Mitt Romney & Benjamin Netanyahu Are Old Friends - NYTimes.com
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?_r=2&ref=politics&pagewanted=all
RRD:Now this is certainly interesting:Both the relationship between Romney and Netenyahu in and of itself,and the fact that the Times is,in effect,sounding the alarm.
I jokingly told a relative about the fact that there was a story being published "warning",that in effect, our foreign policy would be "outsourced" to Tel Aviv if Romney got in,(oddly the Times does not seem to object to it being effectively "outsourced" to Hamas and Tehran,as it is now.) The relative said:"In a anti-semitic periodical?"
"In the New York Times",I said."Exactly,in a anti-semitic periodical". It is also interesting to note that the Times speaks of how the Romney-Netanyahu relationship would affect the views of "neoconsevatives"(fn1),and Evangelicals,as if these were the only two groups in the U.S. who viewed Netanyahu favorably.
They seem to regard the relationship as being immaterial to how the average American Jew regards Romney.
They are forgetting their ”Mearsheimer & Walt”;”American Jews have divided loyalties”,narrative.
Surely American Jews will leap to embrace Romney now!
Of course they won't.
The reality is that the loyalty of most Democratic Jews is not divided;it is steadfast.It is not steadfastly devoted to Israel.It is not steadfastly devoted to the United States.
It is not even steadfastly devoted to beliefs & principles.
It is steadfastly devoted to the Democratic Party,& would be still,if the party's formal plank called for the destruction of Israel & the United States.
In the minds of most Democratic Jews,not only is Obama pro-Israel,but whatever Obama says or does automatically becomes pro-Israel.If Obama says that Israel needs to be ”saved from itself”, then that will now be the new "pro-Israel" position in their ”minds”.
If Obama says,right after Hamas has publicly mourned Bin Laden's death,that Israel must make peace with these barbarians,that will become their new pro-Israel position.
If Obama hires overt anti-semites, like Samantha Power ("So much of it,is,is he good for the Jews”),and Chas Freeman,doing so is further proof of his love for Israel since Obama is willing to hear "contrasting points of view". Yet at the same time,these Democratic Jews quake in fear of Evangelicals,Republicans,and philo-semites like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,and leap to defend scum like Soros,someone who--as a adult--described his childhood during the Holocaust as being the happiest period of his life,blamed Jews and Israel for anti-semitism,and said that America needed "de-nazification". But he is,after all,a Holocaust Survivor. I used to believe,as some of my naive friends still do,that once those American Jews,who proclaim their support for Israel,were shown what Obama was,& who he choose as his advisors,that they would change their view of him. My error was in assuming that the Democratic Jews who spoke of Israel's importance to them were sincere,& that they were open to being persuaded by facts.
They weren't.
They are members of a cult,the cult is not Judaism,or even Liberalism,the cult is the mindless worship of the Democratic party. So in that sense,the Times is correct.
Obama has nothing to fear,after all,those who are truly supportive of Israel believe that Obama needs to ”smack Netanyahu around”,just like a older brother smacks around a drunken younger brother. Footnotes:
fn1.
The term Neo-Conservative has a actual,correct meaning,it refers to a intellectual movement of ex-liberals headed by Irving Kristol,and his son William Kristol of the Weekly Standard,& also to those influenced by them.But it is currently used to mean ”anyone & everyone with whom I disagree with whose foreign policy is more hawkish than mine”,a usage which ignores important distinctions between hawkish Conservatives & Objectivists & libertarians on the one hand & Neo-Conservatives on the other.
The latter for example,tend to emphasize ”spreading Democracy” (almost exclusively through elections),even if the "Democracy" in question results in a Theocratic Dictatorship that is committed to our destruction & the oppression of Gays,Christians,Women & Jews,& ”apostates”.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/08/us/politics/mitt-romney-and-benjamin-netanyahu-are-old-friends.html?_r=2&ref=politics&pagewanted=all
RRD:Now this is certainly interesting:Both the relationship between Romney and Netenyahu in and of itself,and the fact that the Times is,in effect,sounding the alarm.
I jokingly told a relative about the fact that there was a story being published "warning",that in effect, our foreign policy would be "outsourced" to Tel Aviv if Romney got in,(oddly the Times does not seem to object to it being effectively "outsourced" to Hamas and Tehran,as it is now.) The relative said:"In a anti-semitic periodical?"
"In the New York Times",I said."Exactly,in a anti-semitic periodical". It is also interesting to note that the Times speaks of how the Romney-Netanyahu relationship would affect the views of "neoconsevatives"(fn1),and Evangelicals,as if these were the only two groups in the U.S. who viewed Netanyahu favorably.
They seem to regard the relationship as being immaterial to how the average American Jew regards Romney.
They are forgetting their ”Mearsheimer & Walt”;”American Jews have divided loyalties”,narrative.
Surely American Jews will leap to embrace Romney now!
Of course they won't.
The reality is that the loyalty of most Democratic Jews is not divided;it is steadfast.It is not steadfastly devoted to Israel.It is not steadfastly devoted to the United States.
It is not even steadfastly devoted to beliefs & principles.
It is steadfastly devoted to the Democratic Party,& would be still,if the party's formal plank called for the destruction of Israel & the United States.
In the minds of most Democratic Jews,not only is Obama pro-Israel,but whatever Obama says or does automatically becomes pro-Israel.If Obama says that Israel needs to be ”saved from itself”, then that will now be the new "pro-Israel" position in their ”minds”.
If Obama says,right after Hamas has publicly mourned Bin Laden's death,that Israel must make peace with these barbarians,that will become their new pro-Israel position.
If Obama hires overt anti-semites, like Samantha Power ("So much of it,is,is he good for the Jews”),and Chas Freeman,doing so is further proof of his love for Israel since Obama is willing to hear "contrasting points of view". Yet at the same time,these Democratic Jews quake in fear of Evangelicals,Republicans,and philo-semites like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck,and leap to defend scum like Soros,someone who--as a adult--described his childhood during the Holocaust as being the happiest period of his life,blamed Jews and Israel for anti-semitism,and said that America needed "de-nazification". But he is,after all,a Holocaust Survivor. I used to believe,as some of my naive friends still do,that once those American Jews,who proclaim their support for Israel,were shown what Obama was,& who he choose as his advisors,that they would change their view of him. My error was in assuming that the Democratic Jews who spoke of Israel's importance to them were sincere,& that they were open to being persuaded by facts.
They weren't.
They are members of a cult,the cult is not Judaism,or even Liberalism,the cult is the mindless worship of the Democratic party. So in that sense,the Times is correct.
Obama has nothing to fear,after all,those who are truly supportive of Israel believe that Obama needs to ”smack Netanyahu around”,just like a older brother smacks around a drunken younger brother. Footnotes:
fn1.
The term Neo-Conservative has a actual,correct meaning,it refers to a intellectual movement of ex-liberals headed by Irving Kristol,and his son William Kristol of the Weekly Standard,& also to those influenced by them.But it is currently used to mean ”anyone & everyone with whom I disagree with whose foreign policy is more hawkish than mine”,a usage which ignores important distinctions between hawkish Conservatives & Objectivists & libertarians on the one hand & Neo-Conservatives on the other.
The latter for example,tend to emphasize ”spreading Democracy” (almost exclusively through elections),even if the "Democracy" in question results in a Theocratic Dictatorship that is committed to our destruction & the oppression of Gays,Christians,Women & Jews,& ”apostates”.
No comments:
Post a Comment