Let’s start with the obvious. Obama lacks popularity. Anyone who has followed his approval rating knows that it looks like the famous Al Gore “hockey stick” only held the other way around. Check out this graph from Rasmussen, which shows a quick fall followed by remarkably stable unpopularity.
Obama’s popularity among Jews is fading. He’s down to 68% according to Gallup, though the real number is likely lower. Why? Well, his policies have largely undermined Israeli security in favor of the Palestinian radicals he knew in his youth. ObamaCare threatens Medicare, which is very popular with older Jewish voters in places like Florida. And his attacks on bankers have a distinctly anti-Semitic ring to them, so much so that the Wall Street community has openly complained about his rhetoric and have begun to close their wallets. And with Romney now making a play for Jewish support, it’s clearly time to act.
Hence, Nancy Pelosi fired the opening shots in the new meme this weekend when she claimed that Republican-leaning Jews are “being exploited” and that Republicans are merely “using [support for] Israel as an excuse, what they really want are tax cuts for the wealthy. So Israel, that can be one reason they put forth.” In other words, Jews, like blacks and women and everyone else before them are too stupid to realize that the Republicans are only lying to them about their beliefs and only want their votes so we can cut taxes on the wealthy. This woman is insane.
Interestingly, Pelosi must have realized calling Jews stupid was a bad move, so she quickly added this little contradiction: “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts.” How can they both know the issues and yet not know the facts? That’s like saying, “he understands football, he just doesn’t know how football works.” Then she proceeded to explain some of the facts these silly deluded Jews didn’t know:
“The fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel. He’s been the strongest person on whether it’s Iron Dome, David’s Sling, any of these weapons systems and initiatives that relate to Israel. He has been there over and over again.”Ok, so they didn’t realize that Obama has been pushing sanctions, that he’s been “the strongest person” on various weapons systems being built by Israel, and that he’s been to Israel. Uh... if they don’t know these “facts” then can we really say they know the issues? These aren’t factors anyone who “knows the issues” could have missed. Frankly, I’m finding her whole line of “you’re so deluded but you’re really smart but you don’t actually know jack” a tad bit insulting. Also, I should point out that Obama has not yet visited Israel even once since he's been in office, so she’s lying. . . as usual
Anyway, this weekend also saw Obama using foreign policy for electoral gain. Romney has been talking about Israel. He also just visited. And his speeches have gone down rather well. Said Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu about Romney’s Nevada foreign policy speech, “Mitt, I couldn't agree with you more.” Netanyahu also pointed out this about those sanctions Pelosi thinks Israel wants:
“We have to be honest and say that all the sanctions and diplomacy so far have not set back the Iranian program by one iota. And that's why I believe that we need a strong and credible military threat coupled with the sanctions to have a chance to change that situation.”So much for Pelosi’s facts. Romney, by the way, said in Israel that he has a “zero tolerance” policy toward Iran obtaining nuclear capability and said:
“Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way. My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country.”One of his advisors even said that Romney would respect Israel’s right to strike Iran unilaterally.
So guess what mysteriously happened this weekend? SOMEONE let slip that Team Obama has presented Israel with a plan of attack for striking Iran. Let’s be honest. Obama’s national security team chose this weekend to leak that they have a plan to attack Israel because Romney’s speech was very well received and his support among Jews is growing. This leak is a disgusting political ploy which risks the lives of US personnel in the event of an attack, and it fits the pattern of leaks Team Obama has been guilty of in trying to make their effete foreign policy seem more muscular. Heads needs to start rolling for these leaks.
This administration really needs to be shown the door.
99 days to go!
102 comments:
Andrew,
I was over at the Daily Kos and Huffpo, they don't like that Romney was there. They are kinda upset about it. I think they are also upset Romney laughed about the Wimp meme.
Those people over there are really upset. They are worried that Romney is going against the official line and Palestine won't like us anymore.
In other news, it is getting closer to the election and pollsters are starting to go with the Likely voters grouping instead of the Registered voters grouping. Numbers are interesting. Mason/Dixon Poll shows Romney up by 9.
Well said, Andrew!
Obama can't hide his contemptuous eyes when it comes to Israel.
I think his latest overtures, which are obviously shameless plugs to get votes not actual support for Israel, won't fool anyone who already isn't a tool for Obama.
