Commentary Magazine


Historical Truth and the Future of Asia

Decades after the last major outpouring of support for an end to Communist oppression was crushed in the Tiananmen Square massacre, tens of thousands of protesters in Hong Kong are attempting to keep the faltering cause of democracy alive in China. But lost amid the commentary about the world’s largest tyranny and the impotent empathy for the protesters on the part of the West is the context by which China’s democratic neighbor helps discredit the cause of liberty as well as giving the Communists ammunition to fuel nationalist sentiments that help enable them to cling to power.

Read More

Decades after the last major outpouring of support for an end to Communist oppression was crushed in the Tiananmen Square massacre, tens of thousands of protesters in Hong Kong are attempting to keep the faltering cause of democracy alive in China. But lost amid the commentary about the world’s largest tyranny and the impotent empathy for the protesters on the part of the West is the context by which China’s democratic neighbor helps discredit the cause of liberty as well as giving the Communists ammunition to fuel nationalist sentiments that help enable them to cling to power.

I refer to the way Japan’s current government led by Shinzo Abe has sought to revive nationalist fever by, among other things, continuing to own up to the country’s World War Two atrocities in China and throughout Asia. In recent years, this deplorable revisionism has complicated relations between Japan and Korea, which suffered under Tokyo’s brutal rule throughout the first half of the 20th century. But it has also enflamed relations between Japan and China, a regional superpower and a rising military force in the Pacific. While the barbarism practiced by the Japanese military in China curing the 1930s and 40s may seem like ancient history to Americans, it is still very much part of China’s national consciousness. And though we think of Japan as a peaceful economic partner of the United States which left its savage past behind after Hiroshima, the contrast between Germany’s honest if sometimes problematic dedication to tell the truth about the Nazis to its own people and Japan’s continuing denials still has the potential to play havoc with the politics of contemporary Asia.

As Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Herbert P. Bix writes in today’s New York Times, the publication of an official biography of Emperor Hirohito shows that Japan is still refusing to tell the unvarnished truth about its past. The book, reportedly the work of an army of Japanese civil servants and historians who have been compiling it since Hirohito’s death in 1989, appears to stick to the old story that the emperor was a mere puppet in the hands of the country’s military. Moreover, Bix was told by a Japanese newspaper that asked him to write about an embargoed excerpt from the book that he could not comment about the emperor’s “role and responsibility” in the war.

Ironically, as Bix notes, the U.S. was complicit in this cover up for its own reasons. After Japan’s surrender in 1945, it served the cause of the American occupation to connive in the myth that the emperor was innocent of any part in his country’s aggression and the atrocities it committed in the name of its imperial ambition. The agreement to let the emperor remain in place helped smooth the transformation of Japan from a militarized authoritarian state to a pacifist democracy.

But though the myth of the helpless emperor was useful, it was always a lie. As Bix and other historians have demonstrated, far from the puppet depicted in most postwar analyses of Japan’s actions, Hirohito was a dynamic and powerful leader. Indeed, the transformation of the country’s government from one in which the emperor truly was a figurehead into a system in which he exercised direct power was the engine that drove Japan’s 19th century modernization. What historians call the Meiji Restoration—after Hirohito’s grandfather who took back power from the shoguns that had ruled Japan for centuries—was also directly linked to an expansionist spirit that led to war with first China, then Tsarist Russia, and ultimately to the Nazi-like aggression that led it to occupy most of China and to embark on a disastrous and bloody war with the United States.

The decision by General Douglas MacArthur and the Truman administration to give Hirohito a pass was also rooted in a lack of information about how Japan’s imperial system worked. Even during the war when anti-Japanese sentiment was its height, Americans focused their animus on General Hideki Tojo, the country’s prime minister from 1941 to 1944 rather than the emperor who had authorized the aggression carried out in his name. Tojo and other Japanese leaders were rightly held accountable in the Pacific version of the Nuremberg tribunals but they went to their deserved deaths knowing that doing so helped save the emperor from having to account for his own role in their crimes. But it also facilitated the creation of a mindset by which the Japanese seemed to think their part in World War Two was confined to having the first atomic bombs dropped on their cities and having to put up with an American occupation.

