A few comments about Jeffrey Goldberg's interview with Bibi Netanyahu yesterday.
–Looking thru his book Prisoners, I was freshly irritated by Goldberg's line near the end of the book that he and his Palestinian counterpart in his story are "two entirely powerless individuals, working at the subatomic level." This is irritating because Goldberg is the most important Jewish journalist in the world. Goldberg was granted an important interview with Obama last spring in order to make him kosher to American Jews, and was granted this belligerent interview with Netanyahu (Netanyahu to Obama: Stop Iran or I will) on the same basis. (And by the way, Goldberg says the Israel lobby is powerless, too.)
–In the Netanyahu interview, we get these comments about reverse aliyah: the astounding numbers of Jews leaving Israel, usually for the U.S.
plans to drop a nuclear weapon on Tel Aviv, should it find a means to
deliver it. The first-stage Iranian goal, in the understanding of
Netanyahu and his advisers, is to frighten Israel’s most talented
citizens into leaving their country. “The idea is to keep attacking
the Israelis on a daily basis, to weaken the willingness of the Jewish
people to hold on to their homeland,” Moshe Ya’alon said. “The idea is
to make a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews
unattractive for them. They are waging a war of attrition.”
I urge Goldberg to look into his heart on this issue. Born in the U.S., he moved to Israel in the 80s out of love for the Jewish state. Then, despite his belief that the U.S. is an anti-Semitic place, unsafe for Jews, he returned here some years later. He had failed to make himself an Israeli, he says in his book, because he found life in Israel coarse and because he'd fallen in love with an American woman who wasn't wild to join him there. I think an unstated reason is ambition. Goldberg had places to go in the United States– and good for him.
This post better go somewhere. Here is the point: What are the real reasons that Israelis are leaving Israel? Doesn't it have a lot more to do with the unpleasant aspects of Israeli society, for instance, Netanyahu and Lieberman, than with Iran? And doesn't Goldberg actually know better on this score (Thanks to Jack Ross for the headsup.)
LOL, this is funny coming from Bibi himself. Here is the hidden mindset of these fools:
The first-stage Zionist goal, in the understanding of anti-Zionists, is to frighten Gazans citizens into leaving their land. “The idea is to keep attacking the Palestinians on a daily basis, to weaken the willingness of the Palestinian people to hold on to their homeland,”… “The idea is to make a place that is supposed to be a safe haven for Palestineans unattractive for them. They are waging a war of attrition.”
Soo, if Bibi says that Iran's goal with 1 bomb would be to scare Israelis out of the country….what has Israel been trying to do with 300 of them?
"Amanuensis!" Phil, what a great word, and a pitch-perfect description of Goldberg vis-a-viz Netanyahu.
RE: "he found life in Israel coarse"
THE WORDS OF A FORMER ISRAELI: "…Israelis have never been particularly kind to each other. It’s one of the reasons I left actually. In my late twenties I started to grow weary of the unkind, harsh and unforgiving atmosphere around me. It was a tough place to live in not because of our ‘enemies’ but because of how people treated one another. You would believe that we were all enemies rather than people who have some kind of a shared heritage. The only thing that could unite people and temporarily brought out more kindness and a sense of cooperation was a feeling of being under collective threat, and in particular a ‘good wholesome war’…" – Avigail Abarbanel
SOURCE – link to avigailabarbanel.me.uk
RE: "his (Netanyahu's) amanuensis, Goldberg"
ME: Let's not get snarky!
I had to look up ""Amanuensis". Probably I should put it on my list of words to use at least once in my lifetime and leave it at that. "freshly" is more delicate.
This remind me of this piece with harsh words from Avraham Burgnearly two years ago.
Believe it or not there is a strong Iranian-American lobby.
Obviously not in the same class as AIPAC, but I supect it has played an important role in thawing Iranian-American tensions.
And none other than Roger Cohen spoke at its latest meeting.
