel but the ability of the west to stand up and fight for the values we believe in - free speech, democracy, peace and justice. I can only hope the US public elects a principled, Christian, educated man with military and business experience and a profound sense of history in four years time. The fate of Israel does not lie with US Jews or Democrats but I believe with the deeper imperatives of the judeo-christian experience. Ani ohev Israel. God bless America

Mailman

Amedut,

You, like a lot of people, have unfortunately swallowed a lie.

The very people MOST responsible for the economic meltdown arent the Republicans (who by the way tried to introduce legislation that would have protected the country from the Fanny/Freddy meltdown), but the Democrats and in particular, Barry the light worker who voted AGAINST regulations aimed at Fanny May and Freddy Mac.

Then again, you can see why the Democrats and Barry the Light Worker (tm) would vote against increased regulation of fanny and Freddy because of all the money those two organisations pumped in to Barry and the other Democrats.

Ask yourself, in the three years leading up to the meltdown when the Democrats controlled both houses, why did they do nothing to insulate America (and the world) against economic meltdown?

The simple answer is, democratic greed!

Geoff M

God help Israel if America ever elected a Jewish President.

elixelx

600,000 men and their families left Egypt at the Exodus and the Rabbis asked "Why so few?" Surely after 420 years and all that fertlilty there should have been more.

After the Jews were expelled from Spain, after "centuries of affront, that never stops!" estimates are that between 2-300,000 went into exile. "Why so few?" question the Spanish Historians, when the Jewish population of Spain was estimated at three times the size of those who left.

When the Jews in America voted en masse for a boy who patently was not going to be a friend to Israel the cry went up, "Why so many?"

The "why so...?" questions posed here are, of course, rhetorical. Many jews don't behave as jews because they don't want to be jews.

However, we are reliably informed that saying "I'm Jewish" is supposed to be "cool" these days, as cool as trash-talking when you playin b-ball wit da bros in da hood!

And that's the rub...American Jews love the caché that goes with CONFESSING that they are Jewish, and hate the embarrassment of BEHAVING like they are Jewish.

Once again the IMAGE triumphs over the CONTENT. Once aginn the IDOL is worshipped!

Ros

American Jews who vote Democrat are utterly blinded and deluded. Even now, with the knowledge that they have voted in who will possibly be the worst president in the history of the USA, they will not vote Republican.

I have been screamed at by hysterical Jewish Democrats who were incensed by my criticism of Obama but they do not wish to see what he really stands for. Their hatred of Bush and their vilification of the Republican party means that are unwilling to face reality.

The biggest problem is that American Jewry is now so assimilated into mainstream America, they are terrified of being seen as 'other' and will do anything to be a part and parcel of the 'American Pastoral.'

Redvers

Poor Alan Dershowitz. He has made the mistake of disagreeing with Melanie's current assessment. If he keeps on with this naughtiness, she will start calling him a self-hater.

Israel is an obstacle to peace. Just look at the preconditions the Israeli government wants before talks about talks.

Straydingo

Amidut,

I think if you spent sometime researching the history that lead to the economic meltdown of 2008 you will quickly find that it was in fact the democrats that both initiated (Jimmy Carter) and accelerated (Clinton) the global ressesion we now face - of course both Bush Presidents are not guilt free - but gut go to youtube and watch Democrats tear pieces out of Republican Senators raising concerns over the Sub-Prime market.

Frank P

Brian O'Connor shrewdly amplifies Melanie's report and his withering conclusion is emphatically spot on.

At least that was my first reaction upon reading his comment. Then on reflection it occurred to me that while Dershy - and many of his ilk on the horns of the same dilemma are stewing, Tel Aviv could burn!

Let's hope that a suitable anti-viral solution is discovered for the condition known as 'The Democratic Party' before it completely saps the erstwhile vibrancy of Western Civilisation and its only Near Eastern ally.
It is indeed fast becoming a dire existential threat to the human species.

Sarah

The Settlemements in Judea are not illegal, they are a returning of our people to their promised land.

It is incredible that anyone with half a knowledge of history should not recognise our inalienable right to this land which we have made a land of milk and honey through our industry.

In the Bible, we were given this land explicitly by God.

Today,everybody else there is STILL a tresspasser on OUR land.

Not, as the spineless Derschovitch dares to suggest, is the other way round.

george albert

Ms. Phillips definitely gets it. Her brilliant analysis is an example of clear thinking and should be read and understood by all people interested in liberty and justice and human rights

sudmuf

Barry is a Marxist. That is why he hates Israel, the U.S. and all freedom loving people as his recent condemnation of Honduras points out.

Linda Smith

"The fact is that many American Jews are so ignorant of the history of the Jewish people...."

Reminds me of the German Jews who considered themselves more German than the Germans....and we know what happened to them.

Raymond in DC

It's clear to me that Dershowitz is suffering from what psychologists call "cognitive dissonance". What he sees and experiences is in conflict with deep set beliefs and assumptions, and he's working to rationalize that conflict. What he should be doing is recognizing that those assumptions and beliefs were wrong. More than most, liberals have difficulty facing reality and learning from experience.

Redvers

Sarah

You personify the problem Obama faces.

logdon

Redvers
July 3rd, 2009 2:09pm

And you personify the problem sanity faces.

Charlie

Melanie,

Maybe in his lamentable attempt is because of Cognitive Dissonance.

Michael Spencer-Smith

As soon as you start bringing God into it as the post by Sarah does, then reason goes out of the window. Do you not think the Arabs believe that God is on their side too? The reason that the Arabs fight you is you have driven them from land that had been theirs for hundreds of years. Following your reasoning, perhaps we Brits should claim the North American continent as our own, since it belonged to us for a while.

Paul

elixelx: and history tells us us what happens to the Hebrews everytime they start worshipping Idols! I think there is something in the Mosaic Law that, if a nation adopts it and keeps it, then that nation breeds strength in its people. When a nation does not have such high principles, then it tends to dissintegrate. This will happen to the West, in my view because it happened again and again to Biblical peoples.

Sarah: your enemies will just laugh at you, and they will tell you that the there is no land that is historically Israels because the Bible is not historical.

Well, they are wrong, and are being proved wrong by developments in archaeology. And they won't be laughing at the final hour.

Paul

MIchael Spencer Smith

It has nothing to do with God. The jewish people can claim that land because they have lived in it for thousands of years. In fact, they have claims to land in the same respect that go way beyond the current borders. They lived in all that land a long long time before the Arabs came. How do the Arabs have a stronger claim on the land if they were not there originally, and have not lived in it nearly long enough?

Jez

The below link is of a programme i saw on Al Jazeera this morning before work;

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/rizkhan/2009/07/2009729141518584.html

Daniel Fleshler and Mitchell Barak, Netanyahu aid debated with each other with Khan.

Both sides (Fleshler, liberal American and Barak, Right wing Israeli) certainly spoke sense (from a neutral position) in explaining their standpoints.

Barak says something very important regarding the Likud approach maybe;

Three steps forward, two steps back... but you still moved forward one step. This in regard to Netanyah juggling policy not to isolate the fringes (left and right) of his coalition government.

You say;

"Many if not most American Jews have a highly sentimentalised view of Israel. They never go there, are deeply ignorant of its history and current realities, and are infinitely more concerned with their own view of themselves as social liberals, a view reflected back at themselves through voting for a Democrat President."

That is across the board though with everyone.

If someone is not in it, they cannot comprehend what it must be like to be 'in it' themselves.

As an opinion, a liberal is someone who is able to be a liberal through someone elses previous sacrifice.

You just don't want to go the route that Iran would be very happy to provoke you into.

Certain personalities there need you isolated/seen to be beligerent maybe for their own positions to be justified. More so this last few weeks.