“Make no mistake: the ayatollahs in Tehran are testing our moral defenses. They want to know who will object, and who will look the other way. My message to the people of Israel and the leaders of Iran is one and the same: I will not look away; and neither will my country.”
One of his advisors even said that Romney would respect Israel’s right to strike Iran unilaterally.
------
Tough talk but IMHO dishonest. Iran is a wealthy, relatively well educated country and roughly 90% of the country support nuclear weapons (nuclear weapons are a sign of prestige). They've scattered and buried their program and one of the lessons they've learned from our War on Terror is that the best deterrent to invasion is nuclear weapons (which isn't to say that they wouldn't use nuclear weapons as a means of offense, but they are convinced that nukes are key for defense).
The program can be slowed through low cost (relatively speaking) measures such as computer viruses, assassinations, sactions and of course isolated military strikes, but the only way to stop it would be to invade, kill or detain all of the principles, destroy all of the repositories of technology and knowledge and then set up a regime which unlike the populance, had no interest in such a program.
If Romney is serious about stopping the Iranian nuclear program, he needs to start talking to the American people about another long war, one which would dwarf the Iraq and Afghani wars/occupations in brutality (Iranians have a somewhat stronger military and a much stronger tradition of suicide bombing) and duration.
according to kleinonline, according to an unnamed Israeli security official, no actual plans to attack Iran were discussed. Obama administration still believes they can find a diplomatic solution. The time for military action has not yet come. Basically, the Obama leaks over states what was done for political advantage. Pretty much standard fare from those guys by now.
Oh and Obama just gave Israel $70 million for their defense shield AND;
Pelosi added to her already stupid statement that Obama has been to Israel lots and lots of times since he has been in office. How does she keep getting elected.
Joel said...
Those people over there [Daily Kos and Huffpo] are really upset. They are worried that Romney is going against the official line and Palestine won't like us anymore.
Oh dear. /
Andrew
I hope this is a typo;
" Let’s be honest. Obama’s national security team chose this weekend to leak that they have a plan to attack Israel because Romney’s speech was very well received and his support among Jews is growing."
Secondly the Israeli military would create a successful plan on their own. Such an Israeli plan would be far superior to any that bo could offer.
Pelosi is not worth the ink to report on
Joel, I've seen that the polls are suddenly shifting in Romney's favor, except for the wildest outliers. It's going to be interesting if he builds a strong lead before October because that could result in the herd mentality kicking in.
Thanks Ben! I agree. You can't show disdain for people for three years, go against everything they feel they need to protect themselves, flirt with their enemies, and then turn it all around with one state visit.
Joel, I'm sorry, I seem to have skipped half your comment. My mind must be going.
I find the Huffers' response amazing. The left has been pushing nasty antisemitism for years now. OWS is rife with it. Media Matters finally had to fire a guy after he went "too far" but not before he spewed this venom for years. And you see it regularly in comments at leftist websites. Even now, a lot of leftist blogs are talking about Romney "pandering" to Israel in terms which make it clear they view Israel as an abomination.
Yet, they get upset at Romney for trying to win away Jewish votes?
The left acts like an abusive spouse. They want the right to abuse the groups "they own" and then get upset whenever anybody else tries to touch them. It's bizarre.
I find the wimp thing hilarious and Romney's response perfect. He lets their idiocy roll off his back with a quick deflection ("the same people called GHW Bush a wimp and he turned out to be a pretty strong president"), and the issue goes away with no damage. It's fascinating. They really have no idea how to land a punch on him!
Anthony, Sadly, I agree with you. I think the only way to truly stop Iran would be to invade, to take physical possession of the sites and dismantle them, and then to change the regime. Air strikes alone simply won't work. And I'm not sure anyone is willing to do that, or if it's even a good idea.
But for Romney to advocate that would be a huge mistake. That would make him come across as a war monger, especially when Obama is talking about useless sanctions. And it would allow the entire establishment to blast him for being reckless, for endangering US troops, and for trying to trip up US policy. So his best approach is to talk about being tough.
Jed, I think this fits right in line with a series of leaks now, which even the Democrats are admitting are coming from the administration -- check out my prior article. Basically, whenever Obama has been accused of being soft on Iran or terrorism, his team has leaked out secret (generic) details about what the administration is doing which no one knows about, e.g. cyberattacks, drone attacks, hit lists, etc. The idea is to defuse the perception that Obama is doing nothing, so as to reduce the political harm of appearing weak.
