SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Enough Hand-Wringing About the Republicans and Religion

POLITICS JANUARY 10, 2012

Enough Hand-Wringing About the Republicans and Religion

BY MARTIN PERETZ

It was 1988 presidential primary time in New York, and I was on the press bus going from Manhattan to Boro Park in Brooklyn where Al Gore was scheduled to meet Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam, the Bobover Rebbe, the Grand Rabbi of Bobov, Poland. Of course, there are no Jews in Bobov—and hardly any in Poland. But, despite the fact that the Lubavitcher and Satmar Hassidim are the most well-known sects (and the latter notorious, too), the Bobover are the largest Jewish faction in New York. Rabbi Halberstam, now deceased, was a descendant of the Ba’al Shem Tov (the Master of the Good Name), 1698-1760, the founder of the entire Hassidic movement. This fact, added to the numbers loyal to the Rebbe, was reason enough for Senator Gore to be paying a visit. Thousands of black-coated men (no women) gathered outside their leader’s house, actually for quite a long time. I am sure the two men were discussing the state of the universe, Al from his point of view, Halberstam from his. It’s possible, even likely, that they agreed on much. Suddenly they emerged, and a roar went up from the crowd. The candidate said nothing. And then the Bobover Rebbe spoke ... in a whisper, without any amplification, at length. A Secret Service agent standing next to me muttered to himself, “How is this crowd supposed to hear what the rabbi has to say?” “Don’t worry,” said one of the Hassidim near us. “The rabbi speaks, his people hear.” 

Indeed, “his people” did hear. After the primary, I asked one of the grinds checking the Gore numbers how the Bobover shtetl in Brooklyn had done for my candidate. “Very well,” he answered, “very well, almost unanimous.” Al lost. Jesse Jackson came in second, demonstrating just how stupid the electorate can be. (Reverend Jackson has now been cast aside by his own followers who seem to have discovered his essential fakery. Did you know that he was elected—yes, actually elected—as honorary U.S. senator for the District of Columbia? But his followers have now moved on to the Reverend Al Sharpton who, though looking svelte, is still a big bag of racist gas.) Do you remember who won the primary? Who went on to be the Democratic nominee? Michael Dukakis, man without vision, without passion and big-time loser to smaller mind George H.W. Bush.

Anyway, I’m not really writing about 1988. I’m writing about this year’s election and the religious tussles in the Republican party where virtually every prospective nominee has a relationship with God that unsettles his opponents’ followers. The Democrats are lucky. Their winning presidential candidate, Barack Obama, who prayed with a bigoted and disloyal pastor for two decades, was given a pass by liberals for this and still is, even though some of his own views seemed uncannily close to those of the blessed reverend.

But the Republicans are my subject now. The fact is that, while Republican candidates must be “believers,” they can’t believe in the wrong beliefs. Oh, of course, they’re all Christians. But that’s where the trouble begins. Mormonism is a Christian faith. That fact is announced by its very name, its formal name: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. What could be clearer? But the differentiating Mormon narrative does not unfold in the Holy Land. It unveils itself in upstate New York and moves to Utah and the states of the Great Plains. It is from Salt Lake City where doctrine changes and emerges. It has living saints. There are not one but two Mormon aspirants for the Republican nomination. Mitt Romney is a pious Mormon and an honorable man, as was his father, Michigan governor George Romney who defected from his party’s support for the Vietnam War. The younger Romney carries the heavy baggage of having been CEO of Bain & Company (and other Bain enterprises) which saved some businesses from the graveyard, lost some businesses to the pit, triumphed as capitalism often does but was an intrinsic instrument of the market, in which the rise and fall of companies is an index of the rise and fall of individuals and whole regions of the country. Only Occupy Wall Street has an alternative to this system, and it is not serious.

Romney’s religion has been called a “cult” by Robert Jeffress, an Evangelical Baptist minister in Dallas. Romney’s faith is also that of Jon Huntsman, who was Obama’s ambassador to China, which was one of the few ambassadorships in this administration that wasn’t purchased for campaign cash. (Hillary couldn’t be expected to object to any of this since her husband made “money for embassies” a special attraction of campaign fundraising.) Huntsman, whose father is one of the 1 percent of OWS, is a learned man and seems not to be spoiled by his lush upbringing. Moreover, he was an able emissary to Beijing when it was difficult to be a stable emissary because the president clearly didn’t know how forward or how limp a stance we should take towards the most cynical regime on earth. Anyway, he has not surfaced much in the primaries. But two Mormons are a lot in a campaign like this. I’ve had many students at Harvard who are Mormons. They are honest, candid, smart, hardworking, and touched by the pain of others. That’s what I think motivates them to spend one or two years of their lives in service to others. Mr. Jeffress says that Mormonism is a cult. What religion, with its arcane narratives and miracles, saints and sinners, Satan and salvation is not a cult?

Including the Jewish one? If I’m not mistaken, the American people actually elected Senator Joe Lieberman to the vice presidency when they elected Al Gore as president in 2000. I’d bet that the sanctimonious fundamentalists blessed the Supremes for overriding the indisputable choice of the people.

The trouble with Michele Bachman, with Ron Paul, with Rick Perry, with Newt Gingrich is not with their religion. The fact is that everyone’s religion bothers me at least somewhat. Including my own, in all its different expressions. I sometimes say that I am a non-observant strictly Orthodox Jew.

Which brings me to former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum, who is a Roman Catholic, a pious Roman Catholic. I would have thought that John F. Kennedy had done away with fright of the Catholics. And, for that matter, the Church, which has its own moral problems—here, there, everywhere. What with the universal sex scandal that has never been addressed candidly by the hierarchy, its authority in preaching the virtuous life on abortion, sexual matters and gay marriage, doctrine in general has been miserably undercut. Still, it’s not for me to press. Catholics will have to do that, and maybe Santorum himself has. I do not agree with much that Santorum says on other matters. (Although let me confess that on American foreign policy I find myself more in agreement with the Republicans—Paul excepting—than with the Democrats, or at least with the Democrat who is their standard-bearer.)

So Santorum said “we will always need a Jesus candidate.” What of it? It is clearly a metaphoric statement. It would be strange if a practicing Catholic, a believing Catholic, would not have the phrase and the thought close to his heart. For him, I suspect (no, I believe), a “Jesus candidate” means an ethical candidate, one who does not sully others, who does not lie, who nurtures the poor and the ill and those born to rotten lives. Yes, those born into prejudice and hatred. Of course, this is not exactly his politics. I’ve judged him separately on that. But are you certain—I am not—that those with whom we agree on health care and taxes are ethical human beings? On drones, for instance?

Which leads me to the matter of my friend Abe Foxman issuing a statement from the Anti-Defamation League criticizing Santorum for suggesting that people of faiths other than Christian are really outside the polity. Abe told The Jerusalem Post that the presidential candidate’s remarks were “totally inappropriate. It’s crossing the line. ... It says to Jews, to Muslims, to Buddhists, to non-believers, you’re not part of this country.” A pig’s ass, it does. Even David Harris, whose job it is as director of the National Jewish Democratic Council to lay it on Republicans whatever the provocation, also criticized Santorum but conceded that Foxman had gone too far.

The honest-to-God truth is that, errant and intolerant as I believe Santorum is on a whole spectrum of matters, he is absolutely correct in his views vis-à-vis Israel, the U.S. relationship to Israel and the Arab commitment to conflict. Many of us feel that the administration hasn’t the foggiest about how to negotiate the choppy waters and fiery armistice lines. A few weeks ago Foxman and Harris criticized those like myself—I assume they meant me, too—for playing partisan politics with Israel. “Partisan politics,” what? For God’s sake I campaigned in Florida for almost ten days for Obama, giving the Jews the message that my candidate should be their candidate, one reason being that I was convinced he grasped the intrinsic intricacies of the issue. I now believe he doesn’t and that, what’s more, it may be his emotions that lead him astray. But I don’t actually believe that his emotions lead him anywhere. He is committed to what he is committed, and I believe he is committed to Palestine. Palestine by hook or by crook. By hook and by crook. However much Israel is endangered.

Martin Peretz is editor-in-chief emeritus of The New Republic.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 117 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

117 comments

"What religion, with its arcane narratives and miracles, saints and sinners, Satan and salvation is not a cult?" Indeed. Cuckoos are birds that lay their eggs in other birds' next. The baby cuckoos kill the other birds and take over the nest. I have never had an iota of religious belief (my memory on this goes back to the age of 10). Most human beings seem to be religious. I've always found it irritating that essentially every one running for political office in our country has to profess some faith. I am sure that at least a few do not believe. But lack of faith is not superior to faith. As human beings we all struggle as individuals and as a society with the existential dilemma and with the difficult task of keeping human viciousness and aggressive selfishness and arrogant stupidity enough under control to keep from destroying ourselves. Obama seems decent and intelligent. He hasn't destroyed the world. (The basic criteria I have for a POTUS.) I don't know what he believes as far as religion--maybe what he says. Huntsman seems decent and intelligent. He would probably do as well as Obama. All the other candidates strike me as dangerous, mad clowns, but maybe they are not that bad. I am fairly healthy at 67, but even so I know I am fairly close to the end of my time, so the world is going to do whatever it is going to do and maybe the calamities I fear will not strike before it's time for me to go anyway . But I worry about my granddaughter, a very intelligent and sensitive 7-year-old child, and the perhaps horrible world she will face.

- skahn

January 11, 2012 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant to say in my cuckoo reference that Mormons seem to be cuckoos who are taking over the Christian nest. Very strange.

- skahn

January 11, 2012 at 12:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think you are rationalizing Santorum's Jesus comment He probably means it more literally than not. His piousness and 'morality' does not look very moral in my book.

- jlewis001

January 11, 2012 at 2:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sounds like a lot of people pray with bigoted and disloyal pastors, one way or the other.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 2:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good point about all religions being cults. And that Santorum may be saying that we need a candidate who tries to be like Jesus. Unfortunately, Santorum doesn't--try, that is. Could it be that Obama is not committed to either Israel or Palestine? Maybe he's trying to be like Jesus and not favor either side in a deadly fight that has no end in sight. I've seen him give pro-Israel speeches. He's not totally against Israel. Santorum doesn't give a damn about Israel. He's simply mouthing the party line of the GOP. Catholics are not emotionally connected to Israel. I know. I grew up in a Catholic family that emigrated from the Old World. We never even read the Old Testament. I didn't even know there was an Israel until I took geography in high school. However, I take Israel's side in Middle East politics. Palestine had a chance to be a viable nation from 1948 on, if only it had recognized Israel as a viable nation, too. It would have gotten the same aid from the West that Israel has since 1948 and could have been a thriving force in the Middle East, but the Palestinians told the West to go to hell. I don't feel sorry for them. I'm one of those mean existentialists--you make your bed, you lie in it.

- magboy47.

January 11, 2012 at 3:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Although I admit that all major religions have crazy and nonsensical aspects, the redeeming fact is that they were well established thousand of years ago and by now their nonsense is kind of tolerated and avoided. But, I must say that Mormonism, a barely 150 year old religion is the craziest of all. To think that in 21st century, educated,smart adults believe in such nonsense is is to reinforced the feeling that intelligent life is missing on Earth. On the other hand, I don't think it should disqualify a Mormon any more than any other believer.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 11, 2012 at 7:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Ba’al Shem Tov (the Master of the Good Name)," More accurately it means "The owner of the good name", "good name" implying a good reputation.

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 7:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Obama seems decent and intelligent." Yes. "He hasn't destroyed the world. " He can still manage that, given time. Out of decency and intelligence. You know what they say about the road the hell.

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 7:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who cares about a candidate's religion? For that matter, who cares about religion? That's a private matter between you and a God of your understanding. And that how it should stay.

- rewiredhogdog

January 11, 2012 at 8:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"[I]t may be his emotions that lead him astray." Clever debater's tactic: turn your weakness on your opponent by accusing your opponent of the very offense for which you are the renowned violator. The calm, almost stoic Obama, the red-faced, ranting MP. Emotions, indeed!

- rayward

January 11, 2012 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who cares about a candidate's religion? For that matter, who cares about religion? That's a private matter between you and a God of your understanding. And that's how it should stay. God's done perfectly fine without our interference for all these years and will continue to do so in the future. So let's back to the real issues in this campaign, such as getting America back on its feel financially, creating a new and vibrant economy and avoiding any more foreign policy blunders such as Iraq and Afghanistan.

