I hope that Volleyboy1 will forgive me for front paging some of his comments. The reason that I tend to front page VB is because he represents a particular trend in the American Jewish dialogue around I-P and I think that it is important to highlight that trend so that we can discuss it.
As the FresnoZionist just put it:
Non-Muslims in the West are beginning to be divided into two groups: those who believe that it is possible and necessary to talk about political Islam, and those who see that discussion as religious prejudice, and therefore taboo.
The present American administration falls into the latter group. While it is committed to fighting against those who are waging war — jihad — against us, it has abstracted the violence from its religious/ideological context, and has done its best to forbid our government and law enforcement agencies from mentioning the context.
The progressive movement, in Europe and the United States, has emerged as a sort-of shrill hall monitor of allowable political discourse and thereby makes any discussion of political Islam impossible, lest one be maligned as a "racist." This makes discussing the rise of the Jihad throughout the Middle East, which is the foremost international geo-political development since the fall of the Soviet Union, entirely unspeakable within progressive-left circles.
In response to my previous post, Muslim Brotherhood Hails Ties With US, Volleyboy1 writes:
Ok... So, who would you suggest we support? No more complaining, just solutions. We know they are bad guys, so what in reality do you suggest we do?
What would you do if you were POTUS? Given the finish of the Islamists in Egypt (they won roughly 70% of the popular vote and the liberals completely dropped out) who or what solution do you support or propose?
You are very critical of the President here - what would you do differently?
I find it interesting that VB claims that I am being "very critical" of Obama in that piece. If you give it the quick once over, you realize that it offers no criticism whatsoever. All I say in the entire piece beyond "And so there you have it" is "This is who the Obama administration is supporting."
The former comment is irrelevant to the discussion and the latter is an assertion of fact, not a criticism. In fairness to Volley, however, it is true that I am very critical of president Obama because, although I voted for him, I have concluded that he has done a poor job as president and thus does not deserve our support going forward.
Directly after the Tunisian uprising, when Obama should have had the common sense to wait and watch, he said:
There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia..
Fine sounding words. Completely delusional, true, but they sound nice.
In response to Volley's question, however, what I would do were I president of the United States is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not the Obama administration is supporting genocidal Islamists.
That's the question that counts. Whether Lumish would do this, that, or the other thing, is entirely irrelevant to the question of whether or not Obama supports the Radical Jihad or Political Islam, or whatever terminology one might want to use. As we can see from a straightforward assessment of the evidence, he and his administration do, in fact, support the Brotherhood and the Brotherhood is an organization with an historical provenance that goes to Nazi Germany.
This is what is important and part of the reason that this is important is because progressives refuse to acknowledge the obvious on this matter. By failing to acknowledge the obvious, or through obfuscating that which is clear, progressives hobble our efforts as citizens to apprehend the truth of the Obama administration's foreign policy.
Once we get to the point where obvious truths cannot be spoken because they are politically inconvenient to the president of the United States or his political party or his political movement, then we cannot even begin to deal with the difficult realities that we face as a country.
So, what would I do differently?
One thing that I would have done differently is not tell the American people that the Islamist Spring was some combination of the American Revolution and the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s. That's the first thing that I would have done very differently.
The second thing that I might have done differently is help to educate the American public on the history of the Muslim Brotherhood, as School eluded, so that they might better understand just whom we are dealing with... "bad guys" as Volley admits.
Another thing that I would likely have done is cut US financial support to a fascist government. This does not strike me as the least little bit controversial. The Brotherhood is fascist and the US is now underwriting financial support to the theocratic fascist government in Egypt.
I would oppose this.
So, those are 3 things that I would do differently but, again, what I would do is entirely irrelevant to the questions being raised by this blog. The first question is whether or not the progressive movement has betrayed its Jewish constituency through making a home of itself for anti-Semitic anti-Zionists? Some of us say yes and some of us say no.
But, that's the first question.
The second question is whether or not the Obama administration deserves support when it has thrown the peace process into the garbage and now encourages the rise of Radical Islam throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds?
My answer to this question, obviously, is "no." American Jews, and friends of the Jewish state, should reject Barack Obama because he is proving himself not only hostile to our interests, but hostile to the general well-being of the United States. Make no mistake, any American president that would snuggy up with the Jihad is acting in a manner hostile to the well-being of the American citizenry, whatever his or her intention.
The road is so paved, VB.
But as the FresnoZionist concludes:
If we want to survive as a culture, we cannot continue to ignore reality, to live in a world undergoing a titanic struggle while pretending that the struggle does not exist.
Whether or not the struggle is "titanic" it still needs to be discussed.
And if in certain venues the discussion is discouraged out of politically correct cowardice and group-think?... well?... We'll simply have the conversation on more friendly and more bold terrain.