Anti-Semitism On Parade

From Abe Greenwald in Commentary:

Today’s Washington Post runs a Pat Oliphant cartoon (above) portraying the state of Israel as a headless jackbooted soldier, marching with sword thrust forward, and pushing a Star of David whose shark’s mouth is gaining on a Gazan mother and child.
To call the Washington Post’s decision to run unadulterated Nazi-inspired anti-Semitism a crisis of judgment is to relegate the incident to a headline-grabbing class of occasional sensitivity lapses. To speak of apologies, hurt feelings, and free speech is to invite “debate” where there is no moral ambiguity. To contextualize by adducing Oliphant’s previous forays into sensation is to miss the point entirely. The cartoon can only be understood as heralding a new popular acceptance of Jew-hatred: the capstone of all that talk about anti-Semitism being “on the rise around the world.”
The acceptance of anti-Semitism moves quickly, in tandem with the ambitions of anti-Semites. Today in America, this means a new forum where a number of hate-filled isolationists can collude with self-righteous liberals to erase entirely the line between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitic fervor. Until recently, suspect critics of Israel made an effort (however unconvincing) to draw distinctions between their objections to Israeli policy and rank Jew-hatred. The cartoon in today’s Washington Post aspires to unify the two phenomena for all to see

If Jewish Voters Knew

From Jennifer Rubin in Commentary:

Had the public (and specifically Jewish voters, who voted overwhelmingly for Barack Obama) known that Obama would appoint the Saudi-funded, Israel-bashing, analytically-disabled Chas Freeman (pictured) to a key national security position, I wonder if he would have cleared the bar of acceptability for commander-in-chief. But the appointment has indeed occurred. (And would human rights activists have thought twice about electing a president who picked some who declared that the Chinese’s biggest mistake with regard to the Tienanmen Square massacre was “the failure to intervene on a timely basis to nip the demonstrations in the bud”?)
And as for those friends of Israel on the left who looked Obama in the eye and got a sense of his soul, do they join in on Marty Pertez’s mea culpa? Well, it does appear that Obama appointed someone "who is quintessentially an insult to the patriotism of some [sic] many of his supporters.” Moreover, we have placed someone in a key national security role whose analysis was purchased by the House of Saud and whose contribution to Middle East discourse includes such gems as: “For its part, Israel no longer even pretends to seek peace with the Palestinians; it strives instead to pacify them. Palestinian retaliation against this policy is as likely to be directed against Israel’s American backers as against Israel itself.” (Remarks to the Washington Institute of Foreign Affairs, May 24, 2007)
Some enterprising White House reporter might start asking whether the president had any qualms about Freeman’s views and why his financial relationship with a foreign power shouldn’t raise grave concerns about Freeman’s independence and, in turn, the president’s judgment in selecting him.

It Already Happened!

From Jennifer Rubin in Commentary:
This is spot on:

Last night President Obama said, “I asked this Congress to send me a recovery
plan . . . Not because I believe in bigger government — I don’t.” Really? If
that’s true, why was every single policy the President suggested last night…big
government? Mr. President, if you don’t like big government, perhaps you should
consider not making it the centerpiece of your administration. That makes about
as much sense as holding a fiscal responsibility summit days after passing one
of the biggest spending bills in history. Wait. That already happened. Okay, how
about this: saying you don’t like big government while promoting it, would kind
of be like railing against earmarks while getting ready to sign a bill with, oh
say, 9,000 of them. Wait — that’s also really happening, House Democrats passed
it today.

What is most remarkable is that the above comes from Rep. John Shadegg. He is not in the GOP leadership, but his colleagues might take a page from his book.
When the president says or does outlandish things, it’s a good idea to say so. When the president pronounces as fact something patently false, the Republicans should pipe up.
For some time it was politically possible and convenient to blame Congress for the goofy stimulus plan and the irresponsible pork-a-thon, while politely ignoring Obama’s full acquiescence in the Congressional Democrats’ handiwork. But there’s no pretending any longer. The grandiose plans and the economic sophistry are coming straight from the president. And the Republicans have no choice but to oppose them. If they can do it with humor, all the better