There’s just no limit to how common sense can be twisted with a few syrupy
Take for example Jibril Rajoub’s letter of thanks to
International Olympics Committee president Jacques Rogge for nixing a minute’s
silence to commemorate the Israeli athletes slain by Fatah terrorists 40 years
ago at the Munich Olympics.
Thus wrote Fatah honcho Rajoub, chairman of
the Palestinian Olympic Committee and the Palestinian Football Association:
“Sport is a bridge for love, unification and for spreading peace among the
nations, and it must not be a cause for divisiveness and for the spreading of
Rajoub cloyingly ticked all the de rigueur boxes of the
sentimental claptrap that has become the hallmark of progressive prattle. He
after all came out for “love” and “unification” and against “divisiveness” and
Of course, if we take Rajoub’s reaffirmation of goodwill to all
men to its logical conclusion, we’re bound to infer that the brutal massacre
smack dab during the Olympics was praiseworthy. For those who forget, German
neo-Nazis provided logistical support, while the bloodbath was bankrolled by
Mahmoud Abbas, today’s supposedly moderate president of the Palestinian
Obviously the murder of the 11 Israelis (replete with the
torture and mutilation so frequently practiced by Arab “freedom-fighters” under
assorted monikers for the past century and half) underpinned the “bridge for
love,” underscored “unification” and “spread peace among the
However, as per Rajoub’s lofty broadmindedness, remembering the
victims of Arab atrocities is tantamount to “a cause for divisiveness and for
the spreading of racism.”
Bottom line: Murder is good. Remembrance is
The above assault on common sense is by no stretch of the
imagination uncommon. Indeed some outrages against plain level-headedness can
beggar even the most prolific of imaginations. For instance, presumptive
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s reference to Jerusalem as
Israel’s capital sent shockwaves of horror reverberating around the
It sufficed for Rahm Emmanuel (Chicago mayor, President Barack
Obama’s former White House chief of staff and an avid Peace Now propagandist) to
announce that Romney “is not ready for the Oval Office.”
But that was
mild compared to China’s warning that Romney’s statement could “reignite a war
between Palestinians and Israelis.” No less. “Romney’s remarks totally neglect
historical facts,” contended Xinhua, the official news agency of the
dictatorship that backs both Syria and Iran.
Israel’s own leftist media
hotshots fell over themselves in their alacrity to outdo one another’s disdain
for Romney and, inter alia, also heap scorn on their bête noir, Prime Minister
Binyamin Netanyahu. No opportunity to knock Bibi may be missed, and so Haaretz’s
Barak Ravid took issue with Romney’s comments on Jerusalem because his speech
“sounded as if it could have been written by Netanyahu’s bureau.” That in itself
constitutes an unpardonable sin.
In no time, Romney’s visit became a mere
vehicle with which to sideswipe Netanyahu. Our newspapers and airwaves bristled
with indignation at Netanyahu’s “interference in the American
Compelling proof was supplied by the fact that Netanyahu
referred to Romney as a friend, warmly shook his hand and had him over for
Israel, warned the usual omniscients, will pay dearly for
Mind you, our ever-objective omniscients positively cheered each
American interference in Israel’s own domestic politics. The most impudent and
egregious was Bill Clinton’s.
In splendid sync with Israel’s own Left,
America’s then-president couldn’t abide then-first term PM Netanyahu. Hence
Clinton actively helped his then-darling, Laborite Ehud Barak, defeat Netanyahu.
Clinton did for Barak what few American presidents ever dared openly do even for
their most promising foreign protégés.
He pulled out all stops in his
unabashed intervention in Israel’s domestic politics, boosting Barak in a
fashion unseen since the CIA’s blatant interference in Italy’s post-World War II
Brashly, Clinton didn’t even bother to cover up his tracks but
dispatched his own spin doctors, private pollsters and campaign strategists to
get Barak elected. Israel’s Left-dominated media cheered devotedly.
did the same when two years later Barak waged an uphill reelection campaign.
Again, Clinton pulled out all stops to butt into our domestic democratic
processes. He committed the ultimate tactless faux pas by telling Israelis
outright which ballot to cast. A vote for the protégé he endorses, he averred,
“is a vote for peace.”
The talking heads who now scoff at Netanyahu
failed to manage a murmur of protest when Clinton treated us like a no-account
vassal state. Taking umbrage for inappropriate meddling is evidently selective,
as is the very definition of what meddling is.