Why does this matter? As Bix points out, Japan’s determination to avoid telling the truth makes its neighbors suspicious of any effort to revise the postwar “peace constitution” imposed on the country by the United States. Bix wrongly denounces America’s justified concerns about China’s troubling drive to become a global military power and the need for Japan to assume some responsibility for protecting itself. But he’s right that the rest of Asia, including U.S. allies like Korea and the Philippines will never trust Japan until it owns up to its past.

If Japan wants to return to the world stage it will have to stop lying about Hirohito and the atrocities committed in his name in the last century. Just as important, Tokyo’s obsession with ignoring or covering up its history helps China’s contemporary tyrants whip up nationalism that can be used to suppress any hope of democracy.

Read Less

Zakaria Gets a Pass on Plagiarism

Fareed Zakaria has often been criticized in this space for being an inveterate peddler of conventional wisdom about the Middle East and for his tone deaf and often highly inaccurate writings about Israel, the peace process, and the Iranian nuclear threat. But while we don’t expect that his employers at CNN and the Washington Post would hold him accountable for these failings, it remains puzzling as to how it is that even this quintessential foreign-policy insider isn’t being held accountable for sins that have nothing to do with his biases.

Read More

Fareed Zakaria has often been criticized in this space for being an inveterate peddler of conventional wisdom about the Middle East and for his tone deaf and often highly inaccurate writings about Israel, the peace process, and the Iranian nuclear threat. But while we don’t expect that his employers at CNN and the Washington Post would hold him accountable for these failings, it remains puzzling as to how it is that even this quintessential foreign-policy insider isn’t being held accountable for sins that have nothing to do with his biases.

As Dylan Byers reports in Politico, charges of plagiarism are now mounting against the TV personality and columnist to the point where Newsweek, one of his former publishers has now chosen to add a disclaimer on its website archive noting the charges and soliciting readers to send in any evidence where articles he wrote “lacked proper attribution.”

Zakaria was disciplined back in 2012 for plagiarism that he claimed at the time to be an unintentional “mistake.” But since then he has continued to be dogged by accusations that he routinely steals the work of others in his books, articles, and TV. The Our Bad Media website claims this has happened more than three dozen times in recent years. As Byers has noted, more recently they have cited 24 such incidents of plagiarism on his Sunday morning CNN show. After consulting with journalism professors, the Politico writer says there is little doubt about the seriousness of the problem. Yet both the Post and CNN are not only failing to hold him accountable for any of this; they have gone so far as to dismiss the complaints entirely. Even CNN’s media reporter Brian Stelter merely called the instances “attribution mistakes,” which is a nice way of saying he knows what happened is generally considered plagiarism but understands that Zakaria has become a sacred cow at the network who may not be attacked even when evidence of misconduct is incontrovertible.

As Byers noted, none of the instances of plagiarism are egregious but the accumulation of dozens of instances in which Zakaria lifts the words of others and then uses them as his own makes it clear there is a pattern of misconduct that would normally result in a firing. Byers is at a loss as to explain not only why Zakaria seems to be in no danger at either the Post or CNN but the absence of a genuine hubbub in the media over offenses that normally draw the scorn if not the anger of fellow journalists.

Allow me to offer a possible explanation.

Just as in the business world there are sometimes businesses that are considered too big to fail, so, too, in journalism there appear to be personal brands that have attained untouchable status. While Zakaria is a foreign-policy wonk and not a network anchor, his access to President Obama has given him a cachet that would otherwise be impossible for other journalists to attain. As a faithful supporter, if not unofficial courtier of the administration, Zakaria can always be relied upon to defend the president and his foreign-policy team no matter how many mistakes they make. In a media environment where foreign news is often marginalized even on the cable news channels, Zakaria has somehow risen to the point where he and perhaps his employers labor under the delusion that he is a latter-day Walter Lippmann, an essential commentator who helps create foreign-policy consensus rather than report or write about it.

Such a person is surely not invulnerable but is nevertheless sufficiently powerful to be able to ignore criticisms even of blatant ethics violations. Moreover, admitting the truth of Our Bad Media’s accusations would call into question not just the judgment and behavior of Zakaria but of his bosses. Instead of facing that storm, they appear to be hoping that they can brazen it out.

