| Author | Message | | Alpha | | Posted: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:06 pm Post subject: Ron Paul to Haaretz: Israel can get by without American aid |
| US (Zionist occupied Congress) approves increase in Israel aid as US states go broke:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2008/06/28/us-congress-approves-israel-aid-increase.php
Ron Paul to Haaretz: Israel can get by without American aid
By Shmuel Rosner
After an impressive showing in Iowa, the isolationist representative should do well in the 'live free or die' state.
The slight wound to Ron Paul's pride was visible as he recalled the decision by Fox News not to invite him to yesterday's Republican debate, but he hopes to gain even from his absence. "When there's an exclusion, it energizes the supporters," Paul, a U.S. congressman from Texas, said. He'll use the time freed up in his schedule for more appearances, more speeches. He was in Nashua, New Hampshire, yesterday, speaking to the Liberty Forum. No venue could be more fitting for this extraordinary Republican candidate. He stood out from the field in Saturday night's ABC news debate in Manchester, New Hampshire, particularly where U.S. foreign policy is concerned.
The Republican candidates are careful not to be too highly identified with the administration that will be leaving office in a year. Still, when it comes to terror and the war in Iraq, they give President George W. Bush considerable credit.
"The president got the big decision of his presidency right," Rudy Giuliani said. He meant the decision to "go on the offense" against terror. John McCain agreed, Mitt Romney agreed, Mike Huckabee agreed - albeit with slightly less enthusiasm - and Fred Thompson noted that this was a "global war." Afterward, the five began arguing with Paul, a Republican candidate who blamed American foreign policy for inviting and encouraging terror.
Advertisement
Paul rejects the "isolationist" label, but it's difficult to describe his positions in another manner. In Iowa he took 10 percent of the votes, way ahead of Giuliani's 3 percent and slightly behind McCain's 13 percent. No one believes he can win, but nevertheless in the final quarter of 2007, he raised the amazing sum of nearly $20 million, allowing him to remain in the race. The vast majority of the money came from hundreds of thousands of people who each gave less than $100. Most of them are young - allowing Paul to compare his draw to that of Democratic candidate Barack Obama - and very devoted. In New Hampshire, a state whose citizens have a strong tendency to believe that that government is best which governs least, and are among the most anti-tax people in the country, Paul hopes to do well - at least as well as he did in Iowa.
The most interesting political question about Paul concerns whether he will run as an independent after he loses the Republican nod. Paul refuses to promise that he won't, and one can already hear how would frame an independent run: "The investment was made by the supporters," he notes. They gave the money, they'll decide what to do with it. In other words, if they demand it, he will have no choice but to go forward.
Paul made time for a brief conversation with Haaretz a few days ago, after an appearance at Des Moines University, in Iowa. He spoke to students before holding a short press conference, and then stopped to talk about Israel a little. Much has already been written about Paul and Israel. Some have accused him of being anti-Israel and have found anti-Semitic sentiments among some of his supporters. A few of Paul's statements have teetered on the thin line between sharp criticism and dangerous conspiracy theories. For example: "The assumption is that AIPAC is in control of things, and they control the votes, and they get everybody to vote against anything that would diminish the Iraq war."
Representatives of Israel in the U.S., who make a point of maintaining contact with all of the candidates' campaign headquarters, have not bothered much with Paul. What could they say to a candidate whose supporters believe that Israel plays a central role in trying to provoke a U.S.-Iran war? How much schmoozing could they do with those who want the U.S. to get out of the Middle East?
Still, Paul is polite to the Israeli nudnik attempting to trip him up: "I'm not anti-Israel in any way," he says. Paul has no problem with the idea of America's maintaining good trade relations with Israel, or with with seeing Israeli tourists in the U.S. and vice versa. The suspicions about him, he assumes, come from the fact that he opposes economic and military aid to Israel. But, he stresses, it's not just Israel, it's any country. In fact, Paul explains, Israel only stands to gain from his position. "It's a good deal," he says, since when aid to Israel stops so would the aid to all the Arab states currently enjoying American patronage. It is true that Israel receives more than any of the Arab states, but, Paul notes, it receives less than they do put together. "The enemies would also be denied the money," he says.