Amidut

Most of us here agree that Arab/Islamic rejectionism is the main reason for the their endless conflict with Israel.

However, if we want Israel to remain a democratic state with a secure Jewish majority, we should not allow privately organized Jewish religious zealots to settle willy-nilly all over Judea and Samaria, in places where there are Arab populations and little incremental security benefit to Israel.

Some influential Republicans, too, are hostile to Israel: ex. Columnist Bob Novak, Pat Buchanan, C. Boyden Gray, James Bamford, and Brent Scowcroft. So this isn't just a problem with the Left.

Responding to Shaydingo and Mailman about the economy: The Republicans neutered enforcement by the SEC, CFTC, and Federal Reserve. Remember Alan Greenspan?

austin charleston

It is heartening to read Mrs Phllips response to Dershowitz,

and devastating to realize how betrayed we are by those, like Dershowitz posing as knowlegable Jewish 'leaders'

feh

austin charleston

redvers says:

".Israel is an obstacle to peace. Just look at the preconditions the Israeli government wants before talks about talks."

when one side loses wars they start..the winner gets to set the terms of surrender and peace

the arabs LOST EVERY WAR

(and the Palestine Mandate was held IN TRUST fro the Jews......neither the 'occupation ' nor any any 'settlement' is illegal)

Andre

Michael Spencer-Smith mentions the labored post-imperialist theory of the left: If Britain has left India and Africa just as the French have left Algeria and Indochina surely the Jews - a European phenomenon - should leave the middle east. They see Israel as a sort of European colonial-imperial enterprise. Such logic would give the US back to the Red Indians and London back to the Welsh. Like it or not the Jews were there first - Arabs came much later. What we have in Israel is a vibrant economic powerhouse with a flourishing arts and political life. God's blessing on Israel surely goes some way to measuring his approval. The Jews who settled in Israel did so out of Zionist and religious conviction not as part of a European power's latter day imperialism. The Jews claim to be the rightful heirs to the land. They are supported in this by their religion and their prayers. 'If I forget thee oh Jerusalem let my right hand forget its cunning' and 'next year in Jerusalem' have sustained them for millenia. After the establishment of the state of Israel most middle eastern countries obligingly expelled their Jewish populations sending them back to Israel. In that callous act of racial punishment is an unconscious recognition of Israel. Keep God out of it? Following a later and apostate religion will not serve Israel's enemies anymore than it honours God. Israel stands as a proposal that man be reconciled to God. Shabbat shalom, Sarah - well said

Neil Latrobe

Ms. Phillips is guilty of the same bias with which she accuses Alan Dershowitz. She starts with the supposition that Obama is selling out Israel and then aligns her facts to bolster her argument.
Yes, she is right that Obama has insisted that Israel make the first move, and I can appreciate the moral correctness in faulting Obama for that. But political maneuvering is a fact of geopolitical life. The notion that he is torching Israel because “I suspect that Obama – coming as he does from a radical leftist milieu, with vicious Israel-haters amongst his closest friends” is specious. Phillips disingenuously implies that Rahm Emanuel and Dennis Ross are either ineffectual or, worse, not true Israel supporters, which is both offensive and has no basis in reality. What is her “evidence”? She says, “Ross, a Jew who played Mr Nice to Robert Malley’s Mr Nasty towards Israel in the Camp David debacle under President Clinton”. That’s like saying that Maimonides was a Moslem lover because he was the sultan’s personal physician.
Phillips continues with even more spurious charges: “Israel is to be used to buy off Iran just as Czechoslovakia was used at Munich. Indeed, I would say this is worse even than that…” Worse than that???? And what is the basis for this? She declares, “Obama has decided America will ‘live with’ a nuclear Iran, whatever it does to its own people. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry.” No one doubts that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. What would Phillips have President Obama do, nuke Iran? Rush in troops to overthrow Ahmadinejad? The sad reality is that the United States and Israel will have to lives with a nuclear Iran. The alternative is to go to war now. This option is not only not viable, it is madness.
Phillips’ whole premise is that Obama is secretly (or not so secretly) on the side of the Palestinians. To hold that position, she completely ignores the bulk of Obama’s Cairo declaration which explicitly said to the Arab world, that there is

(a) an “unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel”;
(b) that there is an imperative need for the Arab world to recognize Israel and halt violence;
(c) “the Jewish people's right to a homeland after centuries of persecution and the Holocaust”.
Would I have preferred that the president articulated the Jews’ historical right to Israel? Certainly. But that argument has not and will not cut the mustard with the Arabs, and it was essential that it be said in the Arab world that their denial of the Holocaust is preposterous. Yet she gives no credit for the president’s candor: no president – and clearly, no Republican president – has stood up in the heart of the Islamic Middle East and made such unequivocal pro-Israel declarations.
If President Obama “conspicuously refrained from committing himself to defending Zionism and the Jewish people from the attacks and incitement to genocide against them,” he did so because the U.S. will not send troops to defend Israel which Israel does not want the U.S. to do. No U.S. president has unilaterally declared that Israel is blameless; in fact, every U.S. president has required concessions of Israel and censored it for various actions, most notably Republican presidents George HW Bush (the first Bush) and Richard Nixon.

To summarize, Melanie Phillips has believed since before the U.S. election that Obama, if not a closet Muslim, is at the least a pro-Muslim and pro-Palestinian supporter and that he has always had and continues to have an anti-Israel agenda. She is wrong.

Manuel

"The fact is that many American Jews are so ignorant of the history of the Jewish people...."
Unfortunately history to Americans is a rather weak subject, as exampled by their weak grasp of the situation prevailing in the colonies around 1766!!! Yes, I know there is some sort of revolutionary celebration going on there this week-end! It is therefore no surprise that Jewish Americans, along with the majority of the nation, view any part of the past in any way other than what happened "yesterday".
That is the frightening aspect of America & its politicians, no idea of historical content or perspective.This mass ignorance allows some with a little knowledge & an agenda, as Obarmy has, to pull the rug over the eyes of the blind, and Israel is the target to focus all on! If Dershowitz knew & understood anything about Jewish & Israel's history he would have to speak out - as he hasn't spoken, this says everything about his lack of knowledge.
We ignore history at our peril Mr Dershowitz!

Linda Smith

Michael Spencer-Smith, Your knowledge of history is paltry - the "North American continent" never "belonged to us for a while". France and Spain "owned" parts of it. Britain lost its North American colonies in the War of Independence.

Throughout human history land has always "belonged" to the winner of the last war.

As for your opinion: "The reason that the Arabs fight you is you have driven them from land that has been theirs for hundreds of years." Any comment on the 850,000 Jewish refugees that have been driven out of Arab countries since 1948 - from land that has been theirs for THOUSANDS of years - and where Jews lived before the Arabs conquered it.

Alex Bensky

I was a lifelong Democrat. I even voted for McGovern and both times for Carter, which at least means I always have something to atone for on Yom Kippur. My vote for McCain became easier when I realized, as a lot of American Jews don't realize, some choosing not to, that the Democratic Party is not the party in which I grew up. It is a different organization with the same name.

Speaking of Obama's Cairo speech--at a university which bars Copts and all other non-Muslims--he then and later made a point of apologizing for America's sins against Iran, both real and fancied. I waited...and waited...and waited...for him to say something or anything about Iran violating a diplomatic protocol in 1979 that even the Axis observed.

Part of the reason why a lot of American Jews are still buying into Obama is because of the nature of liberalism, at least in its American form. It is to a substantial extent primarily a means of exhibiting one's virtue and moral superiority. Being a liberal allows such people to feel part of a great swell of progress and the fact that this all is being done by a black president makes it all the more piquant. And for many American Jewish liberals--by no means all--that feeling is more important than Israel.

