Israelis For Obama: False Advertising (Update)

Shmuel Rosen writes:

The airwaves have been filled recently with video clips showing Israelis supporting of Barack Obama. I guess this is part of the ongoing campaign–spearheaded by comedian Sarah Silverman–to convince the pro-Israel Jewish voters (and maybe some non-Jewish voters, too) that Obama will be as good for Israel as the other candidate, maybe even better.

While I do believe that Obama is a genuine supporter of Israel (and if there’s any reason to question him on this, it’s because of policies, not bad intentions), the notion behind those clips is laughable.

Rosen goes through multiple examples of misleading in one video claiming that Israelis across the spectrum support Obama. Here is the video:

Rosen concludes:

Having said that, Israelis can be divided into three major groups as far as American politics is concerned: Most of them just don’t know enough, or don’t care enough, to have real opinion. If they say that they like McCain–as they did in a couple of polls–it is because Israelis are generally more hawkish than Obama. If they say they support Obama, it is because they believe he will win, or because he is good looking, or because they deem it more fashionable to support him. Among those with an educated opinion–especially in the Israeli establishment–many more are supportive of McCain (but these are also start getting used to the idea of President Obama–and hope for the best).

The smallest group is the one of knowledgeable Israelis genuinely supportive of Obama. People who would have voted for him, had they had a vote to cast. But truth must be told–even this smallest of groups is large enough for a four-minute clip.

But that was not enough for the producers of that clip.

UPDATE: Ed Morrissey addresses the same issue, noting that both General Uzi Dayan and former Mossad chief Ephraim Halevy who appear in the clip both claim they were misled and their words taken out of context.

Technorati Tag: Obama.

Oh, THAT Bill Ayers! Nope, Never Heard Of Him...

Jennifer Rubin writes about Obama's new strategy of dealing with his relationship with terrorist Bill Ayers. After going on for months referring to Ayers as “just a guy in the neighborhood,” now Obama has suddenly changed course: Obama has now come out saying that he had no idea that Ayers and his wife were unrepentant terrorists. Rubin responds:

First, since Obama himself never used the ignorance excuse, it is not going to be believed by anyone but the most adoring Obama-philes. Second, the way this issue becomes problematic for otherwise forgiving, apolitical voters is precisely by becoming an issue of credibility. Bluntly put, it’s one thing to hang out with former terrorists who conspired to kill Americans and avowed a hatred for America, it is quite another to lie to voters now. The “just a guy in the neighborhood” excuse was not quite flying–the “I didn’t know he was a terrorist” hooey sure isn’t.

Of course, this is unlikely to make any difference to Obama's dedicated followers, but the truth still needs to be said.

In the old days, you may recall, that job fell to the media.

Technorati Tag: Obama and Ayers.

McCain, Obama, Biden, and Palin on Rosh HaShannah

A little late, but still...

Technorati Tag: Rosh HaShannah.

Haveil Havalim #185 Is Up!

This week, Writes Like She Talks hosts Haveil Havalim #185, featuring a wide variety of posts from the JBlogosphere.

Check it out.

For information about hosting, email Jack at talktojacknow-at-sbcglobal-dot-net. You can submit your post to the next edition of haveil havalim using the carnival submission form.

Past posts and future hosts can be found at the blog carnival index page. Listed at the Truth Laid Bear Ubercarnival.

Technorati Tags: Blog carnivals, haveil havalim, Israel, Judaism.

Biden--36 Years In The Senate Can Only Do So Much (Updated)

I've made the argument before (here, here and here) that experience does not necessarily carry judgement with it. Even when talking about Biden's experience as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, there is a lot to be knowledgeable of. Still, this gaffe by Senator Joe Biden is surprising:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel. [emphasis added]

Hezbollah was kicked out of Lebanon? This will come as news to Hezbollah--and to the Lebanese who have to put up with them. It is reminiscent of Gerald Ford's famous gaffe in his debate with Carter:

During a campaign debate against former Georgia Governor Jimmy Carter, Ford incorrectly stated that Poland was "independent and autonomous" from the Soviet Union, though at the time the Soviet Union dominated Poland and much of Eastern Europe. When pressed, instead of reconsidering, Ford responded more firmly that "There is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will be under a Ford administration".

