The New Republic

Obama holds no surprises for me. It was all clearly stated in his campaign speech to AIPAC. In the first part of his speech, he states his knowledge of Holocaust denial and Arab rejection. In the second part, he advises Israel to sit down with Holocaust deniers and long-standing rejectionists to talk peace. The 7 years of the Oslo Peace Farce, the 19 years of Egyptian and Jordan occupation, and the trashed "two-state solution" of 1947 evaporated from Obama's mind faster than ether spilled on a hot summer's day sidewalk, assuming it was ever in his mind in the first place.

- jimprice

January 26, 2010 at 7:21pm

I regard Obama's words as extremely calculated. Someone once said here that whatever was included in his public expression was always well thought through and never coincidental or careless. Like Jane Austen's novels, Obama is thrifty with words. Nothing just happens to be there, or to be absent by accident. At the first (I think) debate among the presidential candidates, they were asked to name America’s three most important allies. Clinton and McCain named Israel as one of the three. Barack Obama didn’t. I'm sure Marty you noted this omission at the time but probably managed to rationalize away your anxieties somehow. But as you see, these things do not just happen. There is a consistent effort to exclude Israel from the circle of grace... You might want to take a look at this article by Nick Cohen which is being much discussed on the Internet: "I don't believe you can understand why he is such a let-down if you hold on to old definitions of liberalism. From Eleanor Roosevelt onwards, the Democrats were meant to believe in universal human rights. Even Jimmy Carter, mocked for his weakness in handling tyrants, tried to make them a part of his foreign policy. The flattering label "realist" – which, like the equally gratifying "sceptic", is not a badge of honour you can award to yourself – was claimed by Republicans, most notably Nixon, Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger. They maintained they were hard-headed men who could see the world as it is, unlike soppy liberal idealists. They would deal with any regime, however repulsive, that could help advance US interests, and ignore what their allies did to their captive populations." http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/24/nick-cohen-barack-obama

- noga1

January 26, 2010 at 7:52pm

There have been Arab efforts at aiding Haiti: "Here is what we know about some Arab donations or pledges to Haiti: Morocco, Kuwait and Bahrain pledged $1 million US Dollars each in aid to be delivered in various ways through each country’s Red Crescent organization. Jordan, which lost 3 peacekeepers in the quake, has sent two planes of aid and a medical team to set up a medical field facility in Port-au-Prince. Qatar and Bahrain sent in planes each loaded with tons of food and medical aid. Lebanon flew in an official delegation that distributed aid, checked on the Lebanese community in Port-au-Prince and evacuated three Lebanese, ten Syrian nationals and five Palestinians. In addition to carrying tents, food aid and water, a Telecom engineer flew back to Haiti to join his colleagues who, according to Waleed Haidar, Foreign Ministry Consul who headed the mission, “insisted on staying in Haiti to help restore mobile services which are essential to the search, rescue and rebuilding efforts.” At the same time, the Lebanese Red Cross and the Red Crescent in the Gulf region, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates in particular, have launched campaigns to collect much-needed cash for Haiti. The United Arab Emirates has established a relief air bridge to Haiti and has already delivered tons of food and medical aid. The charity ‘Dubai Al-Attaa’ is coordinating with NGO’s such as CARE and UNICEF to provide educational assistance to 200,000 Haitian children. In Gaza, modest individual efforts were made to collect goods and food to send to the devastated people of the earthquake-ravaged nation. This move impressed some in Arab media to highlight the effort and commend it. It is not clear how this aid will be coordinated to reach its destination. According to the Syrian news agency, SANA, Syria plans to send a plane with 30 tons of food and medical aid to Haiti to “alleviate the suffering of Haitians.” According to the news agency, the search is on for an appropriate plane that will be able to land in Port-au-Prince’s damaged runway as a result of the quake" http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/01/22/arabs-and-haiti-aid-trickles-in/

- noga1

January 26, 2010 at 7:57pm

It's not "paranoid" to notice that Obama learned well from his mentors, Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi and Edward Said. He is a perfect representative of leftist academia, whose failed utopianism requires a scapegoat--the Jewish state.

- ritt123135

January 26, 2010 at 8:12pm

Well, it couldn't have been a debate with Clinton and McCain, Noga. Obama ran against Clinton in the Democratic primary. By the time he debated McCain in the general election, Clinton was gone. In fact, it was at a debate with Clinton and the U of South Carolina that Obama was asked to name America's three most important allies. He named the European Union, NATO and Japan. Now, one might reasonably argue that Israel should have been among the three, but to conclude that the omission of Israel from the list implies anti-semitism, or bias against Israel, is not reasonable. In the case of aid to Haiti, if Israel indeed has contributed more aid to Haiti than any country but the US (something that Marty does not actually establish), then Obama's failure to mention Israel by name was a sleight. But to conclude that the omission implies anti-semitism is to be predisposed to believing Obama is anti-semitic. And once again, we see Marty taking gratuitous and uninformed swipes at Arabs.

