Saturday, January 14, 2012

So? What Would YOU do?


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.



  1. Ok, Karma - thanks for addressing this.

    I cannot agree with either your assessment or your prescription for a cure. I don't think answering the question of what you would do is irrelevant to the blog at all - I think it is important as it establishes "baselines".

    Unfortunately, outside of believing that Israel should exist in safe environment, AND believing that the U.S. should be a friend to Israel, I don't believe we have anything in common regarding this issue. I disagree with your assessments completely of American Policy and the actions of President Obama and his administration.

    So, rather than engage in a useless pie fight on the internet, I am simply going to disengage at this time. I think that is best as I don't think we can or will agree in this nor do I feel that it will engender good feelings. SO... thanks for the answer - it helps me know where you are coming from - I appreciate that you took the time to do that.

  2. The actuality is that he has NO answers to offer in reply, other than to nod at anything Obama does.

    It's easy to pose questions to others, then run from questions when posed to you. Or to exhibit a thin skin and start making insults, which has been the experience.In my opinion, the Obama can do no wrong mentality is harmful to Obama and the Democrats.The question I would ask is where does one draw the line.  What must Obama do before there will be some objection made?

  3. Karma, the part that annoys me about your writings (and frankly keeps me from participating more here, despite my general agreement with many of your writings), and criticism of the Obama administration (and many other topics) is your framing.

    "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."

    The Obama administration has done no such thing. You have no problems with his statement about Tunisia. And virtually everything the administration has done, flows from that. The Arab world was filled with dictators and presidents for life. An anathema to American democracy. So his mostly tacit support of the Arab spring was hardly incongruous with progressive philosophy.

    Framing it as support for genocidal islamists absurd.

  4. LOL oldschool - you are becoming a parody of yourself. I love the "Hey look over" nature of your posts. And when you whine about insults you sound just like Celtic Moron (which is pretty funny).

    But where does one draw the line? IF, the MB abrogated the Peace Treaty and acted directly against U.S. in the region - THEN if President Obama continued to support them I would have a problem with his support.

    I am willing to wait and see what happens and I would have done pretty much what the administration has done to this point. I think so far it has been both prudent as well as politcally smart.

    Your framing is almost as sad as your seeming obsession with me

  5. At least you did draw the line somewhere, finally!

    We are ALL waiting to see what happens.

    Where I differ from you is that I think the MB, and the OIC for that matter, take a different interpretation from the cooperation. They see it as weakness and are empowered to move forward. That is why I believe Obama should be less conciliatory in public, and expose the underlying beliefs of these groups, while continuing to talk to them.

    Do you support Obama's actions regarding the OIC and Resolution 16/18? Once more, you give yourself too much credit. I am far from obsessed with you. I address your content, which does include insults. Perhaps you should take a step back and re-read and observe the way you communicate with others. YOU make it personal. For example, even here, you bring up CM and those like him when, in fact, YOU spent hundreds of comments in argument, as if it would make any difference. I think that shows a lack of maturity, and I think it comes forth too often.

    I don't call people whiners, EVER!  I do not get profane, EVER! I do not bring up people like CM, EVER! All I do is discuss, vociferously, and keep the pejoratives out of it.

    You said elsewhere that you have not seen me differ with Karma here, but he will attest that we do not see eye to eye. I defend progressive, just not those who are extreme, and I think that they are actually a fringe overall.

    So perhaps, rather than harping about me, you should look at yourself. Only you have the ability to change that!

  6. Not only is it not absurd, it is literally the case.

    What's really going on here, Kane, is that Jewish political thinking is beginning to shift from where things were during the Bush years.

    There is growing disaffection among Jewish people, and among people who care about Israel, with the progressive-left and with the Democratic Party as the polls demonstrate.

    But we must absolutely stop allowing ideological and partisan allegiances from blinding us to literal truths, such as that Barack Obama likes to tell Israelis where Jews may, or may not, be allowed to live in Judea.

    That is not a matter of framing, nor a matter of hyperbole, but of literal, factual truth.

  7. Of course Obama does not support it overtly, but what if his actions end up doing so?

    If the Egyptian people want to get rid of the peace treaty through their elected officials, the MB, should we go along because it is democracy at work?

    What perplexes me is how some progressives act as if there has only been positive effects from multiculturalism. It's like there is a fear to insult or be called a bigot or right wing simply for standing up for universal human rights in the face of those who want to impose their values of intolerance.

  8. "Of course Obama does not support it overtly, but what if his actions end up doing so?"

    I would ask the same question that volley asked. What would you have him do? Continue to support Mubarak? Support Gaddafi? Support Assad?

    I'm hardly excited about the MB. I think they're clearly less likely to improve Israel's relationship with the Palestinians. And more likely to degrade Israel's relationship with Egypt. But the alternative for Obama and the US was to support anti-democracy.

    So if the Egyptian people want to get rid of the peace treaty, we (the US) should not go along with it because it's democracy. We should oppose it because it's harmful to the fragile stability between the two countries.

    As to the perceived dochotomy between multiculturalism and universal human rights, I see none, because I don't view either in a vacuum, acceptance of multiculturalism is not an absolute.