AIC Event in Washington DC a Great Success
Source: American Iranian Council (AIC)
March 27: The Policy Symposium and Norouz Reception (25 March) was a great success. Over 150 participants from the United States and Iran came together to discuss the US-Iran relationship. The Norouz reception helped to bring a better understanding of Persian culture, cuisine and art to everyone, especially to the Capitol Hill participants. The AIC would like to thank everyone for helping make the debates informative and lively as well as the Norouz celebration full of hope for a "new day." (The next AIC event is already in preliminary planning stages.)
The Policy Symposium began when Mr. Roger Cohen of the New York Times spoke about the importance of each person developing an "updated" understanding of the Iranian nation, its peoples and its potential. Mr. Cohen demonstrated an eloquence, sophistication, and thoughtfulness in speaking on par with that of his writing. Although he noted his belief that Iran had human rights issues which needed to be addressed, such as with the Bahai's, he also noted that comparisons with Nazi Germany were not only off the mark, but harmful, counterproductive and indeed dishonoring. He explained that such statements "dishonored" the victims and survivors of the Holocaust and that Iran is a far more complex, divided and nuanced power than is often portrayed.
Ambassador James Dobbins (Rand Corporation) echoed many of these same points. His speech was very well received by the audience, not only due to his tremendous understanding of the history and politics of the Middle East, especially Afghanistan, but also because of his great intelligence, charm and wit. Ambassador Dobbins discussed an example of how useful Iran had been in the construction of the government in Afghanistan after the 2001 US invasion. Ambassador Dobbins noted that in his many dealings with diplomats from countries throughout the world, Iranian diplomats were among the very finest and sophisticated.
The Norouz Reception was the first Norouz celebration ever to be held on Capitol Hill. Norouz means "new day" and marks the Spring Equinox and start of the Persian New Year (March 21st). It is an occasion to celebrate renewal and reunion. Norouz is widely celebrated by Iranians of all ideological and religious persuasions including Muslims, Jews, Christians and Baha'is. Norouz is rooted in the traditions of Zoroastrian belief system, the pre-Islamic religion of the Iranian people, and it has been celebrated by Iranians and all the major cultures of ancient Mesopotamia for over 3000 years. Dr. Masood Khatamee spoke on the history and meaning of Norouz. Norouz art was presented by Ms. Laurie Blum. Ms. Blum discussed her many trips to Iran as well as her hopes that art might help to bridge the distance between the two countries and their peoples.
About AIC: The mission of the AIC provides for a sustainable dialogue and a more comprehensive understanding of US-Iran relations. The AIC organizes and promotes the Iranian-American community and encourages its participation in the efforts for a more democratic, transparent, mutually respectful, and sustainable relationship between the two countries. The AIC also promotes the conditions for the development of Iran through increased national dialogue, charitable works, and international exchange. (read more)
… Payvand News – 04/01/0
If Israelis are leaving Israel, they are leaving because of Israelis and Israeli policies, not because they fear an attack by Iran or other phantom antagonists. Iran has attacked no country since its Revolution, and has no recent history of attacking anyone. Iran's leaders' rhetoric is less incendiary than Israel's leaeders', but it is Israel that invades, occupies, carpet bombs and threatens to use its nuclear arsenal.
Weiss: "Goldberg is the most important Jewish journalist in the world."
Correction. Goldberg is the most important Jewish Zionist journalist in the world. The most important ethnic Jewish journalist in the world might be Seymour Hersh. The most important journalist of Jewish religious affairs might be…I don't know, you tell me.
But once Goldberg joined the Jewish Zionist ideology, he should no longer be considered an objective Jewish journalist, and should be considered a subversive activist with an agenda, kind of like Judy Miller is now considered.
I mean, would a subversive Islamist advocate who was a regular contributor to, say, Aljazeera be considered the most important Islamic journalist in the world? Labeling such a person such might be considered an insult to Islam.
RE: "Netanyahu says Iran is scaring smart Jews out of Israel."
SO WHY DOES NETANYAHU REMAIN THERE?