- dhurtado

January 26, 2010 at 10:36pm

Yes, you are paranoid.

- Ellen in CA

January 26, 2010 at 11:42pm

The only one talking about anti-semitism is dhurtado. So one wonders why he would want to bring it up in order to deny it. Or why he would place it on the same footing as an anti-Israel bias. It makes me think of the man who went to the doctor to ask him to cure him from mortality. So doctor said: you can live forever but you must remember never to think even once about white elephants... So a man who had never before thought about white elephants could not stop thinking about white elephants.

- noga1

January 27, 2010 at 12:18am

"Well, it couldn't have been a debate with Clinton and McCain, Noga." I think it could. Weren't the first debates among all the presidential candidates at the time? And wouldn't that panel include McCain, Clinton and Obama, apart from all the others?

- noga1

January 27, 2010 at 12:29am

First off, even paranoids do have enemies. A friend of mine here in Efrat pointedly observed way back during the elections campaign that Obama "does" Jewish, not Israel. As ritt123135 observed, the admittedly controversial notion that "tell me who your friends (and / or mentors) are and I will tell you who you are", seems to have been quite quite predictive vis a vis Obama. As were a lot of ignored warnings about his inexperience, arrogance, narcissism, his being a product of Chicago politics (in its worst sense), and his naive self-aggrandizing delusions on foreign policy (among other traits). In short, my dear Dr. MP, the chicken has come home to roost. You and your endorsement helped vote him in, now I suggest you get him out (in 2012) and in the mean time try to minimize the damage (beyond what Obama has already managed to do). Speaking of Obama's tendency to "edit" Israel & its history out of his pronouncements, I heard from a well placed, high ranking source in the American Jewish community that the original text of Obama's Cairo speech included invoking 3500 years of Jewish historical roots in the land of Israel as part of the justification for Israel's existence and not merely the Holocaust. But Obama edited that out of the final draft shortly before making the speech. Back to Haiti & Israel's field hospital. Here are a few more links to videos' of related interest: A very frustrated Dianne Sawyer (ABC News) interviews a very defensive Dr. Rajiv Shah, the vaunted administrator of the US AID, about the US inability to get critical aid on the ground during the initial days after the quake, comparing the US' ineffective efforts to Israel's (here). A Sky News reporter reports on the 8 hour, difficult and dangerous extraction by an Israeli team of a man trapped in the wreckage of the National Tax Office building (here). CNN's medical affairs reporter Elizabeth Cohen on the frustration of US MDs on the ground in Haiti lacking needed equipment and facilties to treat the injured. Cohen's obvious frustration with what she sees as US ineptness becomes apparent when she accompanies some patients who were transferred to the Israeli field hospital (here; a slightly fuller version of the CNN report, albeit with poor video quality is here). One of several Fox News reports on Israel's Haitian field hospital (here). And last but not least, the usually Israel-hostile BBC with a somewhat different slant on the extraction of the survivor from the National Tax Office building, including a brief interview in the field hospital with the survivor (here). After the dust settles a bit, it will be interesting to see if Congress holds hearings on why the US effort was so ineffectual during those first critical days after the quake, in comparison to Israel's disproportionate response (I couldn't resist it). Will Haiti turn into Obama's Katrina (admittedly the comparison is not perfect, but there is still some grounds for comparison). A tidbit. Israel sent an advance team to Haiti to scout out and secure a place to set up the hospital, this about a day after the quake. Also the Israeli jets carrying the staff & equipment left Israel without knowing exactly where they would land -- directly in Port au Prince or Santo Domingo (Dominican Republic) and travel from there on land. The first plane was already in its decent into Santo Domingo when it received clearance to land in Port au Prince & so canceled its landing in S.D. & continued on to Port au Prince. Another tidbit. A major part of IDF training & hence the Israeli mindset is to improvise as needed (see Start-Up Nation. It was reported here that the field hospital was running out of surgical screws. Some staffers from the hospital found a metal working shop in Port au Prince and fashioned improvised screws from what they found there. These were sterilized (yes, the Israelis had sterilization equipment with them) and used successfully. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

January 27, 2010 at 6:09am

Yes, Marty, you're paranoid about Obama. In other news, the sun rose in the East this morning and it was cold outside.