- rewiredhogdog

January 11, 2012 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"But the Republicans are my subject now" Thank you for cutting through the haze. I was having trouble locating a cogent topic. Beware, oh Israel, of any evangelical Christian claiming unconditional support for your state. Their "support", near as I can tell, includes advocating war as the answer to every threat facing Israel, no matter how small that threat may be. And the more fundamental and literalist the candidate's faith happens to be, the loopier their visions of exactly what part Israel still has to play in world affairs. Go read the Left Behind series, and let this sink in: this ain't Narnia, folks. There are many evangelicals who think those books are an accurate desciption of what's going to happen, and soon. While I respect those who criticize the President (Noga et al) for his criticisms of some Israeli decision and can see their point, would you really prefer someone who's perfectly ok with construction in E Jerusalem but who gets their overall foreign policy vis-a-vis Israel from the Book of Revelations? And Mormon or not, Romney is no better. To court the neocon vote, he'll commit to just about anything...war with Iran, unconditional denial to the Palestinians of any sovereignty whatsoever, etc...that will ingratiate himself to the right regardless of the existential danger these policies pose to Israel's survival. Ultimately, isn't that what we should all be concerned with here? Not apartments or the total number of Brooklyn expats planting gardens in the West Bank but the survival of Israel and her people? With Romney I suppose we can all rest assured that regardless of what he says he probably doesn't mean it, but I'm not willing to take that chance. Not when the general GOP policy these days is that America should be ready and willing to fight for Israeli's safety right down to the last Israeli life.

- Tristan

January 11, 2012 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"That’s what I think motivates them to spend one or two years of their lives in service to others." Nonsense, they are expected by their family and church to go abroad and knock on peoples doors for 2 years to convert people, other than that they do absolutely no good whatsoever (and it is debatable how worthy the conversion is). I see young Mormons down here all the time and that is literally all they do. They don't volunteer in hospitals, help build homes for the poor, tutor poor children...nothing. I know people who volunteer for the Grupos beta de protección a migrantes, or other such organizations, it is obscene to equate the self serving Mormons with people who do real aid work.

- blackton

January 11, 2012 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton, Two young Mormon males in white shirts and dark ties did offer to help me rake the leaves in back of a building I was caretaking once. I declined, thinking that they might be endangering my job by taking work away from me. My union background, you know. My favorite door-knockers are Jehovah's Witnesses. Years ago I answered the door and was confronted by two uncommonly beautiful, impeccably dressed young women, one white and one black, who proceeded to lecture me about separating the wheat from the chaff and the sheep from the goats. I interrupted. "Hey," I said. "I like goats. I think they're cute." The two young women disappeared so fast I thought it was a miracle. My Catholic background, you know.

- magboy47.

January 11, 2012 at 11:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and I believe he is committed to Palestine Actually, I think he is committed to gaining credibility for the US in the "Arab world." You can question value of doing so or the likely contribution of advocating for Palestine to succeeding in doing so, but that is different from commitment to Palestine for Palestine's sake.

- sighthnd

January 11, 2012 at 12:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For Peretz, going off the deep end seems to becoming more and more his style. He's becoming a George Will, full of denial, delusions and vituperation. He commends Mormons for their 'service'. He seems not to know that this is REQUIRED of capable Mormons. And it's not 'service'; it's MISSIONARY activity. Good luck with that! As to his view of Obama, he says Obama is clueless about how to resolve the issues in the Middle East. Guess what, Marty, so is the rest of the entire fucking world. Arabs and Jews hate each other with limitless passion, and having the US hitch our wagon to the reactionary Avigdor Lieberman is a recipe for having our foreign policy driven by religious fanatics. US policy should be US policy, not that of the 12th Imam, the Messiah or anyone else. Obama sold bunker buster bombs to Israel when Bush didn't. If Israel takes out Natanz with those, it'll be interesting to see what Peretz thinks of the 'clueless' Obama then!

- bpuharic

January 11, 2012 at 1:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Goats. I must remember that. A question: where does Obama stand on goats? I don't mean the location at which the president is perched on a supine goat, I mean what is the Obama administration's policy vis-a-vis the goat community? Because whatever it is, it's only going to prove how "clueless" Obama is. As opposed to, of course, the expert goatherds he took over from.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 1:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty writes, "For him, I suspect (no, I believe), a 'Jesus candidate' means an ethical candidate, one who does not sully others, who does not lie, who nurtures the poor and the ill and those born to rotten lives. Yes, those born into prejudice and hatred." That's quite a leap of faith. It seems obvious that the identifying characteristics of "Jesus candidates," Rick Santorum included, are that they oppose gay rights, oppose abortion rights, and oppose separation of church and state. That's it -- nothing to do with being ethical or truthful, nothing to do with helping anyone born to rotten lives, nothing really to do with Jesus. If a candidate were overtly Christian on the stump, I wouldn't mind if his Christianity were what we suppose it ought to be -- if not literally true, then at least generous, compassionate, graceful. But in the hands of contemporary reactionaries, a religion purportedly grounded in a radical message of universal love is turned into an instrument of suspicion, petty fear, and hatred, while the party most ostentatiously (self)-affiliated with Christ can somehow have as it's two main domestic policy agenda items the denial of health care to those in need and the vigorous protection of wealthy people's riches. "Nurture the poor and ill" indeed.

- JakeH

January 11, 2012 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is constructed like Mark Anthony's ironic eulogy to Caesar. "Anyway, I’m not really writing about 1988. I’m writing about this year’s election and the religious tussles in the Republican party " he says after already regaling us with two long paragraphs about religiously-induced lack of electoral intelligence on the Democrat side. And then, he opens the next paragraph with a reminder, again, that "But the Republicans are my subject now." But even as he concentrates on the candidates, he weaves in his aspersions against Obama (which I agree with in general. Obama has a very small window of opportunity to win my approval: we'll see how he deals with Iran, when push comes to shove). So, as he seems to be addressing the scandals of the Republican candidates, he is actually focusing our gaze on the contender. Just as Mark Anthony, pretending to bury Caesare keeps repeating that Brutus, who has just plotted and carried out the assassination, is an honourable man. The power of irony, indeed. Nicely done, Mr. Peretz. I have two comments: I think for Catholics, it is Maria, Jesus's mother, who provides the emotional core of the religion (at least that's what Disraeli said and I'm sure he knew about it more than any of us). And, when Marty says, with some self satisfaction at his own brilliance, that "I sometimes say that I am a non-observant strictly Orthodox Jew." he places himself very much in the midst of Israeli society, most of whom never or rarely go to a synagogue but the synagogue they do not attend so assiduously is an Orthodox one.

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

@Noga - Good post and fair points. I have to admit, I did like the tongue-in-cheek "non-observant strictly orthodox Jew" part. It reminded me of a line from one of PJ O'Rourke's books where he was traveling through Bosnia and Kosovo: "Serbs and Croats are so much alike that the only way they can tell each other apart is by religion. But the thing is, most of them aren't religious. So the difference between Serbs and Croats is that the Serbs don't go to Eastern Orthodox services and the Croats don't attend mass. And the difference between Serbs and Muslims is that five times a day the Muslims don't pray to Mecca."

- Tristan

January 11, 2012 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga and Tristan: I like both of your comments. It reminds me of this old joke: A man is rescued from a desert island after 20 years. The news media, amazed at this feat of survival, ask him to show them his home. "How did you survive? How did you keep sane?" they ask him, as he shows them around the small island. "I had my faith. My faith as a Jew kept me strong. Come." He leads them to a small glen, where stands an opulent temple, made entirely from palm fronds, coconut shells and woven grass. The news cameras take pictures of everything — even a torah made from banana leaves and written in octopus ink. "This took me five years to complete." "Amazing! And what did you do for the next fifteen years?" "Come with me." He leads them around to the far side of the island. There, in a shady grove, is an even more beautiful temple. "This one took me twelve years to complete!" "But sir" asks the reporter, "Why did you build two temples?" "This is the temple I attend. That other place? Hah! I wouldn't set foot in that other temple if you PAID me!" Kind of explains all our arguments on this blog, doesn't it?

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 11, 2012 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Walter Benjamin also used that kind of rhetorical feint effectively now and again. I came across it recently in his lecture/essay "The Author as Producer" where he says a few paragraphs in: "But I should have begun with . . . ", after dealing with what he wanted to deal with before beginning. I think that's true too about Catholicism and Mary. It may vary in intensity from culture to culture, but I remember it being very strong in Ireland. That she would "intercede" with God on our behalf was a comforting and familiar notion, and as young children we were given the analogy of our own mothers putting in a good word for us with our fathers if we were in trouble.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 2:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: I remember my discussion with a Polish Catholic nun who told me half jokingly: "Remember, Jesus might have been a Jew, but Mary was one hundred percent a Polish Catholic".

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 11, 2012 at 3:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What do you think of Walter Benjamin, ironyroad? I find his essays very dense and difficult yet quite irresistible. About fathers, mothers and families, there is this poem I like very much and quote whenever I want to illustrate the carnage that can take place within families: The father. The predicate. The family. Sometimes, the shambles" The mother is the agent of action, she interprets and enforces the law laid down by the father. Compassionate, yes, but ancillary. BTW, a similar female compassion you can locate within the idea of mercy in Judaism. The term "mercy" in Hebrew is "Rahamim" and the root of this noun, R-H-M is the same as the root for womb "rehem". In a way, God, who is depicted as "rahman" ("merciful") is both father and mother. And for a combination of jeering irony, mercy, and God, nothing beats Yehuda Amichai's poem: God-Full-of-Mercy, the prayer for the dead. If God was not full of mercy, Mercy would have been in the world, Not just in Him. I, who plucked flowers in the hills And looked down into all the valleys, I, who brought corpses down from the hills, Can tell you that the world is empty of mercy. I, who was King of Salt at the seashore, Who stood without a decision at my window, Who counted the steps of angels, Whose heart lifted weights of anguish In the horrible contests. I, who use only a small part Of the words in the dictionary. I, who must decipher riddles I don't want to decipher, Know that if not for the God-full-of-mercy There would be mercy in the world, Not just in Him.

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In linguistics, you distinguish a dialect from a language by pointing out that a language is a dialect that has its own army and navy. Similar considerations apply to cults. A religion is a cult that owns a lot of real estate, and maybe a senator or two. But to your broader point that I should stop my hand wringing. No, I can't stop. We have serious candidates for a serious national party saying things about the middle east that are clearly messianic. If you really, truly believe that end-times stuff as the core of your support for Israel, then you are point blank crazy. Truly, frothing delusional. And I, as an atheist and broad supporter of Israel, have to wring my hands over that, at least when I'm not screaming at my television.

- gwcross

January 11, 2012 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"We have serious candidates for a serious national party saying things about the middle east that are clearly messianic. If you really, truly believe that end-times stuff as the core of your support for Israel, then you are point blank crazy. Truly, frothing delusional. " I agree. As the Arab Spring roils the Middle East and Shariah-based Islamist regimes are being set up everywhere, threatening Israel with the wholesale support of mostly and intensely antisemitic and religiously fanatical populations who call for "'Khaybar khaybar il Yehud", this is the very moment when American Jews who support Israel (an important distinction, btw) and Israelis should spit in the face of Christian Zionists and tell them to go stick their support for a Jewish Israel where the sun don't shine. Why? Because a religious attachment to the idea of a Jewish Israel is simply anathema to atheists and other sceptics of any kind. While 400 millions Arabs and 1.4 billion Muslims freely and proudly invoke Allah as the final broker of Israel's destruction, Israel is not to be allowed the wholesome support of Evangelicals. BTW, you don't have to be religious to promote mythical concepts. Haven't Obama's minions repeatedly invoked a linkage between putting a stop to Iran's nukes and Israel building apartments in Jerusalem?

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 4:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover "Although I admit that all major religions have crazy and nonsensical aspects, the redeeming fact is that they were well established thousand of years ago and by now their nonsense is kind of tolerated and avoided." I agree. "But, I must say that Mormonism, a barely 150 year old religion is the craziest of all. To think that in 21st century, educated,smart adults believe in such nonsense is is to reinforced the feeling that intelligent life is missing on Earth. On the other hand, I don't think it should disqualify a Mormon any more than any other believer." This is up to Americans to decide. From my point of view a number of things disqualifies to become President. Mormonism is only one of them. Sorry, but I wouldn't vote for an ultra-Orthodox Jew, or a Opus Dei Catholic, neither, or Fundamentalist Protestants. The same goes for Muslim Islamists. These are not all the same, but any candidate who thinks that his religion is more important than secular society disqualifies himself or herself from being considered a legitimate candidate.