In this case, we know that the Pentagon has an attack plan because they always do. That's what they do... they plan for contingencies. And by leaking that these plans were given to Israel, whether they were or weren't, American Jews are supposed to feel that Obama is really working to defend Israel.
This was political, and the timing really proves it since it came at the same time Romney's speech and trip were so well received.
Bev, That was an amazingly stupid statement by Pelosi. Did she think we couldn't look it up? As I mention in the article, he's visited Israel ZERO times so far as president. And that's despite numerous trips to the Middle East.
It's stunning how much and how easily Pelosi lies. Of course, that seems to have become par for the course on the left.
tryanmax, LOL! Oh dear indeed.
And let me tell you, it breaks my heart that the Huffers and Koskids are upset. :(
Tom, No typo.
I can't imagine Obama coming up with an effective plan at all. Fortunately, I do trust the Pentagon to do it the right way.
Pelosi is indeed a waste of ink. At this point, I would consider her little more than comic relief except that the left clings to her. I'm glad they do because she's a fool, but it is amazing to watch.
Andrew
Check the date and authoriship of Obama's "plan" to attack Tehran. I am sure you will find that it dates prior to 2008 and was written by members of the Bush adminstration.
Hey, we finally found something I can agree was Bush's responsibility. HEE HEE!
As to why we Republicans support Israel Nancy P, well it is simple.
They seem to be the only country in the Mideast not run but a group of batsh#$ crazies who want to nuke various american cities 'cause God told them what good people they are.......... but I guess I am missing a nuance somewhere..... tell us all about it
Indi, That actually does a good job of explaining why we prefer Israel. LOL!
Seriously, I think it's obvious, even though Pelosi doesn't get it. Americans like stable democracies around the world. We want more of them. Israel is not perfect, but it is a stable democracy and a good friend of the US. Compare that to its neighbors who are basically run by tyrants who have been fanning the flames of anti-Americanism for generations. Why would we support them?
I love the reverse hockey stick! Tell me that doesn't signal a loss in November!
DUQ, I like that too. And I agree that it signifies defeat for Obama. You just can't be that unpopular for that long without it meaning something, and I think it means the public has written him off.
On the topic, I'm really impressed with Romney. Every time he turns around I think he does it right and this is yet another example.
Obama, on the other hand, pisses me off. I think it's obvious he leaked this for political purposes and he doesn't care if it kills anyone. He's show a real willingness to use the military as a political tool.
Sadly, when the “Arab Spring” started with the Persians (Iranians) we missed the opportunity to flip the Mad Mullahs without firing a shot. Whether or not this would alleviate the nuclear problem one can only wonder.
I disagree about military strikes. Well placed strikes could at least set them back, with the subterfuge that was mentioned above, perhaps it could even be stopped. If not we could indeed have a nuclear exchange between Israel and Iran.
Lets not forget that last week Jay Carney, WH (Barry’s) Press Secretary, wouldn’t even name the capital of Israel, Tel-Aviv or Jerusalem…pick. Though I’m not particularly religious, I’ll go Old Testament, and say Jerusalem, named by King David around 1000 BC.
DUQ, Romney impresses the heck out of me too. As you can tell from my original examination of him, I was not too thrilled. But he's really proven himself time and again. In fact, every time I turn around he's done or said something impressive, both in terms of his savvy, his intelligence, and his conservatism.
Did you see his response to the phony Olympic "gaffe"? He said this weekend, (paraphrase) "I tend to tell people what I really believe." Zap. That completely turns it back on the leftists who are whining about this by saying that they are upset because he chose not to lie to prevent hurt feelings. Nice!
Stan, You're right about Carney. And if I remember correctly, Romney also said this weekend that he views Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
I have my doubts that air strikes can stop or slow anything, especially after all this time Iran has had to hide their facilities and to dig them deep beneath the ground. Moreover, even if we could strike them, we wouldn't know how badly we'd hurt them, so we would just be guessing that we had stopped them. I think ultimately, regime change is the only way to stop them.
In terms of a nuclear exchange, I think the more like nuclear exchange would be between Iran and Saudi Arabia, believe it or not.
Andrew, how do you think all of this fits into your prediction that TOTUS would "do something" about Iran this fall?
