The Informationist, a blog written by Bruce Abramson

Zionist and Proud

The State of Israel turned 65 last month.  Though I may have missed the moment, it remains a fine season to pronounce loudly and proudly that I am a Zionist. 

I am extraordinarily proud of the Jewish state.  I believe that in the years since the land emerged from the last of a long line of invaders and colonial powers, Israel has indeed become a light to the nations—the demonstrable near-universal preference for darkness notwithstanding.

Success under ideal conditions is a noteworthy achievement.  Israel has learned how to thrive under conditions as adverse as those facing any nation on the planet.  The country has opened its arms to countless immigrants; developed a world-class economy; demonstrated unrivaled excellence in innovation and education; established truly liberal governance and a genuinely independent judiciary; quelled brutal ethnic uprisings with unequaled restraint; enacted a generous social safety network; and never once deviated from the state’s liberal underpinnings.  It has achieved all of these goals under constant threat of annihilation, and amidst overwhelming opprobrium.  Indeed, the Jewish State has become the Jew of the States—proving that the unthinkable is doable, and meeting near-universal resentment for doing so.

Alan Dershowitz at the JPost Conference: A Case Study in Elitist Arrogance

It's rare that direct personal experience provides an opportunity to call a prominent speaker to task.  The esteemed Professor Dershowitz of Harvard Law School has provided me with such an opportunity.

For the past couple of weeks, Dershowitz has been positioning himself as a martyr in the cause of peace.  For example, in today's Jerusalem Post, he writes: "I was booed and jeered at the Jerusalem Post Conference on April 28, 2013 when I proposed an idea for restarting peace negotiations with the Palestinian Authority."  

Don't believe it for a minute.  I was at that conference and in that audience.  It was Dershowitz that was entirely out of line, demonstrating rare arrogance and contempt for people eager to hear what he had to say.

On The Obama II Foreign Policy Team

President Obama added clarity to his foreign policy plans for his second term today.  He announced his plans to nominate John Brennan to head the CIA and Chuck Hagel to head the Pentagon--rounding out a team that started with his announcement of John Kerry as his Secretary of State.

I have three immediate thoughts about this team:

First, it represents American weakness at its best.  These folks will work together to the detriment of American interests and American allies around the world.  The damage that they do may be incalculable.

Second, this team is a fair and accurate reflection of President Obama's worldview.  He, like they, see America as a nation in decline, retreating from the world, and hoping only to do so in an orderly fashion.  He, like they, views Israel as an irritant, and nuclear powers like Iran and North Korea as manageable problems.  None of them put much stock in liberty or human rights outside our borders, reasoning (in grand tradition) that as long as other nations do not attack us overtly, their treatment of their own citizens is none of our business.

Third, this team continues the party realignment that I have been writing about for nearly a decade.  Yes, Hagel was a Republican.  In fact, he was precisely the sort of Republican who kept me from supporting the Republican Party.  Back when I was an active Democrat, nearly all of my Democratic friends viewed Chuck Hagel as among the worst of the worst.  I suppose that the message is that they made their peace with Hagel; I made my peace with a Republican Party that relegated Hagel to the sidelines.

All told, these appointments make a great deal of sense.  Over the past decade, large parts of the old Republican isolationist and "realist" establishment has made common cause with the old Democratic peace movement.  Today's Democratic Party provides a comfortable home for all who have viewed the U.S. as needlessly aggressive and insufficiently attentive to the needs of others.  

Let no one say that these appointments caught them by surprise.  President Obama has not been subtle in expressing his worldview.  Those of us who voted against him on foreign policy grounds find these appointments appalling.  I hope that those who voted for him on foreign policy grounds find these appointments exhilirating.  Because otherwise, shame on them!

Bibi's Gift to Obama

Events in Gaza occur on multiple levels.  In the foreground, the IDF is fighting Hamas forces.  In the background, an important round of the U.S./Iran proxy war is unfolding.  Here is why:

In the front story, Hamas chose to use the days following the Obama reelection to escalate its persistent missile attacks on Israel.  Israel chose to respond to this escalation with a significant show of force.  But the real action may be in the back story.    

With this current action in Gaza, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has given Obama an opportunity to achieve his goals vis-à-vis Iran.

Happy Birthday, Israel!