But if they think this is going away, they are profoundly mistaken. As Newsweek’s call for more information illustrates, Zakaria’s routine theft is a not a case of a few mistakes but of behavior that he may be incapable of halting.

The Washington Post and CNN may believe that being Fareed Zakaria means never having to say you’re sorry. But, as Politico and Newsweek have already discovered, this story isn’t going away.

Read Less

Human Shields Aren’t Rethinking Hamas

In the aftermath of its disastrous 50-day war against Israel this past summer Hamas saw its popularity skyrocket with huge majorities in both Gaza and the West Bank telling pollsters that the Islamists “won” and that they supported their conduct. A month later, Palestinians have sobered up a bit. But the latest numbers paint a picture of a population that is still not ready for peace or anything that looks like it.

Read More

In the aftermath of its disastrous 50-day war against Israel this past summer Hamas saw its popularity skyrocket with huge majorities in both Gaza and the West Bank telling pollsters that the Islamists “won” and that they supported their conduct. A month later, Palestinians have sobered up a bit. But the latest numbers paint a picture of a population that is still not ready for peace or anything that looks like it.

The latest survey taken by the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) shows that the number of respondents who think Hamas won has declined from its postwar high of 79 percent to only 69 percent. As with the August findings, backing for Hamas and its methods are higher in the West Bank than in Gaza, where residents were directly affected by the fighting. But though the post-war surge reflects the ebbing of the high emotions engendered by the conflict, no one should mistake any of these numbers as a vote of no confidence in the Islamist terror group or a move in the direction of the supposedly more moderate Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas. To the contrary, the PSR results reinforce the conclusion that strong majorities of Palestinians support Hamas’s terror war even if those who must pay the price for this bloody gesture are less enthusiastic about it than onlookers.

Palestinians continue to support Hamas firing more rockets at Israel if the blockade of Gaza is not lifted with 80 percent overall endorsing this position and 72 percent of Gazans also backing the proposition. Given that the only reason the blockade was imposed on Gaza to begin with was the Hamas coup with which the group seized power in 2007, this position sets up a circular argument. But far more shocking than that is the response to the question posed about whether they support Hamas firing rockets from populated areas.

While Hamas generally denies doing this, it is not exactly a secret that it does it so as to use civilians as human shields against possible Israeli counter-attacks aimed at silencing the rocket launchers. Nor are Palestinians unaware of the fact that this practice deliberately exposes them to death and destruction, a cynical tactic whose purpose is to get as many civilians killed as possible.

Yet the survey showed that a solid majority of Palestinians—57 percent—supported this slaughter. Not surprisingly, only 48 percent in Gaza thought it was a good idea to stake them out as human sacrifices on the altar of Hamas’s unending war against the Jewish state. But an impressive 62 percent in the West Bank still endorsed the practice.

Just as ominous are the results to the question about who should lead the Palestinian people. As the Times of Israel reports:

If elections were held today, Hamas’s former Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh would still defeat PA President Mahmoud Abbas by a large majority of 55% compared to 38%, a margin which has, however, shrunk since August, when Haniyeh won 61% support and Abbas only 32%. But in Gaza the two leaders are currently neck and neck, with Abbas winning 47% and Haniyeh 50% in a poll with a 3% margin of error.

That neatly sums up the answer to the question as to whether Abbas, who is currently serving the 10th year of a four-year term as president of the PA will allow new elections anytime soon. It also shows why the only thing preventing another Hamas coup, this time on the West Bank in which Abbas would be deposed, is Israeli security.

Though enthusiasm for Hamas is not unanimous, it remains more popular than its Fatah rivals. Why? Because the unchanging dynamic of Palestinian politics is that whichever party spills the most Jewish blood will always have the upper hand. Since its inception a century ago, Palestinian Arab national identity has been inextricably tied to the war on Zionism.

That also explains, for those who haven’t been paying attention (a group that includes the Obama administration) why Abbas remains incapable of making peace even if the former Holocaust denier (a fact about his biography that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had the nerve to mention in his address to the United Nations General Assembly) really wanted to do so. The population in both the West Bank and Gaza still are hostile to any agreement that would recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn even if meant removing the threat of war.