Of course, people were then more aware of Poland than they are of Lebanon today; these are Vice Presidential debates--not Presidential debates; and the media is not going to make a big deal out of this mistake. For example, with all the detailed facts that ABC's Fact Check apparently picked up, they totally missed this one.

Michael Totten notes the irony of the situation:

Biden is supposedly Mr. Foreign Policy. He’s supposed to be the experienced elder statesman Senator Barack Obama chose to help him govern and fill in some of his knowledge and experience gaps. He’s supposed to know far more about foreign policy than she does.

You can make of this what you will. Many will put this in the same basket with all of the other gaffes made by Biden over the last several weeks--meaning they will be ignored.

Still, when something like this is put into the context of the positions Biden has held over the years, the question does arise as to the basis of those positions--positions that have demonstrated a lack of judgement, and possibly a lack of experience.

UPDATE: I missed this one too. LGF notes another Biden gaffe on the Middle East:

Here’s what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, “Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.” What happened? Hamas won.

Biden confused Gaza with the West Bank. 

Imagine if Palin had made that kind of mistake. So why is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee held to a lower standard? 

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

[Hat tip: Instapundit]

Technorati Tag: Joe Biden.

Biden: Experience vs. Judgement

Tonight is the big debate--not the one between McCain and Obama, but the one between Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The focus of course will be on Palin and how she does; does she present herself as someone who is knowledgeable about world affairs. Of course, no one questions Biden's experience. Even with the regular flow of his gaffes and misstatements, no one doubts Biden's knowledge and experience.

But Biden's judgement in foreign affairs is open to question. I have written about this before, quoting an article by Peter Wehner, a former deputy assistant to President George W. Bush. I see that Tom Gross also wrote about this, back in August.

In Soft on Iran: Serious concerns in Israel, Gross writes that granted Biden has 36 years experience in the Senate--

But on many key issues, Biden got it wrong:

* In the 1980s, he opposed Ronald Reagan’s tough stance against the Soviet regime. Biden advocated détente and called for Western subsidies that would have enabled the Soviet empire to survive longer.

* In 1990, Biden opposed the senior George Bush’s decision to use force to liberate Kuwait after Saddam Hussein invaded it.

* Last year Biden strongly opposed the troop surge strategy in Iraq, which is now widely considered a success.

Were Biden to have had had his way, eastern Europe and Kuwait may have remained occupied for many additional years and the death toll in Iraq during the last year would probably not have decreased so dramatically.

Biden has shown a similar unwillingness to take a stand when it comes to dealing with Iran:

* Biden was one of only four senators to vote against the 1998 Iran Missile Proliferation Sanctions Act, which was intended to punish companies or organizations that provided missile technologies to the Iranian regime. The bill was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support. 96 senators out of 100 voted for it, but Biden was not among them.

* In June 2004, Biden was among the minority who refused to sign the “Letter Urging the President to Highlight Iran’s Nuclear Program at the G-8 Summit.”

* Last year, Biden opposed the Senate resolution that labeled the Iranian Revolutionary Guards a terrorist organization. That resolution passed 76 to 22. His vote, he said, was designed to make it difficult for George W. Bush to attack Iran’s nuclear program.

In this regard, Gross goes on to quote some of the Israeli media--including Yossi Melman, the intelligence correspondent for Ha’aretz:

“[Biden’s] positions regarding Iran, whose acquisition of nuclear weaponry tops Israel’s list of security concerns, cannot be encouraging to the policy makers in Jerusalem. This is especially so in the context of the danger that in 2009, when Biden could well be vice president, Iran is liable to reach or even to go beyond the ‘technological threshold’ - i.e., to achieve the capability that will enable it to develop nuclear weapons.