- wildboy

January 27, 2010 at 9:26am

"Yes, Marty, you're paranoid about Obama. " I am somewhat bemused as to why pre-election Marty's reports and analyses of Obama were deemed correct, realistic and reflecting admirable acuity while his post- post-elections reports and analyses of Obama are deemed paranoidic. I mean, what is it EXACTLY that changed in the man's mind, methodology and sense that would justify this harsh re-evaluation of his mental health?

- noga1

January 27, 2010 at 10:22am

Wikipedia has a useful listing of the aid to Haiti provided and promised by different countries around the world, at http://tinyurl.com/ybs9crm. One might argue with Peretz about whether Israel actually provided the second largest slice of aid after the United States, but that would be getting down to his level. The fact is that countries all over the world - including Israel - are trying to figure out how best to help people in Haiti, and Obama mentioned six among the dozens that are engaged in doing that. Objecting that Israel was not one of those six countries mentioned, and intimating that this shows some sort of anti-Israeli bias, is a good indication of just how pathetic Peretz's world-view actually is.

- SMacEachern2

January 27, 2010 at 10:58am

oh for the love...yes, you are being paranoid and obsessive. With the exception of France (and being that they speak French the connection jumps immediately to mind) every other country listed is part of the hemisphere. Have you been watching CNN at all? The contingent of rescue workers from Iceland digging out that guy from the wreckage of the grocery store after working God knows how many hours. Did Obama dis them too? Should the people in Iceland be up in arms? Yes, you have cause to be proud of the work that Israel did, they are a super-efficient country who did a great job in Haiti. I assumed they did it because Israelis are humanitarian and a giving people, I had no idea that they were doing it to get some international Credit (oh, wait, they aren't, so why the hell are you insulting them so by acting as though this should be a result of their actions, dude, are you even Jewish? Do you even know what a Mitzvah is? From my understanding it has also come to express an act of human kindness) This is, without a doubt, one of the most embarrassing posts I have yet read by Marty. As to everyone else here, this is not about Israel, nor is it about Obama, or your feelings regarding the two. The issue is the tragedy in Haiti, don't cheapen the acts of compassion and efforts of all the aids workers by turning this into...well, the embarrassment of this thread.

- blackton

January 27, 2010 at 10:59am

In the interest of intellectual honesty, I will do something uncharacteristic -- defend Obama. According to MP, his speech was given on Friday, 15 January. The Israelis first landed late that Friday, and set up the field hospital overnight. It started accepting patients on Saturday morning 16 January. I believe all of the news reports on it started at earliest late on the 16th, and most came after that (you can check the links I provided in my post in addition to MP's). For example the Elizabeth Cohen CNN piece first appeared on You-Tube on 18 January. The report from the CBS medical affairs reporter (an MD who labeled the Israeli field hospital as the "Rolls-Royce of emergency medical care") is dated 17 January, and I think that is one of the earliest ones. The Dianne Sawyer interview w/ Rajiv Shah is dated 18 January. The NBC report (also by an MD reporter who labeled the Israeli field hospital "the model for medical disaster response") is dated 19 January. So unless Obama is above time (after all, about a year ago we were told that He is God hovering above us) and see future reports on Haitian medical relief, and assuming MP's 15 January date is correct and that his O-ness did not make any subsequent speeches on the disaster relief efforts, Obama should not be faulted for ignoring the Israeli rescue mission to Haiti. One interesting tidbit: I noticed on some "progressive" and African-American oriented links: Israel sent its mission to Haiti to harvest organs for transplant. I believe al Jazeera made the same claim. Also because Israel is regularly accused of disproportionality in its responses, the Haiti mission should also be noted for its disproportionality (here). hg

- ginzy

January 27, 2010 at 11:58am

Maybe it's a weird anti-I thing. He didn't mention Italy, Iceland, or Ireland either.

- ironyroad

January 27, 2010 at 12:01pm

"..one of the most embarrassing posts I have yet read by Marty." From "Midnight Run" (1988): WALSH: Oh, so you're aware of your behavior but continue to do things that aren't good for you? Sounds sort of foolish, don't you think, John? THE DUKE: What I did helped a lot of people. WALSH: So, you pissed off a mafioso killer just to be loved by a bunch of fucking strangers. That makes a lot of sense. THE DUKE: Don't you need to be loved, Walsh?" Yes, it does seem to be embarrassing to ask to be remembered for a good deed. But Marty risked this judgment in order to point to an absence that has history to it. For more than 50 years Israel was denied membership in the Rec Cross Organization, due to the Arab-Muslim objection. They objected because they did not want to see Israeli rescue workers being seen to do good humanitarian work all over the world thus gaining a positive image. So Israel for years has been denied its right to improve its image in spite of having the excellent capabilities and sincere good will to help people in disaster areas. Only in more recent years has Israel been able to participate in this humanitarian effort and get some recognition for its goodwill successes. It is called gaining a little love and Israelis who are a generous people have been deliberately and malevolently obstructed from showing their humanity. Obama cannot have been ignorant of this state of affairs. Though Israeli achievements in this catastrophe have been admired in the media, Obama's silence speaks volumes. It was not done absent-mindedly and it falls in with the same policies that prevent Israel from taking its rightful place among the nations. You may jeer and mock all you like but Marty has a solid point to make. If he didn't, there wouldn't be any need for all this jeering and mocking.

