Naomi Chazan is a former leader of Israel’s far-left Meretz party who served in the Knesset for many years. Of course that places her far to the right of most of the people who write about Israel in the Nation. So her recitation of the woes of the Israeli left there was actually a change of pace from the litany of anti-Israel material so typical of that publication.
Not that Chazan refrains from opposing Israel’s attempts to defend its citizens against Hamas rockets. She opposed the incursion but is honest enough to admit that her views are shared by a tiny minority of Israelis and that even most on the left thought it was high time for the government to try and do something to stop the rain of missiles on northern Negev communities.
Also interesting is her “plague on both your houses” reactions to Israel’s foreign defenders and critics. On the one hand, she can’t stand the way Americans stand up for Israel since it undermines the efforts of the far left to push for more concessions. But she’s also unhappy that the opposition to the Gaza operation was generally based on opposition to any form of self-defense by the Jews:
The viciousness of the criticism of Israel has all too often crossed the thin line between condemning its actions and questioning its existence. I, along with most Israelis, refuse to accede to the demand for my own demise.
That’s the sort of sentiment that passes for hard-line Zionism at forums like the Nation.
Of course Chazan, who currently serves as president of the New Israel Fund — a group that raises money from liberal Americans to support a wide variety of causes in Israel, including some Arab groups that themselves seek to demonize the Jewish state — still isn’t prepared to draw any sensible conclusions from either the behavior of the Palestinians or Hamas’s foreign cheerleaders.
Though the policies that she has spent her life promoting have failed time after time (the reason the left is about to lose Israel’s elections next week), Chazan still thinks all the peace process needs is one more good push by President Obama. Her belief that “the vast majority of Israelis and Palestinians who yearn for a decent life can treat each other with mutual respect and human dignity” is only half right. Even after all that has happened in the 15 1/2 disastrous years since the Oslo Accords, most Israelis would make far-reaching concessions to achieve real peace. But the Palestinians have proven time and again that they are more interested in irredentist jihad than peace.
Since most Israelis are also uninterested in acceding to demands for their “own demise,” Chazan has found herself on the margins of her country’s politics, where she belongs. Hopefully, Obama will take that into account when he ponders whether to take the advice of those who share her blind faith in a failed process.
Tony Rezko for New Housing Czar
Barak Obama has faced–and has successfully solved– major crises before. Notably, he has previously dealt efectively with crises in housing. It happened in Illinois.
Several years ago, Barak and Michele wanted to buy a Chicago mansion with six fireplaces and a 5000 bottle wine cellar. But, like many other aspiring home owners who now are caught in the sub-prime crisis, Barak and Michele could not really afford the home they wanted to buy. Obama, then a newly elected US senator, found an ingenious solution.
Barak invited his colleague and friend Tony Rezko, who was widely reported to be under investigation by US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald for bribery and influence peddling, to view and tour the property the Obamas were interested in acquiring. Apparently, Rezko’s propensity for influence peddling was not a disqualification for the kind of housing solution Obama had in mind.
Out of Tony’s house tour with Barak came a creative solution to the Obamas’ mortgage problem: Rezko would buy the backyard of the house the Obamas aspired to own; Michele and Barak would buy the house itself without its backyard for a reduced price that they could afford. Tony, as an unselfish and generous act, would fence his new backyard so that the only access to it was through the Obamas’ property. And Tony would even pay a gardener to keep the grass cut. Barak felt this deal was okay because it obviously could have nothing to do with an attempt by Tony to bribe or to peddle influence with a United States senator.
I think it is clear that Obama does have the kind of experience and ingenuity needed to solve our housing crisis. His past experience even involves solutions that have other people paying for the home you can’t afford. Obama and Tony Rezko have shown that such an arrangement can work.
Obviously, we should get Tony Rezko to join the Obama administration as the new Housing Czar. There are, however, a few questions still to be resolved. Can Rezko pass the White House vetting process? Would he require an ethics waiver? Has he paid his taxes? Who knows which federal prison he is now in and how we can get in touch with him? And, can Attorney General Holder arrange a pardon?
Two things, in order of importance:) You should absolutely twitter – it’s a Republican thaing: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/feb/17/gop-jumps-on-tech-bandwagon-to-rival-obama/
And secondly, why is no one asking WhoDunnit about the Sept. 15th electronic run on banks? Is this economic jihad? Is Obama aiding and abetting? http://www.capitalismgonewild.com/2009/02/electronic-run-on-banks-550-billion.html
The Obama meltdown was surely not entirely caused by Obama. However, it would seem that there is more than coincidence at work when the market is down 40% since he took a permanent lead in the campaign, 30% since the election, 25% since the first of the year when he began announcing policy and personnel and 20% since the inauguration. On an absolute scale, this is the most rapid destruction of wealth in history.
Re: his healthcare and energy bait and switch, I could be wrong, but my analogy would be that Obama inherited a boat that needed a significant overhaul including varnish, new sails and, probably, eventually, better food and medical stores. He’s found himself in the middle of a boat threatening hurricane and — great news! — he’s working to get that varnish on.
Wow, what happened with the ‘hammer? He must have lost a load of dough in the market. Only six months ago, he was smoking from the same Obama-bong as Brooks and Frum. The intellegence, the temperament…. One by one, they are sobering up.
Frankie Holmes has some interesting perspectives:
http://www.usfunds.com/franktalk/
The Krauthammer article is excellent. Everyone should read it. Obama found the nation in a crisis situation. Instead of asking, “How can I get us out of this?” he asked “how can I use this to accomplish my most radical goals?” He simply blames the crisis on anything he wants to change, and he has an instant rationale for changing it.
There’s nothing especially clever in this. It’s an old trick. But the dishonesty, and the flagrant disregard for its impact on the nation’s economy and Americans’ savings, is deplorable.
Re: Is all the president’s data on health care as junky as his bankruptcy statistic? Let’s hope not
I hate it when statistical data is presented in “real-world terms” such as “one medical bankruptcy every 30 seconds” or “one rape every 3 minutes.”
What is supposed to be a helpful, common-sense yardstick is in fact a barrier to proper understanding of the data. I finally broke down and calculated what “one every 30 seconds” comes to. It’s a little over 1 million. Out of a population of 300 million. Is this really shockingly high? Evidence of a healthcare system in crisis? I don’t think so. Would it be “confusing” to the average American to just tell us that 0.3 percent of Americans file for bankruptcy because of medical costs? I think we could process that data, and I think we would collectively yawn over it.
Regarding the timing of stock market ups and downs..
It is incorrect to date President Obama’s effects on the market to Election Day or Inauguration Day. The market takes account of the the probabilities of future events. Long before Election Day, market prices reflected the expectation that he would win. From that day forward, market prices reflected the certainty that he would be president. Therefore, some portion of market behavior in 2008 (especially the latter half) reflected rational expectations of future economic and budget policy under an Obama Administration.
To some extent, this also was true with respect to HR 1 (the “stimulus” bill) and his proposed FY 2009 budget. The market reaction since these events reflects the extent to which their contents were surprising. Apparently, much of the market has been surprised.
It all started when Obama made Palin do the Couric interview — he deliberately sabotaged the GOP instead of looking for bipartisan solutions.
Hey, that look very interesting!