- arnon

January 11, 2012 at 4:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I admire Benjamin's essays and I try to read one or the other of them at regular intervals. I love "The Storyteller," "The Task of the Translator" and the autobiographical pieces on growing up in Berlin. There is something exhilarating but at the same time resigned about his writing, as if he were aware that in a world of brute force intellectual agility may not rescue you every time. I agree on the density but I've found that if one reads them more as prose-poems they seem to work -- sometimes, at least. Incidentally, I've been playing around with an essay on parallels between Benjamin and Emily Dickinson. "Obama's minions repeatedly invoked a linkage between putting a stop to Iran's nukes and Israel building apartments in Jerusalem" They did?

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I simplify of course but if you peel the layers of ghetoric then, yes, they did. http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/dennis-ross-vs-obama-no-link-between-iran-mideast-peace-1.276767 "Contrary to the position of the president and other advisers, Ross writes that efforts to advance dialogue with Iran should not be connected to the renewal of talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Other senior officials in the Obama administration told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his recent visit to Washington that Israeli gestures and the advancement of talks with the Palestinians will help the administration get Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. "

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 5:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"layers of ghetoric" Is this a Freudian slip? I meant "rhetoric". (And no jokes about Freud and his problem with slips, please)

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 6:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's all? That report is from two-and-a-half years ago. Things have shifted somewhat since then. Not exactly minor was the Iranian rejection of the president's new approach, well over two years ago itself.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 6:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't notice the date, maybe because Ross recently wrote another article about the same topic, in connection with a book he co-authored with someone else. Here is a more recent article: http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/OpinionAndAnalysis/Article.aspx?id=197286 "... along comes the cache of WikiLeaks documents and reveals that Obama’s linkage of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to Iran is nothing short of fiction – a fiction he and his key aides have been spinning since the beginning of his tenure. At his very first White House meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in May 2009, that famous meeting in which Obama called for a complete halt to all settlement construction, Obama was asked what he thought about Israel’s position that only if the Iranian threat were solved could there be real progress on the Palestinian track. “Well, let me say this,” Obama said. “There’s no doubt that it is difficult for any Israeli government to negotiate in a situation in which they feel under immediate threat. That’s not conducive to negotiations. And as I’ve said before, I recognize Israel’s legitimate concerns about the possibility of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon when they have a president who has in the past said that Israel should not exist. That would give any leader of any country pause. “Having said that,” the president went on, “if there is a linkage between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, I personally believe it actually runs the other way. To the extent that we can make peace with the Palestinians – between the Palestinians and the Israelis – then I actually think it strengthens our hand in the international community in dealing with a potential Iranian threat.”

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 6:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, we're still back in May 2009, and my point was that a considerable amount has changed since then, including the Mullahs' rejection of Obama's offer to shift Iran-U.S. relations into a new configuration. But even if there were no Iran, if it was just about the I/P conflict, it would still be legitimate for the president to say to the PM that settlement construction on land that would be, if there were a deal, Palestinian territory, does not exactly move things along in a positive direction. In many ways, this has always been American policy, although with different emphases depending on the administration.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 7:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gilo and Ramat Shlmo will never be Palestinian territory. And your president if he had any genuinely felt compassionate understanding for Jewish pain as far as Jerusalem and its history of expulsions and obstruction, wouldn't make such a comment to any Israeli PM. However, as has been suggested in this thread, Obama has plenty compassion for poor Palestinians. And it is a well known sad fact of life that no one can force anyone to like them, no matter how much they deserve to be liked. But we can expect some measure of justice, and I see no justice in the American president admonishing Israelis, who have not known a moment's peace or justice in the last 90 years, that they cannot inhabit neigborhoods in Jerusalem. The article is from November 2010. And Ross's book is recently published.

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 7:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

worth the visit for 01/11/2012 - 2:43pm EDT | makover Goats? Well, irony, my usual criticism of Obama is that "Ramat Shlomo is NOT a settlement, it is a neighborhood in North Jerusalem that was built on a rocky hillside previously used for palestinian goat grazing" Since I have spent more time trying to understand America's Republican contenders and their supporters in the past four months than I should have, or certainly more than Dr. Peretz has, I can only add two points to his on religion: 1) Mormonism is considered a cult by more than the Baptists due to a doctrinal theological point (something about NO new Prophets allowed in Christianity) that always reminds me of the Thirty Years War 1618-1648, which started with an argument over liturgy within he still-developing Protestant schism. Managed to kill one third of the population. Which usually leads me to my other goat reference: pundits arguing over how many palestinian goats can dance on the head of a pin :) 2) I never came across ANY Evangelical Christian obsessed with the "Left Behind" series or the Rapture re: Israel. Apparently, there is a lot of confusion on the part of the media about exactly WHAT being an Evangelical means. I have figured out it does NOT directly correlate with attending a mega-church. What really surprises me about this Peretz-post is that he zeroes in on Santorum, possibly because the Emergency Committee for Israel is running a terrific commercial in South Carolina, featuring Gary Bauer, that is really trying to undercut the Ron Paul (Lutheran turned Baptist) support. And, in a different role, Gary Bauer endorsed Santorum, just before NH. oops. From ECI's email on January 6, 2012: "Today the Emergency Committee for Israel released an ad in which Director Gary Bauer explains why conservatives should reject Rep. Ron Paul’s dangerous foreign policy views. The ad is slated to air next week in major South Carolina media markets on both television and talk radio, but is being released online today and can be viewed here: "We Can do Better than Ron Paul" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8MX7gFB4KR0&feature=youtu.be Because, the REALLY big oy-veh-mishegoss all over the conservative and/or republican spectrum is that Sheldon Adelson just funded airtime for KingofBain. Yes, the full 28-minute documentary is now online. No, I am too depressed to watch it, since I have been living a life destroyed by Private Equity Leveraged Buyouts since 1987 "Barbarian at the Gates" version. Just to make sure I connect the dots. Adelson helped fund the purchase and renovation into apartments for JEWS of Jerusalem's Shepherd's Hotel, formerly the personal residence of Hitler's favorite Grand Mufti of Jersualem. A construction project far more controversial than building permits in Ramat Shlomo, or Gilo, but one which the Obama administration chose NOT to denounce into a public diplomatic incident. sorry - have no idea which side of the 1949 Armistice Line the Grand Mufti's former residence is on. assume east. Otherwise, Dr. Peretz really needs a coherence med. I have no idea why he wrote this. Probably because Romney means Obama's re-election, Santorum is fading as I type, the feisty Bachmann is gone, Ron Paul is truly dangerous (he wants to eliminate the Fed - welcome to global financial panic - and wants Israel to either be given back to the Arabs, or the new spin, "become another Hong Kong", which leaves us with how the heck will Gingrich, Perry, or Huntsman stop Romney and Paul in South Carolina.) btw, Huntsman probably is a secret Episcopalian, like his wife MaryKaye, with a touch of Buddhism and Hinduism - kind of like a Mormon who never attends church. Exiting with my He// Yeah! Youtube, going viral in South Carolina: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZSXZ0ylAORY&feature=youtu.be

- K2K

January 11, 2012 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony exhibits touching faith in Obama's Middle East policies. This Obama who is nestling up to Erdogan and the Muslim Brotherhood and has dithered about Iran. Correction of the settlements issue to Obama's specifications would not end the conflict between Israel and the Arabs. The Arabs will never be appeased because their sole objective is simply to remove Israel. If the offense isn't settlements, it'll be something else. They will keep bedeviling Washington until the End. Just as Hitler was not satisfied with the Sudetenland. The Muslim Brotherhood is violently opposed to the West and its liberal values. How is Obama's appeasement of the Brotherhood serving America's national interests in the Middle East?

- amidut

January 11, 2012 at 9:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I don't see any evidence that Obama "likes" Palestinians or "dislikes" Israelis in that kind of collective mode. My impression is that he responds to individuals, and then on another level to political choices that have to be made. It is very difficult, I would imagine, to warm to Netanyahu, but again that doesn't seem to have had any practical effect on anything except the chemistry between the leaders. Pity it's not better, but I don't believe the fault is all on one side. I know the article is 2010 -- my point was, for the third time, that the exchanges under discussion in the article and book took place in May 2009, since which point many things have changed including the Iranian clerical leadership's rejection of the president's offer of a "reset" (as they say in Russian). Since then (indeed since January 2009) this administration has focused on the Iranian threat in a way that was completely lacking in its predecessor. I'm baffled as to why this isn't getting as much attention as whether Obama has expressed sufficient understanding for X's or Y's pain. K2K and Noga: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjSjB-3xPVM Just for the heck of it.

- ironyroad

January 11, 2012 at 9:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On one hand: ...For him, I suspect (no, I believe), a “Jesus candidate” means an ethical candidate, one who does not sully others, who does not lie, who nurtures the poor and the ill and those born to rotten lives. Yes, those born into prejudice and hatred... but on another hand: ...Of course, this is not exactly his politics... but on another hand: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/99240/santorum-surge-2012-vetting-quotes but then on another hand one would need "a wilderness of" hands to grasp all the ins and outs and highways and byways of this incoherent mess. Did someone say something about the need for coherece meds? Yes, someone did and rightly so.

- basman

January 11, 2012 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ironyroad: As in the case of the pasta strainer, I'm astounded beyond coherence that you would even know of the existence of this youtube.

- noga1

January 11, 2012 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can think of a dozen good reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney as President - but his religion is not one of them. Are people waiting for Mormons to pass the historical gauntlet first? Remember, there was a time when Catholicism was considered outside the American mainstream. Then Kennedy was elected, and Catholicism was admitted to the high table of public life. Even though there has been no Catholic president since Kennedy, there have been many candidates, and their religion has almost entirely been a non-event. The point is that it wasn't Catholicism that changed - it was public perception. (True, Catholicism underwent some significant changes in the decade following Kennedy's election, but I think it would be a bit of a stretch to say that these were directly caused by that election.) If a Mormon is elected President - this year or in future - and the Constitution is not overturned in the process, then the same will happen with public perception of the LDS Church. It will simply become a non-issue.

- jcovell

January 11, 2012 at 10:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not sure, jcovell. Are you saying that Mormons have become Americans, or that we all have become Mormons? For that matter, what is the relationship between Mormons and Israel?

- skahn

January 11, 2012 at 11:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wikipedia (which perhaps has a direct line to God) tells me: The doctrines of the Latter Day Saint movement, commonly referred to as Mormonism, teach that its adherents, Latter-day Saints, are either direct descendants of the House of Israel, or are adopted into it. As such, Judaism is foundational to the history of Mormonism; the Jewish people are considered a covenant people of God, held in high esteem, and are respected in the Mormon faith system. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church) is consequently very philo-Semitic in its doctrine. Mormon beliefs regarding their membership in the House of Israel are generally denied from both a theological and cultural standpoint by the Jewish community.. As you can see, as with all revelations, that matter is as clear as mud, and may be, or may not be, in italic. Crack the big end of the egg or the small end of the egg.

- skahn

January 12, 2012 at 12:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is not italic, which is like reading entrails and getting a good result. Now I need someone to come along and tell me if I am a self-hating Jew or perhaps a Mormon without realizing it. Where is Howard Hughes when we need him?

- skahn

January 12, 2012 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marty, you are such a complete jerk. That you can call Romney an honorable man and accuse the president of having the same beliefs as Wright makes me believe that you are so fucking blinded by your disappointment in Obama that you are ready to believe anything. You are an old fool - please retire.

- NR409654

January 12, 2012 at 12:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The founding fathers were religious skeptics who had a deep respect for the role of religion in preserving the civil and moral order necessary for a free republic to survive and prosper. As President Washington put, only "very fine minds" can be moral without believing in God. Most people believe that belief in God is necessary for being a moral, decent and patriotic person. Given that fact, why destroy liberal civilization in a misguided attempt to impose the skeptical opinions of the learned on the majority of the population who have not the slightest inclination to embrace those opinions? Can we at least agree that it is preferable for middle Americans (or however you want to call them) embrace Jesus than Karl Marx, Adolf Hitler, V.I. Lenin, Josef Stalin or Mohammed?