I think Israel should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect themselves.
I heard something on the news as i was walking through the living room this weekend - I think it was Carney saying that TOTUS has the largest coalition of support for his action (inaction) on Iran. - that has to mean the sanctions, right? The sanctions that parts of the UN have given lip service to but won't let have any teeth? If so, that UN group doesn't really count as a "coalition"... except in the same way the Keystone Kops were one...
I can't wait to hear Pelosi explain what support for Israel has to do with tax cuts for the wealthy. Oh wait--that would involve her getting in front of a camera and opening her mouth. Never mind, I can wait.
IDK, T-Rav, Pelosi opening her mouth and letting random words come out seems to help conservative talking points... Just don't watch it live!
rlaWTX, I've been debating that, even as I wrote the article. Honestly, I'm not sure. If Netanyahu is siding so publicly with Romney, then I suspect he's getting signals from Obama that Obama won't do anything. On the other hand, it's going to be hard to leak the idea that the US is ready to strike and then to do nothing, especially if Israel starts talking about striking. But frankly, I just can't see Israel trying anything without us. So sadly, I don't know how this affects things?
I agree that Israel should be allowed to do whatever is necessary to protect itself and I suspect they will, whether we like it or not. I just think that in this case, there isn't much they can do, at least not without us.
On TOTUS's support, yes, he's talking about his ineffective sanctions. The problem is, of course, that they don't work. If they did, Iran would have caved already... so would have Cuba. Moreover, while there is broad support for sanctions, they still don't have any teeth and the key people who deal with Iran anyway (Russia, China) have refused to go along with them. So it's just an exercise in kicking the can down the road.
T-Rav, She is an idiot. I just wonder if her blathering actually works? Will anyone buy into this crappola? I don't know. A lot of people on the left are rather stupid after all.
rlaWTX, I'm Pelosi's biggest fan in that regard. She's the best advertisement we have for why people need to vote for conservatives. In fact, if I didn't know better, I'd almost swear she was a conservative plant.
rla, she does give us a lot of easy ammunition, doesn't she? Hmmm. Maybe we don't know how good we have it with her as the face of the Dems. But then, when she's gone, we'll still have Chairman Debbie to grace our TVs, so maybe not.
Andrew, if I had to guess, I'd say comments like this do far less to get her in trouble on her own side than do the times when she's demonstrably lost touch with reality. Like when she claimed on the eve of the midterms that her party would absolutely hold the House when everything and everyone else was guessing how high the GOP margin would be. Singing the tunes of leftist Bizarro World is one thing, but willful tactical blindness is another.
T-Rav, Yes, we'll still have Debbie. LOL! Wow, she's an even bigger turd!
T-Rav, That's true. These comments probably don't even register with her supporters who just accept them as true and move on the next faked-outrage.
At some point, though you have to wonder if the left will catch on that she's the Charlie Manson of politics and that having her as their spokeswitch is not really going to win them many friends outside the cult?
Andrew
I am not certain that we can say "90% of Iranians want nuclear weapons". Honestly what independent polling firm could actually perform an honest poll of Iranians in that country and report what theyn think to the rest of the world on any subject. So you will have to forgive my incredulity as to the veracity of the people stating that. Heck there is more than 10% of the US electorate that thinks We should not have Nukes.
As to invading Iran, sorry I don't really think we have to do that. I think all we have to do is wait until there is another spark that ignites the Green movement over there and then instead of coddling the Mullahs that run things we simply begin supplying those protestors with AR 15's Had we done this the first time Iran would not be run by these clowns and we would not be having this worry.
I think it is a huge mistake to assume that a dictator has an iron grip on a country. As we have seen in Egypt and Lybia and are seeing now in Syria it is very difficult to maintain the balance of terror in a coutry. One has to insure there are enough of those well educated people Anthony talks about without their being so many that you can't control them. I have met a great number of educated Iranians. However they left Iran when the Ayotollah took control.
If we invaded Iran their armies would fall more quickly than Sadaam. It would only be the aftermath of controlling the country that would be at issue. Just as it was with Iraq. Let these nutjobs set a nuke off in a populated city however the will to put up with that again will be found.
Spokeswitch. LOL!
DUQ, I like that "Spokeswitch" comment as well.