So long as Hamas’s human shields are ready to vote for more war, any further efforts toward peace are doomed to failure. While President Obama unfairly accused Israelis of not being willing to work for peace, this is a reality that most Israelis have accepted, albeit reluctantly. It’s something the administration, as well as those left-wingers eager to save Israel from itself, need to come to terms with.

Read Less

Why Erekat’s Anti-Israel Slander Matters

Those who want to blame Israel for the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians have long been running out of arguments. Israel keeps offering the Palestinians what they claim to want, and the Palestinian leadership keeps rejecting it out of hand. Because of the intellectual vacuity of the blame-Israel crowd, the rejectionists and their supporters increasingly resort to hysterical tirades in opposition to Israel’s survival as a Jewish state, which are nothing if not revealing. And the latest such outburst is no different.

Read More

Those who want to blame Israel for the lack of peace between Israel and the Palestinians have long been running out of arguments. Israel keeps offering the Palestinians what they claim to want, and the Palestinian leadership keeps rejecting it out of hand. Because of the intellectual vacuity of the blame-Israel crowd, the rejectionists and their supporters increasingly resort to hysterical tirades in opposition to Israel’s survival as a Jewish state, which are nothing if not revealing. And the latest such outburst is no different.

Anti-Israel activist Max Blumenthal, son of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, last week compared Israel to ISIS/ISIL at the kangaroo court known as the Russell Tribunal, in which anti-Semites like Roger Waters gather to compare notes on their various libels against the Jews. The gag caught on, spawning the Twitter hashtag #JSIL. But it wasn’t used by anybody intelligent or important until lead Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat embraced it. According to the Times of Israel:

“Netanyahu is trying to disseminate fear of the Islamic State led by Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, but Netanyahu forgets that he himself leads the Jewish state,” said Saeb Erekat, the Palestinians’ chief negotiator in peace talks with Israel.

“He wants us to call Israel the Jewish state and supports terrorist settlers who kill, destroy and burn mosques and churches… like Baghdadi’s men kill and terrorize,” Erekat told AFP.

It sounds like an attempt at a clever play on words–attempt being the operative word here–but coming from Erekat it’s worth drawing attention to. First of all, Erekat is no stranger to historical fabrication–this is not even the first time this year he’s made up history in order to undermine the Jews’ connection to Israel. Erekat is not an honest man, and he has no qualms about preying on the historical ignorance and political correctness of Western media, who are loath to challenge the Palestinian narrative.

But he’s not a fringe activist, like those who came up with the JSIL hashtag. He’s the chief Palestinian negotiator, and thus the man the Palestinians put front and center to craft an agreement. As the Tower reported on Erekat’s earlier comments:

The Israelis have long insisted that any peace deal should include language recognizing Israel as a “Jewish state,” in part but not completely as a signal from the Palestinians that a final peace deal genuinely guaranteed the end of territorial claims. Palestinian leaders have refused the demand, and Erekat’s reemphasis of the position was described by one Palestinian news outlet as a rejection of “the Jewishness of Israel.” Top Palestinian figures, up to and including Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, have more broadly kept up a campaign denying a historical Jewish link to parts of Israel including Jerusalem.

The Palestinians’ refusal to accept the legitimacy of a Jewish state is a refusal to accept the existence of Jews among them. This is why Israel wants the acknowledgement of Israel’s Jewish character: it would mean an end to the Palestinians’ campaign of extermination against the Jewish people. It’s the difference between a “peace process” and actual peace. The Israelis want peace; Western diplomats and their media cheerleaders want a peace process. The Palestinians want neither, but they’ll participate in the charade of a peace process as long as they continue to get concessions without having to give anything up. They are not yet ready to consider peace with Jews as a goal.

Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, and thus a guarantor of Jewish survival and continuity in a world that often appears indifferent to both, should not be controversial. But the survival of the Jewish people nonetheless remains a point of contention, something to be put on the table for the purposes of negotiation but not agreed to ahead of time. John Kerry, who led the last round of negotiations, has wavered on this, to his immense discredit.