“... If the Obama-Biden team is elected, the combination of the new president’s inexperience in foreign policy and his vice president’s positions and record do not auger well for Israeli’s foreign and security policy, which is trying to persuade the U.S. administration that a tough policy toward Iran must be pursued – increasing the sanctions on Iran and, if necessary, as a last resort, attacking its nuclear installations.”

And Iran has noticed. Gross refers to Michael Rubin, who notes that Iran has referred to Biden favorably by name:

Biden’s political games have made him Tehran’s favorite senator. As Gen. David Petraeus struggled to unite Iraqis across the ethnic and sectarian divide, Iran’s Press TV seized on Biden’s plan for partitioning Iraq and featured his statements with the headline “US plans to disintegrate Iraq.” Biden’s attack-dog statements about U.S. policy failures emboldened Iranian hard-liners to defy diplomacy. In the Dec. 7, 2007, official sermon, Ayatollah Mohammad Kashani speaking on behalf of Iran’s supreme leader, declared, “This Senator [Biden] correctly says Israel could not suppress Hizbullah in Lebanon, so how can the U.S. stand face-to-face with a nation of 70 million? This is the blessing of the Guardianship of the Jurists [the theocracy] . . . which plants such thoughts in the hearts of U.S. senators and forces them to make such confessions.” The crowd met his statement with refrains of “Death to America.”

The years that Biden has spent in the Senate are not the issue. The point is what are the stands that Biden has taken on the issues. When you take a good look at Joe Biden's record, it is clear that the 'experience' of being in the Senate for 36 years is in no way a guarantee of good judgement and leadership.

By all means, take a good look at Sarah Palin during the debate--at her knowledge of world events and take into account her experience. But also take a good look at what Palin has done as mayor and governor and make up your own mind about what kind of judgement she has shown in office.

Technorati Tag: Sarah Palin and Joe Biden.

New York Judge Instructs PLO On Difference Between Terrorism And War

Apparently one man's terrorist is not every man's freedom fighter, as the PLO tries to get a lawsuit dismissed:

[U.S. District Judge George] Daniels said the attacks targeted public places _ not military or government personnel or interests. Two bombings were on downtown streets; others occurred at a crowded bus stop, a cafeteria at the Hebrew University and a passenger-filled civilian bus.

The use of bombs in these circumstances indicates an intent "to cause far-reaching devastation upon the masses," the judge said, with a "merciless capability of indiscriminately killing and maiming untold numbers in heavily populated civilian areas."

Such attacks "upon non-combative civilians, who were allegedly simply going about their everyday lives, do not constitute acts of war," he said.

Daniels also said the violence meets the legal definition of "international terrorism."

Judge Daniels may be overly optimistic on the legal definition of international terrorism. I blogged about the issue 2 years ago, and among other things--US law at the time was not necessarily helpful. Consider:

U.S. v. Yousef (page 59), a Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals decision that

there continues to be strenuous disagreement between States about what actions do or do not constitute terrorism, nor have we shaken ourselves free of the cliché that “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter.”

The same opinion also quotes Justice Robert Bork that "[N]o consensus has developed on how properly to define ‘terrorism’ generally.” (p. 58)

One of the sources of the confusion comes from an expected source:

under one of the various United Nations resolutions addressing terrorism, armed and violent acts do not constitute “terrorism” if committed by peoples seeking self-determination in opposition to a violently enforced occupation. See, e.g., Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations Among Co-operating States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Oct. 24, 1970 (note 42, page 60)

The Arabs naturally have a self-serving definition of terrorism:

The Arab Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism (Cairo, Apr. 22, 1998), reprinted in International Instruments Related to the Prevention and Suppression of International Terrorism, 152-73 (U nited Nations 2001), while condemning terrorism, takes a uniquely restrictive approach to defining it, stating that offenses committed against the interests of Arab states are “terrorist offenses,” while offenses committed elsewhere or against other peoples or interests are not. (note 42, page 60)

Thus armed struggle is always allowed--almost:

The Convention further defines as legitimate (non-terrorist) “[a]ll cases of struggle by whatever means, including armed struggle,” unless such struggles “prejudic[e] the territorial integrity of any Arab State.” Id. at Art. II(a). [emphasis added]

It would be interesting to see what legal definitions Judge Daniels has in mind. It's hard to believe that the legal outlook on terrorism has changed, unless it is for the worse.