- noga1

January 27, 2010 at 12:42pm

Noga, Please read my second post (two above yours). hg

- ginzy

January 27, 2010 at 12:54pm

noga1: "You may jeer and mock all you like but Marty has a solid point to make. If he didn't, there wouldn't be any need for all this jeering and mocking." That doesn't make any sense. He could claim that the world was flat, and he would be duly jeered and mocked for that - and all of that jeering and mocking would certainly not make his claim more credible. The claim that Obama didn't mention Israel because he or his administration is anti-Israeli is pretty pathetic. At least Peretz didn't claim that Obama was an anti-semite (yet): I think that you actually have to mention Israel to attract that moniker.

- SMacEachern2

January 27, 2010 at 1:06pm

"... that Obama was an anti-semite (yet):" White elephants come to mind, just when I thought I got rid of them.

- noga1

January 27, 2010 at 1:12pm

You mean the world's not flat?? hg

- ginzy

January 27, 2010 at 1:29pm

noga1: The accusation against Obama of anti-semitism (scapegoating of Jews) has already been made - albeit delicately, as delicately as a smear like that can be made - by one poster on this forum, and agreed with by another. Peretz was slightly more restrained, but he has to have his own name on the piece. Incidentally, that Wikipedia article lists aid from Arab countries, amounting to considerably more than "...a couple of bucks from Saudi Arabia and maybe from some other sheikhs...". They include people, too, rescue workers and medical personnel in some cases. Again, I doubt that many Haitians are going to reject aid from certain countries just because those countries fail Martin Peretz's fucking ethnic litmus test.

- SMacEachern2

January 27, 2010 at 1:41pm

noga, I said above that Marty has reason to be proud of the work that Israel did, and if he wrote about what they had done I would be standing here alongside him applauding the work they did, but to turn it into the most pettiest of grievances in the face of an unprecedented catastrophe in Haiti is simply wrong. And if Obama had listed every country and left Israel off, then off course that would have been a horrendous slight, but for petes sake, look at the list, our two neighbors; Canada and Mexico, Haiti's neighbor the Dominican Republic, France (their former colonial overseer and the language of the people) and Colombia and Brazil (two other regional players). He didn't list England, or Australia, or Iceland, or a host of countries. Is Obama against Iceland now? And to bring up history (oh, Saudi Arabia doesn't recognize the work of Israel) as proof that Obama feels anything remotely akin is absurd. This is a case of massive insecurity. (I said hello, but he only smiled and nodded, he disrespected me!) And as Ginzy ever so pointed out, Israel hadn't even acted, but I suppose Obama should have anticipated their actions and thanked them specifically in advance so no one there could take offense. Again, I applaud and greatly appreciate the work of the Israelis did, but I can guarantee you that these people are not doing it for the gratitude (which makes me appreciate them even more) And I have to say, the point was made much more solidly by you (with your reference to midnight run, which was pretty clever actually, since it didn't in the least offend, but of course the thanks would come most from the Haitians) and if Israel was denied entry into Haiti for just such a reason I would be outraged, but they weren't. And you have no cause to accuse the recipients of that aid of ingratitude. I have seen nothing that indicates they are against Israel. Do you really give a rats ass what Syrians think? And, of course, there is the timing of it. Bodies are still rotting in the streets and he is worried about this???

- blackton

January 27, 2010 at 3:32pm

I've already posted a correction to Marty's comment about Arab aid to Haiti. As for your "He could claim that the world was flat, and he would be duly jeered and mocked for that - and all of that jeering and mocking would certainly not make his claim more credible." Not quite. Marty reported a fact and then interpreted it, in view of other records where President Obama forgot to mention Israel or would only mention Israel in a positive way when he could counterbalance it with a mention of Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims in a positive way. The precedents were referred to in this thread by various posters. Marty's reading of Obama's forgetfulness (or whatever) probably conflicts with Blackton's but not to such an extent as the conflict between those who claimed the Earth was flat, those who thought the Earth was spherical. Isaac Asimov: "[W]hen people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together." In other words, Marty's claim is not ridiculous or outlandish, considering he is relying on a reported verifiable fact and understanding it in context of cumulative previous references. He makes a solid case. But even solid cases may be refuted, as Ginzy has shown us, by invoking a different set of facts. But you, SMacEachern2, are in the worst wrong position as Asimov's third group because you seem to believe that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat.