99 days to go...someone is reading Commentarama again, because it was already mentioned within 5 minutes, along with the "Wimp" factor. LOL!
Indi, If they nuke anyone, the will to invade would definitely be there.
In terms of another uprising, I'm all for it, but it's kind of hard to base your policy on the idea that a country will implode before you need to act. And I'm not sure what we can do to destabilize the regime to give the people a second chance? I'm all for it, I just don't know how to cause it.
If we did invade, I would actually recommend wiping out their facilities and then leaving -- not trying to control the country. Staying would only endanger Americans. I would say, take them apart, arm some of the most Westernized locals, and leave.
One thing we may want to consider would be setting off an old-style bomb in Iran, preferably when their leadership is visiting some known nuclear facility. If that happened and the people actually believed they had mistakenly blown themselves up, that might stop the desire to get a bomb fast.
DUQ, :) What else would you call her?
Jen, Rush reads here regularly! ;)
Andrew, no doubt in my mind. I just wish he would acknowledge it though. :)
And the "politics stops at the water's edge" meme is pulled out by the Democrats, of course. When it suits them only. Of all the things Romney said in his support of Israel, the thing I liked most was his support of Jerusalem as the capital of the nation. I think that may have been his way of saying that it is the capital, and not to be divided up with the Palestinians.
Jen, I'm all for it...
Rush: "I'd like to acknowledge that I read Commentarama every day. You should all do that. Just don't start leaving comments. If you leave 12 million comments, Andrew and Lawhawk will probably kill themselves."
LOL! Actually, Jen, if we got 12 million comments on an article, the blog would explode. And if that didn't happen, I would probably just respond with: "I agree with some of you, but not others. I'm sure you know who you are." :)
Lawhawk, I went into that a bit before I trimmed the article. This idea that the politics stops at the water's edge is a nice idea, but the Democrats have been violating it since at least the 1980s when Jesse Jackson and Jimmy Carter started snuggling up to dictators. And Pelosi was all over the Middle East right after the invasion of Iraq, trying to undermine our policies in places like Iran and Syria.
Andrew,
I love the Palestinians' reaction to Romney. "Your'e RACIIISSSSST!!!!!" Last time I checked....no I have never checked. Is Palestine a race?
Andrew: And all Romney did was express his thoughts, very moderately in my opinion. Jackson and Carter have actually violated US law by conducting private diplomacy without permission from the White House or the State Department. But it's OK for them because they're Democrats.
Joel, Nope, Palestinian is not a race. There is even some debate whether they should be considered an ethnicity or whether they are basically the same thing as Jordanians and some others in the region. I haven't personally cared enough to look into it.
Lawhawk, I agree 100%. Romney has made no attempt to influence US policy or their policy toward the US, Carter and Jackson were over there consorting with dictators, criticizing the US, and trying to affect world opinion to stop US policy.
Carter's shenanigans during the lead up to Desert Storm actually had the Bush admin murmuring "treason" behind closed doors.
He tried to push both the UN and the Arab League to go against Desert Storm.
During the Clinton admin Carter was sent to North Korea (by the Clinton admin) to help with the nuke issue over there. After meeting with the NK leaders he did an interview where he torpedoed US policy.
It was actually the Obamas who managed to outsmart him. One of the benefits of having a staff filled with lawyers is that before they sent Carter over-sees they had him sign a contract limiting what he could (preventing him from making public statements).
Carter is discussed here in this Peter Robinson interview with President's Club authors Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy: LINK
Pretty fascinating.
Kit, In my opinion, Carter crossed that line several times. He has worked tirelessly to undermine US policy and turn people against the country. They should ship him off the North Korean and then revoke his passport.
I want to see 12 million comments on this blog. Even if C-rama did crash, it would be the most spectacular, fiery crash ever. :-)
T-Rav, That would be pretty cool, truthfully. :)
Oh please, not another "War on __"? When will the Democrats learn that this isn't going to work? How desperate are they? Oh wait, don't answer that. I think I know the answer.
Jen and Andrew, I think it would be fantastic if Rush mentioned Commentarama. It would be well deserved!
Doc, Yeah, but look on the bright side! We're about to run out of groups to have a war with. I can't imagine,
"The Republican War on Milk Men"
"The Republican War on Car Owners"
"The Republican War on Computer Users"
"The Republican War on Holders of Library Cards"
Well... actually, I can. :(
Doc, It's fun to think about, except that it really could be a problem in terms of traffic. I don't think blogs are set up to take that kind of business. But who knows?