Unfortunately, there remain those who believe the Jews should put their survival in the hands of the Palestinians out of some airy pseudoreligious devotion to multiculturalism. Orwell’s belief that some ideas are so foolish only an intellectual could believe them lives on in American academia: UCLA professor Patricia Marks Greenfield recently took to the pages of the Washington Post to declare that “If Gaza and the West Bank were truly part of Israel, and Israel were truly a multiethnic, secular society, there would be progress toward peace.”

Greenfield does not seem to fathom what this would truly mean for the Jews of Israel, nor does she express any desire for what Erekat ultimately seeks. And thus in the dry, innocuous-sounding parlance of the enlightened academic does the idea that the Jews should lose their state and control over their fate further the same ends, though certainly springing from a different mindset, as those of Saeb Erekat. And it is in that light that Erekat’s repulsive comparison of Israel to ISIS should be seen. Israel’s “partner for peace,” the Palestinian leadership, desires to see the end of the Jewish state which, in the minds of Israel’s enemies, means the end of the Jews.

Read Less

Keystone Kops at the White House

It might possibly be pathetically funny–if it weren’t so unnerving.

Read More

It might possibly be pathetically funny–if it weren’t so unnerving.

Omar Gonzalez, a disturbed man, jumps over the White House fence and makes it past the staircase leading up to the President’s private quarters, and through the East Room all the way to the Green Room entrance, before finally being “tackled” and arrested.

Oh, and he “overpowered” a female Secret Service agent along the way. And, um, the front door to the White House was unlocked. And they couldn’t shoot the guy or anything because he was “unarmed”–except it turned out he had a knife on him, and 800 rounds of ammo, a machete, and two hatchets in his car, parked nearby. And he had been stopped on August 25 at the White House with a hatchet in his waistband. And just before he jumped the fence three weeks later, two Secret Service officers recognized him from that August encounter but did nothing about it. And he had been pulled over in July in Virginia, where cops found various weapons in his car, and a map with the White House circled–an incident duly reported to both the ATF and the Secret Service.

In keeping with the ethos of the Obama administration, the Secret Service lied about the incident, claiming the intruder had been stopped just inside the White House door–until “whistleblowers” revealed the truth.

The truth being that if Gonzalez had had a bomb hidden under his shirt instead of just a knife, and if the Obama family had been at home, the outcome could have been a national nightmare instead of a mere exercise in buffoonery.

“I am committed to a full and robust fact-finding that allows me to look at what went wrong.”

Thus spake Secret Service director Julia Pierson at the House hearing where she was raked over the coals–even by Democrats.

Apparently, what went wrong is that the Secret Service has turned into the Keystone Kops.

Read Less

More on The Rosh Hashanah Sermons

Yesterday, I highlighted two remarkable sermons given at synagogues in New York City, one conservative and one reform, by two rabbis who refused to stay silent on the subject of the summer’s war in Israel/Gaza. I’ve been sent another, this one from Houston, by Rabbi David Lyon of the reform shul Beth Israel, who uses the call of the shofar as the call to Jewish vigilance. It is worthy of attention as well. An excerpt:

Read More

Yesterday, I highlighted two remarkable sermons given at synagogues in New York City, one conservative and one reform, by two rabbis who refused to stay silent on the subject of the summer’s war in Israel/Gaza. I’ve been sent another, this one from Houston, by Rabbi David Lyon of the reform shul Beth Israel, who uses the call of the shofar as the call to Jewish vigilance. It is worthy of attention as well. An excerpt:

On Rosh Hashanah, the sound of the Shofar is the music that awakens us to our phenomenal historical vision. When we hear Tekiah, Shevarim, Teruah, Tekiah Gedolah, “our eyes close, turn inward, and an aura almost of sanctity enwraps us all.” It calls us to bear witness to our covenant. Ben Gurion said we can’t predict the future. But, the Shofar awakens us to the future. It compels us to engage with the Ultimate, for the sake of our people’s future.

Let us commit ourselves to throw down the cloak of despair and the yoke of passivity. Let us pick up the staff of leadership, and lead the way forward for our people and the civilized world. Let us be a light unto the nations without arrogance or apology; and, let us arrive at a time when God’s promise to our people is seen in the abundance of our people’s blessings in Israel and in all the places we call home.