- bulbman1066

January 12, 2012 at 12:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

well stated: 01/11/2012 - 9:18pm EDT | amidut If Mormons are so philo-semitic, then why does Romney refuse to offer his opinion whether or not apartments in Ramat Shlomo and Gilo are "settlements" ? He also mispronounces chutzpah. Thank you basman, for noticing my suggestion that Dr. Peretz needsd coherence meds. This is one post where his incoherence is not offset by a patina of the lightness of being. irony: sorry - while I DID interrupt my therapeutic dose of Benny Goodman playing Mozart at Tanglewood in order to check (briefly) your Youtube offering, alas, I have a need to avert any visuals of most forms of wildlife today. Why? For hopefully the only time in my life, my scenic view was disturbed on Tuesday, Jan. 10, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. by the Red Fox eating my resident Gray Squirrel for about fifteen minutes. Bad enough when Simon the Cat wanders by with a black-headed chickadee for a mid-day snack, but, I shall really miss my squirrel scampering around. Seems this red fox has taken up residence across the street, and has already eaten their squirrels. No wonder my chipmunk moved into my attic. Considering the Fox eating the Squirrel was on the morning of the New Hampshire primary, I took it as a sign that Romney was going to eat someone for lunch :) Catholicism in 1960 is not relevant. There has been serious tension about whether a Catholic holds primary allegiance to the Pope since Henry VIII. And, this obsession with the definition of "life" and "personhood" is truly an incursion of religious belief into the lives of others who do not have the same belief system. I still find the Golden Tablets of Moroni and that now abandoned idea of 'baptizing' the dead Jews of the Holocaust a bit different. Can't wait for the attack ads on Romney for doing his missionary work in France, that nation of "secularist socialist cheese-eating surrender monkeys". Worked well against John Kerry, and his sole defect was that he speaks French. I just want someone to let me keep my incandescent light bulbs. Surely there is religion for that?

- K2K

January 12, 2012 at 12:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Islamophilia of Barack Obama is a mystery. Jewish support played an essential role in the success of the Civil Rights movement. Yet to this day there is a lively trade in black African slaves in Islamic countries. How explain this hypocrisy? The fact is that anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism are the stock in trade of the radical left. Hatred of freedom, of honest achievement, of all that is truthful and honorable and decent is the Left's bread and butter. There are decent liberals like Marty Peretz. But the sad truth is that their number has dwindled to a precious few.

- bulbman1066

January 12, 2012 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

'As in the case of the pasta strainer, I'm astounded beyond coherence that you would even know of the existence of this youtube." Noga, in the course of a (by now) reasonably longish life, one picks up things: for example, the usefulness of pasta strainers, und zum Beispiel, the fact that Julie Andrews' performance on The Muppet Show was both touching and entertaining. And then, the goat issue. Cough. So, nothing astounding, nothing to damage coherence (I hope, at least).

- ironyroad

January 12, 2012 at 3:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh my. Politifact just gave the Obama-Biden re-election campaign website a PANTS ON FIRE (meaning LIAR, LIAR) for this statement: "Stand against ‘zeroing out’ aid to Israel," the web page says. "Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero. Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan." "...It ignores nuances the candidates expressed during the debate ... It ignores statements the candidates made after the debate to explain their positions ... The Obama claim misuses the term "zeroing out" ..." [yes, indeed, zero-based budgeting is not the same, not that the dems have ever considered zero-based budgeting as a useful tool in any organization] http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/11/barack-obama/barack-obama-campaign-says-romney-perry-gingrich-w/ DNC must be getting really annoyed that the Jews are not writing so many checks this cycle...to be desperate enough to post this on January 11, 2012. Guess Peretz will not have to work so hard in 2012 as he did in 1988 and 2008 (and I assume in between) and, yes, I am still wishing for a Super-8 or a Polaroid of Al Gore travelling by bus to Borough Park, Brooklyn to meet Rabbi Shlomo Halberstam, the Bobover Rebbe, the Grand Rabbi of Bobov, Poland.

- K2K

January 12, 2012 at 3:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How very strange that the Obama-Biden website did NOT include Ron Paul, "extreme" isolationist extraordinaire, especially since some of that far left Code Pink/Free Gaza money has to be flowing to Ron Paul. If ever anyone wanted some evidence of of Obama's Israel - lens, this does seem very much a dog whistle. Ron Paul is the only GOP candidate who intends to cut 100% of all foreign aid to ZERO. Yet he gets no mention: "Stand against ‘zeroing out’ aid to Israel," the web page says. "Republican candidates for president Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich all say they would cut foreign aid to Israel — and every other country — to zero. Stand up to this extreme isolationism and join the call to reject the Romney-Perry-Gingrich plan."

- K2K

January 12, 2012 at 3:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Are you saying that Mormons have become Americans, or that we all have become Mormons?" Both are tantalising questions, skahn. Have Mormons become Americans? I suppose they have, from starting off good Yankees, passing through and being expelled from slavery-supporting Missouri, and being expelled from the body of America into the Utah valley - and then earning a kind of eventual readmittance through statehood in 1896 after formally repudiating plural marriage. There was a long-standing suspicion of the "US" lingering well into the 20th century in Utah; old-timers would sometimes mutter about the wisdom of it all, though prophetic authority pretty much answered that question. So yes, Mormons have in fact become Americans - though that was not as simple a question as it first seemed. If Romney should accede to the Presidency, that would make the journey complete, I suppose. Have we all become Mormons? Not yet, of course... though if one were to conflate all the rumors and tales that have been floating about, Romney would no sooner take the oath of office than overturn the Constitution, declare a theocracy, force allegiance to Salt Lake City for all citizens, and promptly move the Oval Office to the upper rooms of the Washington DC Temple. Have I missed anything out? Do let me know if I have. Mormon philosemitism has a long history. Like many forms of Christian philosemitism, Mormon beliefs relating to the Abrahamic covenant and the family of Israel do kind of get up the nose of some Jews. And who was it who said it's the mark of a true philosemite that they always mangle their attempts at Yiddish?

- jcovell

January 12, 2012 at 7:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"accuse the president of having the same beliefs as Wright " Just a reminder: Wright joined Farrakhan in a pilgrimage to Khaddafy. We know where the President stands on Kaddafy. I don't think Obama was greatly influenced by Wright, a religious and racial fanatic. He was however tutored on the issue of I/P conflict by Rashid Khalidi. I suspect he finds it extremely difficult to disabuse himself of Khalidi's anti-Israel positions to the extent that he can begin to treat Israel with some respect and compassion. Too bad for Israelis that this is the posture of the American president at a time when their enemies already celebrate their impending demise. The voices I hear from Washington talk about how Israel can decimate Iran in case of a nuclear attack on it. The ignorance and callousness of such speculations are beyond belief. A strike on Tel Aviv means the entire country will go bust. Yet these people talk about it as a some sort of an acceptable risk.

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 7:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Arnon: Yes, Americans have to decide. But you must admit that as K2K stated "Golden Tablets of Moroni and that now abandoned idea of 'baptizing' the dead Jews of the Holocaust a bit different." than the tablets of 10 commandments supposedly given to Moses at Sinai three thousand years ago. irony: The repeated claim against Netanyahu is that he is not a "nice guy" and that there is no chemistry between him and the president. The same thing could be said about Obama. What came first, the chicken or the egg? "

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 12, 2012 at 7:21am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What can be openly and easily (refer to ironyroad's sniffing hauteur) said about Netanyahu cannot be said about the fourth greatest president in the history of the USA. I wonder why this is. I also wonder at the way arnon so energetically promoting Tzipi Livni as a desirable Israeli leader admonishing makover for daring to opine about American presidents. I read his comment as saying, butt off from our elections. Well, what's good for goose and all that.

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 8:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: I still remember that photo you posted of Obama with Mahmoud Abbas where they looked like best friends. Whereas, I have yet to find a single photo where Obama can mask his visceral distate for PM Netanyahu. I just came from a allegedly center-right blog where they are heatedly discussing if Rush Limbaugh should have ranted for ten minutes about whether Rick Perry is Fidel Castro (Sarah Palin just weighed in and she thinks attacking Romney for Vulture Capitalism is A-OK). Oh, no one is mentioning religion anywhere in the center-to-right blogosphere. Their priests are now the third decade of the Thirty Years War on Free Market Capitalism. Time to shovel the snow that just turned to sleet before it turns to rain and then freezes into an ice sheet overnight. or go backto slep. There is no news that does not make my nightmares ever more disturbing.

- K2K

January 12, 2012 at 12:15pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We know clearly and unambiguously and without resorting to interpreting body language, what Obama feels for Netanyahu. It is known he is not too fond of Sarkozy but when it came to Netanyahu, negative schmoozing could not be resisted. At least Sarkozy had the grace to blush, diplomatically, and offer an explanation and an apology. The little man knows what it takes to be a great man. Not so Obama. I will repeat this: Obama is Khalidi's student on Israel. No student who sat on Khalidi's knee and accepted his doctrines could be anything but contemptuous towards Israelis. Marty's repeatedly voiced outrage will never make a dent in those who insist on Obama's infallibility, facts to the contrary.

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 12:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good to know that Marty is now on the Santorum bandwagon. What took Marty so long to know that Rockin' Ricky is among Likud's best friends in DC? Let me tell you, under a Santorum Administration the US would not push for a cease-fire in conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, or anyone else -- the US would be right there fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel, whether the Israelis like it or not! Curious if Marty actually pays attention to the stuff that Santorum says about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Like his recent statement that West Bank Arabs are "Israelis". Perhaps Editor Emeritus can make some calls to the Santorum campaign to explain that this is actually not the position of any mainstream Israeli political party?

- wildboy

January 12, 2012 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good question K2K. I think the only answer that makes sense is that the Obama folks see Paul as shooting himself in the foot as regards Israel, whereas Romney-Perry-Gingrich have to be helped to do that. In other words, they can let Paul keep on keepin' on.

- ironyroad

January 12, 2012 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, sorry -- the "question" I meant was in your post #50 on the previous page (about the Obama-Biden web site). makeover -- I agree, and that's why I said that I don't think the fault is all on one side. However, it's not the duty of the president to "like" the Israeli PM, nor indeed vice versa. It is however the duty of the president to consider the interests of the U.S. first and not as a footnote to anyone else's interests. And is it worth noting again that, as of January 2012, Iran does not possess nuclear weapons, but Pakistan does?

- ironyroad

January 12, 2012 at 2:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"it's not the duty of the president to "like" the Israeli PM, nor indeed vice versa." I don't think anyone suggested it is "duty" of the President to like the Israel PM. It is not his duty to support the Jewish state. It is not his duty to sell weapons to Israel. It is not his duty to believe in the idea of Jewish sovereignty. It is not his duty to think that Zionism is a legitimate right of the Jewish people. It is not his duty to be seen in Holocaust memorial next to Elie Wiesel. None of this is a duty of the president of the US. What's your point in using this term "duty" in this context?

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/01/12/egypt-rulers-revenue-anti-israel-vendetta/ "Scarcely a day goes by without some pundit or diplomat proclaiming that we shouldn’t worry about Islamists’ electoral victories in places like Egypt and Tunisia, because they will soon be moderated by the demands of governance – primarily, the need for economic development to improve their voters’ lives. Unfortunately, Egypt’s new rulers don’t seem to have gotten the message: This week, they canceled an annual trip by Israeli pilgrims to the grave of a Jewish sage." It's because Israel continues to build apartments in Jerusalem.

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I agree with your comments above in a strict sense, but I'm unsure toward whom they are directed. You have been one of the most emphatic about highlighting up the issue of the personal relationship or lack of it between Obama and Netanyahu, and what you see as the significance of that for the wider political situation. In contrast, I don't see it that way. I don't believe the security relationship between Israel and the United States is compromised in any real way by the lack of warmth between the leaders, and I have rejected again and again the way Marty always seems to obsess about what Obama says or doesn't say rather than what the U.S. does. I regard it as idiosyncratic at best and myopic and immature at worst. This administration is focused on the Iranian threat more sharply than its predecessor was and I think that should be recognized.

- ironyroad

January 12, 2012 at 3:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"You have been one of the most emphatic about highlighting up the issue of the personal relationship or lack of it between Obama and Netanyahu, and what you see as the significance of that for the wider political situation." I don't care about the personal relationship and I'm surprised that you would see it that way. What I care about is what I consider to be Obama's lack of sympathy for Israel. He made a fuss about the Jerusalem apartment not because he doesn't like Netanyahu but because he never paused to consider this demand to be deeply painful to Israelis. He has no sense whatsoever of Jewish history as it pertains to the people of Israel. He has been taught to be indifferent to that. Don't try to reduce my opinion to a petty defense of Netanyahu, as if I were nothing but a mindless follower of a leader. If you read carefully what I write you will find that I never defend him as Netanyahu. I would be saying the same if it were Barack or Livni suffering from the public contempt of the US president.