Andrew, The Republican War on America. Don't forget that one!
Ka-Boom! That would be kinda cool - but then we'd all go into withdrawals without Commentarama!!!
Cuz y'all keep me sane some days (other days - it's just too late)...
I posted on my fb about the lack of tolerance among the "tolerant" - and promptly got popped with a friend (at least used to be a friend) calling me hateful again... while I love it when folks prove my statements true when they are trying to zing me, being zinged (zung) at is kind of exhausting.
Doc, Who could forget the Great Republican War On America!
As an aside, it sounds like Lech Walesa has all but endorsed Romney. This foreign trip has been really strong for Romney and has completely exposed Obama.
rlaWTX, I'm glad to hear we keep you sane! :)
Yeah, it would be kind of cool to see the explosion, but then we'd need to find a way to rebuild fast to avoid the withdrawals.
On your FB friends, it's amazing how quickly liberals love to accuse others of hate, isn't it? Maybe they don't understand the meaning of the word? Maybe that's the problem. You should ask her to define it next time.
I like Romney a lot. He makes me feel like we have a President again rather than the fool sitting in the chair right now.
rlaWTX, It sounds like your friend needs to take along hard look at themselves.
Ellen, It strikes me very much that Romney is more presidential than Obama.
Here are two more "Wars" Republicans are waging -
- Republican War on Poor People(It's not just on poverty anymore)
- Republican War on Anything Democrats Want To Do!
Bev, I can totally see the second one, only they would need to rename it to be more snazzy. Maybe call it: "The Republican War on Progress."
1982--Lech Walesa fought Communism at home by leading Solidarity.
2012--Lech Walesa fights Communism abroad by endorsing Mitt Romney.
Romney 2012
T-Rav, Did Romney say that or did you?
99 days, indeed. my birthday is the 2nd of november and all i want is an obama defeat.
i'm easy to please...
Andrew,
Hindsight being 20/20, looking back, I suppose it could have been predicted that Romney would have problems in Great Britain and not in Israel nor Poland. Great Britain is now, for all intents and purposes, a socialist nation. Israel and Poland are not socialist nations.
Another way of putting it, Capitalist is dissed by socialist nation. Capitalist is embraced in non-socialist nations
Patti, 99 bottles of beer on the wall... 99 bottles of beer! Take one down, pass it around, Obama's gone when there's no more bottles of beer on the wall! :)
May your birthday wish be granted! Seriously!
Joel, I'm not so sure Israel isn't a socialist nation. Admittedly, I haven't kept up with their political system lately, but in the past at least they seemed to be very much into government-run everything and I'm not sure they have anything like a libertarian party.
Andrew, that's what I wish the Romney camp would say.
On the issue of Israel and socialism: I don't really pay attention to their politics either, but they have tended to be center-left to left most of the time (although I think there has been a rightward tilt recently, encouraged by Netanyahu). The difference, I would guess, is that the external pressure on their country helps keep Israelis from falling into selfishness and decadence as most Western nations have done.
T-Rav, Ah. Yeah, that would be pretty funny if Romney said that. LOL!
On Israel, that's been my sense, that they've been left or center/left for as long as I can remember. Even the "right wing" Likud Party seems to favor big government/socialism. They're just more muscular in their foreign policy.
But let me caveat that by saying, I don't follow any of this closely, so that is just based on casual observation.
T-Rav jumped on the Romney bandwagon, and he's creating slogans and everything!?! No more hanging on to the back bandwagon bumper in disgust?
[J/K - please don't hurt the kittens...]
Nearly all of Israel's founders, like Ben-Gurion, were BIG socialists. Remember, the Soviet Union was an earlier supporter of Israel*, and a large number of the early immigrants were anti-British socialists and communists. In fact, through the 50s, 60s, and 70s socialism was the rule. For a while it was manageable. While Israel was probably prosperous compared to its neighbors it was, form m knowledge, by no means an economic powerhouse. Then in the 80s things went out of control with inflation reaching an annual rate of 450%, the collapse of four major banks (they were nationalized by the government), and massive government expenditures.