- noga1

January 27, 2010 at 3:38pm

When Marty writes, "Yes, I think that the labors of the Israelis were edited out of Obama's speech," he moves beyond analysis of a stated fact to asserting facts that are both baseless and indicative of delusional paranoia. It's conspiracy-minded nonsense, no different at all from the offensive claims that Israeli doctors are harvesting organs in Haiti. But credit to Marty for having the courage to express anti-Arab racism openly, without winks or nods. Like most bigotry, Marty's is factually incorrect. Jordan, for one, has excellent emergency-rescue teams and field medicine. A few other Arab countries have military or civilian specialist teams that would be welcome in any disaster, and that often do join in UN rescue and recovery missions in Asia and Africa.

- rhubarbs

January 27, 2010 at 5:13pm

Does the POTUS have to bow/genuflect/doven to Israel at every turn to not be called an anti-semite? As if Israel and the USA are not tied in almost every way as it is. As for the nations he did mention, as Blackton noted, all had historical/geographical importance. Should Obama have offered special ribbons or cookies to Israel and publicly chide the Arabs? Bad boys.

- adolbe

January 27, 2010 at 5:52pm

As of the morning of Jan. 15, Israel ranked 25th among nations and major international organizations in the amount of aid pledged. Since when does finishing in 25th place deserve mention on a top-6 list? Isn't it more disturbing that Obama failed to mention Britain (America's closest ally, third only to the US and Canada in aid pledged as of 1/15) and Ireland? As an Irish-American, should I be outraged that Obama failed to praise Dublin's pledge to rebuild Haiti's telecom infrastructure? Or, since there are as many Americans of Dutch descent as there are Jews, what about Obama's failure to mention the $119 million in aid and the air/sea logistical support pledged by the Dutch as of 1/15?

- rhubarbs

January 27, 2010 at 6:09pm

noga1: Your claim was that readers' dismissal of Peretz's statement made that statement more credible. ("...Marty has a solid point to make. If he didn't, there wouldn't be any need for all this jeering and mocking."). That was the logical error that I commented upon. Beyond that, quite right... I'll gladly admit that his statement is less unlikely than the claim that the world is flat. Not that that says much, I think.

- SMacEachern2

January 27, 2010 at 7:37pm

Noga, many of the posters here have routinely interpreted anti-Israel bias as anti-semitism. In that context, the interpretation of Marty's attribution of anti-Israel bias to Obama as an attribution of anti-semitism is eminently fair. But I am glad to hear you do not think Obama is an anti-semite. And no, Obama, Clinton and McCain could not have appeared in the same debate. Clinton did not run in the general election. She lost to Obama in the Democratic primary election. During the primary campaigns, the debates include only the candidates within each party.

- dhurtado

January 28, 2010 at 12:06am

The American left by and large hates Israel. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that they aren't anti-Semitic. OK, then why do they hate Israel? They hate Israel because it is democratic and pro-western; they hate it because of the embarrassing fact that Arabs in Israel have more rights than do Arabs in any Islamic country. They hate Israel because it has succeeded by hard work, intelligence, courage and idealism, and therefore can't be pictured as a victim of the West. Fundamentally the left privileges (to borrow a word from the left) ignorance, violence, stupidity and skill at working the victim racket. The left is all about a poisonous, nihilistic hatred of all the good that man has achieved on this planet.

