Soccer Dad

Strange partners

Earlier I commented on this editorial in the NYT.

Elder of Ziyon's approach was similar to mine.

In other words, Israel must sacrifice its own peace and security for what the New York Times considers to be "peace." It is only a short distance from these self-righteous prescriptions to saying "Israel must allow itself to be destroyed in order to avoid any aggressive moves that might hurt our definition of peace."

Israel Matzav emphasized the Walt/Mearsheimer/Freeman tone of the editorial.

But the Times' most hideous demand is the penultimate one. The Times calls on Netanyahu to "recognize that the United States has its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the Palestinians -- and allow the Obama administration the freedom to pursue them." For anyone who missed it, the implication is that Israel, via the mysterious and powerful 'Israel Lobby,' controls the United States and can prevent the Obama administration from pursuing its own interests in diplomacy with Syria, Iran and the 'Palestinians.' Does the Times really believe that? If so, American Jewry had better start packing its bags.

Finally (for now) Shiloh Musings thinks that one of the best people to rebut this kind of argument is Bibi Netanyahu, she just wonders if he'll do it as PM.

Davka, ironically, one of the very best Jewish History lectures I've ever heard on the subject was by Binyamin Bibi Netanyahu last summer at the International Jewish Bloggers Convention. He has the facts. The question is why does he think that he has to repress it? I don't have the patience to do a psychological profile on him. I did it with Begin and Sharon, who also defied their supporters and went against their own common sense and historical knowledge to try to please the world, rather than do what's truly best for Israel.