This perhaps is why our
opinion-molders were deliriously thrilled when Obama appeared on our scene to
campaign for Jewish votes during his first presidential run in 2008. At that
time, taking America’s politics to our turf was perfectly legitimate.
fact, Israel’s own leftist media hotshots fell over themselves in their alacrity
to outdo one another’s fawning adoration of Obama.
It all reached an
enthusiastic crescendo during his visit to serially rocketed Sderot. Seasoned
reporters swallowed Obama’s kitsch hook, line and sinker without any critical
analysis. And there was plenty to be critical of.
Obama punctuated his
carefully enunciated phrases with frequent throat-clearings, hemmed a lot and
hawed even more, yet – among all the hems and haws- he let us know that “if
someone was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at
night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that.”
There was no
reason to suspect his sincerity. He doubtlessly would make sure that his little
girls were safe. What our adulating left-wing, however, failed to ask was
whether he’d be equally as resolute to look after the daughters of
It was a flawless ploy for Obama to inject his offspring into his
message. This imparted the highest degree of folksy empathy: “Like you, I’m a
dad. I too would feel impelled to take action.”
And these sugary
supportive sentiments crossed the ocean with satellite immediacy and appealed
directly to the hearts of registered Jewish voters, whom they were foremost
intended to sway.
Let’s face it: Obama didn’t spare us a day of his
hectic schedule to demonstrate genuine identification with the suffering of the
hard-luck residents of a small outlying battered Israeli town.
sad lot really touched him, he’d have said something way earlier about Sderot’s
ongoing nightmare. But he only spoke when his campaign was switched into high
gear and the votes of various less-knee-jerk-liberal Jewish sorts (yes, they
exist) were judged significant enough to make a pitch for.
they weren’t Obama’s primary target. The hop-and-skip to Israel was incorporated
in the framework of a whirlwind grand tour taken to provide the freshman senator
and erstwhile community organizer with an instant education in world affairs.
Israel was just one more unavoidable destination with the added bonus of
cajoling wary voters. The Sderot photo-op became a diploma in diplomatic savoir
faire. Trainee-statesman Obama became an overnight expert who could reminisce
about his half hour in Sderot.
His apparent compassion there was hardly
What else would he say at that venue and on such an occasion?
He after all came to garner campaign capital. Sderot’s inhabitants were all
extras in his meticulously stagemanaged extravaganza.
They had to play
the role of the grateful recipients of his beneficent commiseration with their
The rest of us Israelis were cast as bit players in the rock
star’s sideshow. We had to be gracious and perform the parts cynically assigned
us – not necessarily for our own good.
How else could we react when the
trendy harbinger of change opined astutely that it’s “in Israel’s interest” to
achieve peace with the Palestinians? We could do nothing but exclaim: “Aw
shucks! No kidding! Bless you for showing us the light that evaded us for all
these decades until your trailblazing persona graced us with its fleeting
presence!” Did Obama really suppose we hadn’t figured that one out on our own?
Condescendingly, he must have assumed that Israel hardly deserved anything more
original than regurgitated slogans.
At best Obama’s catchphrases could be
hollow lip service to mediocrity, feeding the masses with verbal junk
But something worse was uniquely apparent when he visited Yad
Vashem and couldn’t bring himself to articulate the word “Jew.” He made do with
meaningless universalist humbug about “man’s potential for great
Among his honeyed blandishments lurked an ill omen. It would
emerge from the shadows at his 2009 obsequious outreach to Muslims in Cairo,
where he unabashedly drew a slapdash equivalence between the Holocaust and the
Palestinian “pain of dislocation,” and between ethnic extermination and
settlement construction (much of Jerusalem included).
Nowhere did Obama
deign note Jewish history in or rights to this country and foremost to
Jerusalem. After nearly a full presidential term, this is no
Obama’s calculated agenda culminated in two farcical incidents
this year. In March, his secretary of state’s spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, was
adamant that no Israeli capital exists, leastways not one she could name. More
recently, White House spokesman Jay Carney stood discomfited on his podium,
unable to identify Israel’s capital.
The best he could muster were stock
inanities like: “You know our policy,” and, “Our policy hasn’t
In comparison, Romney comes up trumps. No contest. But that’s
only for folks whose common sense cannot be twisted with a few syrupy sentences,
folks who still know that remembering isn’t divisive and racist, that murder
isn’t loving and unifying.
Such an unyielding mind-set is judged untrendy
and uncool, much as is Romney’s acknowledgment of the ancient ties of the Jewish
people to the cradle of their nationhood. In our topsy-turvy existence, he dared
to brazenly overstep the enlightened ones’ mark.