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 3:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Aha! At last. Well, perhaps if you didn't try to reduce others' opinions to a "petty defense" of Obama, you'd find that people didn't do that to you in return. You have continually dismissed arguments I've made -- where you haven't just ignored them -- as if I have only some personal agenda and no objective case to make. Once again, the most important point is that this administration has tried to get to grips with the Iranian threat, rather than just putting up "Mission Accomplished" banners.

- ironyroad

January 12, 2012 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Aha! At last. " What?

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 10:54pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"He was however tutored on the issue of I/P conflict by Rashid Khalidi." The Noga can repeat this lie as often as she likes and it won't make it less of a lie. Rational people don't jump in every time an irrational hallucinatory poster repeats her dream. I am often surprised that the rational ironyroad acts as Noga's sounding board.

- arnon

January 12, 2012 at 11:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you wish to impress ironyroad, arnon, you should not insult him as being anybody's "sounding board". It makes you seem petty, bad-tempered, and irrelevant. Not at all intellectually appealing, which is an image you are so desperate to cultivate around here.

- noga1

January 12, 2012 at 11:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I apologize for sounding bored. OK, cheap shot. I take it back. [What do you mean, you 'take it back'? Take what back? The joke? Or that you are bored? Or that you apologize? Or some previous remark? It's like you think you're so effing smart -- but you're not!]

- ironyroad

January 13, 2012 at 12:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How could you? You campaigned for 10 days for Obama? Even I who was hoping to vote for Obama one day when I heard him speak at the convention did not vote for him. In the mean time I had found what you say he did and could not vote for Obama. He cheered every anti- Semitic rant of his spiritual mentor, Wright for 20 years, organized the million men march when multitudes cheered Farrakhan's anti- Semitic rants. A non- anti- Semite would have never done that of course. So the question must be asked, would you vote again for anti- Semite Obama? I know that I would not do the same this time around. This time instead of not voting for Obama I will vote for anyone running to unseat anti- Semite Obama.

- Poupic

January 13, 2012 at 6:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

01/12/2012 - 2:09pm EDT | ironyroad "Good question K2K [#50 on the previous page (about the Obama-Biden web site).]. I think the only answer that makes sense is that the Obama folks see Paul as shooting himself in the foot as regards Israel, whereas Romney-Perry-Gingrich have to be helped to do that. In other words, they can let Paul keep on keepin' on." Three further observations: 1) after reading Politifacts "[liar, liar] Pants on Fire" report on that Obama-Biden campaign website (O-BCW) page: a) the Politifact URL link worked and the page existed, but; b) when I tried to find it from inside the O-BCW - it did not exist anywhere; c) that was my first time visit to O-BCW, and I found it interesting that, under ISSUES, only National Security listed - NOT Foreign Policy/Relations (the conduct of foreign relations IS a primary responsibilty of the President), and that they had the sense to NOT have the 10,000+ Groups with email listservs from the 2008 MyBO campaign website. 2) I disagree with you irony, about "the Obama folks see Paul as shooting himself in the foot as regards Israel". The specific charge was attacking Romney-Perry=Gingrich for wanting to "zero out" foreign aid to Israel. Ron Paul is the only candidate who does want to "zero out" ALL foreign aid, whereas the other three were talking about zero-based budgeting. The Obama campaign knows full well that far left Code Pink/Free Gaza people are supporting Ron Paul, especially with money. The woman who co-founded Free Gaza came from Code Pink, and her husband is Hollywood money. Forget her name. The earliest online attacks against Rick Perry came from Paulbots. Why? As Governor, Perry wrote a letter to AG Holder asking that the DoJ enforce the Neutrailty Act to stop Bill Ayers' boat from sailing in the 2011 Gaza Flotilla. The main reason the 2nd flotilla flopped was ingenious use of lawfare by an Israeli group that got maritime insurers to re-consider their policies, which got the boat owners to re-assess. Gov. Perry knew the group, asked if he could help, and wrote that letter to AG Holder, and it worked. You can look up the Neutrality Act for yourself. I assume Obama wants to try to get those far left Code Pink/Free Gaza Ron Paul supporters back for the general election. Also, the old Dr. Paul gets most of his support from the 18-29 cohort, which is critical to Obama. And, NO ONE wants to offend Dr. Paul - it is now a standard line from the media that they do not mean to criticize but still expect their email boxes flooded with thousands of RonPaul2012 protests. It is quite an online phenom. I consider it a form of cyber-warfare. 3) Perry and Gingrich NEVER "shoot themselves in the foot" on Israel. Perry was awarded "Defender of Jerusalem". In 2010, he led a trade mission from Texas to Israel, and made sure they all visited S'derot's undergorund bunker playground/community center that was built so the children had a place to play without the constant fear of what Ron Paul calls "home-made bombs" from Gaza. Since 1992, Governor Rick Perry has done more for Israel's economic growth that strengthens Israel's national security than ANY elected American official, ever. otoh, Romney, on the Yom Kippur PBS Newshour, refused to offer his opinion if apartments in Jerusalem are "settlements". Judy Woodruff asked three times, only the first ask was broadcast, but the full transcript showed she asked him three times. Romney is NO different from Obama on apartments in Jerusalem. Just that Obama REALLY wants to run against Romney, and he did join in on that zero-based budgeting idea that Perry proposed. If Obama has to run against Perry or Gingrich, Obama will lose New York where us pesky Jewish voters are 13% of the electorate. Ah - you think Romney has this locked up? Not so fast. Romney did his Mormon missionary service in France. I have been waiting for the "Romney speaks French" attack like the one that damaged John Kerrey as a "French socialist cheese-eating surrender monkey" in 2004. Voila! Gingrich just launched an ad where Romney is blurred into another Massachusetts Dukakis and Kerry, ending with Romney speaking French. C'est bon! Ok, I remembered all three points. or, as Rick Perry would say: "So when they continued asking him, he lifted himself up, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." New Testament John 8:7 See y'all another time.

- K2K

January 13, 2012 at 6:29am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: My position is that countries must always defend their interest. Altruism which is so valued in personal relation cannot be and should not be the norm in international relations. I have always said that and I truly believe that. I think that the relations between Israel and US are based on common interests. Were those interests to change, the relations will change. The problem with Obama/Netanyahu "dislike" issue is that many Israelis felt that Obama's dislike of Netanyahu have translated to the dislike of the entire country. I also think that as Noga said, Obama's background was not well disposed to the Israelis from the get-go. irony, I grant you that this is administration is finally moving on Iran and I give Obama all the credit for that. I just want to point out that this is one of scenarios I proposed in some previous post and was thoroughly shot down by you, arnon but particularly by roid. I also think that the administration is growing worried about a possibility of outright war between Iran and Israel which will be more costly to the US than sanctions that really bite. In Israel, the view is that spring 2012 will be decision time.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 13, 2012 at 7:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Totally off topic (or maybe not): See how Islam honours women http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E30kBYzPEoA

- noga1

January 13, 2012 at 8:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, you may be right, I was just trying to answer your question. I don't think, however, that the Code Pink/Free Gaza voters, who are a tiny minority mostly in states that are going to go for Obama anyway, are of great interest to his campaign. He's spent quite a lot of his term so far annoying the Left, anyhow. If Obama could run against Perry or Gingrich, he would, as that would guarantee victory. But he almost certainly will be running against Romney (btw you should read Alec McGillis today on the way in which the Romney voters appear to have the most vitriolic hatred of Obama). makeover -- I can't remember shooting you down (do I do that kind of thing?) but as usual I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I think there are a large number of moving parts in this Iranian problem machine, and one of them is my sense that there may be forces in Teheran that don't want an actual confrontation with the U.S., militarily at least, and that it's partly a matter now of not blinking. On the other hand, I have little doubt that a pre-emptive strike -- on Netanyahu's wish list -- would only slow down but not wipe out the nuclear sites, and absolutely inflame national sentiment against us (at the moment we are dealing with a fairly unpopular regime that nonetheless can use broader nationalist feeling for its purposes). Saudi Arabia, of course, wants us to attack too, so we deal with the Iranians and the Saudis can privately nod in approval and then launch a barrage of criticism against us afterwards.

- ironyroad

January 13, 2012 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a stimulating thread. All the way from Mormonism to Walter Benjamin to beating etiquette for religiously-correct Muslim husbands. Wish that my website makeover hadn't made me so late to the party. But a couple quick comments in case there's anyone who hasn't gone home yet. I think that it's beyond discussion that certain acts of barbarism were part and parcel of the foundational phase of various major religions. One might think of Moses inviting his loyal cohorts to slaughter all his co-religionists for dancing and singing around a golden calf when he returns from the heights of Sinai for the first time with the second commandment. Or the medieval Popes offering direct access to heaven for all those who enlisted in the campaigns to exterminate the peaceful Albigensians in southern France. Or the wagon train massacres perpetrated by the early Mormons who left only the "young blood" alive so they could be raised as Mormons. What distinguishes these religions from Islam today is that they have all undergone a period of reformation and repudiation of their early barbarism. Islam has also had its brave souls who have attempted to separate baby and bathwater throughout the centuries but they have not fared well. Mainstream Islamic theology today seems to have chosen the path of rationalizing barbarism rather than repudiating it. To wit, beating etiquette as an expression of honoring the woman in your life. The dissenters are mostly dead, quiet or under house arrest. As for Walter Benjamin, I share Noga and Irony's fascination with the man's writings, although they are so perversely evasive, that I sometimes wonder whether I understand them at all. But they do lead one to all kinds of interesting reflections, which may or may not having anything to do with Benjamin's intent. My first pass at a doctoral thesis was anchored in his essay on Baudelaire whom he uses to explore the changes in sensibility wrought by the urban environment. I would love to read it today, if onlyI had written it....

- willjames77

January 13, 2012 at 1:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not sure why we're being hectored for concern over the GOP's religious values, sects, etc. THEY are the ones putting their religious values in our faces, remember? and trying to jam their values, in some cases medieval, in others outright bigoted, down our supposedly secular and democratic, post Enlightenment throats. So nu? Marty? What the heck. Ditto folks on the thread. ????????

- Sophia

January 13, 2012 at 3:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for Obama, I have seen NOTHING to indicate that he has an antisemitic bone in his body. Agreed he didn't manage I/P with sufficient tact or grace. So, who has? As for Iran, are the warmongers nuts? Or what? A conventional missile response by Iran to an Israeli or other pre-emptive attack would likely devastate Israel, meanwhile Iran would be damaged but would survive; further, sabre-rattling in the Gulf is likely to result in a global catastrophe. We need calm, not panic, and a hell of a lot less religion, period, and a lot more respect for the world and its creatures as a whole. Unless of course folks are trying to start Armageddon, in which case they may well succeed.

- Sophia

January 13, 2012 at 3:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

welcome willjames - we are just warming up here :) sorry irony - I rely on reading a few conservative blogs to find out which voters have the "most vitriolic hatred of Obama" - well, actually they are still mostly really upset that Romney is Obama2.0. The hatred is for PPACA aka Obamacare. I do not find actual hatred of Obama as a person, but his absence of leadership and dereliction of duty on spending, and strangling the economy with ever-more regulation. Mrs. Pelosi does not fare so well as a person or her policies. Yes, hard for so many at TNR to believe there are right of center conservative blogs that do not want Obama, Romney, or Dr. Paul, a surprising number who hate Fox News for shilling for Romney, and these blogs actually ban commenters who use foul language or violate other rules of civilized discourse. and, as usual, irony, you cherry-pick. My point about why Obama did NOT include Ron Paul for wanting to zero-out foreign aid to Israel is because Ron Paul is getting MONEY from Code Pink/Free Gaza that had flowed to Obama in 2007-08. And Ron Paul is eating Obama's lunch with independents and the 18-29 cohort. There is NO way Obama can beat Gingrich or Perry (or maybe even Huntsman) in the general election. The absence of enthusiasm for Romney is Obama's only chance for re-election. No way can Romney find a VP to get the base excited. They seem truly pissed at having the "moderate electables" shoved down their throats, and that includes Big-government faux conservative Bush43. Might as well wait to see what happens in South Carolina. As of today, 45% undecided. Due to the way delegates are allocated in 2012, this may go on until April. By which time, I expect Fast & Furious and Solyndra to be such a problem that Obama is going to have to declare the end of the War on Drugs AND announce he is retiring to spend more time with his children. Not like Obama even pretends he likes being President - he just likes campaigning, but the fundraising is not going well, and neither is the rebuilding of his ground troops. Absence of enthusiasm everywhere.

