Once upon a time, the “war on terror” was supposed to bring American values to Saudi Arabia. Now Newt Gingrich says we shouldn’t build a mosque in Lower Manhattan until the Saudis build churches and synagogues in Mecca—which is to say, we’re bringing Saudi values to the United States.
Also don’t miss Michael Kinsley’s dead-on rebuttal of Charles Krauthammer:
Even if this mosque has no connection with terrorism today, Charles writes, “Who is to say that the mosque won’t one day hire an Anwar al-Aulaqi–spiritual mentor to the Fort Hood shooter and the Christmas Day bomber”? Right, and who is to say that the Fifth Avenue Synagogue won’t hire Bernie Madoff as its next cantor? Or that the Pope won’t appoint some child molester as Archbishop of Boston? Obviously, freedom of religion can’t be contingent on such what-ifs.
Not incidentally, there is a horrific story of death by stoning out of Afghanistan today. “Taliban stone Afghan couple to death for adultery,” reports the Guardian. Here is how we should rewrite that headline in light of the Cordoba debate: “Taliban stone Muslim couple to death for adultery.”
You get the picture. These doomed young lovers were Muslims. Newt Gingrich and Sarah Palin are essentially spitting on their graves.
Let us also recall the Muslim victims of recent Taliban attacks on Sufi sites, as helpfully catalogued by William Dalrymple in this brilliant NYT op-ed: the July 2 bombing of the Data Darbar in Lahore (42 dead, 175 injured); the May bombing of Peeru’s Cafe, a cultural center (sound familiar?) in Lahore; the rocketing and destruction of the mausoleum of Bahadar Baba and the shrine of Abu Saeed Baba near Peshawar; the March 2009 dynamiting of the Rahman Baba shrine near the Khyber Pass (thankfully killing no one). All carried out by Islamist terrorists, against Muslims and their holy places.
We must also add the heinous May 28 massacre carried out against Ahmadi Muslims in Lahore (98 dead, 110 wounded). And the ongoing attacks against Shia Muslims, like this one at a funeral, or this completely diabolical example:
In the first blast, a motorbike laden with explosives hit a bus carrying Shia Muslims to a religious procession and exploded, killing 12 people.
An hour later, another bomb exploded outside the entrance to the emergency ward of the hospital where the victims of the first attack were being treated.
As Dalrymple notes, Al Qaeda and the Taliban view Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of the Cordoba Initiative as “an infidel-loving, grave-worshiping apostate; they no doubt regard him as a legitimate target for assassination.” If Rauf lived in Pakistan, he would have every reason to fear for his life. How disgraceful that he should be subjected to smears by self-seeking U.S. politicians.
Again, according to Newt Gingrich, Sarah Palin and the other ringleaders of this phony Cordoba controversy, there is no distinction to be drawn between Islamist terrorists and the victims of the bombings I’ve mentioned above. They’re all the same.
And this from people who talk piously of not slapping the victims of terrorism in the face.
[Update: Please see this NYT editorial on the flood disaster in Pakistan. Help UNICEF help the victims.]
I’m proud that the president of my country, and the mayor of my city, have spoken out forcefully against the bigoted campaign to block the construction of a Muslim community center on Park Place in lower Manhattan. This is a phony issue ginned up by the right, in fact part of a wider outburst of xenophobia that actually has little to do with the hallowed 9/11 site itself. And the fact that a demagogue like Newt Gingrich can now accuse President Obama of “pandering to radical Islam” gives you a good idea of what the game plan was from the beginning.
Ironically, Gingrich’s smear coincides with this extensive report, on Obama’s significantly stepped-up war against radical Islam. The facts are in front of us.
I’m saddened to know that a majority of my fellow New Yorkers disagree with Mayor Bloomberg, and my advice to them would be to look beyond New York’s borders — I know, it’s so difficult — and learn something about the internal divisions in the Muslim world. Jeffrey Goldberg put it most effectively: ”If he could, Bin Laden would bomb the Cordoba Initiative.” Or as President Obama noted, “Al Qaeda has killed more Muslims than people of any other religion.”
This is something I’ve said a thousand times before on this blog — and it’s something equally ignored by the Rush Limbaugh right and the Code Pink left: The chief victims of jihadi violence are Muslims. It’s time for Americans to get over their narcissism and understand what this means.
The Cordoba Initiative must go forward. It is an eloquent rejection of jihadi ideology, a powerful alliance of pluralist Islam and the Western democratic ideal.