"I believe in the sovereignty of Israel," Paul says. If Israel stops receiving U.S. aid, then it could do whatever it wants. If it wants peace, then it will make peace. In any event, Paul is certain that "It will do quite well." Israel doesn't really "need us."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/942091.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
US Support of Israel's brutal oppression of the Palestinians PRIMARY MOTIVATION for tragic attacks on the World Trade Center in 1993 and on 9/11:
http://www.warwithoutend.co.uk/wake-up-america-your-government-is-hijacked-by-zionism/2005/08/05/the-gorilla-in-the-room-is-us-support-for-israel.php
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1417
Firebrand Republican Congressman Ron Paul, the only GOP presidential candidate opposing the war in Iraq, also made big gains in the closing day of the campaign before the primary election. In both the Republican and Democratic races, five percent of likely voters said they remained undecided about whom they would support.
This is the last of five three–day tracking news reports that have been released in advance of today’s New Hampshire primary.
The GOP and Democratic three–day rolling tracking surveys were conducted using Zogby International’s live operator call center in Upstate New York. The GOP rolling sample included 859 likely voters and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.4 percentage points. The Democratic rolling sample included 862 likely voters and carries a margin of error of +/– 3.4 percentage points. Both tracking survey samples were taken between Jan. 5-7, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Paul on Leno ('Tonight Show') last night
From: "Karl"
Subject: Fwd: did you see Leno yet???
Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2008 08:37:35 -0500 (EST)
Begin forwarded message:
Holy cow. No wonder Fox is scared of this man.
Part 1: http://youtube.com/watch?v=-pxdmNzKNfU
Part 2: http://youtube.com/watch?v=KpsvXdXKmHA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://NOMOREWARFORISRAEL.BLOGSPOT.COM
http://NEOCONZIONISTTHREAT.BLOGSPOT.COM
Last edited by Alpha on Sun Jun 29, 2008 3:36 am; edited 1 time in total | |  | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:47 pm Post subject: |
| http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=12280
January 29, 2008
Ha'aretz Rates the Candidates
Philip Giraldi
It is perhaps no surprise that the media and chattering class in Israel are following the U.S. presidential nominating process with an intensity not to be seen anywhere else. The interest is somewhat odd, given that no fundamental shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship appears possible. Apart from Ron Paul, who has no chance to be nominated, no candidate is likely to challenge the "special relationship." Some critics of Middle Eastern policy have been hopeful that Barack Obama, who has less baggage on the issue than the other candidates, might approach the Israel-Palestine conundrum with a more open mind. Such hopes are fleeting, as Obama has adopted an increasingly strident pro-Israel line to make himself more electable. This line was apparently crafted by his key adviser on the region, Dennis Ross, a former State Department official who was the key negotiator between Palestinians and Israelis under President Bill Clinton. Ross has invariably tilted in the Israeli direction by defining most regional problems in terms of Israeli security concerns. When he is not advising Obama, Ross is now a "distinguished fellow" at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), the strongly pro-Israeli Washington think tank that was founded by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He is also a Middle East analyst for Fox News.
Israeli interest in the outcome of the election is legitimate, because the billions of dollars in U.S. economic and military aid are seen by most Israelis as crucial to their country's prosperity. For this same reason, it is worthwhile for Americans to note just how the Israeli media evaluates the various candidates' pro-Israel credentials. The Israeli national interest is clearly not identical to that of the United States, except possibly to AIPAC, but it would be difficult to discern the difference based on the comments being made by American presidential candidates. Indeed, many of the candidates sometimes seem as if they are actually running for office in Israel.
Ha'aretz, the more liberal of the two Israeli English language newspapers, assesses the presidential candidates in a monthly feature called "The Israel Factor: Ranking the Presidential Candidates," which rates the candidates from 1 to 10, with 10 being "best for Israel" and 1 being worst. The most recent "Israel Factor" appeared on Jan. 17. It should be noted that Republican Congressman Ron Paul is not included in the rankings because the Israeli panelists believe that to do so would be a "waste of time."