This might be easier if the Republicans were more of an alternative but American parties have become Europeanized, i.e. ideologically based. At one time southern Democrats and liberal Republicans were not oxymoronic. I finally stopped calling myself a Democrat in 2006. Joe Lieberman, a fairly conventional liberal in most ways except that he's pro-American and anti-totalitarian, was read out of the party.

And yes, as Melanie points out, a lot of American Jews use Israel as their moral summer camp; they're fine with it unless it does things that might make them a bit embarrassed around the water cooler or in the faculty lounge.

In my case, I'd support Israel even if the Israelis were Vietnamese...or Taiwanese.

Alex Bensky

By the way, both parties share blame for the financial crisis. But a substantial cause was the decision by the Democrats in the mid-nineties to make access to credit a human right rather than something one earns. We can certainly and justifiably blame financial institutions for making loans they should not have, but they did so only when the government changed the rules and allowed them to do so.

And Manuel, as to our celebration this weekend, I want to assure you all in the UK that there are no hard feelings--you just picked on the wrong people, we taught you a lesson, everybody's cool now.

Adam B.

Obama's doctine shows that it pays to be aggressive against America. Iran has waged a dirty war against the US for 30 years, killing hundreds of Americans, and the response? Obama says he won't "meddle" and won't even verbally back the pro- democracy demonstrators because it may offend the ayatollahs. However, Obama is happy to meddle against an ally, Israel, and dictate what Israel "must" do. Indeed, he places all the onus on Israel alone, and doesn't demand anything from the US hating Palestinians. He's tough on his allies and soft on those who hate the US.

Why on earth did US Jews think this guy was a good idea?

Sharon

Michael Spencer-Smith
Jews didn't simply own the Land of Israel for a few years a couple of centuries ago - Judaism and hence the Judeo-Christian ethic and Western Civilisation was born in the Land of Israel a few Millennia before Islam was invented and Arabs roamed that area. Jews have lived in the Land of Israel continuously since that time even though many amongst them were murdered and expelled by various invaders, not least the Arabs. Despite the attempts by these various invaders and occupiers, the Jews have been devoted to their homeland with the eternal promise to their children that they would one day return to their home. This they have done and will never again leave regardless of what Mr Obama and any other “world” leaders might like to happen.

blue_&_white_avenger

Israel must stand firm against US pressure - even the Lefties must realise eventually that concessions just bring more disasters.
Back here in the UK, we've invited on ourselves the scorn of tin-pot dictators like in Iran.
Jack Straw's cringing sucking-up when he was FM, the disgusting behaviour of the once indomitable RN in the face of the Iranian guards & now our embarrassing FM who is "concerned" at the Iranians.
What's the point of having armed forces when they can't protect our interests?
In this imperfect world, words count for nothing & force properly applied is to be reckoned with.

Augustus

No, Melanie is not wrong about Obama, who, unlike Ms Phillips, appears pretty ignorant about Israel anyhow. His campaign to make the settlements a central theme of his policy is full of double standards. Take just one example: The capture of East Jerusalem in 1948 by Jordan, after a lengthy siege and the banishment of all Jewish inhabitants was considered legal. But the recapture of East Jerusalem and the reunification of the city in 1967 is defined as illegal. The term 'settlements' is used to define every town, village, or outpost which Israel liberated in 1967. It's even used when these towns or villages were Israeli in 1948 but were later occupied by Egypt or Jordan.

Gaza was really the litmus test which proved why Israel cannot afford to hand over more territory to Islamic terrorists.
to show it's willingness for peace it removed Jews by force from Kfar Darom and handed over Gaza to the PA under Abbas. A crowd then proceeded to burn down the synagogue, the strategic defence points under former Israeli control were then used to fire rockets far into Israel, and the handover only led to the power of Hamas
strengthening and the subsequent bombings of Israel.

Furthermore, Obama expects the PA to be given control of parts of Jerusalem. When Jordan controlled East Jerusalem, snipers shot at Jewish homes. The prices of these homes declined dramatically, as who wants to eat dinner with bullets flying through the windows? The situation would become a lot worse than that if the Jordanian snipers were joined by terrorists from Fatah or Hamas. Those bullets would now be exchanged for rockets. What Obama is really demanding is that Israel's seat of government is placed within shooting distance of a terrorist group who is based in Israel's own capital. Any sane person can see why Israel refuses to agree to that.

pinkiebrown

Melanie,
You have missed the point about Obama. He is neither anti Israel nor pro Islam or Palestinian. He is simply a man with no priciples and bad instincts. He thinks, having been indoctrinated by the liberal/leftist/progressives in the media, Europe and in the democratic party that peace can best be achieved if we ignore all our beliefs in right and wrong and agree with the enemies of freedom to compromise our values and this will lead to friendly relations. Just as he would demand nothing of China on environmental issues while having no idea of the impact his environmental policies will have on the US, he will act as though "democracy" in Iran or the treatment of women in Islamic societies is comparable to how those issues are handled in the west. The only saving grace is that he is so spineless that when the Germans or the French condemn the Iranians, he will then feel compelled to join in so as not to look like a weakling. Unfortunately for Israel, the Europeans are hardly ready to say out loud that the Palestinians are ruled by thieves and religious fanatics and that is the main obstacle to peace. If they only would, Obama would surely follow. The "leader of the free world" has turned out to be a lemming.

Sam Armstrong

why just focus on american jews? many european jews are sadly suffering the same delusion.

Rob-NY

Thanks to Melanie for pointing this out. I thought the same thing when I read the Dershowitz peice. I think Dershowitz will someday oppose Obama the way he fiercely attacks Carter today. Another Democrat he no doubt voted for.

Brian O'Connor

Neil Latrobe July 3rd, 2009 3:55pm:

She starts with the supposition that Obama is selling out Israel and then aligns her facts to bolster her argument.

I believe you're confusing a supposition with a conclusion.

I have reached the same conclusion Melanie has, one which is consistent with many sordid events, statements and associations in Mr. Obama's life — his 20 year participation in the black liberationist church of the delightful Rev. Wright being but one of many. I'd be happy to post a link or two pointing to videos of the most honorable Rev. Wright railing against Jews, if you'd like. Or, I could post a video of one of Father Michael Pfleger's anti-Jew railings. You remember Father Pfleger, right?

Phillips continues with even more spurious charges: “Israel is to be used to buy off Iran just as Czechoslovakia was used at Munich. Indeed, I would say this is worse even than that…” Worse than that???? And what is the basis for this? She declares, “Obama has decided America will ‘live with’ a nuclear Iran, whatever it does to its own people. Which leaves Israel hung out to dry.” No one doubts that Iran is building a nuclear bomb. What would Phillips have President Obama do, nuke Iran? Rush in troops to overthrow Ahmadinejad? The sad reality is that the United States and Israel will have to lives with a nuclear Iran.

With respect, there might be other options than acts of war.

If nothing else, the guy with the golden tongue who's motivated by a fierce moral urgency to build a better world could have spoken up in support of the demonstrators who flocked to the streets of Tehran a week or so ago — the ones who were shot and beaten by the goons of the Iranian regime then, and if reports are correct, are being tracked down now with some hanged, others beaten, others imprisoned.

Who knows where that uprising might have gone had Obama the Light Giver, the guy who meddled in Israeli affairs (objecting to settlement natural growth) and is presently meddling in Honduran internal affairs (demanding, with the liberty-loving likes of Chavez, Ortega and two Castro boys that Zelaya should be returned to power) done something more constructive than "not meddle" with Iranian internal affairs for most of the uprising. True, he was dragged kicking and screaming by Hillary Clinton to issue a few moderately strong cliches, but that was way too little and far too late.