  9. "But we must absolutely stop allowing ideological and partisan allegiances from blinding us to literal truths, such as that Barack Obama likes to tell Israelis where Jews may, or may not, be allowed to live in Judea."

    That's a perfect example of your framing which I reject. Obama did no such thing. He asked that sanctioned contruction stop within areas that Israel, the US, and international law has acknowledged is not part of Israel.

    You view that construction as benign. I don't. I view it as an obstacle to the peace that both of us want.

    (And we've been through this before. I see the settlements as the worst. idea. ever.)

  10. I answered Volleyball several times. In response came insults.

    I have said that he should make clear who these people are, even as he talks to them. I think he has papered over who they are. Another good example is the way that we have partnered with the OIC.Where I mostly differ with you is in the dichotomy between theory and reality. I do not reject  multiculturalism in theory, either, but in the way it has been practiced on the ground. In that regard, it does threaten universal human rights. A good example is the Cairo Declaration versus the UDHR.As I see it, Obama is too accommodating, and I think a firmer approach would be more beneficial, not just to us, but to the liberals in these societies who will swept away as the Arab Spring fades into something more menacing to the USA, Israel and Jews. 

  11. Why support anybody in any of these regions? Their values, as shown by the huge overwhelming votes FOR Islamists, are in an alternate universe from ours. Even the alleged Liberals which have disappeared essentially, hated the west and Israel. They want a divorce? Give it to them. Don't chase after them like lovesick schoolgirls.

  12. "Joint US-Israel drill postponed to 'defuse Iran tensions'

    officials say Americans asked to postpone mass exercise meant to test
    air-defense capabilities to avoid escalation of tensions over Tehran's
    nuclear program",7340,L-4175928,00.html

    Yep. Don't wanna worry those nuke building, Israel hating, Jihadist Mullahs.  G-d forbid they should think anybody is seriously going to threaten their genocidal intentions.

    Plus it might upset the Arab Spring love affair. Can't have that.

    "Israeli officials said the Americans asked to delay the drill so as not to heighten tensions with Iran
    over its nuclear program and avoid drawing any additional attention from the Arab countries during such a turbulent period."

  13. Kane, What am I going to do with you? In web-years, we have known one another for a long time.  I know that you are a good and intelligent man.  I know that you are someone who cares about the Jewish people and the state of Israel.   (I know those things about Volley, too, by the way.) But it seems more and more clear to me that there is a tendency among pro-Israel Jews to cling to Oslo.  But, Oslo is over. In any case, my framing bothers you. You say that Obama's "mostly tacit support of the Arab spring was hardly incongruous with progressive philosophy.  Framing it as support for genocidal islamists absurd." I could not disagree more, my friend.  Do you not accept that the Obama administration is validating the Muslim Brotherhood?  Either it is or it is not.  I believe that it is.  The Muslim Brotherhood represents the daddy of Qaeda and Hamas.  This is the organization that Holder, I believe, told us was "moderate" and that no one in the administration seems to have much of a problem with. Despite the fact, as this blog documents, that these people call for the slaughter of Jews on a regular basis.  Why is it that no one cares about this fact?  I find it very odd. Further, you claim that "construction" is an "obstacle to peace."  I disagree.  Recent history tells a different story.  The ongoing rejection of an Arab state in peace next to the Jewish one is not because Israel builds housing in the Judea and Samaria (what Jordanians labeled the West Bank), but because many, many Muslims, Arab and otherwise, cannot accept Jewish sovereignty on what was once Muslim lab for religious reasons. It is politically incorrect to say so, but it is the truth, Kane. If it were not the case there would have been peace long ago.

  14. The Egyptian people have validated the Muslim Brotherhood, not Obama or the US administration, just as the Israeli government did not validate Hamas by pushing for democratic elections in Gaza. I don't recall hearing anyone in the administration cheer elected genocidal fascism.

    I can find no record, nor do I remember Holder ever calling MB moderate. It does appear that they will have significant influence in the new Egyptian government. Opening lines of communication with them is a recognition of political realities. They are, just as Hamas is.

  15. Yeah, whatever happened to all those "Facebook Kids" who allegedly represented the true nature of the "Arab Spring"?

    They seem to have taken a hike, eh?

    Shocking, really.

    American progressives honestly believe that the rise of the Jihad in the Middle East represents the emergence of "democracy" in the Arab world.

    How they can allow themselves to be so dangerously deluded is beyond me.

    Hitler was democratically elected, too.  Does that mean that Jewish people should have hailed his election has a desirable expression of the popular will of the German people?


  16. We have seen this play out before when the Islamists took over Iran. Look where that got the world and the everyday Iranians. What normal person wants more of that nonsense?

  17. Sorry. Can't help myself. It was too good NOT to post. From Arch Conservative Victor David Hanson. (Yes I know I'm evil.)

    "When you think about it, Obama has kept the detention camp at
    Guantanamo. He’s going ahead with military tribunals. And where Bush
    only waterboarded three terrorists, Obama has used drones to execute
    about 2,600.

    Obama’s sort of growing on me."

  18. "The upcoming issue of Newsweek has a cover story entitled "Why Are Obama's Critics So Dumb?"