In the mid-80s the Israelis, like the British, the Americans, the Irish, the Chinese, and the Indians, introduced pro-market reforms and things have gotten better since.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_Stabilization_Plan_(Israel_1985)
I know, its wikipedia.
*The Soviet Union initially supported Israeli independence because it was a way to beat up on Britain as well as the socialist-leanings of many Jews but the USSR eventually realized that supporting and sponsoring a single state surrounded by lots of (oil-happy) enemies had very few strategic benefits for them so they shifted support to the Arabs. That is the really short version.
Michael Oren's SIX DAYS OF WAR goes into this.
rlaWTX, Yep, it sounds like T-Rav is on the bandwagon! LOL!
Kit, I actually find the Wikipedia to be a good source on most things. Despite its shaky start and some of the more luny articles, most of what is there is really quite solid and rather useful. So thanks for the information. :)
I knew some of that about Israel, but not all of it. I also know they have some very strong companies today, especially in the world of high tech and generic drug makers.
Also, people talk a lot about how tough Israel is, and she is, but I think half of their survival is owed to the fact that the Arabs/Muslims, despite all their talk of a "united anti-Zionist front", spend more time fighting each other than they do fighting the Israelis.
Pan-Arab Nationalists vs. the Monarchists (the 50s and 60s, ex. North Yemeni Civil War)
Jihadists vs. Monarchists (Iranian Revolution)
Baath Nationalists vs. Jihadists (Iran-Iraq War)
Baath Nationalists vs. the Monarchists (91 Gulf War)
Hamas vs. Fatah
And so on.
Kit, That's true. Plus, I would add that Arab militaries aren't really all that competent. They tend to be designed to control/terrorize the population rather than fight wars against other nations.
They can get lucky from time to time. They gave the Israelis quite a fright in the Yom Kippur War.
That's true, but I think back then the countries were more evenly matched. I'd be shocked if any of them could put up any real fight against Israel today. That's why they fight through terrorists as proxies.
And frankly, if they did somehow get the upper hand, I have no doubt that we would be there asap helping out.
On Israel's unity.
Israel is a funny country. People think that because it is the Jewish state that it is a fairly homogenous state. In fact it is quite diverse with Reform, Conservative, Orthodox, and Ultra-Orthodox constantly griping at each other, then there are divisions along Ashkenazi and Sephardic lines. There was actually racial discrimination in the 60s with European Jews discriminating against African Jews.
Then there are the divisions between the Secular Zionists (Ben-Gurion) and Religious Zionists, Secular left and right, etc.
Israel couldn't even form a constitution because of various disagreements. The universal conscription (though draft-dodging is easy and rampant) and the constant threat of destruction probably help keep it unified.
Kit, Where did you get all the Israeli knowledge?
"I have no doubt that we would be there asap helping out."
The US rarely sends direct military help. Our aid during a crisis might involve shipping ammo to Israel (Yom Kippur) or, more often, slowing down things at the UN (pretty much every crisis since 1967)
Actually, most Arab-Israeli fights since 1967 seem to follow a very similar pattern:
Phase 1: Arab/Muslim state/organization attacks or does something to provoke Israel.
-For example: Egypt blockading the Straight of Tiran in 1967, launching a massive surprise attack during Yom Kippur in 1973, launching missiles from the Gaza Strip in 2008.
Phase 2: Israel hits back, pummeling the Arabs/Muslims in the process.
-Ex. Wiping the floor with the Egyptian, Syrian, and Jordanian militaries in 6 days and grabbing the Holy City in the process
Phase 3: Arabs/Muslims go to UN and whine "Israel's being mean!" Usually they get help from the USSR/Russia and, more recently, China. As well as the nations of Europe.
-Ex. All of the above and more.
Phase 4: The UN begins voting to condemn Israel. The US tells Israel to wrap things up quickly while they slow things down at the UN to buy Israel time.
-If the resolution actually gets to a vote in the Security Council, the US will veto it.
Phase 5: Israel wraps things up and pulls back across the border. Cease-fire is declared.
Phase 6: Arab/Muslim state/organization begins planning next provocation.
As predictable as the rising and the setting of the Sun.
Kit, I have no doubt that if Israel were attacked today and appeared to be losing, we would absolutely send troops. There's no way we would let them be taken out.
As for your six phases of conflict, that's pretty much how I see it.
"Kit, Where did you get all the Israeli knowledge?"