Even Netanyahu called U.S. a home at one time. I was reading Jeremiah Haber's comments in one of his posts and he insisted that there is a total lack of intellectual Judaic thinking that comes from Israelis that is revered worldwide, no famous Rabbi, no outstanding poets or authors in decades (if at all). I found it a very bold statement but I have read of many who went to Israel and have decided not to remain there for numerous reasons. Re: Jacobo Timmerman.
Why should the fact that Israelis may choose to leave Israel because Iran does something that Israel has felt a perfect right to do itself be a reason for Israel to go to war? How is that a casus belli?
Weiss: "Goldberg is the most important Jewish journalist in the world."
ME: Not so! That would be Marty 'Macho Man' Peretz! "Don't f*** with the Jews."
SEE ERIC ALTERMAN'S ARTICLE – link to prospect.org
What about Sy Hersh? Or is it that he's a journalist who happens to be Jewish, as opposed to a Jewish journalist?
The evil genius of the ideological Jewish Zionist “journalists” has been to pass themselves off as somehow “objective” and engaged in honest reporting and analysis, when in fact the outcomes of their analyses were and are always pre-determined by ideological imperatives.
The legion of Leftist and left-liberal ideological “journalists” masquerading as objective have always been engaged in similar subterfuge and affectation, and still are. Right wing journalists, too. But the Right is usually quickly called on this (everyone knows Fox News is un-objective, because it is so often pointed out) whereas the liberals are usually allowed to slide, and the Jewish Zionist-agenda “journalists” have heretofore pretty much ALWAYS been allowed to slide.
I accept as a fact Israeli fears, even if some of those fears may not be rational in a given instance.
This fear of Iranian nukes brings up an interesting question.
First, Israel has decided on perpetual war and then introduced nuclear weapons into the ME. This makes it almost inevitable that eventually one of her enemies would reciprocate.
Then, at the same time, Israelis settled 80% of the Jewish population into a tiny zone around Tel Aviv. I have seen the estimate that they live in an area that is about 4 blast radii of a fusion weapon.
Doesn't putting those two facts together sort of sound like the Israelis have a fundamental death wish? I can see why any intelligent person would flee that zoo. The current hysteria around Iran simply reminds people of the nuclear dilemma that Israel has created for itself.
is iran scaring smart jews out of israel or the action's of israel goverment , because if i was jewish iran woulden't scare me but the new israeli goverment would scare the shit out of regarldes of me being smart or not.
The legion of Leftist and left-liberal ideological “journalists” masquerading as objective have always been engaged in similar subterfuge and affectation, and still are. Right wing journalists, too. But the Right is usually quickly called on this (everyone knows Fox News is un-objective, because it is so often pointed out) whereas the liberals are usually allowed to slide.. Posted by: Ed | April 01, 2009 at 07:37 PM
As usual, Ed, you have jumped from zionist media influence to what you call 'left-liberal' media influence, and given yourself permission to make a totally untrue claim, to whit, that it is less questioned by the Right than the Right is by it.
Perhaps it's true, Rowan, that I group anti-Christians together. And regard them all as the enemies of functioning, harmonious, multi-cultural civilization. But I do distinguish between anti-Christians on the one hand, and live and let live other religions and irreligious on the other. The former are totalitarian murderers. The latter are fellow human beings.
All you ever distinguish between is the different ideological phantoms that populate your fantasies, Ed
Rowan, you noticed that two? And so where do the Jews fit in, Ed, as the song says "unshriven and unannealled" with the "anti-Christians". And what the hell is so wrong with being "anti-Christian"? I know I is, in the Constitutional way.
Sorry I read to fast. I see, the Muzzis are totalitarian murderers, and the Jews just an attractive part of the local diversity.
So you're gonna let us off the hook, in your personal all-American pastiche. That's damned ecumenical of you, Ed. But do me a favor, Ed, tells us some more about that legion of fanatic followers you got, the ones called "the rest of us".
I customarily don't blog, particularly when there is so much territory to cover; here, however, there may be sufficient substance–without engaging in personalities–to establish principles that could guide subsequent discussion.
I am pro-Bibi, who graduated in 1967 from Cheltenham High School (from which I graduated two years hence). The need to inject clarity–by citing Iran–clearly has evoked response from "the usual suspects." The key-task is to drill-down, and to ID those arguments that are tangential/incorrect…and then to address what remains.
