Sunday, April 5, 2015

Sunday Column for the Elder

Michael L.

is postponed due to freedom.

I expect that he will publish later this evening or tomorrow, but for those of you who simply cannot wait, the title will be How Jon Haber Got it Wrong (Or Why Obama's Support for the Muslim Brotherhood Matters).

Here is a tid-bit:
Obama supported the Muslim Brotherhood and it is important for those of us who care about the well-being of Israel to wrap our brains around this fact.  Barack Obama supported an organization that exists to promote Sharia and, therefore, promote the dhimmitude and "racist" persecution of all non-Muslims.  Barack Obama supported an organization that called for the conquest of Jerusalem, which is essentially the same as calling for the genocide of the Jews.

I backed off of this conversation for the simple reason that Haber said he wanted to wrap it up.

However, the reason that he wanted to wrap it up is because "our attempts to find major disagreements could devolve into a Narcissism of Small Difference destined to deliver a diminishing return on investment."

But this is not a small difference.
If there is one simple political fact that the Jewish community in the United States absolutely refuses to face, it is that the President of the United States, for reasons that we can discuss and debate, supports political Islam.

Just why he does so is open to reasonable question.  That he does so, is not.

We need to be open about this fact, and discuss it, in order to determine what this may mean not only for the future of Israel, but the future of the world.


  1. Couldn't wait. Will be looking for the full article this evening at Elder's joint.

    Certainly President Obama's support for the MB, the tan klux klan, needs to be acknowledged as fact, and yes the reasons for it are up for debate. One reason necessitating that debate would be that Obama has not been completely forthcoming.

  2. Dusty, over at Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers has a story about, my old alma mater, San Francisco State University partnering up with An-Najah National University in Nablus, which is known as a terrorist recruitment site.

    Even Hamas, apparently, called it a "greenhouse for martyrs.

    1. That story of the boycott of Indiana,
      ( hysterical, sanctimonious and utterly illiberal), contrasted with SFSU partnering up with An-Najah National University, is a microcosm of today's left.

      Partner up with a repellent terrorist recruitment site; that means you are moral and standing up for human rights.

      Hunt down a completely blameless pizza shop. Then badger the owners into answering whether they would, in a hypothetical situation, cater pizza (pizza!) for a same- sex wedding ceremony. Find that because of their religious beliefs they would wish to reserve the right not to, and then form a mob to denounce them and shut their business down. Forcing the owners to have to go into hiding, for fear for their safety.

      And the social justice warriors are proud of themselves.

    2. I tell ya, K.

      I am not happy about this, but I suppose it's appropriate that one of the most anti-Jewish / anti-Israel universities in the US would partner up with one of the most anti-Jewish / anti-Israel universities in the world.

      I think that the SFSU Hillel will get a phone call from me and I will probably write something up about this... maybe for next Sunday.

    3. This is what used to bother me most about living in the Bay Area, an otherwise lovely area of the country: That which constitutes intolerable prejudice against gays and other minorities is given the broadest possible interpretations while anti-Semitism is given the absolute narrowest.
      SFSU should be defending itself in court.
      Here are some thoughts courtesy of Benjamin Kerstein.

  3. Mike,
    The universities are doing similar things all over the place.
    Here in the UK, our universities have been welcoming extreme Islamist groups and speakers on to campuses for many years. And giving them a platform to spread their beliefs. Universities provide segregated spaces for such events.
    Students have been radicalised because of this. Some of them going on to attempt acts of terrorism.
    Most of our universities are very left- wing, and are happy to support a movement which is anti US ' Imperialism ' It seems not to matter what else these movements espouse.

    Some people on the left ( hard left) dislike the Muslim Brotherhood because they perceive them to be pro free- market enterprise. It is a matter of debate as to exactly what the MB's economic ideology does- and in the future would- consist of.
    To what degree they are or aren't supporters of capitalism.
    They are anti- western, and vehemently anti- American. These things mean they have an enormous amount of support from the mainstream progressive left. As well as many Marxists who see political Islam as the new global movement that will bring down capitalism.
    The end of the soviet bloc meant many people's dreams of the ( much hoped for) revolution began to die. The arrival of radical Islam is now their new hope. Class war must go on, and the same people in the western intelligentsia who have no problem being apologists for the crimes of communism, have enthusiasm for the prospects offered to aid their own goal of the destruction of capitalism ( and an end to western 'hegemony'), by political Islam.
    Many of these people have proved during the
    20 th century,and beyond, that they are not really interested in liberal democracy, but are far more drawn to totalitarian movements.
    It is astonishing that that is the case- but it is.