As for the sensitivities of the 9/11 families: There are other 9/11 families who passionately disagree with the effort to demonize Cordoba. Why do their opinions not count? Muslims, too, were among the 9/11 victims. And in case you think that the ADL speaks for the entire Jewish community on this issue, please read this.
Stone has issued an apology. Translation: he’s sorry for revealing to an interviewer that he’s essentially a far rightist, an apologist for dictators, a man without a shred of moral comprehension, an ignoramus who would presume to lecture us all.
It would be interesting to get the reaction of Tariq Ali, one of Stone’s screenwriters and a supposed man of the left.
As much as I applaud the NAACP for calling out rampant racism within the Tea Party movement, the problem is this. The NAACP’s rhetorical strategy is a delicate one; they don’t want to alienate masses of blue-collar whites who might be drawn to the Tea Party’s brand of (I would argue phony) libertarianism. So the NAACP instead insists that the Tea Party must make clear there is “no place for racists” in its movement. But the fact is there is a place for racists in the movement. And there’s no delicate way to say that.
The problem is similar when it comes to antisemitism, the fringe left and the Palestine solidarity movement. Consider, for instance, the attempt of Socialist Worker to slink away from its association with Nazi sympathizer Gilad Atzmon. To his credit, Paul Heideman of Newark wrote in to denounce Atzmon and say that antisemitism “has absolutely no place in our movements.” But yes it does. Antisemitism does have a place in far-left movements at present, and that is because the far left has created a rhetorical culture attractive to antisemites. Just as the Tea Party has created a rhetorical culture attractive to white racists.
The right is blasting Obama’s Oval Office speech for pushing too hard on costly clean energy initiatives. Wait a minute, the left is blasting Obama’s speech for not pushing nearly hard enough on clean energy initiatives.
What is going on here? To me it looks like a de facto left-right alliance to tear down this president halfway into his term.
The right’s pro-oil agenda is clear enough. As for the left, I’m beginning to think there are those who just love to proclaim their disappointment — the more extravagant and apocalyptic, the better.
“Where is the President Obama whom we believed in? Where did he go?” wrote one friend on Facebook. “I do not understand why he did not announce the commandeering of oil tankers,” wrote Yobie Benjamin, knowing full well that there was no way Obama was going to do any such thing. But this is the routine: Hold Obama to expectations yanked from unreality, then announce your shock that he failed to meet them. “Mr. President, you failed your first Oval Office speech,” Benjamin continues. “I am only one supporter, a decline-to-state, one blogger and though I lean progressive and will continue to do so, I hope someone runs in a primary against you. I’d love to look at progressive options.”
Good luck with that. How wearying, this sort of petulance.
Look, I’m not saying it was a great speech. But some of the reactions on the left seem to issue from an alternate universe. The president did not lay out a vision for a clean energy future? Didn’t he say this?
For decades, we have known the days of cheap and easily accessible oil were numbered. For decades, we’ve talked and talked about the need to end America’s century-long addiction to fossil fuels. And for decades, we have failed to act with the sense of urgency that this challenge requires. Time and again, the path forward has been blocked — not only by oil industry lobbyists, but also by a lack of political courage and candor.
The consequences of our inaction are now in plain sight. [...] We cannot consign our children to this future. The tragedy unfolding on our coast is the most painful and powerful reminder yet that the time to embrace a clean energy future is now. Now is the moment for this generation to embark on a national mission to unleash America’s innovation and seize control of our own destiny.
And today we read that the president got the $20 billion escrow account from BP, an amount that is uncapped and will probably grow.
I understand some of the criticisms — it’s taking too long, he’s not channeling the public’s anger, etc. But many on the left are at a point where they just will not give Obama any credit, for anything. And when 2012 rolls around, by failing to rise to this president’s defense in the face of what is sure to be the ugliest right-wing assault yet, they might just help Sarah Palin take over Washington.
You have written approvingly (here and here) of John Mearsheimer’s recent speech in which he divided American Jews into three camps: “New Afrikaners,” or right-wing supporters of Israel; “righteous Jews,” i.e., critics of Israeli policy toward the Palestinians; and the “great ambivalent middle.” I’d like to focus on something that you glossed over entirely in your remarks: Mearsheimer’s inclusion of Noam Chomsky among the “righteous Jews.”
Clearly you are determined to wade into the muck that is the debate over Israel/Palestine, and on one level, more power to you — arguing for an end to Israel’s destructive and immoral settlements policy is much needed. No one can plausibly claim that you’re an antisemite for doing so. And yet I believe your antisemitism detector is in need of repair, and that you could be doing more to fight it. Let me explain.