Obama is said to be a brilliant orator as well as being driven by a fierce moral urgency . . . surely he could have spoken up earlier and found the right words and tone, had he the desire to do so.

To hold that position, she completely ignores the bulk of Obama’s Cairo declaration which explicitly said to the Arab world, that there is

(a) an “unbreakable bond between the United States and Israel”;
(b) that there is an imperative need for the Arab world to recognize Israel and halt violence;
(c) “the Jewish people's right to a homeland after centuries of persecution and the Holocaust”.

So you believe Obama? Did you believe him when he said "no new taxes" for people earning less than 250k? Did you believe him when, fired by that fierce moral outrage of his, he said: he'd close Gitmo posthaste (Gitmo is now a serious problem deserving serious consideration, no longer an outrage); he wouldn't have lobbyists in his government; he'd get us out of Iraq sooner rather than later; he'd post pending legislation on the WH website for 5 days prior to signing it; his stimulus bill would keep unemployment at 8% or less; etc. etc. etc.

Would I have preferred that the president articulated the Jews’ historical right to Israel? Certainly. But that argument has not and will not cut the mustard with the Arabs, and it was essential that it be said in the Arab world that their denial of the Holocaust is preposterous.

On the one hand you say that you'd have preferred Obama to do other than what he did, out of truth and principle. Then you say that it was essential that he said what he said, even though it wasn't honest or principled.

Do I understand you correctly?

Tancred

Interesting takes on who has the right to live, and rule, where.

Do the original inhabitants have prior right?
The "previous" inhabitants?
The current inhabitants?
Or whoever can take over a place?
In the case of America:
- Native Americans (or, possibly, early Ice Age Europeans)
- British (and Spanish/French/Norse)
- Current Americans
- Hispanics and any current immigrants

Apply your beliefs about America to the Palestinien situation and you may be surprised.

solemnman

to: Alex Bensky
Was that the party of Roosevelt and Truman?Are you not aware of Roosevlt's complicity in the holocaust?Are you not aware of his refusal to open the door,even a crack, to Jewish refugees?Are you not aware of Truman's embargo on arms to Israel in 48? What about Carter's sorry history with Israel? You voted for McCain because you woke up to the discrepency between your ideological vision and the real world.

Ros

Neil Latrobe: You write that 'The sad reality is that the USA and Israel will have to live with a nuclear Iran.' Why? Israel has had (it is understood) nuclear arms for many years. Israel has them for a deterrent. How many times have you heard the Iranians threaten to 'wipe Israel off the map.' Do you think that mere rhetoric?

Notwithstanding the groundswell of opposition that has recently reared its head in Iran, Iran is a rogue state and a state that cannot be allowed to have nuclear arms because we all know what they will do with them.

The sad reality is that the world should now allow Iran to process nuclear arms and your president should show some backbone here and stop trying to be best friends with dictators and tyrants.

As an aside, are you happy that Obama at his Cairo speech stated that it was as a result 'of the Holocaust' that there is an Israel. Is this a general lack of knowledge or deliberately provocative?

Linda Smith

Tancred posted: "Interesting takes on who has the right to live, and rule, where.........Apply your beliefs about America to the Palestinien situation and you may be surprised."

Tancred: who decides who has the right to live, and rule, where? Answer: The people who win the last war.

Vision Aforethought

Unrelated to this topic, but I don't know where else to put it, last night, BBC News 24 Hard Talk offered an optimistic alternative to their normal bias. Bassam Abu Sharif - Former Senior Adviser to Yasser Arafat - was interviewed. The points made by the interviewer were precisely what those of us who know what really went on at Camp David have always been pointing out, that the Palestinians missed an opportunity. The interviewer spent the whole interview making the point that the Palestinians have frequently been responsible for their own failures. It was great to see such an intelligent and well informed interviewer on a BBC program!

Diana from Australia

Could someone please explain to me why only American Jews are singled out here for criticism vis a vis their desire to maintain their impeccable card carrying Leftist credentials. I had assumed that British and European Jews would be similar especially as Britain now seems to be to all intents and purposes a Muslim country.

In the Western world at the current time to say you are a supporter of Israel provokes almost the same reaction as you would get if you said you were a supporter of Robert Mugabe. I really fear that Jews in the Diaspora, particularly the young ones, are going to abandon Israel in order to maintain their own security, self respect and social acceptability (which are of course related to having acceptable ie Leftist views on social justice issues). What would be reaction at a London dinner party of "the chattering classes" if a Jew decided to defend Israel? I can't imagine that British Jews are any more clear headed and courageous than their American counterparts.

Manuel

Alex Bensky
July 3rd, 2009 5:31pm - - -
And Manuel, as to our celebration this weekend, I want to assure you all in the UK.....no hard feelings --you just picked on the wrong people, we taught you a lesson, everybody's cool now.
Dear Alex, - You've just proven my point, American's are not taught history only propoganda. The British didn't "pick" on the American colonists; GB was at war with France which was threatening all the American colonies, who were asked/required to pay for their defence. They didn't consider that to be fair, prefering French colonialism obviously. The law in the colonies was no different bto that in G.B., sedition was a capital offence whether in the Americas or in Britain. bThe only difference being that the colonies had a degree of self rule and able to enact local law. In fact they were a favoured group.
With the American perversion of its origins it can be no surprise that modern day America is continuing to ignore the history of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel and modern day Israel & its warmongering, genocidal neighbours.
Like you, I have family who voted for Obarmy, in spite of my pre-election warnings and like you, they now regret not voting for McCain. The rest, as they say, will be history!
I can assure you Alex the British are also cool about the Americas, just like you and I was delighted to receive photos yesterday of my lovely 15 month old grandaughter, joint British/American nationality, waving her US flag in her home in the US. Have a terrific "rebellious" weekend.
Gut woh!!

Jez

Diana from Australia;

"What would be reaction at a London dinner party of "the chattering classes" if a Jew decided to defend Israel? I can't imagine that British Jews are any more clear headed and courageous than their American counterparts"

You've hit the nail on the head.

Dinner parties and social protocol rubbish.

The political/ruling class of the UK/US that have participated in these types of gatherings have scoffed and concluded that we all should 'all eat cake'.

If a Jewish lad or girl wanted to put it on the line for his or her beliefs then good on them.

A liberal will never be able to understand this because the liberal's situation is no where near the one of the problem.

alex helfhand

melanie, you are a beacon of clarity in a darkening world. our enemies who come in the guise of friendship are worse than the enemies we meet face to face. liberal US jews are greater enemies to Israel than Hamas...their diner chatter is more deadly than a suicide vest

logdon

Linda Smith
July 4th, 2009 12:12pm

Tancred: who decides who has the right to live, and rule, where? Answer: The people who win the last war."

Hasn't done us much good.

Sorry, apart from John Cleese who created a whole career based on pretending not to talk about it.

Yehuda

Dershowitz has misrepresented the position of Mr Binyamin(not Benjamin)Netanyahu on the Jewish communities beyond "the green line."
Netanyahu's government has repeatedly declared that it will proceed with accommodating Jewish needs within the existing perimeters, but will not establish new communities.
This, of course, forfeits Jewish rights that were acknowledged by international law in 1922, but Israel is swallowing the bitter pill in yet another attempt to assuage Arab intransigence.
Already, however, the pied pipers of the "Arab world" have rejected this out of hand, and have threateneed more aggression if they don't get their own way.

Redvers

Who decides who has the right to live, and rule, where? Answer: The people who win the last war."

Europe tried that approach after WWI, and it lead directly to WWII. In 1945 a rather more enlightened approach was attempted. Result - a lasting peace.

So let's all retreat from our entrenched positions, and let Obama have a go at this.