Rudy Giuliani is, not surprisingly, Tel Aviv's favorite son. He rates an 8.37 based on stirring rhetoric such as "Israel is the only outpost of freedom and democracy in the Middle East and the only absolutely reliable friend of the United States" and "the people of Jerusalem and the people of New York City are shoulder-to-shoulder; and the people of America and the people of Israel are shoulder-to-shoulder in the fight against terrorism." While in New York, Rudy picked up valuable points for having Yasser Arafat thrown out of a concert at Lincoln Center in 1995 and for turning down $10 million in post-9/11 aid from a Saudi prince when the prince had the temerity to question U.S. policy in the Middle East. Giuliani reiterated his anecdotes about Arafat and the Saudi prince in the most recent Republican debate, but it is not clear whether dissing the same Arabs twice with the same story is good for extra points or not. Giuliani had an 8.75 in last month's ranking, so he clearly is slipping and has to come up with some new material to regain his edge.
Hillary Clinton is a surprise number two in the Ha'aretz ranking, with a 7.62. She gets top grades for demanding that the U.S. embassy be shifted from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and also for some of her effusive affirmations of Israeli exceptionalism, calling it a "beacon of what democracy can and should mean." Hillary is apparently not familiar with the face of democracy in the West Bank territories that are still occupied. Nor is she shy about suborning U.S. interests to any old scheme for regional domination dreamed up by Israeli politicians, as she has also said that "the security and freedom of Israel must be decisive and remain at the core of any American approach to the Middle East." Hillary is a strong supporter of keeping Arabs out of Israel: "The top priority of any government is to ensure the safety and security of its citizens, and that is why I have been a strong supporter of Israel's right to build a security barrier to keep terrorists out. I have taken the International Court of Justice to task for questioning Israel's right to build the fence." (Note: A fence is about five feet high and is designed to keep horses and cattle from straying. Most people call Israel's 20-ft.-high solid masonry construction a wall, and large segments of it are built on Arab land.) Hillary apparently has not encouraged Chelsea to enlist in either the IDF or the U.S. armed forces, but she has no problem pounding on America's traditional European allies to make them do Israel's bidding. Addressing AIPAC in 2005, she said, "A nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable, but it is not just unacceptable to Israel and the United States. It must be unacceptable to the entire world, starting with the European governments and people."
John McCain, once the neocons' anointed as the candidate best equipped to light the flame of freedom in the Middle East, rates a strong but disappointing 7.12. Never having met an Israeli he couldn't admire and an Arab he couldn't disdain, he has said, "There can be no comprehensive peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians until the Palestinians recognize Israel, forswear forever the use of violence, recognize their previous agreements, and reform their internal institutions." "Between" would appear to imply a certain reciprocity, but John probably skipped his English classes at the Naval Academy. Like Hillary, he believes that good fences make good neighbors, and he is happy to help steal someone else's land to help out a friend: "The Oslo accord failed because it was based on the premise that the Palestinian and Israeli peoples could live peacefully together. The security fence will test whether they can live peacefully apart." He is also more than generous with American taxpayers' money: "America must provide Israel with whatever military equipment and technology she requires to defend herself, above and beyond what we supply today if necessary."
Mitt Romney only rates a 6.5 in spite of his courageous refusal to provide Massachusetts state troopers to protect former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami during his visit to the U.S. in 2006. As he put it at the time, "State taxpayers should not be providing special treatment to an individual who supports violent jihad and the destruction of Israel." Mitt, a self-described deep thinker, apparently was unaware that Khatami is a moderate who was in the U.S. in an attempt to establish dialogue to avert war. Khatami has never advocated jihad or the elimination of Israel. In the latest presidential debate, Romney called for "good schools" in the Arab world that are not "Wahhabi schools," a generalization that left some observers who actually know about the Middle East gasping.
Former candidate Fred Thompson, also at 6.5, scored some points in the Republican debate when he gave sage advice to the Iranians harassing U.S. naval vessels: "One more step and they would have been introduced to those virgins that they're looking forward to seeing." And then there is poor Mike Huckabee at a pathetic 6, an also-ran among stalwart Republicans seeking to kick Arab butt and go toe-to-toe with the hated mullahs. Mike is all for sending Iranians molesting U.S. ships to see the "gates of Hell" and is noted for his willingness to consider a Palestinian state located somewhere in the Arab world but not anywhere on the West Bank, which he considers part of Israel. He has visited Israel nine times, but apparently his standing around waiting for the Second Coming so he can be Raptured up to heaven doesn't impress the Ha'aretz panel.
