The Right Coast

Editor: Thomas A. Smith
University of San Diego
School of Law

Sunday, July 4, 2010

The Destruction of Israel
Mike Rappaport

How could the Obama Administration try to get Israel to sign the nonproliferation treaty and give up its nuclear weapons?  Do they want the destruction of Israel?  Well, there is a good chance that Bill Ayres and Jeremiah Wright do (in some form, presumably not through a nuclear holocaust, but through intimidiation and weakening).  What about Obama?      

https://rightcoast.typepad.com/rightcoast/2010/07/the-destruction-of-israelmike-rappaport.html

| Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341bf6e253ef0134853350e2970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Destruction of Israel
Mike Rappaport
:

Comments

The US is Israel's most reliable ally. Israel has nobody else to turn too. The relationship between the US and Israel is going to get more abusive over time as the US uses the security of the state of Israel as a bargaining chip in its dealings with Arabs and Europeans. The article suggests that the US deliberately embarrassed Israel to appease the Arab States. The million dollar question is how much abuse will Israel tolerate from us before it defies its patron, and I don't know the answer.
The second million dollar question is why you don't automatically support the US in these disputes as a good American citizen. How would you feel if in a dispute between the US and Mexico, Mexican-Americans took the side of Mexico? When are foreign sympathies ok?

Posted by: Molly | Jul 4, 2010 1:32:55 PM

Watch what The Effendi does, not what he says.

Posted by: Lou Gots | Jul 4, 2010 1:51:43 PM

Molly's first million-dollar question is reasonable. Is the second one facetious? If not, the answer is: 1) US citizens have no obligation to support ill-conceived US policies that are bad for US interests as Obama's anti-Israel policy is, 2) speaking of Mexico, how do you feel about a US president who takes Mexico's side in a dispute against American citizens as Obama recently did? and 3) dual-loyalties accusations, like racism accusations, are where you go when you can't prevail on the merits of your argument and want to shut up the other side.

On the original question re Obama, we can't know what he thinks but we can see what he does. How would he behave differently if he wanted to do as much as he could to endanger Israel's survival, without also losing domestic political support?

Posted by: Jonathan | Jul 5, 2010 1:10:58 AM

B. Hussein Obama hates Israel. Well, that is a big surprise.

Contrary to claims of Jewish intellectual superiority, a majority of American Jews for him. There is no delusion like self-delusion.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak | Jul 5, 2010 1:00:26 PM

Well Jonathan,

Argument #1 is fair I suppose, and I accept that if support for Israel is framed as in the US interest its legitimate. I don't see how the policy of verbally harassing Israel harms US interests. Israel can either do what we say or be more isolated in public channels. The Israelis won't give up their armed strength, and we won't cut off there weapons supply or trade, nor for that matter will Europe, so the treaties are basically for PR purposes. The US doesn't need to be well liked in Israel, but does need to be well liked elsewhere, and that's all that is at stake.

Argument #2 I suppose is answered by your argument #1. The president probably hates the Arizona law and thinks its bad policy for the US. I don't think the president really cares much for Mexico as such, and he probably would have condemned the law even if Mexico had not gotten involved. His position on the bill is driven by his position on US interests and his support for the position of the Mexican state is incidental.

Argument #3 I think you protest too much. We got LG calling Obama the Effendi, and we got WS breaking out the middle name of the President and then calling Jews stupid presumably for not seeing the presidents hostility to Israel, as if we were supposed to care, which presumes dual loyalty.

Posted by: Molly | Jul 5, 2010 4:45:01 PM

"I think you protest too much."

Thank you Hamlet. I haven't protested enough yet. Whining on the internet barely counts.

"we got WS breaking out the middle name of the President"

It is his name. A name is a message. The fact that he kept it and used it is significant. As part of his dezinformatsiya campaign in 2008, his PR people insisted that we ignore it. Now that he has demonstrated that he is firmly attached to the muslim world, I think we need to keep a focus on that which were ordered not to look at.

"then calling Jews stupid presumably for not seeing the presidents hostility to Israel"

Stupid is as stupid does. Any middle class person who voted for Hussein is stupid. Any Jew who wishes the State of Israel well, who voted for him is stupid. He gave us plenty of clues: his name, his friends, his church, his advisers. But, he said that we should pay them no mind. The people who decided to pay them no mind were deluding themselves. As I said: "There is no delusion like self-delusion".

Now we have a president whose economic advisers are Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Manny, Moe and Jack. And, whose foreign policy consists of giving advantages to our enemies, and the backs of our hands to our friends. As the Blogfather says, Jimmy Carter is a best case scenario.

"as if we were supposed to care"

What do you mean we? What you chose to care about is your business. I have no evidence to show that you care about anything. Most liberals only care about what this weeks talking points from the DNC tell them to care about.

"which presumes dual loyalty."

The classic anti-Semitic trope of dual loyalty has its pin pulled and is rolled out into the middle of the room. The first problem is that there is no dual loyalty problem here. The interests of Israel and the United States align, they do not conflict. Only in the deluded minds of the Hussein administration and its leftist groupies is there a conflict. Hussein's operative theory of foreign relations seems to be to punish your allies (Britain, Israel, India, Poland) and reward your enemies (Iran, Russia, Pakistan, Venezuela). It is not working and impugning the loyalty of his critics is just as lame as the policy.

Posted by: Walter Sobchak | Jul 5, 2010 9:24:37 PM