Sergey

"You personify the problem Obama faces."
If so, every G-d fearing Jew is a problem for Obama, which says a lot WHO Obama is. Watch your back, Barry, and remember another promise G-d gave to Jews: "Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you". We all will see how this promise will destroy this arrogant bastard.

jon de la rue

you are asking the US to be rather more principled than Israel has been. It was after all, founded with a fair degree of terrorism, and land theft, and it has dealt with some fairly nasty regime, including south africa and guatemala, among others. Isn't this accommodating rhetoric something israel has brought on itself, by its double-standard as regards regimes 'i t won't talk to' and those it will?

An American

I don't wish to be cruel here...but does any of this sound familiar historically?

Linda Smith

Redvers: "Who decides who has the right to live, and rule, where? Answer: The people who win the last war."
Europe tried that approach after WWI, and it lead directly to WWII. In 1945 a rather more enlightened approach was attempted. Result - a lasting peace."
Errr, no. wrong actually. The winners of WWII, the United States, United Kingdom, and Soviet Union, decided who had the right to live, and rule, and where, under the Potsdam Agreement in 1945. I suggest you read up on it on Wikipedia. As for lasting peace, you seem to have forgotten the Yugoslav wars.

Tancred

To
Alex Bensky
July 3rd, 2009 5:31pm

When will latterday Americans understand?

The so called "War of Independence" was just the British fighting amongst themselves.

I doubt your ancesters were even on the continent at that time.

Be grateful for the country the British created for you, the laws they gave you and your constitution - created by Brits.

Alex Bensky

Solemnman:

Actually, yes, I am aware that Roosevelt did not do a great deal regarding the Holocaust ("not a great deal" here means "pretty much nothing") although he did a great deal to end it by winning the war. I am also aware of Truman's arms embargo, as I am aware of the importance of his prompt recognition of Israel.

But the party always had a number of leaders who were strong not just on Israel qua Israel but Israel because it was a democracy and a firm, reliable friend of the United States. The party I grew up in had people like Scoop Jackson, Hubert Humphrey, George Meany, Sam Nunn. The last of those was Joe Lieberman.

For a nunber of reasons I'm not a nascent Republican. I feel these days like Bill Bailey in the old socialist anti-communist song who "finally decided to start his own party so he wouldn't disagree." The chorus: "You may be a comrade to all of them boys, But you ain't no comrade of mine."

Allen F. Schanman

Melanie, Your comments are dead on.
Clear, factual, and rational.
It is true you know, that liberalism IS a mental dissorder for sure. It has always afflicted G-D's chosen people.......Perhaps they feel guilty that they were chosen

Michael Madigan

Barack Hussein Obama was born to a Muslim father, his half brother and sister are Muslim, his grandmother is Muslim, his step father was Muslim, he grew up in a Muslim country and attended Muslim school.

Why anyone would think that Obama wouldn't favor Muslims in the Israeli/Arab conflict is beyond my understanding.

I'm not sure why American Jews continue to vote for Anti-Jewish Presidential candidates.

Derek BLADES

Once again; Ms Phillips just doesn't get it. She asks "... why has Obama chosen to pick a fight with Israel while soft-soaping Iran which is threatening it with genocide?" Three mistakes in one sentence is good going even for Ms Phillips.
When, where and on what issues is President Obama picking a fight with Israel? When did he soft-soap Iran and when did Iran threaten Israel with genocide?
He has told Israel to halt all settlement building in the occupied territories. Telling Isrtael to stop committing what the larger world regards asd a crime does not amount to picking a fight. It is common sense advice.
By soft=soaping Iran Ms Phillips may mean treating it like any other sovereign state. Or perhaps she is criticising President Obama’s measured and intelligent comments on the recent demonstrations in that country.
Wm Hazlitt recently gave us the correct definition of genocide. We know Ms Phillips never responds to comments on her blog but she might learn something if she took the trouble to read them. "Threatening [Israel] with genocide" is simply nonsense. You cannot genocide a country. Genocide is something you do to an ethnic group.

Derek BLADES

Sarah, July 3rd.

In my bible the land of Canaan is described as a land flowing with milk and honey before the Israelites occupied it. You are saying that the milk and honey stuff came later. What is your evidence for that?

Derek BLADES

What is truly astonishing about this blog and the comments it has incited is the implicit assumption that American Jews should put the interests of a foreign country - Israel - before those of their own country. I am sure that like any other American voters those with Jewish ancestry consider a whole range of issues and the alternatives put before them by presidential candidates before casting their ballots. The notion that they should only pick presidents who will kowtow to Israel is simply barmy.

Adam Michael Kratt

As a Progressive and as a Democrat. As an American Jew. I see the danger that has become of the Obama presidency. I see how his promises and his guarantees during the elections have now become perverse lies. If only McCain had picked a real VP, instead of the dimwit from Alaska who was a supporter of Jews for Jesus. If only Ann Coulter and her "Perfected Jew" ideology and his association with John Hagee had not been part of McCain's campaign. I am saddened that my vote went to Obama as I feel he has betrayed American Jews. But I could not vote for a half dead man who had chosen a brainless and now quiter named Pailin

Linda Smith

Derek Blades, Clearly you know nothing about Jewish history. As Natanyahu said in his June speech, if Israel had been created earlier, six million Jews would not have died in the Holocaust. All the doors were closed.

For the Jews of the diaspora, Israel is an insurance policy.

In the Wilderness in America

The reason Dershowitz and American Jews overwhelmingly supported Obama is that they hated, I mean hated, Bush and the Republicans. Their history of social activism and reliance on Democratic administrations like FDR's prevents them from dismissing the Democratic Party even when that party might jeaprodize the survival of Israel. They will not vote for a Republican unless Israel is attacked, and Obama is responsible for doing nothing to help. By God, I hope this doesn't happen. However, given Obama's proclivities, it could.

Brian O'Connor

Derek BLADES July 5th, 2009 9:35pm wrote:

He has told Israel to halt all settlement building in the occupied territories. Telling Isrtael to stop committing what the larger world regards asd a crime does not amount to picking a fight. It is common sense advice.

The logical fallacy known as the argument from popularity. What the larger world "regards asd(sic) a crime" and may be "common sense" is not necessarily true. If truth were decided by voting, and common sense were infallible, bloodletting would have cured disease in the 19th C. Alas, in spite of much bloodletting, it had little effect on curing disease.

Go figure . . .

By soft=soaping Iran Ms Phillips may mean treating it like any other sovereign state.

Which raises an interesting question: is a state which demonizes and punishes homosexuals with death, which represses women and which punishes adultery by stoning a regime that acts consistently with your world view? Is it just like every other sovereign state, and if so, does that make it right? (Warning: watch out for the "argument from popularity" fallacy.)

Does it make no difference that we westerners abhor such practices, and have outlawed them?

"Threatening [Israel] with genocide" is simply nonsense. You cannot genocide a country. Genocide is something you do to an ethnic group.

Thanks! Any surviving Israelis and I will be comforted by your distinction in the event the religious fundamentalists decide to place their fate in Allah's hands and nuke Israel! I mean, if it isn't genocide, but only a step in that direction, how bad can the killing of several million Israeli Jews be?

Right?

winston

He is not ignorant but he's an idiot first for voting for Obama. Secondly, he's a liberal. That makes him a moron, IMO.

Fivish

Settling the Land of Israel by Jews is not only required by International Law (1919 Paris agreement, Weizmann and King Feisal) but by the supreme authority of Hashem! Obama as a lawyer should know this. But for him history began in 1948, not 1919! Another inconvenient truth?