- K2K

January 13, 2012 at 5:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The WaPo has finally made a contribution to understanding the leadership strengths of each candidate, in a series. Most recent was this on Governor Perry (but I highly recommend reading any or all of the other profiles in leadership): "...It would be a cliché to say the leadership strength of the former yell leader for Texas A&M is being a cheerleader if it weren’t so true. People look for their leaders to root for the same causes they do, to applaud the ideas with which they identify, to amplify the things they’d like to say but wouldn’t get heard otherwise. Perry may have stumbled in the national spotlight, but his ability to sense and then give voice to his supporters’ opinions will remain a strength. Whether that helps him win the game remains to be seen." [K2K notes that a Texas A&M Yell Leader is NOT same as a cheerleader, but no one here cares about nuance:) ] http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-leadership/rick-perrys-best-leadership-trait/2012/01/11/gIQAm7lSrP_story.html Mr. Romney's leadership strength is his ability to read a spreadsheet in French - ok, that helps him project "competency", which is NOT inspiring. The competent candidates never win :)

- K2K

January 13, 2012 at 5:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia - some of us like commenting on a Peretz thread not because of the topic, but because we want a refuge from the Obama chorus elsewhere at TNR.com Have at it y'all.

- K2K

January 13, 2012 at 6:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"There is NO way Obama can beat Gingrich or Perry (or maybe even Huntsman) in the general election." Hm. At this stage, K2K, Perry should according to your predictions be waltzing his way to the top of the GOP field, right? Weren't you describing the enthusiastic reception he was getting all over Iowa only two weeks ago, and looking down your nose at us boring reality-based folks who thought it was all so much hooey? Let me say I admire you doggedly keeping on driving down the road as the wheels gradually fall off your jalopy -- or I think I do, at least. At any case, short of Obama being discovered to have a conducted satanic rites in the Lincoln Bedroom with a naked Kayne West slaughtering a chicken for Michelle to drink the blood, a Perry or Gingrich candidacy would have Obama winning with a higher margin than '08.

- ironyroad

January 13, 2012 at 6:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

K2K, it puzzles me why you think that Romney is being shoved down the throats of conservatives. Aren't these the folks who are voting for him in the primaries? It will be interesting to see what unfolds in NC. My sense of it is that the base would like someone with more conviction, but Romney seems to be a stable quantity while the others self-destruct left and right. Hence the drift toward Romney... I think we desperately need a leader who can see straight and shoot straight, and is a bit nasty. The world is a bit nasty, and I'm all for homeopathic remedies. Too bad Clint Eastwood is too old to run for office.

- willjames77

January 14, 2012 at 6:18am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony: On the other hand, I have little doubt that a pre-emptive strike -- on Netanyahu's wish list -- would only slow down but not wipe out the nuclear sites, and absolutely inflame national sentiment against us (at the moment we are dealing with a fairly unpopular regime that nonetheless can use broader nationalist feeling for its purposes)." This was exectly my point, the results of oil embargo and sanctions against Iranian national bank would be less distructive to world economy than an attack on Iranian nuclears sites. Regarding the recurring mantra "slow down but not wipe out the nuclear sites" which is the favorite response of all who oppose the use military force, we really don't know. This is what we hear from some experts who are opposed to military actions. We don't even know how such an attack will be executed. By air, missiles, subs, ground special forces, electronic all the above? I am sure that the planners of such an attack have taken all this into consideration. Based on my own experience the bark of Arab states is loud but their ability to bite (at least in conventional, army to army war) is much more limited. And although Iran is not an Arab state, their performance against Iraqi army was not stellar if I remember well. But remember, my position is that biting sanctions might work by bancrupting Iran before the first warhead is armed. sophia: "As for Iran, are the warmongers nuts? Or what?" I think it's the -or what-. Again, based on current iformation, the attacks on Iranian military bases, explosions in missile research facilities, their decrepit air force, their inability to protect their own turf and their conventional means which are rather limited. Comparing this to risk of taking out their nuclear facilities, even for short period of time might beat the alternative of a crazy mullah state armed with nuclear weapons. I think currently this is the view of the Israelis but also of Europeans and to a smaller extent Americans.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2012 at 8:37am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Ironyroad that Romney is the only candidate who stands a chance to beat Obama. He didn't say it straightforwardly but I infer from his comment that there is some anxiety in that regard. 77: I have the same feeling that Romney's stability and perseverance in the polls is a good sign for him. He is like the proverbial tortoise: http://childhoodreading.com/?p=3

- noga1

January 14, 2012 at 12:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A thought occurred to me. Obama went to Egypt and made a now-famous speech in which he attempted to show the Egyptian people how much he admires them while trying to teach them a thing or two about what rational liberalism means. Three years and many vicissitudes later, the Egyptian answer finally came, loud and clear: http://www.memri.org/report/en/0/0/0/0/0/0/5992.htm "Fathi Shihab, who is responsible for the MB's labor dossier, wrote that the Holocaust was a "tale" which Israel used as political leverage whenever it faced international criticism for its crimes and massacres. He said that "world Zionism" had succeeded in extracting a resolution from the U.N. that International Holocaust Remembrance Day would be marked every January 27, and said: "The entire world, and Germany in particular, have become yearly scapegoats of world Zionism, and have capitulated to the greatest political extortion in history." He went on to describe the Holocaust as "a tale invented by the American intelligence apparatuses with the Allies' collaboration during World War II, in order to harm the image of their German adversaries and justify the great destructive war against the Axis countries' military and civilian installations – and especially to justify the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the persecution of the defeated countries' military chiefs in Nuremburg and Tokyo's courts."

- noga1

January 14, 2012 at 12:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "He didn't say it straightforwardly but I infer from his comment that there is some anxiety in that regard." Well, I was having some fun, but I have said it straightforwardly elsewhere. Romney definitely has a reasonable shot at winning the White House, especially in a dismal economy. However, many a slip (and 10 months to make them in) between cup and lip. Or we could be in a shooting war with Iran by May.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2012 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"However, many a slip (and 10 months to make them in) between cup and lip. " Yes. But the same goes for Obama. I predict no shooting war with Iran. Obama is in Iran-protective mode, judging by reports of a very difficult conversation with Netahyahu about the assassination of the nuclear scientist. He and his Panetta are all too eager to reassure Iran that any violence will be condemned and possibly punished by the Americans. Israel's self-defense possibilities being pulverized between its arch enemy and its greatest friend is not a pretty sight and a source of real concern for those who care for it. I do believe Obama considers himself a reliable arbiter for morally-justified assassinations.

- noga1

January 14, 2012 at 2:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think Obama is in Iran-protective mode, I think he is in common sense mode. Lord amighty, look at the way our last two wars have turned out. Who actually got shot in the foot? WE DID. Check out our economy and - let me ask: who exactly has been won over to a Western, Enlightenment point of view due to our wars? Muslims? DO NOT make me laugh. Our wars, films of people pissing on Taliban soldiers, Abu Ghraib, oh that has definitely caused Islam to become moderate and pro-Western, right? And, Afghanistan and Iraq are a real mess, Pakistan is now way more unstable (and still has nuclear weapons) so exactly what were people thinking? Answer, they were thinking, according to Wolfie, that This Is The Thinking Man's War. Uh huh. So, Iran: Iran is a vastly larger and more complex, diverse and militarily difficult to attack let alone vanquish. Apart from the moral implications of attacking a very interesting, beautiful and highly evolved country and its people, what the hell are you guys thinking? I ask again. Please do some serious reading about Iran/Persia before you advocate attacking it. Also think about political, economic and environmental catastrophe ensuing from a war in the Gulf. There are other ways to deal with this, just as there were after 9/11; ditto, after 1979, ditto during the 1980's with all the shenanigans we and the Soviets and the Brits were involved with, globally.

- Sophia

January 14, 2012 at 3:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As for Israel's right to defend itself. Like America, Israel needs to defend itself from its own far right wing. THAT is public enemy #1. Good lord. Have any of you considered the effects of a full on conventional war against Israel? Imagine a full on conventional war against New Jersey. Honestly I think people are living in a fairy tale. Be real, please. The Israeli far right combined with Evangelical nuts here are going to ensure the destruction of Israel; already, the identification of Israel with the American far right is assuring a rise in antisemitism and also, of course, further denigrations of Israel per se. This is a very serious problem. Who wants to try and defend a state that is associated with fascists and religious crazies?

- Sophia

January 14, 2012 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

PS I am not blaming the majority of Israelis or Jews for this. It's almost like a script, the perfect set up. Associate Israel/Jews with the far right, fascism, radical "Christianity", kaboom. We need this? PEOPLE THINK, please. That goes for Marty! This religious stuff in the US is very serious.

- Sophia

January 14, 2012 at 3:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Apart from the moral implications of attacking a very interesting, beautiful and highly evolved country and its people, " Germany was also a very interesting, beautiful and highly evolved country, even more so than Iran. I can't remember anyone advancing that as a rationale not to go to war on it, when it threatened the world. What kind of silly talk is this? Why would I care for the beauty of Iran when Iranians are threatening to wipe my little beautiful nephews off the face of the earth? Do you think Israel should trust Obama to protect its kids against Iranian genocidal ambitions? Does he care for them, except when he is in campaigning mode? One tiny nuke in Tel Aviv and Israel is done for. No big deal, eh, Sophia? As long as we have proper aesthetic appreciation for Iran's beauty, right?

- noga1

January 14, 2012 at 3:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As far as I recall, nobody attacked Germany. Germany attacked the rest of Europe. Japan attacked the United States. Certainly the president, as far as re-election goes, has the same ten months to drop the ball as his probable opponent has (I thought that was understood in my remark). However, unlike his opponent he has other responsibilities. One of them is the national security interests of the United States. A prediction that there will be no shooting war with Iran seems to me as valid as the prediction in early 2003 that Iraq would be a cakewalk and we'd be at worst struggling with the amount of candy and flowers that people would be showering our troops with. It's not in Iran's rational interest to seriously provoke us in the Gulf but the Revolutionary Guard's marine force is not a rational or predictable force -- they could inflict serious damage and things can get out of control. The current situation is that Iran does NOT AS YET have a nuclear weapon and nobody can agree on the projected schedule that would give them one. I don't believe anyone here on this thread is an expert, so I have some confidence in saying that it makes more sense to deal with a future threat as a future threat and not to -- as the Bushies did -- create panic and confusion by having our political and military leaders talk as if we were days away from Armageddon (e.g. Condi Rice's 'mushroom cloud' talk).