- bulbman1066

January 28, 2010 at 3:31am

Rhubarbs, "Since when does finishing in 25th place deserve mention on a top-6 list?" Let me first emphasize that I write this as the one who noted (in my second post on this thread) the date discrepancy between Obama's speech and when the news reports on the Israeli field hospital began to appear, in particular in the electronic media, a discrepancy which absolves Obama (in this instance -- I stand by what I wrote in my first post in the thread). Emergency aid is not measured simply on quantity of $$$ but also quality and speed. And according to the reports by the reporters on the ground (see the sample of reports and video links in my first post plus those linked-to by MP) Israel was punching way above its weight. Money is easy to pledge and move. But moving half way across the globe and setting up a fully staffed, fully equipped field hospital with 2 operating rooms (after about a week a third one, set up and staffed by Colombian docs was attached to the Israeli hospital), intensive care unit, pediatric & neonatal intensive care unit, imaging department, electronic medical records, a computer network & communications links to enable easy & real time consultation to any place on the globe, and having it up and running all within just over 72 hours after the quake is a qualitatively different story. And I am leaving out the Israeli search and rescue units which, while there and pulling off some difficult rescues, were secondary in the Israeli efforts. Israel was clearly punching way above its weight, disproportionately so. And at some point, once the more critical political developments settle down in the USA, it would be nice if it were recognized, especially by Obama. The first patients were admitted to the field hospital 10:15 16 January Saturday morning, and kept on going 24 / 7 until the hospital shut down and folded Tuesday 26 January (by then the 1,000 bed US hospital ship arrived, set up shop and began taking in patients). Initially the Israeli hospital was the only game in town for serious injuries, surgery, and disease. The CBS reporter - an MD treating Haitians -- (linked-to by MP) called it the "Rolls Royce" of emergency medical care. The NBC reporter (also an MD) called it the model of what disaster relief medicine should be. Most telling was the CNN report (the one I linked-to, not MP's) who interviewed the poorly equipped US doctors on the scene who were desperately trying to get their patients moved into the Israeli field hospital, noting that Israel moved in and set up shop from halfway around the world, while the US, only hundreds of miles away sent in docs with little more than first aid kits (it should be noted, that not long after the Israelis set up shop, a US amphibious assault ship docked in Port-au-Prince, which has 2 ORs, and at least as much hospital capabilities (except in pediatrics & neonatal medicine) as the filed hospital; by the middle of the second week, it managed to admit all of 10 patients). The disparity between the Israeli emergency medical aid and the USA's was noted by the American docs in the CNN report, one of whom said he was embarrassed to be an American. The disparity was even more pronounced in the Dianne Sawyer interview with US AID chief Rajiv Shah (linked-to in my first post) who hammered away at Shah for the feebleness of the initial US response in comparison to the Israeli's. So yes, it would be nice to be recognized for a disproportionate speedy response, in particular when countries with populations and resources many times that of Israel's, and a lot closer geographically were not able to get the critically needed medical help into Haiti, in the initial critical period. And if asked, I am sure Israel would be more than happy to show the US how we do it. Hershel Ginsburg Jerusalem / Efrata

- ginzy

January 28, 2010 at 5:14am

"many of the posters here have routinely interpreted anti-Israel bias as anti-semitism." You would have to provide examples of what you mean by this statement. People who don't like Israel often make this claim in order to cause people who do like Israel to get off track and start defending themselves against this regularly-leveled charge that they are not hysterical in the way that seems to be implied by this accusation. This tactic even has a term: "The Livingstone Formulation: ‘For far too long the accusation of antisemitism has been used against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government." http://www.z-word.com/on-zionism/antisemitism-and-anti-zionism/anti-zionism-and-antisemitism%253A-decoding-the-relationship.html?page=2

- noga1

January 28, 2010 at 7:11am

"LAMP unto our feet, and a LIGHT unto our path" Dr. Peretz's so-called "paranoia" has succeeded in raising a dust storm. Meanwhile, Israeli rescue workers and medical teams contunue to do good work in Haiti. Israel is "punching above its weight." Instead of joy, we get hysteria, accusations, denounciations, internecine conflict, insults, charges of racism and anti-semitism, stupidity,ignorance, and such. Two days ago, Dr. Peretz was proposing the Organization of American States empower the USA with the task of nation building in Haiti. Yesterday, he attacks President Obama for excluding Israel from the list of nations aiding Haiti. What will tomorrow bring?

- LawrenceGulotta

January 28, 2010 at 9:29am

ginzy: "Israel was clearly punching way above its weight, disproportionately so." Quite right - and full credit to Israel for doing so. It's a shame that Peretz couldn't have made that point without indulging in paranoia or sneering dismissal of Arabs. (Although, given his habits, avoiding the latter may have been too much to expect.)

- SMacEachern2

January 28, 2010 at 10:06am

ginzy: "And at some point, once the more critical political developments settle down in the USA, it would be nice if it were recognized, especially by Obama." To that too I am in full agreement. There is a way to make a very salient point and a way not to. I think noga and ginzy both agree with this since they both expressed that point in a far more artful way than Marty did.

- blackton

January 28, 2010 at 10:45am

Yep. A bit paranoid. A half does not make a whole.

