President Obama began his relationship with Israel by having President Benjamin Netanyahu walk out the back door of the White House past the trash. It got worse from there. At the AIPAC speech, President Obama told the Jewish audience that he saw an Israel with redrawn, and suicidally indefensible, lines. He liked the Israel pre-1967.
Finally, some Jews have had it.
In NY-9, a mostly conservative Jewish enclave in Brooklyn that voted reliably Democrat all the way back to the 1920s, just fell to the Republicans in a special election. Jews were eager to vote against the Democrats. And Obama.
Does this spell the demise of the left’s historical relationship with American Jews? Maybe. Please listen to Evan Pokroy go through the history of the American – Israel relationship and the changing landscape of Judaism and the conservative movement in America. I found his perspective fascinating.
This topic takes on added significance as Republican presidential hopefuls like Rick Perry sponsor events to woo Jewish voters. American conservatives are staunchly pro-Israel.
Please listen to Evan share his thoughts with me!
Why the UN Council going after Israel is dangerous:
Tactics deployed to hurt Israel inevitably cause collateral damage. It’s a good thing that the United States, and a handful of European countries, have opposed the referral of Israel to a war crimes tribunal, but they aren’t doing enough (and, of course, France and Great Britain absented themselves from the vote). They would do more, I think, if they understood that Israel represented a kind of test run for a uniquely nefarious idea. Israel may find itself in the docket soon, but the U.S., and Britain, and other Western democracies that are battling Islamist terror, may soon find themselves in similiar straits. Who could seriously argue that what happened in Gaza was unique? Talibs hide behind civilians in Afghanistan, and often those civilians get killed. It’s only a matter of time before David Petraeus, or Bob Gates, find themselves under attack from the same forces that want to punish Israel for trying to defend itself from a state-sponsored terror group seeking its elimination.
For another perspective on this movie, I suggest reading John Rosenthal’s review titled “Inglourious Basterds: A German Fantasy, Not a ‘Jewish’ One”. Rosenthal posits that the movie is written to make the Germans look sympathetic, and the joke is on the buffoonish Americans–who are neither cultured nor competent and barbaric to boot. The movie glorifies German fantasies of vengeful Jews, when in reality, the Germans were the barbarians. One wouldn’t know this watching the movie, according to this review.
While Rosenthal makes compelling arguments and may well be correct about Tarantino’s motives, I would suggest that Tarantino was too smart by half, then. Consider the barroom scene. Repeatedly, the Americans and their fighters expressed frustration at being stuck in an underground bar because it is stupid strategically in a fight. They feared being double-crossed. Here is what Rosenthal says:
This is especially true of a long central scene that takes place in a basement bar in occupied France. The scene is entirely built around a German parlor game in which each participant is required to guess the identity of a real person or fictive character whose name has been written on a card and stuck to his or her forehead.
Well, that game is one I myself have played as an unwashed American. We called it Polish Poker growing up–a politically incorrect allusion to a source of a version of the game, I suspect. At any rate, it was the Brit who botched the hand signal and also the Brit who enjoyed his drink courageously before his death–stiff upper lip and all that. It was also the American, who, at the end of the bloodbath, out maneuvered the German soldier who mowed down anyone left alive, including, it looked like, his own compatriots. It was a gory mess that ended as the American feared.
Another point of concern was portraying the German enlisted “hero” as regretful. Rosenthal says:
“They include not only the jovial enlisted men in the barroom scene, but also, for instance, a celebrated and lovelorn sharpshooter who openly regrets his military exploits.” While he did seem a little sickened by his actions, he was certainly still portrayed as evil. In the very next scene, when his advances are rebuffed by Shoshanna, he threatens rape or worse saying “no one denies me” and then, after being shot by her, shoots her in cold blood when she shows concern for him. It is the Jew, as symbolized by Shoshanna, who hasn’t lost her humanity. The German is portrayed as having none. While this might validate the modern Germans’ thinly disguised anti-semitism by seeing her shot dead, it certainly doesn’t portray the German perspective in a positive light. To the contrary, the Germans are portrayed as vicious, anti-semitic, heartless, yes cunning, killers of women and children–from the first scene until the climactic end.
There is no question Tarantino indulged in a facile portrayal of Americans. Bumbling in, direct action, hicky accents, etc. But still, the Americans and the good guys won. For all the German ostensible heroics, they are still portrayed as losers. They are losers who go up in a ball of flames. They are losers who are branded as losers on their swastika carved forehead.
The suicide bomber reference was also not lost on me. Tarantino, as I wrote in my other review, is hardly courageous. In fact, like his comrades, he’s a product of Hollywood’s amorality. He won’t name current tyrants. He has to go back to World War II to find blood thirsty villains. That is why I suggested substituting an Islamofascist for every Nazi killed.
As to the bloody gore: No, I didn’t enjoy seeing a guy’s head bashed in. In fact, I covered my eyes at the over-the-top gruesome parts and there were many. It was a Tarantino film after all. The blood lust is a caricature and silly. Still, it was satisfying to see the bad guys come to such an ignoble end. It would have been a wonderful thing had World War II ended in such a glorious way. Unfortunately, Hitler got the satisfaction of controlling his own death. At least, historians can fantasize about a better end.