- ironyroad

January 14, 2012 at 3:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

sophia: The Jews have an obligation and a duty to take seriously countries and organizations whose own declared goal is the total destruction and annihilation of the Jews. And let me remind you that Israel does not need to consider "the effects of a full on conventional war". In the last sixty four years, Israelis had direct and personal experience with that already several times. And please, read below and let me know if you think that Israelis should not worry about this "beautiful and highly evolved country and its people". irony: I grant you that Iran does NOT AS YET have a nuclear weapon. Does that justifies doing nothing? Is preemptive action such a foolish idea? Do you really think that Netanyahu, Barak and others are totally deluded. It's a long one but I will quote this here in full and please let me know if you read anything like this with the exception of maybe Der Sturmer. IRIB Radio has a longish anti-Semitic manifesto at the moment (including the above image). Here is part of it, including an explanation of the sinister Zionist plot behind the use of the term "apartheid" and Nation of Islam-derived propaganda that blames the Jews for slavery: [...] The nucleus of the Zionist mindset, the energy source that drives those who think in this manner to behave like the inhuman monsters that they are is Jewish supremacism; the need to destroy all that it is not Jewish, the goyim, in order for "the Jewish people" to survive. The developer of the neutron bomb, Samuel T. Cohen, was a Zionist with a strong Talmudic-Jewish upbringing, as was Robert J. Oppenheimer, the creator of the atom bomb. The supremacist need to destroy all non-Jewish peoples and cultures was close to the blackened hearts of the early leaders of the usurping Zionist entity, hence why Ben-Gurion, Dayan, Eshkol and Peres collectively came up with the "Samson Option," the military plan to unleash 'Israeli' nukes upon the world if any nation or every nation attempted to confront Zionist power. The polar opposite of this thuggish outlook on existence, is the Islamic Revolutionary Republic of Iran, a nation whose Persian history is rooted in the very essence of creation. The finest poets, artists, mathematicians, scientists and theologians that the world has ever known originate from this great land. [...] The term "apartheid" is an attempt to make international Zionism seem like it is innocuous or closely related with previous colonial endeavors when in reality, it is something far worse and far uglier. Apartheid is simply one facet of the Zionist regime that it is criminally and disgustingly occupying holy al-Quds and the rest of historic Palestine, as is colonization, and most importantly, they are only temporary. The true goal of Zionism is to wipe out all non-Jewish peoples in vast parts of Egypt, including most of its north, all of Sinai and Cairo, all of Jordan, all of Kuwait, a gargantuan portion of Saudi Arabia, all of Lebanon, all of Syria, all of Cyprus, an elephantine part of Turkey up to Lake Van and finally, part of Iraq south of the Euphrates River. The expulsion and/or mass murder of these peoples would lead to the creation of the Zionist dream known as Greater Israel. So branding this usurping dragon of an entity simply as an "apartheid state" is not only incomplete, it is deceptive. And this disingenuous injection of language into the vocabularies of Palestine's supporters is also meant to deflect the attention from the root cause of this 63-year occupation: the Talmudic ideology that gave birth to Zionism, which is an amalgamation of terrorism, racism, barbarism, supremacism, expansionism and imperialism. [...] There is no doubt that the United States, the 'golem' of the international Zionist Power Configuration and Jewish banking interests, is the world leader in terrorism. The US is in no moral position to condemn any government or group in the world until it fesses up to its own blood-soaked history. 100 million Native Americans exterminated. 150 million Africans, many of them Muslims, murdered in the Trans-Atlantic slave trade, which was dominated by Spanish Jews like Aaron Lopez who had an entire fleet of slave ships and financing from the Rothschild family; these Jews, who were of the extremist and now dominant Talmudic-Kabbalistic school of thought, also introduced to the Curse of Ham to their Gentile slave-trading brothers, a horrific, racist story concocted and developed by the rabbis in their Talmud which lowered the rank of our brothers and sisters of beautiful black skin to animals. This Talmudic drivel was used to justify the dehumanization of millions of others and in the greater geopolitical sense it is now being exercised to justify more Zionist aggression on the African continent. [...] First and foremost, the IAEA is not an independent outfit like its public relations stooges would like the world to believe. The IAEA reports directly to the UN General Assembly and the UN Security Council and coordinates all of its actions with these two institutions of Zionist power. Therefore, without question, it can be said that the IAEA is nothing but a tool of the UN. The same UN hasn't done a damn thing to stop Zionist tyranny in Palestine, scripting hundreds of resolutions against this racist usurping entity but enforcing none of them. The same UN has done nothing to stop Hindutvadi tyranny in Kashmir, which is intimately aided by the Zionist entity with arms and intelligence, scripting dozens of other resolutions and enforcing none of them. The same UN that introduced Resolution 661 to Iraq, the treacherous 'sanctions resolution,' which crippled Iraq, prepared it for the Zionist invasion of 2003 and murdered over 2 million people by starvation including 800,000 Iraqi children. The same UN paved the way for the mutilation of Libya, in which at least 100,000 have been mass murdered. The same UN that now seeks to turn Syria into another Iraq or Libya 2.0. And besides, what is the UN really? As is the case with all matters of history and the revisionism that follows, we must return to the beginning; the origins. The origins of the UN can be found in the financing of the same Zionist banking families, the Rothschilds, Schiffs, Warbugs, Lazards and Oppenheimers, who have financed strife on this earth for centuries. The UN was created to justify the existence of the Zionist entity as a legitimate nation-state, to put a shroud on its hideous supremacist character. Despite the illegal Jewish colonization of Palestine financed by the Rothschild family since the 1880s and the horrible Zionist atrocities of the Nakba in 1948, still the UN recognized this fabricated regime, still gave it a name and a seat. Why? Because its godfathers, the Zionist bankers, wanted it that way. The UN is a tool of international Zionist power and by extension, so is the IAEA.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 14, 2012 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Does that justify doing nothing?" Is that a serious question? I have never said, in any way shape or form, that it justifies "doing nothing." The Obama administration is not "doing nothing." Unless "doing nothing" in your view covers everything except hitting the FIRE button on the cruise missile control panel, I am baffled by your question.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2012 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"As far as I recall, nobody attacked Germany. Germany attacked the rest of Europe." Are you claiming, ironyroad, that Iran is a peaceful country that has not attacked anybody so the analogy doesn't work? http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/07/iran-killing-american-troops-in-iraq-and-afghanistan/241486/ What about Hizzbulla and Hamas being armed and trained by Iran while Iran threatens to wipe Israel off the map of the world? This doesn't count? Shouldn't count?

- noga1

January 14, 2012 at 9:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I can't believe I read all of the comments. (OK, I lie...I skimmed a few.) If you wrote one of the comments, I admire and appreciate it, unless it is ignorant and immoral. That means you. I am getting old. I repeat myself. Although I am still fairly healthy, I know I am closer to my end than my beginning. The "doomsday clock" of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists has ticked a little closer to midnight. (These are smart dudes and dudettes; they probably know what they speak of.) If I am "lucky," I will die quietly of "natural causes." If I am not so "lucky," I will know that most of humanity is going down with me, at our own cunning hands. Sociobiology indicates that we are most concerned about our offspring. As we are not entirely creatures of biology, I worry about my non-genetic granddaughter, a seven year old intelligent, sensitive child with two mommies in Seattle and two daddies in Chicago. She's too young for me to say to her just yet: "Hey, kid, like every generation before you we f*cked stuff up quite a bit without quite destroying everything. Now it's in your lap." Also, to beat on my second obsession for TNR in 2012; when are you going to start the "junior edition" TNR publication that the mommies will let my granddaughter read?

- skahn

January 14, 2012 at 10:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't think Hizbollah or Hamas being trained by Teheran warrants a pre-emptive airstrike on Iran, no. It does warrant focused intelligence work and diplomacy designed to contain them. If you think Iranian demagoguery allied to its potential to use a nuclear weapon when it gets one warrants such a pre-emptive attack now, then I understand your position but I disagree, for reasons I've listed many times, including on this thread. My main point was -- why do I always have to re-point out my main points so pointedly? -- that there are many things short of direct military action that count as "doing something." Once again, I think that, for whatever motives, the fact that Obama isn't coming out and yelling "Bring it on!" at the Iran leadership is interpreted by some people as inaction. I'm no expert but I get it that this is a fluid situation with many moving parts and various things are happening off the screen.

- ironyroad

January 14, 2012 at 11:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I don't think Hizbollah or Hamas being trained by Teheran warrants a pre-emptive airstrike on Iran," "My main point was -- why do I always have to re-point out my main points so pointedly? " was to answer your quibble that Germany and Iran are not comparable. I'll repeat what I said: Germany was also a very interesting, beautiful and highly evolved country, even more so than Iran. I can't remember anyone advancing that as a rationale not to go to war on it, when it threatened the world. And you said: "As far as I recall, nobody attacked Germany. Germany attacked the rest of Europe." IAnd then I offered the evidence that Iran is indeed attacking American soldiers, as well as training people to attack Israelis. And then you said: "I don't think Hizbollah or Hamas being trained by Teheran warrants a pre-emptive airstrike on Iran," as if that were my main point, as if I was even making a case for such a possibility. Just to put the matter in its correct frame, mind you. I don't want you going away from here with the conviction that I was claiming that "Hizbollah or Hamas being trained by Teheran warrants a pre-emptive airstrike on Iran," and then using it to show some time in the future how irrationally hysterical I can be. OK?

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 3:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Makeover, thanks for the lengthy excerpt from IRIB radio's manifesto. Reminds me of the Superman comics I used to read as a kid where one of Superman's adversaries, Bizarro, came from an alternate universe where everything was backwards. The idea was congenial but the task of imagining a truly inverted world was somewhat beyond the gifts of the comic's writers and designers. They would have been helped greatly by reading some of the materials freely available in the jihadist universe. It's puzzling and intriguing to me that writings like the one you have posted demonstrate intellectual capacity, skillful argumentation, historical references and many of the other trappings of learned discourse. The only ingredient that is missing is any interest in the truth.

- willjames77

January 15, 2012 at 6:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia, you have some thoughtful things to say at times, but it would be good for you to try harder to understand opposing viewpoints that challenge your own cherished convictions. "Israel needs to defend itself from its own far right wing. THAT is public enemy #1." Really? I would describe the government as center-right rather than far-right. It has broad public support, even if that doesn't please the liberal left in America. The far-left in Israel, on the other hand, particularly some of the NGOs, have been actively involved in collaborating with international efforts to subvert Israel by supporting the BDS movement. Read www.ngo-monitor.org and learn what the "progressive" left is doing in the public arena. "The Israeli far right combined with Evangelical nuts here are going to ensure the destruction of Israel; already, the identification of Israel with the American far right is assuring a rise in antisemitism and also, of course, further denigrations of Israel per se." We can thank God that the Evangelicals in America have become a bulwark of unflinching support for Israel against the rising tide of Jihad. It may embarrass you to be associated with such people, because you consider yourself ever so much more open-minded than they are. I don't subscribe to their homophobia or their right-to-life politics, but on the issue of Israel's right to life, we have no better friends. Despising and demonizing them for their passionate Zionism is an expression of fear and hatred born of ignorance, and nothing more. "Who wants to try and defend a state that is associated with fascists and religious crazies?" Certainly not Israel's fair-weather friends on the left who abhor religion and patriotism and whose support is conditional upon having a Labor government in power." "Honestly I think people are living in a fairy tale. Be real, please." We certainly agree on this. We differ only in our assessment of who is living in a fairy tale.

- willjames77

January 15, 2012 at 7:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sophia, you have some thoughtful things to say at times, but it would be good for you to try harder to understand opposing viewpoints that challenge your own cherished convictions. "Israel needs to defend itself from its own far right wing. THAT is public enemy #1." Really? I would describe the government as center-right rather than far-right. It has broad public support, even if that doesn't please the liberal left in America. The far-left in Israel, on the other hand, particularly some of the NGOs, have been actively involved in collaborating with international efforts to subvert Israel by supporting the BDS movement. If you want to know what the "progressive" left is doing in the public arena read www.ngo-monitor.org and learn a few things. "The Israeli far right combined with Evangelical nuts here are going to ensure the destruction of Israel; already, the identification of Israel with the American far right is assuring a rise in antisemitism and also, of course, further denigrations of Israel per se." We can thank God that the Evangelicals in America have become a bulwark of unflinching support for Israel against the rising tide of Jihad. It may embarrass you to be associated with such people, because you consider yourself ever so much more open-minded than they are. I don't subscribe to their homophobia or their right-to-life politics, but on the issue of Israel's right to life, we have no better friends. Despising and demonizing them for their passionate Zionism is an expression of fear and hatred born of ignorance, and nothing more. "Who wants to try and defend a state that is associated with fascists and religious crazies?" Certainly not Israel's fair-weather friends on the left who abhor religion and patriotism and whose support is conditional upon having a Labor government in power." "Honestly I think people are living in a fairy tale. Be real, please." We certainly agree on this. We differ only in our assessment of who is living in a fairy tale.