Technorati Tag: PLO and Terrorism.

Condoleezza Rice And The Syrian Disconnect

From December 2007:

US President George W Bush says he has long since lost patience with Syria's President Bashar al-Assad, and has ruled out opening a dialogue with him.

From October 2008:

Two days after George W. Bush criticized Syria as a state sponsor of terror in a speech at the United Nations, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Mouallem in New York. The meeting was first reported in the Syrian state press which noted that it took place at Rice's request. Mouallen told Al Hayat that the meeting represented a softening of the US position on Syria.

So: what has changed? Nothing.

IS Syria preparing to seize the opportunity provided by the global financial crisis and the US presidential campaign to invade Lebanon?

For the last week or so, Syria has been moving heavily armed elite military units to the Lebanese border - with up to 25,000 massed there by early last week. Backed by tanks, armored vehicles and attack helicopters, the units were on "maximum war footing," eyewitnesses say.

Damascus says the build-up is a response to smuggling rings that run the black market in the Syrian capital and major provincial centers. My Lebanese contacts call that explanation "laughable" - noting that Syrian elite itself runs the black market in both countries through the security services.

It seems the only ones who take Bush seriously these days is Israel--to its own detriment.

[Hat tip: Abe Greenwald]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Syria.

Do McCain And Obama Agree On Iran?

Shmuel Rosner thinks so. In a post about the Democrats shelving a measure that would require a naval blockade of Iran, Rosner writes about what the presidential candidates said--and did not say--during last week's debate:

In last weekend’s debate, both Obama and John McCain declared, not for the first time, that the U.S. can not “tolerate” a nuclear Iran. But as Patrick Clawson of the Washington Institute for Near East Polity aptly remarked in his post-debate comments: “for all the tough words, neither candidate even hinted that force was an option on the table. Until we convince Iran’s leaders that America will act if need be, they will continue to believe that we will eventually tolerate the nuclear Iran we now declare to be unacceptable.”

Clawson remarked that for all the rhetorical differences between the candidates–Obama supporting more direct dialogue, McCain opposing it–the actual policies they offered were fairly similar: “Both supported reinforced diplomacy as the solution, with strengthened sanctions as the central instrument.”

The problem with such a policy is simple: it is not working, and there’s hardly a chance it ever will. The bill passed this week in the House, as symbolically heart-warming as it might be, can do little to make Iran cave (and it’s not even clear if the Senate will take the time to follow through with it). And even more importantly, it is now clear that the next president will be very busy fixing the economy in the first months of his term, leaving little room and energy for dealing with a threat that is very serious, but is also complicated to explain, and has no immediate impact on the daily lives of the American voter.

I've quoted Michael Oren and Yoram Ettinger on how McCain and Obama differ on Israel and Jerusalem, but on the issue of Iran it could be that talk is as far as either candidate is willing to go.

Technorati Tag: McCain and Obama and Iran and Israel

Jews Have Been Talking About Change Long Before Obama

And with a lot less fanfare.

Change is Possible

by Jonathan Rosenblum
Mishpacha
October 2, 2008

Rabbeinu Yonah discusses various barriers to teshuva in Sha'arei Teshuva. But perhaps the greatest barrier most of us experience is a lack of belief in our capacity to change. In this month of teshuva, as we contemplate all that requires improvement, we are struck that we have been here before. Last year we klapped al cheit on the same aveiros. Last year, we undertook certain kabbolos that seemed a distant memory by Tzom Gedaliah.

We cannot bring ourselves to promise Hashem once again that we will not fail in certain ways, after having done so last year and the year before that. Our promises, we fear, are beginning to resemble the undertakings the Palestinians were allowed to recycle endlessly throughout the Oslo process and as of about as much value.

Perhaps one corrective to these feelings of despair is to spend some time considering all those whom we have seen make changes, even dramatic ones.