Did Tarantino make an anti-semitic film? Was he trying to portray Germans sympathetically? Perhaps. Americans aren’t stupid. They’ll catch the way Americans are portrayed. They’ll see the suicide bomber reference for the inversion it is. They might miss the underlying German fears of Jew revenge. Or, if they get it, they understand the Jews motive, even as most Jews have lived among their German brethren peacefully without recompense. It is, after all, a fantasy.
What sane, moral person can’t understand the desire to avenge their family, culture and people nearly being blotted out? Americans get it generally. And so do Germans. The Germans know how they’d feel if the roles were reversed and that’s why they’re afraid even after all these years. And the Jews have been models of restraint and forgiveness. I’m not sure I could do the same.
The Fan Page on Facebook is not subtle. The last status update reads:
Israel is not fighting war against Terrorism; it’s fighting WAR AGAINST HUMANITY and INNOCENSE!… “Fuck Israel”.
It’s also not very literate, but that sort of enhances the foaming-at-the-mouth sputtering. Distressingly, there are 121,363 fans of this page. That’s a lot of people who hate Israel.
I wonder where to find the “Hate Women” fan page. I’m sure it’s close to the “Hate fill-in-the-blank racial epithet-here” fan page. And of course, there’s the I Hate Iran Group with a whopping 117 members.
But the Fan Page isn’t anti-Jewish, no sirree. It isn’t antisemitic. They LOVE the Jews they just want the state where Jews live destroyed. And the names of the haters aren’t Muslim. Nope. They’re just your average open-minded Middle Easterner expressing their free speech.
This Facebook Fan Page would be an example of ignorant philistines using the modern Western culture against itself. These people do not believe in free self-expression. They do not believe in individual rights. And they most certainly do not believe in Israel’s right to self-determination free from being bombed by their neighbors. They are racists and fascists and it is shameful that Facebook allows this group to exist when similar Fan Pages aiming hate at other groups or people would be banned.
If Facebook is a safe community, why is this tolerated? And if it is tolerated, will the Ku Klux Klan be allowed to start a Fan Page with pictures of burning crosses? Just trying to clarify their terms of service here.
Your Day Could Be Worse
For this Hamas operative, it was the worst kind of day.
Ostensibly, Joe the Plumber reports from Israel for Pajamas Media. And he is, in fact, reporting about the Israel war from Israel as a journalist. But what he’s really doing is putting lie to the idea that a war correspondent needs to be trained journalists to be a credible reporter.
Pajamas Media scored a marketing coup by hiring Joe. They simultaneously get war reporting and the added press of being hated by the press. It’s a win-win!
As newspapers decline and other mainstream media sources lose influence, it’s no fun being shown up by an American everyman who will get followers because he’s unabashedly pro-Israel while trying to report the facts. Citizen journalism, indeed. It’s the biggest threat to the Mainstream media and their worst fear realized. And, it’s delightful entertainment watching it unfold.
Surrender Is The Only Way To Win
If you’re Israel….or America
There is so much going on over there:
More nasty tactics
Mark Steyn onn Antisemitism:
Only Israel attracts an intellectually respectable movement querying its very existence. For the purposes of comparison, let’s take a state that came into existence at the exact same time as the Zionist Entity, and involved far bloodier population displacements. I happen to think the creation of Pakistan was the greatest failure of post-war British imperial policy. But the fact is that Pakistan exists, and if I were to launch a movement of anti-Pakism it would get pretty short shrift.
But, even allowing for that, what has a schoolgirl in Villiers-le-Bel to do with Israeli government policy? Just weeks ago, terrorists attacked Mumbai, seized hostages, tortured them, killed them, and mutilated their bodies. The police intercepts of the phone conversations between the terrorists and their controllers make for lively reading:
“Pakistan caller 1: ‘Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims. Keep your phone switched on so that we can hear the gunfire.’
“Mumbai terrorist 2: ‘We have three foreigners, including women. From Singapore and China’
“Pakistan caller 1: ‘Kill them.’
“(Voices of gunmen can be heard directing hostages to stand in a line, and telling two Muslims to stand aside. Sound of gunfire. Sound of cheering voices.)”
“Kill all hostages, except the two Muslims.” Tough for those Singaporean women. Yet no mosques in Singapore have been attacked. The large Hindu populations in London, Toronto and Fort Lauderdale have not shouted “Muslims must die!” or firebombed Halal butchers or attacked hijab-clad schoolgirls. CAIR and other Muslim lobby groups’ eternal bleating about “Islamophobia” is in inverse proportion to any examples of it. Meanwhile, “moderate Muslims” in London warn the government: “I’m a peaceful fellow myself, but I can’t speak for my excitable friends. Nice little G7 advanced Western democracy you got here. Shame if anything were to happen to it.”
On Iran’s stake in the war.