- willjames77

January 15, 2012 at 7:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: I might not have expressed myself properly. I give the president all the credit for moving ahead with the stricter sanctions against Iran and I realize that this is not or was not an easy task. Unfortunately, I think it is too little too late. I don't think that anybody, including the US administration is under any illusion that Iran will stop it's attempt to build a nuclear weapon. My point however is related to actions required by Israel for effective defense. For a country of about 20,000 km sq. and a population of about 7 million the red lines are not the same as for a super power, occupying about 9,500,000 km sq. with a population of approximately 300 million. In addition, due to regional political changes, everything is in a flux. The antisemitic rants emanating from Arab capitals and Arab street, the rage and daily threats coming out of Iran and the rapid growth of antisemitism in Europe have not been heard since the collapse of Nazi Germany. Jews have a long and painful experience with organization whose political charter includes the annihilation of Jews. I posted the IRNA radio communicate just to exemplify the vile nature of this phenomenon. So now it's Lenin's questions: What needs to done? Kto gogo? I am glad that I am not the one having to answer but I am fairly sure that Israel will not permit the mullah access to nuclear weapons. sophia: I am in full agreement with willjames77 statement. The current Israeli government is center right. To say that Israel is associated with crazies and fascists is a slur. It is a democratic government that governs by approval of the electorate. You might disagree with it's policies just as I often do, but to claim that it "the Israeli far right" will destroy the country is ridiculous. The far right and the far left in Israel exists just like it exist in the US. No more and no less. It's just that in Israel every action is challenged by somebody, some NGO, whether local or foreign . If you happen pass wind near Jerusalem there will be an NGO that will try to accuse you of poisoning the Palestinians.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2012 at 8:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makover, 77: both of you nailed it. What Sophia said, however, is something we have all heard before, and in much worse language from other asajews around here. There is something very disturbing about this need from American Jews to subscribe to "My Obama - right or wrong" doctrine. It defies the usual accepted wisdom that Jews feel very secure in America. The recent Israeli Come Back Home ads kerfuffle proved just to what extent they are insecure. Jeffrey Goldberg couldn't find words vile enough to spit out at Israelis for suggesting that living in Israel offers a more coherent way of identity and life style. What was that all about, I wondered. http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/147247/

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/147247/

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 9:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: I was very surprised by Jeffrey Goldberg's comments as well. Actually, I did not think the commercials were inappropriate or insensitive, they were rather innocent. I very seriously doubt that the Italian or Irish community in the US would respond with such a plethora of injured feelings to similar appeal by their respective old countries. I must also add the the aftermath of the Pollard affair left me with a similar impression. The Jewish reactions to the affair were puzzling to say the least. Rather than display their confidence they displayed deep seated fears and insecurities verging on "don't rock the boat". In 1999, an op-ed piece by Peter Beinart insinuated that American Jews who lobby for Pollard's release are not exhibiting moral integrity but dual loyalty and polls over the last 30 years indicate that up to 50% of the American public may agree with Beinart concerning the loyalties of Zionist Jews.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2012 at 9:57am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I think that it's more than identity-insecurity. At the heart of it lies a deep feeling of distress that arises when a diaspora Jew recognizes that his or her Israeli brethren live in danger of annihilation. That realization, in and of itself, demands some form of active response from those who like to think of themselves as decent human beings with good intentions. Therefore, it is far more convenient in oh-so-many ways to deny that reality. "It's the settlers that are at fault." "It's Israel's right wing government." "It's the religious zealots." Anyone paying serious attention knows that even if women could walk in bikinis through Mea Shearim and every last chicken were removed from hilltops east of the Green Line, the hatred and bloodlust surrounding Israel would not abate for a moment. But as long as the asajews can pretend that it's "those right-wing zealot settler fanatic Jews"—and not nice Jews like themelves—they can retain the moral high ground and not feel obligated to do anything more than criticize "those Jews" for making peace so hard to achieve. And they can also feel safe. I'm beginning to see signs of unraveling in the comfort levels of the asajews. It's as if the oft-repeated and undisguised intention of radical Islamists to murder every Jew on the planet is beginning to make its way through the filtering mechanisms, much like the news of ghettoes and gas chambers once did.

- willjames77

January 15, 2012 at 10:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I did a Google search based on the the opening words of the piece that makeover posted above from Iran radio : "The nucleus of the Zionist mindset..." It seems to flow initially from the poison pen of an Iranian-American blogger and is then replicated throughout the blogosphere. They've got quite a nice infrastructure set up to promote their alternate reality throughout cyberspace where the Zionist beast is at the heart of all evil.

- willjames77

January 15, 2012 at 10:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Daily Star reports this: "But Israel's army radio, citing a defence official, said the drill was being postponed to avoid "unnecessary headlines in such a tense period." The joint manoeuvre was to have been the biggest yet between the two allies, and was seen as an opportunity for the two sides to display their joint military strength at a time of growing concern about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. Israel, the United States and much of the international community accuse Iran of using its nuclear programme to mask a weapons drive, a charge denied by Tehran. The postponement appeared to suggest fears that the exercise could dangerously further ramp up regional tensions, at a time when Iran has already threatened to close the strategic Strait of Hormuz." DebkaFile interprets the cancellation a bit differently: "US-Israeli discord over action against Iran went into overdrive Sunday, Jan. 15 when the White House called off Austere Challenge 12, the biggest joint war game the US and Israel have every staged, ready to go in spring, in reprisal for a comment by Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon in an early morning radio interview. He said the United States was hesitant over sanctions against Iran's central bank and oil for fear of a spike in oil prices. The row between Washington and Jerusalem is now in the open, undoubtedly causing celebration in Tehran." This demonstrates already how Iran is being deferred to by the Americans. Is this not a nice example of how Iran will be able to control American and European, and others', policies, with a nuke or two in its possession?

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 12:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I'm beginning to see signs of unraveling in the comfort levels of the asajews. It's as if the oft-repeated and undisguised intention of radical Islamists to murder every Jew on the planet is beginning to make its way through the filtering mechanisms, much like the news of ghettoes and gas chambers once did." Nothing really changes, 77. American Jews have too much to lose. I read somewhere how Hollywood Studios were frightened off by Joseph Kennedy not to release two movies they produced in 1940 (or so) about the persecution of Jews in Europe. Charlie Chaplin, not being a Jew, was not similarly deterred. I found an account for that here: http://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2011/06/charlie-chaplins-great-dictator-still.html "Hollywood had almost entirely ignored the war and the beginnings of the Holocaust except in the odd movie (Confessions of a Nazi Spy, The Mortal Storm) which as often as not excised the anti-Semitic underpinnings of what was going on in Germany, going so far as to label Nazism’s victims in The Mortal Storm as ‘non-Aryans’ rather than Jews (even though scenes using the latter word had been filmed). In addition, Hollywood’s Jewish moguls had been read the riot act by Joseph Kennedy, then U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, who had warned them that any movies attacking the Nazis could only make it worse for the Jews in Germany and at home in the U.S.. (Germany was also Hollywood’s best overseas market for film consumption.) The moguls complied with Kennedy’s unofficial threat and, as was so often the case when it came to their religion and identity, shamefully tamped down any overt references to what was going on with their co-religionists in Germany and Europe. Then along came Chaplin, a box-office behemoth, who wasn’t even Jewish, with a self-financed movie that not only daringly assailed Hitler but also dared to deal with the verboten cinematic subject of the persecution of the Jews. " These days the riot act is being read not by some antisemitic old fogey but by prominent "court Jews" (a vile term which I'm using advised here) like Tom Friedman, Peter Beinart and many others, including some not so prominent among our own posters with whom we have the dubious pleasure of engaging.

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 12:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I found an account for that here: http://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2011/06/charlie-chaplins-great-dictator-still.html "Hollywood had almost entirely ignored the war and the beginnings of the Holocaust except in the odd movie (Confessions of a Nazi Spy, The Mortal Storm) which as often as not excised the anti-Semitic underpinnings of what was going on in Germany, going so far as to label Nazism’s victims in The Mortal Storm as ‘non-Aryans’ rather than Jews (even though scenes using the latter word had been filmed). In addition, Hollywood’s Jewish moguls had been read the riot act by Joseph Kennedy, then U.S. ambassador to Great Britain, who had warned them that any movies attacking the Nazis could only make it worse for the Jews in Germany and at home in the U.S.. (Germany was also Hollywood’s best overseas market for film consumption.) The moguls complied with Kennedy’s unofficial threat and, as was so often the case when it came to their religion and identity, shamefully tamped down any overt references to what was going on with their co-religionists in Germany and Europe. Then along came Chaplin, a box-office behemoth, who wasn’t even Jewish, with a self-financed movie that not only daringly assailed Hitler but also dared to deal with the verboten cinematic subject of the persecution of the Jews. " These days the riot act is being read not by some antisemitic old fogey but by prominent "court Jews" (a vile term which I'm using advised here) like Tom Friedman, Peter Beinart and many others, including some not so prominent among our own posters with whom we have the dubious pleasure of engaging.

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: Israeli press, Maariv, Yediot or Jpost do not specifically speak about Ayalon's comments as being the reason for the cancellation. Where did you read this? Uncle Tom Friedman about Muslim Brotherhood elections in Egypt: Power moderates, absolute power moderates absolutely.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2012 at 1:13pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga, I accept that you weren't arguing that Hizbollah/Hamas warrant a pre-emptive attack, if you'd accept that what is motivating me is simply the feeling that some people (and I accept too that you are not one of them) don't regard anything short of military action as no action. I for my part believe that there is a lot going on that we don't see, from diplomacy to economic levers to covert ops. I also strongly believe -- with evidence, imo -- that this administration is focusing on Iran in a way the previous one didn't. In regard to Sophia's and your exchange, I was saying that the question of the beauty of Germany or whatever it was was not an issue causing delay in attacking that country in WW2 because Germany wasn't subject to massive attack when it was "a threat" but rather after it had invaded the rest of Europe and beyond and was engaged in a major war on two fronts (three if you count N. Africa separately). For example, the scale of the RAF bombing campaign against cities only developed during 1942-3 and was not conceived of back in 1939-40, mainly because almost nobody imagined the leveling of German cities would be a strategic choice. There is however something screwy about taking the comparison further -- we discussed this a couple of years ago with icarus and others -- as Germany was not only a military but a major industrial, scientific and, in the longer view, cultural power who had the potential to supply its war machine with an incredible industrial energy as well as conquer territory from North Africa to the Caucusus. Iran is none of those things. Finally, sometimes it seems you want leaders to act as if they had one-dimensional minds. Of course Iran has attacked American interests, kidnapped Americans etc, BUT it may also be the case that the Mullahs see a potential medium-term advantage in goading us into some kind of premature/disproportionate military response, and it may just be that the president and his advisers do not want to fall into that trap. Indeed, it seems that trying to rattle its opponents is a standard Iranian technique, and I think it's important that we remain unrattled.

- ironyroad

January 15, 2012 at 2:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

makeover, I completely agree with your point about red lines (although Iran has been very good at putting its toe over the red line and discovering that talk is cheap on the other side). But it's to be action in the military sense, instead of just talk, I'd like to be boring and say: The commitment of American military assets in an attack on Iran has many potential consequences, not all of them good: 1. An airstrike on nuclear sites may not destroy them sufficiently 2. An airstrike on nuclear sites may trigger an outbreak of national solidarity to the benefit of the mullahs 3. A recent war game to examine the possibilities of a naval conflict in the area showed that the Revolutionary Guard naval force (speedboats, mines, covert attacks from ostensibly civilian vessels etc) could inflict startlingly high damage on U.S. ships because we're not geared up to deal with that kind of attack 4. A blocking of oil supplies could have a killer-blow effect on weakened economies in Europe, for example 5. There is no fig-leaf of a UNSC resolution for a pre-emptive military strike, as there was with Iraq, and therefore there is a danger that the U.S. would be simply engaging in an illegal act of war, absent clear proof of an Iranian bomb; an airstrike after an unprovoked attack on e.g. U.S. naval forces would be something different, of course. This is where the U.S. and Israel are different -- Israel was able to carry out the Syrian operation a few years ago because neither Israel nor Syria wanted to admit it happened. In contrast, any U.S. action would have global attention.

- ironyroad

January 15, 2012 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony. I am in complete agreement. I have to say though that I am somewhat perplexed by the cancellation of the joint exercise. I think that something serious is happening.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2012 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

True enough -- I'm pretty sure the explanation is not that some minister said something in an interview, however. I haven't seen any real reports so it's not even clear to me that a delay isn't being reported as a cancellation (my google search a couple of minutes ago generated nothing about any cancellation, as the most recent items appeared to be Jan 6 stuff, much of it conspiracy theory narratives about recreating the Gulf of Tonkin incident).

- ironyroad

January 15, 2012 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony:The Israeli radio now reports a postponement till the end of the year. The analysts on TV are of the opinion that US wants to distance itself from any Israeli action. However, 9,000 US troops are already in Israel and will remain here for several weeks. I am waiting for the midnight news.

- rmakover@swbell.net-OLD

January 15, 2012 at 5:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Where did you read this?" The answer is in my comment. Debkafile. (I know DF is only a partially reliable source). I also read somewhere another speculation that the reason for the cancellation is the assassination of the Iranian scientist suspected to have been carried out by Israel. That Obama wants to "punish" Israel for doing things without coordinating with Washington, that he wants to be in exclusive control managing the crisis with Iran. Easier said than done, if you ask me, since he has not done very much (except in the case of the Israeli embassy in Cairo) to get Israelis to entrust their survival to his judgment.

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another speculation: http://israelmatzav.blogspot.com/2012/01/more-on-cancellation-of-us-israel-anti.html "You might recall that ten days ago, I reported that American troops were going to be deployed in Israel (i.e. stay here afterward) in connection with the exercise. I suspect that the IDF and military intelligence did not want American troops under Obama looking over its shoulders, and that may have had something to do with the cancellation."

- noga1

January 15, 2012 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close