I think of a chavrusah from nearly thirty years ago. When we learned together, he was not really a very nice person; short-tempered and lacking in any social skills. Today when we meet, I cannot believe it is the same person and how little resemblance he bears to the young bochur I once knew. In many respects, his younger self may have been closer to his "natural" personna, but, if so, he overcame nature.

Not long ago, a young man got married in Jerusalem. The wedding hall was filled with a special electricity, as most of the guests knew where this young man had been but a few years ago. Those who stayed the longest at the chasunah were various mentors who had worked closely with him over the years.

Among the outstanding traits of the chassan is an ability to express his hakaros hatov from the depths of his heart and without inhibition. A number of his mentors are friends of mine, and they shared the letters that they had received from the chassan, along with their invitations, because they thought there might be something that others could learn from his words.

His letter to the mashgiach in an English-speaking yeshiva, in which he began learning five years ago, describes the state in which he arrived – "lost, broken, not believing in himself or that he had any future, lacking any sense of purpose in his life as a consequence of being completely cut off from HaKadosh Baruch Hu, Torah and mitzvos." Today, he continues, all those things that he was lacking are an integral part of who he is – "a person who is comfortable with himself, a person who has a future, who is full of life, as a result of a special closeness to HaKadosh Baruch Hu, Torah and mitzvos."

To the avreich who runs a mentoring program in that yeshiva and other Jerusalem yeshivos serving alienated young men from American yeshivos, he wrote: "As I approach my wedding day.. . one of the things I've been thinking about is the very first time I met you. Who would ever have believed then that exactly five years later I would be at this milestone in my life, about to get married. True, I probably would have gotten married eventually. Most people do. What I mean is, who would have thought then I'd ever be the person I am today – a mature responsible ben Torah? Certainly no one could have believed then that I would be capable of being a loving husband and father and educating my children in Torah and mitzvos. Even more so, how could anyone have imagined that I would marry a girl who would support and encourage my Torah learning."

Over the years, I've noticed that almost every "at-risk" teenager who makes it back does has been the beneficiary of some form of special attention from an adult outside the family. This chassan was no exception. An older friend, whom he had worked with in a chesed organization, and whose home became a place of refuge, flew in from Lakewood just for the chasanah.

Above all, a young avreich living on the same street as the chassan took him under his wing. "I had despaired from the situation. What I still can't understand is: Why didn't you despair as well? Why did you invest so much time and energy in me?" the chassan wrote to him. "Every time you see me, how can you help but think to yourself, 'There is the person I brought back to life, to whom I gave life when he was like a dead person?'"

To each one, the chassan could point to what he had gained and its relevance to his wedding day. From the mashgiach, it was a shmuess shortly after the beginning of the year in yeshiva, in which he stressed that the next two years in yeshiva would largely determine the kind of person the bochurim would grow to be and type of home that they would build. From the mentors in the yeshiva, it was the warmth and fulfillment he saw in their homes – the respect and love between the spouses and parents and children. All of which forced him to think, "Will I ever be able to experience this caliber of relationship?"

And above all, to the "angel" from the street, "the one who saved me," it was "his interest in me, his concern with me, his invitations to Shalosh Seudos, and, above all, the fact that he was always there for me."

I offer a glimpse of this particular chassan before Yom Kippur for two reasons. First, as a reminder that deep, profound transformation is possible. Not only is it possible, but if we look around we will see examples all around us.

Second, as a demonstration of the impact that we can have on others. The teshuva of the chassan ultimately had to come from him. . No one can do teshuva for another, any more than they can "make" someone from a non-observant home into a ba'al teshuva.

Yet without these particular mentors it is doubtful that this chassan would have had the resources to take that step when he did. Surely, there can be no greater merit for siyata d'Shmaya in our own teshuva process than serving as Hashem's emissaries in helping other Jews find their way closer to Him.

Other articles by Jonathan Rosenblum are available at Jewish Media Resources

Technorati Tag: Teshuva and Tzom Gedalia.