- atlasqq

January 28, 2010 at 11:00am

I agree with rhubarbs that Ireland deserved a mention (whose proportion of GDP devoted to aid is one of the highest in the world) but, thinking about it now, it seems to me that Israel did deserve to appear in the list -- it would have been an appropriate gesture to recognize the normality of Israel's actions as a technologically advanced country coming to the aid of a much poorer country, and indeed a technologically advanced country with no history of colonialism in the region (something that can't be said about Britain, France, Spain, Holland or -- unfortunately -- the United States). If the news wasn't out at the time the president's original remarks were drafted, then that could be put right now, and perhaps a mention of Jordan would fit the context too.

- ironyroad

January 28, 2010 at 11:20am

Good Lord, Marty. I read TNR for its high-quality, thoughtful, center-left reporting and analysis. And I'm generally pro-Israel. But your ranting doesn't help either you or your cause. The Arab-bashing is just ugly racism. "Who would want Arab participation"??? "Amateurs aren't welcome"??? Like I said, Good Lord.

- Oberdier

January 28, 2010 at 12:31pm

"maybe"???????

- miceelf

January 28, 2010 at 1:54pm

This is somewhat relevant to the topic under discussion here: "In today’s Dagsavisen journalist Roger Hercz deals with a related topic in the article “When the fires are lit” on Israel’s aid to Haiti (unauthorized translation): Israel’s conflict-filled history has given the country expertise in catastrophe-management. This is why the country sent out large aid-teams in order to participate in rescue operations after the tsunami in Asia and after the earthquake in Turkey, where almost 27 000 people were killed. The contemporary catastrophe in Haiti has unleashed a virtual storm of sympathy among ordinary Israelis. Many were also proud over how the country’s representatives were involved in rescue-operations where human lives were saved and the injured received medical treatment. Critics of the participation, on the other hand, claim that Israel, with its involvement in wars, hardly could harbor good intentions in Haiti and even less deserved praise for her efforts. Perhaps Israel was seeking to improve her image after the Gaza-war, and maybe the country would lay a curtain of smoke over the the many accusations of war-crimes? Some went so far as to say that the Israeli doctors were going in order to harvest the patients’ organs. What the criticism had in common was that Israel, which now has become a metaphysical representative of evil upon earth, simply could not do anything “good”. Per definition. But if it already has gone so far that it is impossible to imagine that Israelis, like others, also will provide a helping hand in the hour of need, then on is starting to see the contours of a dangerous demonization. One no longer sees an Israeli as a human like others, instead one sees only a one-dimensional picture of what appears to be a brutal monster. …But if one believes that such praise of Israel is almost nauseating, and that the Israelis cannot be regarded as being in possession of any positive intentions, then racism unfortunately must be said to have gained the upper hand. Even if one of the paradoxical idiosyncrasies of racism is that a racist rarely admits to himself or to others that he is actually in possession of a racist, stereotypical perspective." http://www.israelwhat.com/

- noga1

January 28, 2010 at 6:05pm

I join others in saying that Israel's efforts to aid Haiti should be recognized and praised. I also join others in believing that Israel's efforts can be recognized without getting into a contemptible spitting match about which countries are contributing more than others, accusing Obama of being anti-Israel, or resorting to gratuitous swipes against Arabs. All of that just cheapens the well-deserved praise. Note, Noga, that I used the term "anti-Israel" with regard to Marty's accusation againt Obama. If I miscontsrued Marty's accusation as anti-semitism rather than antipathy against Isreal, it nevertheless remains the case, as both you and Ginzy have pointed out, that the accusation is not supported in this instance. Unfortunately, the tactic of using the accusation of "antisemitism against anyone who is critical of the policies of the Israeli government" is indeed real. As you know, Noga, I have been accused of anti-semitism not even for critizing Israel (which I don't know that I have ever done), but for objecting to slurs against Arabs, or for questioning whether accusations of antisemitism against others are supportable. Walton and SMac have been objects of the same tactic. You know that is true Noga. Don't insult your own intelligence by contending otherwise.

- dhurtado

January 28, 2010 at 8:04pm

Don't be condescending, dhurtado. When someone makes an antisemitic slur I will point it out even if they couche it in the context of Israel. When I once commented that a few months after Cast lead, Israelis were happy 9because the qassams stopped and they could breath easy), Walton compared them to Nazis under the Third Reich. That did not come under "legitimate criticism of israel's policies". That was a straightforward antisemitic slander. And Walton was an antisemite indeed, though a rather pusillanimous one. Don't know about SMac. I haven't been paying him or her much heed. I find it hard to believe that you have been "accused of anti-semitism .. for objecting to slurs against Arabs". Where was it? When? In what context?