Jennifer Hills

Thank you for shining a rational light on the new administration's actions. Over the years it seems as if Israel has increasingly come under attack for its policies and yet, as hard as I look, I can see little more that a country protecting itself and its people in a relentlessly hostile environment. Although I find it difficult to credit, I keep coming back to western anti-semitism as the cause. After all the world has been through I can't believe we allow the Arab world to manipulate public opinion to the extent it does. Please keep writing on these issues. I need to see more to stay sane.

steve bronfman

Alan Dershowitz is perhaps the single greatest pro-israeli person in the USA today. His track record of defending Israel is unmatched and as such his opinions deserve great respect.

I am not an American or a supporter of Obama. I liked McCain and Bush. I think that Alan Dershowitz is misguided in his support of Obama in this instance and Melanie is largely correct.

However, I think as non-Americans we have to look at the peculiarities of American politics to understand why Jews support the Democrats overwhelmingly. This is a question I have often considered as I support conservative parties in my country. it is often considered strange that such an affluent communisty votes for the leftist party. Most (non-religious Jews) are liberal in outlook and and we must remember that the Republican party was traditonally not particularly pr-Israel (look at the attitude of the first of Bush Sr and James Baker towards Israel for instance) and anti-abortion, pro-missionary etc. It is really only under George Bush Jr that the Republican party embraced better policies from a Jewish perspective. We must also remember the links between the republicans and the S'audis etc. We need to look at domestic policy when considering Jewish voting patterns in the USA.

That said, I do agree that because of the political correct, cultural relativist attitude coming from the extreme-left and finding its way to popularity in the Dems that they are now bad for Jews and Israel. In time American Jews (like the neo-cons) will wake up to this and vote for the Republicans. The left represents a real danger to Israel, and indeed to Americans Jews and otherwise. Leftists embrace ideologies opposed to American patriotism and view Israel as a colonial settler state. To generalise they regard all cultures as equal no matter how vile (eg sharia law stoning gays in Iran, womens rights in Muslim countries, slavery practiced by Arabs in Western Sahara and elsewhere) and view all opposition to western culture as somehow good, right and fair. Obama is currently in talks with Hamas and Hezballah who both have an unreconstructed platform of Jew-hatred and Islamofascism.

Jeremiah

Par 1 of 4:
I am an elderly prosperous professional person who obviously knows lots of Jews and also went to school and university with lots of Jews (well Hitler would certainly have persecuted them even if most of us thought of them as singing well in the Carol services or playing football well). And Jews are amongst my ethnically varied group of close in-laws so there was never a chance that my interest in Jews and Jewry would be other than to be fascinated, as one might be fascinated with Ancient Athens (which is why I like the British Museum to treasure its artefacts, but I digress) or the making of the modern world by an Anglo-Scottish upper middle class (cf. Greg Clark's "A Farewell to Alms") from the late 16th to late 19th century. I used to be a committee member of a pro-Israel group and even now wouldn't mind if 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza had been killed if it would sort out the Palestine problem once and for all. But Melanie should recognise that, for those of us for whom Jewry is neither very extended family (i.e. race as it was generally used till the 1940s, however much, with strong Jewish support, we have taken to removing "race" from the language, especially when it is possible to use "a people" or "a community") nor an unprovable religious association with a deity that (logic tells us) cares so little about us that he gives one lot of instructions to Ancient Hebrews (including genocide of neighbours), and then allows Jesus, Mahomet, Luther, Calvin et al. mislead everyone but the Hindus and Buddhists whom He unaccountably leaves alone... for all those of us, Israel's claims are not as objectively clear as she would like for the building of her edifice of certainty.

Jeremiah

Par. 2 of 4:
I leave aside the majority (I think) of my totally assimilated Jewish and part Jewish friends (some of whom remember anti-Semitic behaviour they suffered from) who deplore what they perceive as Israel's conduct in recent years far more than I do. I leave aside the brilliant and successful son of an Israeli professor and 1930s refugee mother who says the best thing about Israel is that it keeps the mad Jews out of (his country) and that his visits there make him think of Latin-American republics in the quality of public administration. I am probably typical of those who only discovered and had his imagination touched by the Holocaust many years after WW2 and simultaneously came to admire the tough, brave Israel that prevailed from 1948 to the late 70s. But that doesn't stop me seeing that Jews, qua Jews, have no more claim to the ancient lands of Judaea and Samaria, let alone the actual territory of the state of Israel, than the Arabs qua Arabs, Christians or Muslims.

Jeremiah

Par. 3 of 4:
Statutes of limitations are a practical necessity for reasonable human beings trying to live together with competition confined to generally beneficial economic and cultural behaviours and the reason for recognising that Israel exists and should continue to exist depends much more on the practical common sense underlying statutes and other sources of limitation periods than on any resolutions of the United Nations or other changeable and contestable propositions of international law where most people are inclined to believe that Israel is pretty comprehensively in the wrong and are not very interested in nice, clever, arguments turning on different language versions with and without definite articles. As is said in political circles "you've got the logic abut I've got the numbers" and the numbers can change on courts too so one has to resort desperately to discrediting the court if one can't then rebase one's notion of legality so that the courts no longer define it. So...

Jeremiah

Par. 4 of 4:
The only practical possibility of resolution of the Palestine problem is a two state solution (not that my principal rabbi informant on Israeli matters thinks there is any hope of solution) and you must be blind Melanie if you think that Israel's creeping occupation of the conquered West Bank and the consequent fact that Palestinian lives are much poorer and more constrained than those of the settlers is consistent with Arab belief that Israel is serious about allowing a viable Palestinian state (and that is without personal experience of the outrageous mistreatment many have received at the hands of young IDF members who are often not significantly better or worse than the average American serviceman who is capable of My Lai and Abu Ghreib or the Brits who dealt ferociously with the savage Mau Mau). That Israeli governments speak, and equally act, as if Jerusalem is never to be shared by Arabs as a capital or at all, despite that looking like something very sensible to the non-religious outsider, adds to reasons an Arab might sensibly advance for supposing that Israel will not give up anything except in response to physical necessity. The route of the wall (itself unobjectionable to world-weary sceptics who recognise that strong fences makd good neighbours) is another powerful reason for Arabs to assume that Israel will give nothing except under threat. That much of all this intractability derives from Israeli domestic politics (and even something as technical as its unfortunate proportional representation system of voting) is no reason for Arabs to change their views on these matters. If most Israelis can't escape the Orthodox grip on marriage laws. inter alia, and a tiny minority (admittedly those producing most of the Jews of future generations) have themselves exempted from military service why should Arabs think that all that intelligent Israeli goodwill that an honest view can acknowledge is actually going to make Israel treat Palestinians better (it would be like expecting the Saudis or Syrians to help out all the Palestinian refugees in a serious way!). So.... where is mere fortitude, strength and patience on the part of Israel going to lead? To a demographic disaster to start with. Time is not on Israel's side. Add to being outbred the reality that prosperous Jewish families of 1.5 children are not going to be able to match poor Palestinian families with 8 children in willingness to fight on and Americans and Europeans are rightly unwilling to take any serious risks such as would be entailed in attacking Iran (which would almost certainly fail to put an end to Iran's nuclear future anyway) and you ought to be praising Obama for beginning to ramp up the pressure on Israel. There is only one quid pro quo that can reasonably be expected and that is the placing of international forces so that Palestine is a truly demilitarised area. The Hong Kong precedent of 50 years before the status changes is worth considering. For the Arabs it offers the additional prosperity that would come from building infrastructure and servicing large military bases. And, by the way, sharing a capital in Jerusalem would make the prospects of a nuclear attack on Israel even more unlikely than it is now and will still be when Israel's nuclear armoury is only ten times as large as that of Iran. One more thing. Why did Israel destroy all those settlers' farms and houses in Gaza when they were evacuated? Such gross waste surely sends a signal to Palestinians, even if it was meant as mean-minded craven appeasement of settlers, that they count for almost nothing in Israeli eyes or the policies of the government of Israel. It makes Palestinians behaving like Baruch Goldstein seem a lot saner than him.

