Where Israel Bashing Pays Off

For casual political observers, it may have seemed counter-intuitive. As the campaign for the New York primary heats up, presidential candidates usually go into full pander protocol when it comes to Jewish voters in the only state where this group may actually have a real impact on the outcome. For most of them that usually consists of eating food, paying homage to religion (Ted Cruz went through the motion of trying to learn how to bake matzah) and, of course, reminding voters of their undying friendship for the state of Israel. But Bernie Sanders isn’t reciting the usual script about the Jewish state. After delivering a Middle East policy speech last month that was highly critical of Israel that he chose not to give at the AIPAC conference (the only presidential candidate to avoid their annual event this year) and then making a staggering exaggeration about the 2014 Gaza war that amounted to an accusation of a massive war crime during an interview with the New York Daily News, Sanders walked part of it back but actually doubled down on the underlying attack on Israel during another interview yesterday on CNN’s “State of the Nation.”

39
Shares
Google+ Print

Where Israel Bashing Pays Off

Must-Reads from Magazine

The Niger Ambush and the Neoconservative World

The demands of the post-9/11 world.

On October 4, four U.S. Special Forces soldiers were killed amid an ambush by Islamist insurgents in Niger. In grief and shock, Americans are starting to ask why the United States is so extended abroad, even to places like Sub-Saharan Africa where our geopolitical interests are unclear. Something went wrong in Niger. It is incumbent on both the press and Congress to seek out answers as to what happened. Without jeopardizing it, American voters deserve to have a fuller understanding of the U.S. mission in North Africa. Some, however, have used these deaths to vindicate their preexisting antipathy toward American troop commitments abroad. The impulse to posture scandalized about U.S. forward positioning is not just logically flawed; it is reflective of a misunderstanding of America’s role in a post-9/11 world.

11
Shares
Google+ Print

$32 Million? Oh, Really? No, O’Reilly

Podcast: A misconception about the war on terror.

On this week’s first COMMENTARY podcast, we stand agog at the personal $32 million payout by former #1 cable news star Bill O’Reilly and what it means about the sexual harassment scandals and the way they are changing the rules. Then we move on to simpler matters, like American foreign policy and the ambush in Niger. Give a listen.

3
Shares
Google+ Print

John Kelly Changed the Game

When Trump fights on values, he wins.

For approximately 18 minutes, White House Chief of Staff John Kelly accomplished the impossible: He got America’s journalists and political opinion writers to shut up and listen.

45
Shares
Google+ Print

Bush’s Finest Hour

More than just Trump.

On Thursday, George W. Bush delivered a speech at the “Spirit of Liberty: At Home, In The World” event in New York City. Headlines are touting the speech as an attack on Trumpism. That’s accurate, so far as it goes. But it’s clear from Bush’s words that he was aiming for (and achieved) something loftier than yet another complaint about the 45th president. Bush was making the case against the pervasive discontent that’s driven many citizens throughout the Democratic West to a politics of grievance and revenge. Trumpism is but one example.

52
Shares
Google+ Print

The Danger of the Me Too Campaign

Denunciations.

Silence, Wordsworth wrote, “is a privilege of the grave, a right of the departed. Let him, therefore, who infringes that right by speaking publicly of, for, or against, those who cannot speak for themselves, take heed that he opens not his mouth without a sufficient sanction.”

41
Shares
Google+ Print