This Rosh Hashanah is a defining moment for Israel and the Jewish people. For the sake of the children of the southern city of Sderot who deserve to play outside and the future generations of all God’s children who deserve to live in a world of greater peace, we must wear the prickly, sentimental attire that will bear up against our foes and be welcomed by our advocates.

You can read Lyon’s sermon here.

Read Less

Santorum and the Myths About 2012

If Republicans hold to past form, Rick Santorum, whose potential candidacy was profiled in Politico yesterday, ought to be their next presidential nominee. But the expectation that the runner up from the last race will win the next one—a pattern that applied in five out of the last six competitive GOP primary contests—is not one that will likely apply in 2016. The reasons why it won’t have less to do with Santorum’s shortcomings than with the very different composition of the likely field of candidates and the myths that have grown about the 2012 race in both the party’s establishment and its conservative grass roots.

Read More

If Republicans hold to past form, Rick Santorum, whose potential candidacy was profiled in Politico yesterday, ought to be their next presidential nominee. But the expectation that the runner up from the last race will win the next one—a pattern that applied in five out of the last six competitive GOP primary contests—is not one that will likely apply in 2016. The reasons why it won’t have less to do with Santorum’s shortcomings than with the very different composition of the likely field of candidates and the myths that have grown about the 2012 race in both the party’s establishment and its conservative grass roots.

Almost everyone outside of his inner circle thought Santorum’s candidacy was pure folly heading into the 2012 cycle. But a combination of hard work beating the bushes in Iowa and the fact that he was the one true social conservative in the race enabled Santorum to emerge as the chief challenger to frontrunner Mitt Romney. Though Romney’s ultimate victory was never in doubt, Santorum won a dozen primaries and caucuses and earned the right to call himself the second-place finisher. Though politics isn’t horseshoes, coming close did help Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bob Dole, John McCain, and Romney get the nomination the next time out after similar failures.

But this “rule” about runners up won’t apply this time. Unfortunately for Santorum, politics isn’t a quilt pattern. The prospective Republican field is very difference than it was four years ago, and that will dictate very different results.

First of all, there is no true front-runner as there usually is for GOP races. Indeed, the closest thing to a leading candidate once New Jersey Governor Chris Christie was laid low by Bridgegate is Senator Rand Paul. But renewed fears about terrorism mean that Paul is going to have a hard time expanding his appeal significantly beyond his libertarian base. No one, including Santorum, will be able to head into the first contests playing off the base’s resentment of the eventual candidate since no one will be in that role.

Second, though Republicans will have their share of outliers like Dr. Ben Carson, the lineup in their debates could include some genuine heavy hitters. A roster that could include the likes of Paul, Senator Ted Cruz, Christie, Rick Perry (back for his own second go at the presidency), Scott Walker, Bobby Jindal, Mike Pence, and maybe even Paul Ryan or Jeb Bush will leave less room for a dark horse like Santorum to squeeze through to the front of the pack.

Santorum does have on thing that his potential rivals don’t possess: The ability to play to working-class voters. Santorum was right when he criticized the 2012 Republican National Convention for its emphasis on small business owners with its attempt to counter President Obama’s “you didn’t build that” gaffe to the exclusion of those who work for them. But though Santorum brings plenty of substance to the table on economics, social issues, and foreign policy (raising the alarm about the Iranian nuclear threat was a key issue for him during his disastrous 2006 race for reelection to his Pennsylvania Senate seat), it’s far from clear the formula that worked for a time for him last time will do the trick against opponents who don’t fit as neatly into the establishment category as Romney or even New Gingrich did in 2012.

But the discussion of Santorum’s potential candidacy should also cause Republicans to rethink some other myths about their last go round.

One is the idea that Santorum’s challenge was somehow to blame for Romney’s defeat in November.

It is true that it would have been easier on Romney and saved him a great deal of money that he could have employed against Obama had Santorum quit in February rather than pushing on for another couple of months. But it should be recalled that although John McCain’s chief opponents (the most prominent of which was Romney himself) did him that favor in 2008, it didn’t help him win the general election. The same could be said of the 2012 GOP nominee. Even if his grass-roots critics had shut up about his shortcomings sooner and given him an easy glide to the nomination, he was never going to beat Obama. Romney’s weaknesses as a candidate and the enduring, if puzzling, popularity of Barack Obama beat him, not Santorum.