At the bottom of the heap? Yes, it's Barack Obama with a 5. He has tried to demonstrate that he is true blue when it comes to Israel by manfully supporting last year's invasion of Lebanon, which killed more than 1,000 civilians and caused billions of dollars worth of damage: "I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves." I suppose that, In spite of the bad grammar, that came off a bit too eggheaded, not to mention mealy-mouthed. Obama lived for a while in Indonesia, which is known to be overrun with Muslims. He could himself be some kind of crypto-Islamofascist, and a few years ago he had some nice things to say about Palestinians. You lose, Barack. | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:57 am Post subject: |
| Election power of the Israel lobby
By Rob Winder
Hillary Clinton is among the strongest supporters of Israel [GALLO/GETTY]
As US presidential candidates battle it out to become the leader of the world's only superpower there is one subject on which they all, in public at least, agree - the US relationship with Israel.
To leading politicians on both sides of the partisan divide the special relationship is sacrosanct, largely due, critics say, to the power of pro-Israel lobby groups.
In focus
In depth coverage of the
US presidential election
Those critics also say that pro-Israeli groups are set to play a major role in the forthcoming election battle, both in terms of funding candidates and by publicly criticising any candidate critical of Israel or the US's relationship with it.
John Mearsheimer, who alongside Stephen Walt is the author of a controversial series of articles and a recent book on the Israel lobby, told Al Jazeera: "Almost all of the major candidates are falling over themselves to demonstrate how deeply committed they are to America's special relationship with Israel.
"Hardly a word of criticism is directed at anything Israel does and that is due to the activities of the lobby."
What is the pro-Israel lobby?
US aid to Israel
- Military aid: 2.25bn
- Economic aid: 237m
- Immigration aid: 40m
- Other: 0.5m
Source: CRS report for US congress, 2006 figures
The lobby is made up of dozens of pro-Israel political action committees that draw a large part of their support from the US Jewish community and provide funding to presidential candidates.
But Christian Zionists, who are among the most vociferous supporters of Israel in the US, also play a major role.
They believe that by strengthening and supporting the state of Israel, they are more likely to bring about the "second coming" of Jesus as prophesied in the Bible.
At the lobby's vanguard is the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac), which works mainly in US congress.
It boasts its recent "victories" include the US decision to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation, securing US aid to Israel and freezing US aid to the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority in 2006.
Money and power
Defenders of the Israel lobby say that the views of presidential candidates are really a natural reflection of the views of most Americans and that it has little influence over elections.
US money pays for Israeli military equipment
used in Gaza and Lebanon [GALLO/GETTY]
But money talks in politics and the figures tell a different story.
The Centre for Responsive Politics (CRP), which monitors the role of money in US politics, says pro-Israeli groups and individuals have already donated more than $845,000 to presidential candidates in the 2008 campaign - 70 per cent of it to Democrats.
In the entire 2004 presidential campaign pro-Israel interests contributed at least $6.1 million to federal candidates and parties.
"Money translates into influence in Washington, so generally the interests that spend the most money are going to get the best access and results," says Massie Ritch, communications director at the CRP.
And it is outside of the presidential race and in congress, which holds the purse strings on the key area of aid to Israel, that the lobby makes its financial mark.
Aipac and other groups spent more than $1.5 million on federal lobbying in 2006 and more than $1.25 million in the first half of 2007, meaning that this year could be a record one for the lobby.
The pro-Israel lobby accounts for about one-quarter of all foreign policy lobbying on Capitol Hill, the CRP says.
Arab efforts to put their case across are, in contrast, minimal.
The National Association of Arab-Americans and the American Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee reported spending just $80,000 on federal lobbying in 2006 and $40,000 in the first six months of 2007.
The financial power of the Israel lobby also allows it to provide one-sided information to US politicians not always familiar with the complexities of conflict in the Middle East.
Aipac provides educational trips to congressman and their staff - more trips than any other sponsor, according to the CRP.