I just listened to Obama in Istanbul, and narry a peep about the existential threat emanating daily from Tehran; so, too, is this avoidance-phenomenon manifest on this web-site. The rest, as one might glean from the Talmud, is Commentary.
It is also remarkable–bowing but once to the tendency to personalize the blogosphere–that no one discusses (or attempts to discount) the themes of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which traces the progressive movement during the past century in what must be perceived as a fact-based and highly-critical fashion.
Regarding the desirability of living in Eretz Yisrael, it is necessary only to appreciate the challenges and opportunities associated therewith. Ultimately, just as the American Experiment represents an ongoing evolution of Representative Democracy, Israel's efforts to implement Biblical morality requires leadership to apply principles to practicality.
I decided long-ago that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, but I also decided that critics of Israeli policies are neither. But, just as the Ugly American has been vilified whenever an overseas sojourn has been prolonged (noting, also, persistent Bush-bashing by Carter/Clinton during foreign speechifying that has occurred during this Millennium), it is vital to sift attacks on Jerusalem through the prism of those who fear detonation of a dirty-bomb in Israel's midsection, accompanied by a sense of being sandwiched by Hezbollah/Hamas in a world that doesn't care (when it isn't denying the Shoah had tranapired).
Illustrative of the poverty-of-thought in most of the above posts is that they eschew addressing the rationale for the Israeli attack against Gaza, namely, daily multiple-bombings of southern Israel. That the ID of most of the bombing victims has been confirmed (via review of Palestinian Arab web-sites) to be "Jihad Martyrs" undermines (for the umpteenth time) the credibility of the anti-Israel media/acolytes. That nothing has been done to forestall the reinitiation of arms smuggling (quietly condemned rhetorically, only) illustrates the blatant hypocrasy of these political actors.
My reference is the daily (except Sabbath) receipt of the Daily Alert (which is a compilation of media reports from throughout the political spectrum, clearly distinguishing fact/opinion…as does Fox News, BTW, compared with MSNBC/CNN). It is generated @ 8 a.m. EST via (free) e-mail, recognizing that it emanates from Jerusalem (where it is five hours later, having afforded its editors the opportunity to have scoured the newspapers while Americans slept). It is sponsored by the (now pro-Obama, noting how it cancelled the Palen appearance in NYC, last fall) Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
*
Regarding specific points made above (following my lengthy disclaimer), it is vital first to recognize Iran's plan to terrorize Western Europe (manifest, for example, when the paucity of its commitment to Afghanistan is noted).
Having spoken over the years with numerous people who travel to/fro Israel, it seems that most have fiscal motives when determining the optimal residence. Thus, using this criterion as the jumping-off point for political dialogue appears to be a thinly-veiled method by which people can manifest core-beliefs, rather than to apply principles in an individualized fashion.
This is not to deny folks the opportunity to discuss sociological forces. But, absent stats, it's difficult to take any such pontification very seriously.
Amanuesis, BTW, is contageous…and not necessarily a disease-state. I would invite those who would apply Conservative Republican principles to foreign policy concerns to visit the website of my friend, Bob Guzzardi, who carefully documents his assertions @ Conservative Reform Network. [link to crnblog.org
As an example of the most obvious problems encountered when reading this site, I would cite the claim that Iran hasn't attacked any country since 1979. Is it not classified as a state-sponsor of terror (supporting, for example, Hamas/Hezbollah, plus Syria's Koren nuke-plant)? Obama may be denying the existence of Islamofascism, but he hasn't yet rescinded this accurate/damning designation.
Multiple web-sites contain ample evidence of Israeli culture and achievements, touting both writings and patents. Thus, the globally dismissive claim that it hasn't produced poets is as disgusting as tne anti-intellectual posture leftists routinely adopt when failing to decry Arafat's duplicity @ Camp David – III (and its ongoing implications).