The other prominent 2012 myth among Republicans is the idea that the nomination of a relative moderate depressed the base so much that millions of conservatives stayed home in November ensuring a Democratic victory. That’s a theme that will be sounded by conservatives in the 2016 primaries but there’s little proof that “silent majorities” of right-wingers stayed home in the fall. But unless the GOP establishment coalesces behind a resurgent but still damaged Christie or Jeb Bush decides to run or, as some hope, Romney tries again, there will be little for the base to complain about in a race that will largely be a competition between conservatives.

Santorum’s 2012 achievements should mean that his ambitions deserve more respect from pundits than he’s currently getting. But he is, if anything, an even bigger underdog today than he was four years ago. The bottom line is that in politics there are no real precedents. Nor will rules seeking to end the race earlier than it did last time necessarily work or help the nominee win in November. The coming free-for-all will be played by a different cast and produce different results with the one exception being that it is unlikely to end in a Santorum triumph.

Read Less

Democrat Attack Themes Flop in Iowa

In a year in which control of the U.S. Senate is on the line, the race to fill the Iowa seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Tom Harkin is proving to be one of the keys to the national contest. But there is something else that is being illustrated by the battle between Republican Joni Ernst and Democrat Bruce Braley. The Democrats’ belief that they can repeat their 2012 victories with assertions that the GOP is waging a war on women or is in the pocket of the Koch brothers may be a big mistake.

Read More

In a year in which control of the U.S. Senate is on the line, the race to fill the Iowa seat being vacated by retiring Democrat Tom Harkin is proving to be one of the keys to the national contest. But there is something else that is being illustrated by the battle between Republican Joni Ernst and Democrat Bruce Braley. The Democrats’ belief that they can repeat their 2012 victories with assertions that the GOP is waging a war on women or is in the pocket of the Koch brothers may be a big mistake.

Heading into 2014, most pundits thought the Democrats were in good position to hold the Iowa seat. But that expectation was based on the notion that Braley was a better candidate than he has proved to be as well as the belief that Republicans would nominate a bland conservative who could be bludgeoned with the Democrats’ favorite tactic: the accusation that Republicans are at war with women. Both assumptions proved to be mistaken.

Braley’s hot-tempered and condescending manner has cost him dearly. So, too, did his gaffe in which he warned a group of fellow trial lawyers that if the GOP won the Senate, the Judiciary Committee would be led by an “Iowa farmer”—Chuck Grassley, the state’s respected senior senator. But his contempt for one of the staples of the state’s economy might not have been as big a deal had he not been opposed by State Senator Joni Ernst. The tough-talking conservative has not only undermined conventional wisdom about the race but also the Democrats’ confidence in their ability to exploit women’s fears to win elections.

Ernst’s easy win in the Republican primary was the first sign of trouble for Democrats. But they hoped that her surge—driven in part by a clever TV ad in which she spoke of her farm girl background and experience in castrating hogs as evidence of how she’ll make the Washington establishment squeal—would be followed by gaffes that would expose her as another Tea Party extremist who would sink in a general-election fight. But if Braley was underestimating his opponent, he soon learned she was more than equal to the test of a competitive statewide race. That was on display in last weekend’s first debate between the two in which Ernst took the Democrat apart in a textbook example of what happens when a well-prepared candidate comes up against one who is still laboring under the delusion that the seat is still his to lose.

That Ernst, a lieutenant colonel in the Iowa National Guard who served in Iraq, is no pushover who could be easily labeled an extremist is something Braley still hasn’t quite come to terms with. Though he attacked her non-stop in the debate, she kept her cool, and counter-attacked effortlessly in a manner that left the congressman fuming. The race was already trending in her direction before the debate as a Des Moines Register poll showed her up by six points over Braley. The next surveys may bring even worse news for the Democrats.

But the point here is not just that Republicans may have lucked their way into finding exactly the right candidate to champion conservative economic positions in a state where liberal populists like Harkin have been popular. It’s that when employed against principled and credible female Republicans, the war on women tactic fails.