I have read some of the book SIX DAYS OF WAR and I occasionally read Israeli news sources online such as JPost, Haaretz, and ynetnews.com.
I've been wanting to read Martin Gilbert's book on Israel but my brother borrowed it for a research paper before I could read it and I haven't seen it since. Brothers, what do you do? :)
Haaretz now requires a subscription to read most articles there, so I don't use it as much anymore.
Oh, and on Israeli diversity,
On Ynetnews there is a story about a racial slur being used on a bus towards an Ethiopian Jew.
It annoys me when people talk of Jews as a homogenous group of Ashkenazi bankers when they are actually quite diverse. They even have an immigration problem with Ethiopian Jews coming to Israel illegally.
Another thing: I'm not Jewish, I'm Gentile.
US policy, it seems, is to often play the "Good Cop" to Israel's "Bad Cop".
US is the nice guy trying to negotiate out an issue while Israel is the crazy Dirty Harry Callahan who might blow you to kingdom come.
"Another thing: I'm not Jewish, I'm Gentile."
Not a response to any statement you or anyone made.
Just stating that so no one assumes I'm Jewish. Not that I would be offended (I would be flattered, actually). Just want people to know.
Kit, I figured you might have taken history/international relations classes in it.
I used to read foreign papers each day, but I haven't done that in a while now.
Kit, Good cop, bad cop tends to work really well in the real world.
I understood your point about not being Jewish and didn't think you meant any offense. :)
Other parts of Phase 5:
The Arabs/Muslims declare "victory":
"Even though they took out our Air Force in 48 hours, over-ran our army, and the only reason they didn't march on our capital city is because we ran to the Un like a bunch of whiny little wussies we have won a Mighty and Glorious Victory!"
Okay, MAYBE they leave out some parts but they declare victory nonetheless. Even when they were completely clobbered.
The elites at the UN and EU toast themselves, declaring in a snobbish upper-class accent "We have restored peace to the Middle East and stopped those racist xenophobes in Israel. Huzzah us!"
Meanwhile, the US and Israel trudge over to their liquor cabinets or nearest bar to drink the strongest liquor they can find in the hope that the much-vaunted memory-loss side effects alcohol is supposed to have can make them forget, if only temporarily, about how stressful the past few days/weeks have been and how depressed they are that in a matter of time the cycle will start all over again.
Sometimes the alcohol works, sometimes it doesn't. It's a toss-up.
Kit,
"It annoys me when people talk of Jews as a homogenous group of Ashkenazi bankers when they are actually quite diverse."
I understand, still you would be lucky if you could get people to just know that there are Hasidic Jews around. That Muslim people have a stricter Kosher diet than Jews. That the conflict Jews have with Muslims can be measured in Centuries. That Palestinians are an artificial creation designed to constantly challenge and probe Israel for weaknesses.
The last is something that no Liberal would accept. I don't know how liberal Jews seem to reconcile this with their beliefs.
On how a hit on Iran would go, probably an air strike similar to 1981.
Maybe a ramped up version of El Dorado Canyon
(Note: The link is very NSFW)
"I understand, still you would be lucky if you could get people to just know that there are Hasidic Jews around. That Muslim people have a stricter Kosher diet than Jews. That the conflict Jews have with Muslims can be measured in Centuries. That Palestinians are an artificial creation designed to constantly challenge and probe Israel for weaknesses."
Yep.
Now, where I live (Alabama) you might have some luck.
Joel, I tend to think of Washington as an artificial creation designed to constantly challenge and probe the American people's wallets for weakness.
Kit, When it comes to Israel, the UN is a disgusting, hateful (dis)organization that should be recognized for what it is -- a hotbed of antisemitism.
Hey, the UN isn't all bad. They did produce one great pro-Israeli resolution in 1947. . .
Kit, Despite what people think, the UN has its uses. It's actually done a lot to make the world better. The problem is that it also goes off on these leftist/antisemitic/anti-American jihads.
Andrew,
In terms of Israel, I don't think the problem is the UN so much as the global community.
Anthony, Let me clarify, the problem isn't the UN per se, it's the fact that countries like the Middle Eastern thugs and Venezuela are very good at working their way onto committees that they can then use for political attacks, and Israel is one of their favorite targets because the world is still rife with antisemitism.
Post a Comment