You are of course familiar with Noam Chomsky’s profile as an arch critic of American foreign policy, for you have linked in the past to Oliver Kamm’s voluminous work showing Chomsky to be an unscrupulous demagogue. Incidentally, Chomsky is of Jewish descent but has never made a point of publicly identifying as a Jew, which makes Mearsheimer’s mention of him all the more suspect. But that is for another post.
What you need to know is that Chomsky is listed here as an honorary member of something called the BRussells Tribunal [sic]. (Hat tip Adam Holland.) His name appears alongside seven other prominent figures and fellow honorary members, including Cindy Sheehan and the late Harold Pinter. At the top of this list is Tun Dr. Mahathir Mohamed, the former prime minister of Malaysia, whose record of virulent antisemitism is well known. In a speech delivered in January of this year, Mahathir said this:
The Jews had always been a problem in European countries. They had to be confined to ghettoes and periodically massacred. But still they remained, they thrived and they held whole Governments to ransom. Even after their massacre by the Nazis of Germany, they survived to continue to be a source of even greater problems for the world. The Holocaust failed as a final solution.
Now, while it would not be fair to ascribe these views to Chomsky himself, Chomsky has opted to lend his imprimatur to an organization associated with Mahathir — indeed, even to allow his name to be displayed right alongside Mahathir’s. I’m sure you will agree that this weakens the case for Chomsky as a “righteous Jew,” but I would argue that it also reveals, at best, a fundamental ignorance and lack of judgment on the part of John Mearsheimer. (It is equally disgraceful that Mearsheimer listed as a “righteous Jew” Norman Finkelstein, a declared supporter of Hezbollah.)
To conclude: The charge of antisemitism is not simply a ruse, a means of silencing critics of Israel. Mahathir Mohamed is not a “critic of Israel”; he is a Jew hater. Noam Chomsky and Cindy Sheehan, among many others on the anti-Zionist left, are enabling his hatred and giving it a veneer of legitimacy. For many of us in the “great ambivalent middle,” to attack the Chomskyite left, or to fail to condemn Israel with sufficient ardor, is to risk being labeled a “New Afrikaner” by the likes of John Mearsheimer. This is the silencing phenomenon that few commentators seem willing to address. I wish you would do so.
Conventional wisdom remains that our president is a wimp, spineless, etc., which flies in the face of jujitsu moments like this (hat tip Marc Cooper):
And that’s not to deny that Obama, in his way, makes use of political theater, which is what that health care summit was. But taking the opportunity to call out Republicans on their nonsense for six hours on national TV — is that a meaningless exercise or a cave-in? I don’t think so. Give the man a bit of credit already.
His speech at CPAC has Andrew Sullivan gushing once again. Given Sullivan’s laudable and oft-stated contempt for the tea party right, it’s odd he should still be so taken with Paul, whose backers are at the very core of tea party lunacy, according to Tom Schaller and Dana Goldstein.
And let’s not forget that after dropping out of the 2008 race, Paul endorsed Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin for president. Baldwin, as Adam Holland notes, just expressed sympathy for Austin suicide terrorist and murderer Joe Stack, whose demented views are “shared by millions of Americans who are also fed up with Big Brother,” Baldwin claims. Baldwin has also argued that “Martin Luther King, Jr. brought havoc and unrest to America as few men have ever done.” And as founder and pastor of Florida’s Crossroad Baptist Church, Baldwin also believes that “homosexuality is moral perversion.” We are just scratching the surface of Baldwin’s extremism, which Ron Paul in effect endorsed in 2008.
Look, people are hungry for noble anti-establishment politicians, and for good reason. But the issue isn’t that “pundits keep dismissing” Ron Paul, as Sullivan claims. Quite the contrary, Paul has so successfully whitewashed his far-right profile that he’s got pundits giving him mainstream cred at every turn. Scary.
“Which is more egregious?” [McCain] asked reporters. “Reading a word from your hand or from a teleprompter?”
From this story on the increasingly odious John McCain and his bumbling, near-pitiable defense of Sarah Palin. (Hat tip Marc Cooper.)
I’m stating the obvious but I can’t help myself: President Obama, like his predecessors, and like Palin herself at the 2008 Republican Convention, uses a teleprompter when delivering lengthy prepared speeches. When Palin read crib notes from her hand, she was in an informal Q&A session — precisely the setting in which an informed candidate would not need crib notes. The equivalent situation would be for our current president to read notes scrawled on his hand during a White House press conference.
John McCain knows this to be so, and that makes his comment above all the more cynical, dishonest and disgraceful.