Yehuda

Derek Blades, your posts are unintentionally comical to a degree that is beyond belief.
You're not the sharpest blade in the drawer, are you?

Trumpeldor

Melanie,

Mr Dershowiz incarnates the prototype of many current Jewish American :successfull,clever, and ...lefist
The problem of Mr Derschowitz is is lack of guidance
This guy is clueless to find out HOW he achieved his status
Like the famous Jewish Director Spielberg,he is unable to detect the link between present and past
This is why he will be unable to transmit his heritage to his kids
This lack of "self awarenes"" prevents him to see Mr Obama in the cold reality:a cheater,a liar (see his former pro israeli speech BEFORE his victory), in brief ...a hardliner leftist.
Judaism involves a religion ,a people,and THE land of Israel
The lack of the 1st and 3rd element among Mr Derschowitz's and likes psyches explain their forthcoming disapearance from history.
Concerning Jeremia and his long dooming predicttion of the demise of Israel, I would like to remind him that the Jewish demographics in Israel (1948+Judea Samaria) are very robust and climbing whereas muslim natality is plunging !
Yoram Ettinger demographics statistics are far more reliable the Jeremia's dark forecasts .

wonderer

Jeremiah, the market gardening assets of the Gaza Strip were intact when the Israelis left, but they were comprehensively looted and trashed by the Palestinian population almost immediately. As to the housing, I remember reading at the time, that this was demolished at the behest of the Palestinian authorities to avoid disputes among their people. Much of the rest of your diatribe has the verbosity of an ancient Roman writer without the clarity and I for one haven't the mental stamina to decode it.

steve bronfman

*That last link should be this one;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divisions_of_the_world_in_Islam

on the divisions of the world in Islam rather than a link to the city of the same name

C. Gee

Jeremiah:
You are probably a nice man, and some of your best friends are Jewish. Would you explain your comment that you would not have minded the deaths of 50,000 Palestinians in Gaza if that had ended the Palestinian problem once and for all?

Only Jews qua Jews have a claim to national sovereignty over any part of Mandatory Palestine, but particularly Judea and Samaria where they were in fact a nation.

beloved

@Amidut who wrote: I voted for Obama last November, however, because the Republicans bear most of the responsibility for the economic disaster we faced. They were incompetent, reckless with the public purse, and ideologically rigid in the face of widespread suffering and institutional disarray. Sorry, but free markets will not magically by themselves solve our health care crisis and energy insecurity. When will American conservatives come to their senses?

b responds. Who was the majority party in congress when the economy crashed? O voters I have asked did not know. What free market solution to problems stemming from unconstitutional government meddling in the free market did the Republicans force on the the free market? There is no "health crisis" or "energy crisis" except what Fedzilla manufactures through restriction of freedom. You want to do what all liberals want to do when their programs inevitably fail. Repeat the same mistakes, but this time do them bigger. You cannot fix social security, Medicare, Medicaid because the nature and foundation of these programs, socialism, is flawed. Socialism NEVER works. Biden and Gibbs have both admitted what everyone knows: Americans are happy with their health care. The highest number I heard of those without health care insurance is 15%. You want to nationalize the healthcare of 85% just for 15%, plus the program that is proposed would not cover all 15%. You want to force those who do not want health insurance to purchase it against their will. Some of those without health care insurance are young people who go to the doctor maybe twice a year and pay for visits out of their pocket. Some of those are illegal immigrants who should not be in the US at all. Some are those who could have insurance but choose not to have it for whatever reason. Nobody is without health care, as you know. About energy, our dependence on foreign oil is self-inflicted, or rather Democratic Party inflicted. We are currently watching the "progress" of fascism in America with the marriage of large corporations and the Federal government. The private sector is shrinking because the federal government is pushing them out of markets. To be a player, corporations are cutting deals for their existence in DC. Fedzilla is there for the people with empty promises of "nationalizing industries," meaning that government confiscates the private property of private citizens. If I went to your house and confiscated your property you would call me a thief. Defend freedom because you have come to your senses about Dear Leader and the majority party in Congress, or stand out of the way of those defending freedom in your place because you are blind to the danger or do not appreciate what you have. Leave my Constitution and political rights alone. Better said, Don't Tread On Me.

David G.

We'll know for sure how ignorant American Jews are in 2012. If they can't see what this president is about and help to re-elect him, I fear for Israel's survival. Israel will be on it's own completely. I think they already are.

C. Gee

Adam Michael Kratt,
I am happy to see your buyer's remorse. But I doubt that any progressive Democrat would have ever considered voting for "half-dead" McCain, no matter who he chose as VP. Blaming Palin, or even Ann Coulter (who is stating Christian theological dogma correctly when she talks about the perfection of the Jews), is not gentlemanly. Volumes have been filled as to why American Jews vote Democrat. Moral vanity is one reason. Not being able to recognize new enemies or friends is another. Not giving much of a damn about Israel or their own history as Jews is a third.
For 2012, may I remind you that it is not illegal to refrain from voting in America. If you cannot exercise your right to vote more responsibly, you should consider not voting next time.

John Edwards

I believe the growing estrangement from Israel of American Jews is to be the subject of the next book by Alan Dershowitz's nemesis Norman Finkelstein

Derek BLADES

Fivish writes "But for [President Obama] history began in 1948, not 1919!”

I suppose Fivish prefers the earlier date because he thinks that the Treaty of Sèvres (1919 or 1920?)gave Jewish people the right to occupy all of what was then called cis-Jordanie. But why not let history start sooner - say in the 1st Century AD at the time of the Roman Diaspora. I expect many Palestinians would prefer to start from there.

My guess is that President Obama prefers 1948 as the base point for "history" because the borders then agreed at the United Nations offer a reasonable hope of a sustainable peace for both Israelis and Palestinians. Yet further proof of Obama's good judgement - the reason why he was elected President.

C. Gee

Derek BLADES,
Who were the "Palestinians" in the 1st Century AD? And how does identifying them help the current lot of Arabs living there?

Jeremy

You have the gift of vision, Melanie. Or perhaps it's a curse...

C. Gee

Derek BLADES,
At no time have the Arabs agreed to any Israeli borders.
The Arabs do not want a Jewish state.
Therefore there is no "reasonable hope" of peace based on any particular boundary.

Linda Smith

Derek Blades, the Palestians are insisting on East Jerusalem - the Old City - for their capital. The 1947 Partition Plan did not apportion East Jerusalem to the Arab state. Jerusalem and its environs were designated an international area under the auspices of the UN. Do you think the Palestinians are going to agree to that part of the Partition Plan now?

mollie

The economic debacle was not due to "Republican recklessness, despite the current mythology being propagated by the likes of Barney Frank & Co. The reason the bottom fell out of the housing market -- and hence the economy -- was due in large part to the same old--same old failed social engineering policies practiced by the Dems for decades. The Community Reinvestment Act, begun under Jimmy Carter and expanded under Clinton, forced banks to make bad loans to people who simply could not afford to pay them back. These were the "NINJA" loans -- no income, no jobs -- no assets.It was too much governmental interference that that was at the core of the crisis. When (some)Republicans protested these loans -- and protest they did -- Bush protested in 2003 and again in 2005 -- McCain is on record for protesting these loans as are other Republicans --the tapes can be found on UTube, Frank and other prominent Dems called Republicans "racist" because many of these NINJA loans went to minorities. They uttered the "magic word." Anyone who doesn't go along with the Democrat party line is a racist. Republicans, being cowards, were paralyzed by these intimations. But remember, only months before Fannie and Freddie collapsed, Barney Frank is on record as saying Fannie was in tip top shape. Many prominent Democrats were using Fannie and Freddie - quasi governmental agencies - as their personal piggie banks. Jews have tied their self identities to the left for several reasons.In part it's just a habit, because they associate anti Semitism with the "Right." They forget that even "National Socialism" was socialism -- just a different brand. Also, many are secular which makes them susceptible to the new "religion" of the left -- with its mythologies and hatreds. It is especially disheartening that Jews do not realize that they are despised by the very people with whom they have chosen to affiliate themselves. The fact that Obama surrounds himself with Jews means nothing. There were plenty of Jews in Moussolini's cabinet too.