Although on a different page, it is necessary to reference the discussion of Oliphant's anti-Semitic political cartoon…if for no other reason than to ensure a fair interpretation of my viewpoint, articulated here. I have no problem with free-speech, but those who publish it have some responsibility to provide fact-checks for their readership.
Therefore, if a political posture is adopted, it is necessary to probe its foundations. Here, for example, no one noted that the NY Times adopted a posture regarding an employee of a newspaper (Boston Globe) that is owned by the Times Corporation. This is not conjecture, and it informs the posture adopted by its spokeswoman.
The import is transparency, and transparent. One-sided condemnation of Israeli policy as akin to Nazi-ism–absent integration of its provocation, which even Human Rights Watch has excoriated–reduces its author to peddling poisonous posturing. In Safife/Agnew terminology, Oliphant becomes a Nattering Nabob of Negativism, rather than a contributor to enlightenment.
If one merely notes the targeting of civilians as an unambigously-declared Hamas public policy, contrasing it with the targeting of military targets (including a bomb factory that was NEAR TO…but not within, as was erroneously reported…an UNRWA school, as confirmed by its principal) demonstrates that Emporor Oliphant composed a nakedly-vile caricature.
This isn't a fair/balanced observation; it is unfair/biased. Publications that reprint it as "news" that provoked controversy are to be contrasted with those that ran it alongside legitimate commentary.
*
Finally, back to the premise motivating the creation/maintenance of this Internet-page, it is only vital to recognize that Israelis maintain a frontier spirit, experiencing daily reminders of violence overtly intended to presage its destruction. Anyone who fails to weigh this predominant force within the Israeli body politic is denying the strength of the unity-of-purpose that spans all but the pro-Arab/Communist political parties represented in the Knesset. This explains why Labor can vote to participate with Likud. It also explains the poverty-of-thought that pervades the anti-Israel compositions that appear at this site.
This is my complete posting, I repeat it only to provide a correction of too-many typos (next, time, I'll remember to spell-check before publishing!):
I customarily don't blog, particularly when there is so much territory to cover; here, however, there may be sufficient substance–without engaging in personalities–to establish principles that could guide subsequent discussion.
I am pro-Bibi, who graduated in 1967 from Cheltenham High School (from which I graduated two years hence). The need to inject clarity–by citing Iran–clearly has evoked response from "the usual suspects." The key-task is to drill-down, and to ID those arguments that are tangential/incorrect…and then to address what remains.
I just listened to Obama in Istanbul, and nary a peep about the existential threat emanating daily from Tehran; so, too, is this avoidance-phenomenon manifest on this web-site. The rest, as one might glean from the Talmud, is Commentary.
It is also remarkable–bowing but once to the tendency to personalize the blogosphere–that no one discusses (or attempts to discount) the themes of Jonah Goldberg's "Liberal Fascism," which traces the progressive movement during the past century in what must be perceived as a fact-based and highly-critical fashion.
Regarding the desirability of living in Eretz Yisrael, it is necessary only to appreciate the challenges and opportunities associated therewith. Ultimately, just as the American Experiment represents an ongoing evolution of Representative Democracy, Israel's efforts to implement Biblical morality requires leadership to apply principles to practicality.
I decided long-ago that anti-Zionists are anti-Semites, but I also decided that critics of Israeli policies are neither. But, just as the Ugly American has been vilified whenever an overseas sojourn has been prolonged (noting, also, persistent Bush-bashing by Carter/Clinton during foreign speechifying that has occurred during this Millennium), it is vital to sift attacks on Jerusalem through the prism of those who fear detonation of a dirty-bomb in Israel's midsection, accompanied by a sense of being sandwiched by Hezbollah/Hamas in a world that doesn't care (when it isn't denying the Shoah had transpired).
Illustrative of the poverty-of-thought in most of the above posts is that they eschew addressing the rationale for the Israeli attack against Gaza, namely, daily multiple-bombings of southern Israel. That the ID of most of the bombing victims has been confirmed (via review of Palestinian Arab web-sites) to be "Jihad Martyrs" undermines (for the umpteenth time) the credibility of the anti-Israel media/acolytes. That nothing has been done to forestall the reinitiation of arms smuggling (quietly condemned rhetorically, only) illustrates the blatant hypocrisy of these political actors.