Happy Yom Ha’atzmaut!  Israel’s Independence Day.  On this date (on the Jewish calendar) in 1948, the world witnessed one of history’s greatest expressions of national renewal and self-determination.  Like many new nations, Israel was born under fire; it exists today only because its local militia was able to secure stability when the imperial power withdrew.  Israel’s accomplishments—all achieved under that same fire—have been remarkable.  Despite heavy odds and constant provocation, it has managed to thrive as a free, open, democratic, liberal state.  A decade ago, when I watched the IDF respond with humanity and humility to the most barbaric wave of terrorism that the developed world has seen since WWII, I swelled with pride.  Its actions allowed me to look deep into my own Jewish traditions and wonder what it was that gave us this strength.  Israel at 64 truly does stand as a light to the nations—far too many of whom are much happier in the dark.  Happy Birthday, Israel!

 

Where Do The U.S., EU, And UN Encourage Restrictive Housing Covenants?

Cross-posted at breitbart.com's BigPeace

Quick.  Look at a map of the world and put an “X” through all the places that should be off-limits to Black residents.  Great.  Now put an “X” through all the places from which we should ban Muslims.  Then, just for good measure, “X” out all the places from which we should prohibit Chinese, Latinos, and gays.  Now look up.

Got any “Xs” on your map?  I hope not, because the exercise is hugely offensive.  Only a hard-core racist or homophobe would base housing restrictions on ethnic origin, religious affiliation, or sexual orientation.  The elimination of racial restrictions in housing was among the first, and most important, victories of the civil rights movement in the U.S., and few today would defend apartheid.  In fact, we have come so far from the days that racial covenants were standard clauses in real estate contracts that the mere suggestion of such an exercise should generate widespread revulsion.

But, let’s try one more, just for laughs.  Look back down at your map and put an “X” through all the places that should be off-limits to Jewish residents.  Got any “Xs” on your map now?

A Safe Space for the Middle East?

A recent exchange on my FaceBook wall—and one that occurred largely without my input at moment that I was not monitoring it closely—motivated this post.

I wish I knew how to create a safe space for serious discussion, particularly about Middle East politics at a time that that troubled region is once again in the news.  Regrettably, given the poison already in the atmosphere, the best that I can do is to step in occasionally to tone things down when they verge on becoming out of hand.  The specific issue in play was whether a particular line of questioning concerning Israeli land and construction policy was necessarily anti-Semitic.

Oh, Those Canadians

Having recently visited the US and Canada, I was left with a feeling of profound disquiet concerning the starkly contrasting attitudes toward Israel displayed by the leaders of these two neighboring countries.

via www.jpost.com

So let's see. Canada has had a better economic recovery than the U.S., possesses a stronger currency than the U.S., and advocates a more moral foreign policy than the U.S. Their health care system, on the other hand, sends people in need of prompt, serious care scurrying south across the border.

Of all the things to try to import from Canada...

Informationist Speaking Event | The 2010 Mid-Term Elections and the State of Israel

Join two politically astute leaders and ardent supporters of theState of Israel, Bruce Abramson and Sam Lauter,as they discuss the effect of the "new" Congress will have on Israel re The Peace Process, the threat from Iran and other Jewish issues.This event is free and open to the publicCall 415-388-1818 Ext. 111 for information

http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=166819166669724

So...having come through an election focused entirely on domestic policy, I've been invited to speak about its implications to Israel. (Or, as some might say: "Yes, yes. Jobs, health care, taxes. But is it good for the
Jews?"). If you're in the Bay Area and free Sunday morning, come join us. Should be fun all around.

The Real Jewish Litmus Test

Cross Posted at The Republican Jewish Coalition

There is a simplistic, though popular, view that Jewish Americans base our votes on a single issue: Israel. This view is common not only among those who like to slander us with accusations of “dual loyalty,” but also among those who would like to buy our acquiescence on a variety of other issues by saying favorable things about Israel.

As popular as this belief may be in some quarters, it is flat out wrong. In fact, all recent evidence points to the contrary. By 2004, large parts of the world believed that a Zionist conspiracy had seized control of the Bush administration. Jewish voters evidently did not share that view; we (myself included) voted 3-to-1 against him. In 2008, the GOP nominated John McCain, a candidate with unrivaled and unquestionable pro-Israel credentials. The Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, was at least questionable in his views. Obama improved slightly on John Kerry’s lead among Jewish voters (though he lost mine). In two consecutive presidential elections, then, Jewish American voters opposed the candidate with the “better” record on Israel by decisive margins. Why?