Friday, October 22, 2004


Krauthammer race-baits and bullies

In his op-ed today, Charles Krauthammer tries to bully supporters of Israel (see below about the Jewish vote) into voting for Bush. Krauthammer talks a lot about “codewords” and says that Sandy Berger’s advice ("Foreign Policy for a Democratic President," written while Berger was an adviser to the Kerry campaign) calls for the United States to “sell out Israel in an instant” and let the filthy terrorist Ay-rabs run amok in the streets of Tel Aviv.

Here is what Berger actually wrote:
"As part of a new bargain with our allies, the United States must re-engage in . . . ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. . . . As we re-engage in the peace process and rebuild frayed ties with our allies, what should a Democratic president ask of our allies in return? First and foremost, we should ask for a real commitment of troops and money to Afghanistan and Iraq."
Think that sounds reasonable? Well, my friend, you just don’t know all the “codewords” that the dirty Arab-lovers use these days. Don’t worry, our buddy Charles will break it down for us.
So in a "new bargain with our allies" America "re-engages" in the "peace process" in return for troops and money in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Do not be fooled by the euphemism "peace process." We know what "peace process" meant during the eight years Berger served in the Clinton White House -- a White House to which Yasser Arafat was invited more often than any other leader on the planet. It meant believing Arafat's deceptions about peace while letting him get away with the most virulent incitement to and unrelenting support of terrorism. It meant constant pressure on Israel to make one territorial concession after another -- in return for nothing. Worse than nothing: Arafat ultimately launched a vicious terror war that killed a thousand Israeli innocents.
First of all, Arafat did not “launce a vicious terror war.” This is a stupid oversimplification and falsehood perpetuated to demonize Yasir Arafat. Believe me, I am not fan of Arafat, but the second intifada was essentially a popular uprising (not ordered by Yasir Arafat) that intensified particularly as a result of Israel’s brutal response to demonstrations and riots in the fall of 2000. Furthermore, even Israeli military intelligence officials have refuted this stupid claim (see what Amos Malka has to say about it if you want).

Secondly, maybe a bit of clarification is needed as to what “peace process” meant under the Clinton White House. Negotiations happened. There was hope that there might be a resolution to the conflict. I would love to let Krauthammer find one territorial concession that Clinton forced upon Israel. And most of all, less Israelis were killed. I’m not even going to get into the numbers of Palestinians killed (since obviously, that’s not what Krauthammer cares about... in fact, the fact that more Palestinians have been killed under Bush is probably a major selling point for him).

If you go to B’Tselem you can find pretty detailed numbers of Israelis and Palestinians killed, where they were killed (occupied territories, inside Israel), who they were (civilians, soldiers), when they were killed (broken down by year and month). Here’s my math (not perfect, but I did my best): The number of Israelis killed under Clinton (from 1992 through the end of 2000) was 379. The number of Israelis killed under Bush was 888 (290 of which were Israeli security forces members, which you could debate whether or not makes them “innocent Israelis”). That’s over twice as many dead Israelis under Bush than under Clinton in half the time. (Note, these numbers might be slightly low for Bush – Ma’ariv reports 1,017 dead since the outbreak of the second intifada, which is lower than what B’Tselem has, but B’Tselem is easier to break down by month, since the intifada started under Clinton).

So I don’t know about you, but I’d rather have Arafat in the White House and less Israeli dead and injured than Arafat in Ramallah but many more Israelis dying. Overall, Krauthammer is relying less on real results (I honestly think that it would be pretty easy to argue that Israel was better off under Clinton than under Bush in terms of relations with the Palestinians, security in the region – a hostile government in Iraq, but not open chaos, world standing, and economy) than on scare tactics. Bring up the demon of Yasir Arafat. Threaten more terror if Kerry is elected. Tell people that Kerry and the Democrats want to sneak into the White House so that they can sell out Israel to the Ay-rabs. It’s ridiculous.

And Krauthammer isn’t alone in his sickening race-baiting bully tactics; also check out this from Ann Coulter, who writes “the Democrats are pretty sure the real reason we went to Iraq was one of the following” and then proceeds to list, among other things, “the Jews” and “oily Jews.” Really, really disgusting stuff.

"...the fact that more Palestinians have been killed under Bush is probably a major selling point for him)."

Alex . . . . .
am i getting way too shrill? haha

just to clarify, i meant that it is a selling point for krauthammer, not a selling point for bush (i guess that is unclear in the way i wrote it).

and i do think that bush's willingness to let sharon "get tough" with the palestinians (that is, kill a whole fucking lot of them) without saying anything (much less doing anything) about it is probably a selling point to some (and i would put krauthammer in this group).
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?