"Members of congress and their staffs have been to Tel Aviv more often in recent years than they've been to Chicago," says Ritch.
Anti-Semitism charges
Aipac's defenders say that this is where the organisation plays an important role, as an information source for politicians - including US presidential candidates.
Barack Obama has come in for criticism
from Aipac supporters [GALLO/GETTY]
But critics say that pro-Israel lobby groups go much further - as John Mearsheimer says: "The lobby monitors what the candidates say very closely."
In March, Democratic candidate Barack Obama gave a speech in the key primary state of Iowa where he said: "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."
A local Aipac member immediately contacted the media to denounce the comment, describing it as "deeply troubling".
In July Jim Moran, a Democratic congressman who has criticised Aipac in the past, accused the organisation of pushing for war on Iraq.
Seventeen members of congress immediately wrote a letter to Moran condemning him and saying that his remarks "unfortunately fit the anti-Semitic stereotypes some have used historically used against Jews".
Eric Cantor, the house of representatives Republican deputy chief whip, reportedly went further and was quoted as as saying: "Unfortunately, Jim Moran has made it a habit now to lash out to the American-Jewish community.
"I think his remarks are reprehensible, I think his remarks are anachronistic, and hearken back to the day of Adolf Hitler."
In such a political climate it is easy to see why those seeking a job in the Oval Office are wary of speaking out for any change in the US relationship with Israel or against Aipac.
The charge of anti-Semitism is regularly used by the Israel and lobby and was one of the charges faced by John Mearsheimer.
"We are not anti-Semites and the book is not anti-Semitic," he says.
"Calling critics of Israeli policy or the US-Israel relationship is standard operating procedure for the lobby. It's the standard strategy they use to stifle criticism of Israel and to marginalise those critics."
Military action
Beyond the politics of elections, the lobby's critics say that pro-Israeli groups, after pushing for war on Iraq, are now advocating military action against Iran.
Jim Moran has said Aipac pushed the
US into war on Iraq [GALLO/GETTY]
"If you look at who is pushing the US to use military force against Iran, the two driving forces are Israel and the Israel lobby," says Mearsheimer.
Jim Moran, in an interview with the Tikkun, a Jewish peace magazine, said US action against Iran is proposed only because it is a threat to Israel.
"No one's suggested that Iran is a potential threat to the United States," he told the magazine, "any more than Iraq could ever have been a threat to the United States."
"In effect, all the same groups and individuals who were pushing for war against Iraq are pushing for war against Iran."
Aipac, however, vehemently denies it is asking for anything other than sanctions.
"Aipac solely advocates sanctions as the best way to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons or the capability to make them," Josh Block, an Aipac spokesman, told Al Jazeera.
Real friendship
Mearsheimer argues that the US needs to normalise its relationship with Israel, treating it more like the UK, Germany or India.
He and other critics, from both inside and outside the Jewish community in the US, argue that Israel also suffers from its privileged position in terms of US aid.
They believe that the Israel lobby's support in the US encourages Israel to act without fear of international sanction.
This has emboldened Israeli leaders to sanction the illegal occupation of Palestinian land, the building of settlements and for the Israeli military to carry out numerous human rights abuses.
"If these presidential candidates were real friends of Israel as they claim to be, they would not only be criticising Israel for its policies in the occupied territories ... they would be arguing that the US put significant pressure on Israel and the Palestinians to reach an agreement on a two-state solution," Mearsheimer told Al Jazeera.
"That's what a real friend would do."
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/71B0C3D9-B04C-4717-88D8-33FBE1F1533A.htm | | | | Alpha | | Posted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 8:01 am Post subject: |
| Israel Commentary
Neglected information and opinion relative to Israel, the Middle East and the immediate world.
January 29, 2008
Why Barack Hussein Obama?
By Hillel Halkin
New York Sun, January 22, 2008
Even before the recent brouhaha about Barack Obama's membership in a church whose minister is openly pro-Farrakhan and anti-Israel, I found the thought of his becoming the next president of America unnerving. It was not just, because his rhetoric, general outlook and location in the Democratic Party did not encourage one to think that he would tend if elected to be a particularly strong backer of Israel.