My reference is the daily (except Sabbath) receipt of the Daily Alert (which is a compilation of media reports from throughout the political spectrum, clearly distinguishing fact/opinion…as does Fox News, BTW, compared with MSNBC/CNN). It is generated @ 8 a.m. EST via (free) e-mail, recognizing that it emanates from Jerusalem (where it is five hours later, having afforded its editors the opportunity to have scoured the newspapers while Americans slept). It is sponsored by the (now pro-Obama, noting how it cancelled the Palin appearance in NYC, last fall) Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations.
*
Regarding specific points made above (following my lengthy disclaimer), it is vital first to recognize Iran's plan to terrorize Western Europe (manifest, for example, when the paucity of its commitment to Afghanistan is noted).
Having spoken over the years with numerous people who travel to/fro Israel, it seems that most have fiscal motives when determining the optimal residence. Thus, using this criterion as the jumping-off point for political dialogue appears to be a thinly-veiled method by which people can manifest core-beliefs, rather than to apply principles in an individualized fashion.
This is not to deny folks the opportunity to discuss sociological forces. But, absent stats, it's difficult to take any such pontification very seriously.
Amanuensis, BTW, is contagious…and not necessarily a disease-state. I would invite those who would apply Conservative Republican principles to foreign policy concerns to visit the website of my friend, Bob Guzzardi, who carefully documents his assertions @ Conservative Reform Network. [link to crnblog.org
/>
As an example of the most obvious problems encountered when reading this site, I would cite the claim that Iran hasn't attacked any country since 1979. Is it not classified as a state-sponsor of terror (supporting, for example, Hamas/Hezbollah, plus Syria's Korean nuke-plant)? Obama may be denying the existence of Islamo-fascism, but he hasn't yet rescinded this accurate/damning designation.
Multiple web-sites contain ample evidence of Israeli culture and achievements, touting both writings and patents. Thus, the globally dismissive claim that it hasn't produced poets is as disgusting as the anti-intellectual posture leftists routinely adopt when failing to decry Arafat's duplicity @ Camp David – III (and its ongoing implications).
Although on a different page, it is necessary to reference the discussion of Oliphant's anti-Semitic political cartoon…if for no other reason than to ensure a fair interpretation of my viewpoint, articulated here. I have no problem with free-speech, but those who publish it have some responsibility to provide fact-checks for their readership.
Therefore, if a political posture is adopted, it is necessary to probe its foundations. Here, for example, no one noted that the NY Times adopted a posture regarding an employee of a newspaper (Boston Globe) that is owned by the Times Corporation. This is not conjecture, and it informs the posture adopted by its spokeswoman.
The import is transparency, and transparent. One-sided condemnation of Israeli policy as akin to Nazi-ism–absent integration of its provocation, which even Human Rights Watch has excoriated–reduces its author to peddling poisonous posturing. In Safire/Agnew terminology, Oliphant becomes a Nattering Nabob of Negativism, rather than a contributor to enlightenment.
If one merely notes the targeting of civilians as an unambiguously-declared Hamas public policy, contrasting it with the targeting of military targets (including a bomb factory that was NEAR TO…but not within, as was erroneously reported…an UNRWA school, as confirmed by its principal) demonstrates that Emperor Oliphant composed a nakedly-vile caricature.
This isn't a fair/balanced observation; it is unfair/biased. Publications that reprint it as "news" that provoked controversy are to be contrasted with those that ran it alongside legitimate commentary.
*
Finally, back to the premise motivating the creation/maintenance of this Internet-page, it is only vital to recognize that Israelis maintain a frontier spirit, experiencing daily reminders of violence overtly intended to presage its destruction. Anyone who fails to weigh this predominant force within the Israeli body politic is denying the strength of the unity-of-purpose that spans all but the pro-Arab/Communist political parties represented in the Knesset. This explains why Labor can vote to participate with Likud. It also explains the poverty-of-thought that pervades the anti-Israel compositions that appear at this site.