Jeremiah

Wonderer (6th July at 4.35 pm): You sound as though you know what you are talking about on the Gaza demolitions, though the explanation hard to believe on ordinary common sense plausibility grounds, so I thank you. However, I can't be so complimentary about your mental energy. True, what I have written has something of the sentence length and lack of punctuation that made one wish the Romans had enjoyed Hemingway - typical of first drafts I am afraid - but you will find it quite clear if you choose to "decode" as in construing a passage of Livy. That you have actually let your acuity lapse is suggested by your use of the word "diatribe" (unless you were seeking lazily to be abusive) because the a couple of dictionary definitions are "fulmination: thunderous verbal attack" and "A bitter, abusive denunciation". No, no, forgive me, you are merely teasing with ambiguity at worst because your Roman reference gives the clue: [Latin diatriba , learned discourse]. So we agree, or we would if only you would read it all carefully and that would be good for the world undoubtedly.

Jeremiah

C. Gee (6th July ) I don't think we have the same starting points. I am a totally non-religious pragmatic utilitarian who regards Jews "national" claims qua Jews on historical grounds as of no practical importance or validity outside some metaphysical sphere. My recent reading of the latest research on who the ancient Hebrews were and became and who wrote the Bible and why would also leave me quite unimpressed with the supposed historic case if I thought it had any practical importance except to show why the Palestine problem is intractable on both sides. However, being a pretty thoroughgoing utilitarian who doesn't believe that the Middle East's problems, or just the Palestine problems, are going to be solved without a huge waste of effort, money and lives I can shrug my shoulders at a hypothetical cost to Palestinians (whom I don't know and only sympathise with in a distant abstract way) which is not large in historical context. (In this connection look back over quite a short period of history to the days when families were still large and about 60,000 of Australia's soldiers, from a population of less than 5 million were killed in WW1, or just back to the Vietnam war when 55,000 American servicemen died (cp. the anguish these days over 4000 dying in Iraq - and these days they are all volunteers!). But, perhaps your question about my attitude to Palestinian deaths really requires an answer to the question why I said it. It is to indicate that I am not one for preaching at Israel. Its necessarily imperfect leaders have an extraordinarily difficult task (well, many v. difficult tasks) and the IDF and its young conscripts have a great burden on them to get their awsome tasks even adequately performed. So, if only it could be done and finished and two states could live side by side a Carhaginian peace (in terms of people killed) would be acceptable to this outsider.

beloved

@Andre, who wrote: I completely agree with Carlos Perera. The underlying problem for Israel with Obama is that he is not a Christian and has no sense of history. He trained as a lawyer, a fixer, a worker for the social progress of Afro-Americans. [...]

b response: good post. But, O has not experienced being Black in America. His American side is White through his Mother. None of his ancestors were slaves in the British American colonies, or later in the US south. His White Grandparents raised him on an island far from the continent in later childhood. His early childhood was spent overseas. His entire childhood was far removed from America, geographically and culturally. His experience is not even working or middle class. He attended Harvard and Columbia. When he moved to the American continent the first time, almost grown, he walked as a stranger or an immigrant without connection to the land or the people.

He does not "know" America, which comes across in small and large ways all the time. It was apparent to Americans through a cultural misstep when he demonstrated ignorance on the difference between Memorial Day and Veteran's Day. A larger cultural boo-boo, he threatened CEO's that if they did not do as he says, he would aim the pitchforks at them. However, our collective pitchforks are aimed at O and Washington DC because, while we distrust corporations who take bail-outs from the Feds, we distrust the Feds who bail them out far more.

How is it he went to Harvard and never noticed that most American heroes come from the business world? How did he miss our premises and feelings about the federal government when he read the US Constitution?

We'd sooner pitchfork politicians like him who seduce and bully desperate business people.

Obama does not hold basic beliefs and premises that are shared among all Americans, including Afro-Americans. For proof of that, the first Black American heroes after the Civil War were business people who invented things for sale on the free market or who followed in Benjamin Franklin's footsteps of living the American Dream via self-education, personal responsibility, and work ethics. Nothing that has happened since has shaken their beliefs or ours.

O simply does not relate to us, but I know someone who does.

Sarah Palin. And she is definately pro-Israel.

D, Stevens

An American who is also a Jew, votes as an American who is also a Jew.
Might i add, that the minority of Americans who are also Jews, and who voted Republican, did not recessarily do so because of that party's apparent pro Israel policy.
However, none of that explains Dershowitz's bizarre avoidance, if not denial, of what Obama said in that Egyptian speech, and what he left out. I totally agree with Melanie, that Obama undercut the legitimacy of Israel by using the Holocaust as the explanation for Israel's existence.
Hello Allen D., wake up there; your President just made a keystone address to arabs, where he knowingly undermined the legitimacy of Israel; don't you have anything to say about it ?

Derek BLADES

Linda Smith (7 July) tells me that “ the Palestians are insisting on East Jerusalem - the Old City - for their capital. The 1947 Partition Plan did not apportion East Jerusalem to the Arab state. Jerusalem and its environs were designated an international area under the auspices of the UN. Do you think the Palestinians are going to agree to that part of the Partition Plan now? " I have no idea Linda and neither have you. But I can well imagine that the proposal to put East Jerusalem under UN administration would be a good starting point for negotiation.

What astonishes me about your comment is that you cite one point on which you would expect the two sides not to agree and proceed from there to conclude that negotiations are a waste of time. Successful negotiations - e.g. Kenya, Ireland, South Africa - always started with a number of matters on which each side says it would never budge. But they eventually found ways to circumvent these “bottom-line” positions and satisfy each other's "honour". Believe me Linda, President Obama, Hilary Clinton and George Mitchell are the best hope for both Israelis and Palestinians. Let's give peace a chance. Stop being a pessimist.

Chico M

"President Obama, Hilary Clinton and George Mitchell are the best hope for both Israelis and Palestinians" Derek BLADES

That sentence alone is enough to send a chill down my spine.

Betty

So disappointed in Dershowitz----what is his motivation has he given up on Israel being a secure land. And doesn't he have a soul that knows right from wrong? Or is he playing a political game----to gain favor with his party???? which has become Liberal to the point of stupid.

elke

I'd really like to understand the leftists all around the world... Right now, in Latin America, the leftist presidents, all anti-democratic (including the Brazilian one) and deeply ideologically commited to one another, support the Palestinians and Iranian Dictatorship, criticize Israel strongly, but they themselves are into some sort of payment to historical debts: fully disrespecting private possessions, they're settling "back" Native-Americans and Afro-Americans to productive farms, displacing the ones who have been paying taxes and working on the lands of their own. Reason is not leftists strength. What they really want is destroying reason in order to rule the world their way. Some said they would be motivated by envy, a kind of moral or mental disorder, something like "now it's our time to oppress, and we'll do it even more effectively!" They don't realize that they've been oppressing for too long, indeed. It's a shame that The U.S. "Democratics" are supporting such collective mental disorder.

Jules Tabak

My father was a lifetime Democ Rat all his life. I was a Democ Rat until I discoved the evil that lurked within their brains. I am not a Democ Rat any longer