Perhaps I've grown cynical and jaded, but I've never been able to understand what the excitement generated by Mr. Obama in his supporters is all about.Although he is constantly, being called by them "dynamic" and "charismatic," every time I've watched him on TV has made me feel that I was looking at a stick-figure politician who spoke entirely in clichés. That his trite phrases were laced with verbal stimulants like "hope" and "change" hardly made them any less tired-sounding to my ears, even if they seemed to work like a shot of adrenalin on millions of Americans.
(Why so many millions of people in a country that has changed more in the last 50 years than any other society in history in a similar period should want still more change is something I have trouble fathoming too, but that's a subject for a different column.)
Politicians are rarely spontaneous animals and can't usually afford to be, but I've rarely seen one who strikes me as more calculated or programmed than Mr. Obama. Watch his eyes when he raises his arms and lifts his voice with emotion at a dramatic moment in a speech; they remain cool and appraising, as if they were standing back from the rest of him to rate himself and his audience. You can see him assessing his effect on his listeners as he speaks.
In my book, that's working a crowd, not charisma. I don't deny that it's impressive that less than 50 years after the fall of racial segregation, America seems capable of electing its first black president. (Who is, of course, half-white? It's a curious fact about liberal America that it continues to accept the old white supremacist notion that any amount of African blood in a man makes him "black" — but that's a subject for another column, too.)
This is something America can justifiably feel proud of. And indeed, it does feel proud of it — to the point, one suspects, that the only racism at work in Mr. Obama's campaign is the kind that is in his favor. To ask a politically incorrect question: If the junior senator from Illinois, with two years of undistinguished service in the Senate behind him, were white, could he ever have succeeded in making himself a serious presidential contender? Who would have taken the slightest interest in him?
Mr. Obama is, as Brutus said of Cassius, a lean and hungry man. But, does that qualify him to run the most powerful country on earth? Of course it doesn't, although lack of qualifications is not always a crucial defect. What's crucial is to appreciate that one lacks them.
Mr. Obama has been compared with Abraham Lincoln, another inexperienced Illinois politician who ran for president. But Lincoln was only too well aware of his own inadequacies — it was that which helped to make him great. The knowledge that he was nevertheless the man who would have to see America through the terrible crisis that he was elected to deal with was a source of anguish to him. If Mr. Obama had Lincoln's humility, he'd understand that it wouldn't have hurt him to finish out his term in Congress before applying for the world's most important job.
Of course, 2008 is not 1860. While the America of the Civil War years might not have survived any president other than Lincoln, the America of today will certainly survive Mr. Obama if it has to. In the unlikely eventuality that he ends up in the White House, one imagines that he will upset those who voted against him far less than he will disappoint those who voted for him.
You can run in an election, as he is doing, on the basis of substance less rhetoric, but you can't govern a country with it, let alone a country on which much of the world depends for leadership and support. After four years of President Obama, one imagines, America might really be ready for change.
All this is before one considers the sorry case of Jeremiah Wright, the pastor of Mr. Obama's congregation in the United Church of Christ who has reportedly called Jews "bloodsuckers" and who recently presented Louis Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award in a gala ceremony.
A prominent Jewish communal leader from Chicago whom I talked to the other day tried to reassure me that this wasn't so serious. He can vouch for the fact, he said, that Mr. Obama has nothing against Jews or Israel.
I daresay he's probably right. But the problem, as has been observed, is not that Mr. Obama needs to be suspected of agreeing with Pastor Wright. It's that he didn't think it sufficiently important to disagree with him by getting up and leaving his church.
Israel is fighting a losing battle in the world arena precisely because the great majority of the world's politicians, intellectuals and media figures, though not necessarily against the Jewish state, think like Mr. Obama that the attack now taking place on its legitimacy isn't worrisome enough to warrant their doing anything about it.
This isn't so much a question of Mr. Obama's public relations as it is one of his private understanding and conscience. Perhaps four more years in the Senate will help these to mature some more.
Mr. Halkin is a contributing editor of The New York Sun.
Posted by Jerome S. Kaufman at 10:39 PM | Comments (0)
January 27, 2008 | | | | Alpha | | | | | ©2002-2009 WarWithoutEnd.co.uk |