- noga1

January 28, 2010 at 8:47pm

"I join others in saying that Israel's efforts to aid Haiti should be recognized and praised. I also join others in believing that Israel's efforts can be recognized without getting into a contemptible spitting match about which countries are contributing more than others, accusing Obama of being anti-Israel, or resorting to gratuitous swipes against Arabs. All of that just cheapens the well-deserved praise." dhurtado Yours is the most responsible post.

- LawrenceGulotta

January 29, 2010 at 2:11am

That's just my point Noga. Anti-Israel sentiment is often equated with anti-semitism. Sometimes the equation is justified, and sometimes it is not. So forgive me for thinking that Marty was equating what he perceives to be Obama's anti-Israel sentiment with anti-semitism. I can't claim that Walton never made an anti-semitic slur, because I have not read, nor could I recall, all of his posts. (And, sorry, I just don't know what you are talking about with regard to the "Cast lead" discussion.) But I do recall often thinking that the accusations of anti-semitism with respect to Walton and SMach (by Jacksondyer in particular) were not founded. It would not be worth anyone’s time for me to look back through 6 months of posting for all the incidents of me being called an anti-Semite or defender of anti-Semites, but here is one example: You might recall Marty’s post regarding virgins in the afterlife. Walton responded to the effect that we should look to our own religious mythologies before ridiculing the religious mythology of others (here, that of the Muslims). I agreed with Walton’s post, and, while agreeing that many of Walton’s posts are opaque and not particularly constructive, I argued that some of what he had to say was worthy of consideration, and that I agreed with him in this particular instance. Jackson responded: “’On the other hand, a good number of his posts have merit or are at least worthy of consideration. His post here is, in my view, spot on.’ [quoting me] If Hurtado really believes that then he is as big a jerk as loony George. How is this comment by the bigot George Walton "spot on?' ‘Indeed, why doesn't he offer some speculations about what will happen to His People after Judgment Day?’ Perhaps in the ANTISEMITIC endroit that they BOTH share this would be pertinent, but not as a comments on Marty's post.” (Emphasis mine.) Similar sentiments were expressed in the discussions about the Swiss minarets. My overarching point has always been that we should try to minimize name-calling and try to debate these matters in a constructive manner.

- dhurtado

January 29, 2010 at 8:07am

You are not getting paranoid. You are paranoid. Read the transcript and look at a calendar. Obama was making brief remarks after speaking to Haiti's president on the Jan. 15. Then read the JTA release from Jerusalem (http://jta.org/news/article/2010/01/14/1010173/israel-sends-relief-to-haiti ). It notes that Israel's assistance was scheduled to leave Israel sometime on Thursday the 14th. If so, assistance from Israel probably would not have arrived until the 15th. My guess is that Haiti's president may not have known about it and not mentioned it. Also, coming the day before the State of the Union address, I am sure many who read your piece after Wednesday assume the comment about "Brazil,etc.." was included in it. It was not. Please be more careful before you join the crowd that is looking for any reason to pile on Obama.

- mfried

January 30, 2010 at 10:52am

mfried, there is nothing more boring than yesterday's scoops. Read the thread and find out how other posters (ginzy, for one) got there much sooner than you did and with greater deliberation.

- noga1

January 30, 2010 at 12:06pm

"You are not getting paranoid. You are paranoid. " "Just because they really are out to get you doesn't mean you aren't paranoid..." "A rally of Jewish leaders took aim at Target stores Thursday for selling a globe that omits the name Israel but instead labels the region Palestine. "It is a very serious thing, its not just a little mistake, we're seeing companies kowtowing to people who live in tyrannical governments who are trying to dictate policy here and dictate how people think and feel," said Rabbi Gary Moskowitz, who led the rally at Zuccotti Park on Liberty Street and Trinity Place in downtown Manhattan. "We're fighting 'global war on terrorism,' and in this global war we have to 'target' the people who are coming against us," said Moskowitz. "I hope Target did this in error.. and they must have a recall of all these globes." In a statement, a Target spokeswoman said: "It is never our intention to offend any of our guests and we apologize. We have removed the mini-globe from our shelves, and we are following up with our vendor." http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/Palestine-Replaces-Israel-on-Globes-Sold-at-Target-82978522.html

- noga1

January 30, 2010 at 4:38pm

As has already been noted, yes you and several others are getting really paranoid, which is not to say Israel (and everyone else) should not be credited for whatever they have done. It is also not to say that Obama and Biden should have been laughing it up at a basketball game at the same time it was being reported that the Haiti rescue mission (like most things this Administration tries to do) is bollixed up and victims are being denied medical treatment while the angels of mercy fight about who should pay for it.

- mlottman

January 31, 2010 at 6:24pm