    1. The whole left-right thing is becoming very interesting.

      Here in the US, I'm considerably to the left on domestic politics of those the Democratic Party presents to us as candidates (I became anti-Obama long before it was fashionable on my side of the aisle, back when he took single-payer "off the table" before the discussions even began - if only he deferred to Republicans as much now as he did then, eh?).

      I'm a democratic socialist.

      On foreign policy, however, I'm probably a neoconservative of the Henry Jackson Society / Euston Manifesto type. I don't object to the label, unless it comes from ignorant Daily Kos types who only mean it as "Evil Joooo."

      But on what side of the aisle should that stand be?

      Yes, I do believe that Western Liberal Democracies are the best, and freest, political systems humanity has so far devised. Yes, I do believe we should promote this around the globe, wherever and whenever we can.

      Yet is it really 'left,' to oppose those ideas, and stand instead, in favor of, say, political Islam? Which represents the absolute antithesis of everything which could be considered liberal over the past 400 years or so?

      We seem to need a whole new paradigm.

      At the great blog Harry's Place, I read an interesting comment the other day. Sorry I can't find it, but it was to the effect of isn't it interesting that the Bush administration were the ideal dreamers who stood for real freedom for all, and they were of course considered to be on ' the right.'

      Today's pro-Obama leftists, on the other hand, tend towards the Walt / Mearsheimer cynical 'realist' school of thought, which basically condemns most of the world to medieval tyranny.

      Who are the real liberals anymore?

      Please stand up?

  4. Meanwhile, over at my old hangout, Democratic Underground, there's this post:

    "'ll probably get booted for saying this

    But screw it. If you support Bibi Netanyahu over our President, you're a goddamn traitor and should get the fuck out of the country."

    This was followed by numerous boisterous agreeing comments.

    I think the Dems are through with us, and we'd better take the hint.

    1. The online radical left is lost, and for that matter, was never able to be saved to begin with.

      The real question is can those of us on the decent left reclaim the mantle of liberalism from the Chavistas and the Islamist stooges?

    2. Concur.

      We also need to reinforce the fact that we're not 'transforming' anything. We're simply taking liberalism back for what it always was and always should be.

      We live in an age with a radical leftist president who somehow managed to toss away liberal values in foreign politics and one who wouldn't even consider standing up for a single-payer system in the healthcare debate.

      Talk about the worst of all worlds.

      Fuck it, maybe I'll run for president next year. ;)

  5. Cultural relativism. It's probably 'racist' to even consider taking sides.

    They've checked their privilege, Mike.

    We live in a world where even the Quakers side with Islamists.

    We're on our own. That's the bad news, and the good news.

    The pansies are taking themselves out of the equation. Sure, we've gotta fight for ourselves, but at least we don't have to worry about those who wring their hands in fright over possibly hurting the feelings of those who intend to commit genocide.

    The Kurds have set the example to follow.

  6. I wished western christians cared about eastern christians.

    Yes, it is utterly breathtaking that they don't.
    The Christian churches are more concerned with hating Israel, or spouting a watered down form of humanism, than standing up for their fellow christians around the world. Even as they are slaughtered.

    Cultural relativism. Very much so.

    And a continual onslaught in our media and by our intelligentsia about how our society should not consider itself Christian. That feeds into it. Even if the churches wanted to speak out about the persecution of christians, they would not find a media willing to supply them with a platform to do so.
    Let alone a media who endorsed their concerns. Or cared.

  7. CNN had two people screaming about Israeli this morning, one of them was Beinart and he was the moderate. When all your friends are Nazis screaming Nazi shit then it really doesn't matter at all what you say YOU believe. Sorry. This is the Glenn Greenwald conundrum. He states his 'advocacy' is merely for absolute free speech. But alas the only 'speech' he's ever in his entire career ever defended is racist Nazi antisemitic hate speech.

    Which is fine, really. That's your right as an adult, an American and whatnot. Go be that. But please don't object to being called out and shouted out on those terms. At least have the courage of your own convictions to stand up and admit that's what you are. Same thing for Feinstein, Obama and all the rest. You say Nazi shit, you embrace other people who do as well. You grovel at the feet of genocidal maniacs who wake up every day smiling at the thought of another holocaust. How you split that hair to pretend your own defense of that is some abstract intellectual exercise is of course nonsensical bullshit.