It is true that, as last week’s Des Moines Register poll shows, Braley has maintained a big edge among women voters leading Ernst by a 46-33 percent margin. But the gender gap factor hasn’t pushed the race into the Democratic column. Though she trails among women, Ernst leads Braley among male voters by an even more stunning 55-30 differential.

Just as important was the way one of the key moments in the debate undermined the notion that Democratic harping on the contributions of the libertarian Koch brothers will taint anyone they support. When Braley accused Ernst of being in their pocket, she tartly replied that he was dependent on the support of environmentalist billionaire Tom Steyer. Moreover, while Ernst’s conservatism is not in question, Braley’s decision to flip-flop and oppose the Keystone XL Pipeline to win Steyer’s favor makes any talk about the Kochs’ influence so much hypocritical hot air.

Many Republicans believed their 2012 defeat in the presidential election and the disastrous impact of misogynist gaffes like that of Todd Akin on Senate races meant they had to change their positions on religious freedom, ObamaCare, and abortion to win elections. But Ernst’s strong run is once again illustrating the fact that what they needed were candidates who could articulate their principles without shooting themselves in the foot.

While most of the battleground contests in 2014 are in red states, the race in competitive Iowa is a truer test of the Democrats’ reliance on their standard tropes about women and big money. With five weeks to go it’s clear that their reliance on smearing Republicans on women’s issues and the Koch brothers won’t work against Joni Ernst. Instead of trolling the country for bland moderates as some GOP establishment types were recommending a year ago, Iowa demonstrates that what they really need are more tough-as-nails women like Joni Ernst.

Read Less

Dem Senate Candidates: Bombs Away!

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You just need Jeanne Shaheen.

Read More

You don’t need a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. You just need Jeanne Shaheen.

As Politico recounts in a story today, Democratic Senate candidates are finding their inner hawks on the campaign trail, but none more noticeably than Shaheen, the New Hampshire incumbent trying to fend off a challenge from Scott Brown. Shaheen, on matters of war and peace, is a walking focus group:

When she ran unsuccessfully for the Senate a year after the Sept. 11 attacks, she said at a debate: “I’ll stand with President Bush on national security, the war on terrorism and to disarm Saddam Hussein.”

In a 2008 rematch against then-Sen. John Sununu, after the war had gone south, Shaheen vowed to fight to bring the troops home.

“I would vote to authorize military action if the U.S. or any of its treaty partners are attacked militarily, and to prevent an imminent attack,” she said on a 2008 questionnaire. But “I oppose the Bush doctrine of preemption because it implies that the United States will use preemption as a first option, rather than a last resort.”

Setting aside her obvious ignorance of the Bush doctrine (an ignorance she shares with virtually everyone on the left), we should ask Shaheen: Which way are the winds blowing this time? Answer:

Republican candidate Scott Brown has been hammering Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen for failing to understand “the nature of the threat,” as he put it in one commercial that began airing last week.

This has prompted the freshman Democrat to begin quietly running a response ad (her campaign has not released it to the news media), in which she says: “I support those airstrikes. I think it’s important for us to take the fight to ISIL.”

A narrator accuses Brown of playing politics and says, over patriotic music, that Shaheen “always works to keep America strong.”

Even her ads are a study in contradiction. It’s apparently “playing politics” for politicians to campaign on the issues, and yet Shaheen takes the bait and claims that she, too, enthusiastically wants to bomb some folks, as the president might say.

But Shaheen is just a product of a Democratic Party that has not had a coherent approach to national security in over a decade. During President Bush’s first term, Al Gore maniacally accused him of betraying the country. The Democrats then nominated John Kerry in 2004, to make crystal clear they didn’t have the energy to even pretend they cared about national security.

In 2008, Democrats nominated Barack Obama, whose antiwar speech in 2002, lauded by the left, was startlingly unintelligent and Ron Paul-esque in its wild-eyed conspiracy theories. Obama followed the usual fringe leftist critique of blaming Wolfowitz and Perle for manipulating the country into war. He also called them “weekend warriors,” showing he doesn’t know what “weekend warrior” means. He then accused Karl Rove of manufacturing the war to distract the country from the economy and to protect corporate evildoers from public opprobrium. The speech sounded like a raving fusion of Glenn Greenwald and Alex Jones. So naturally the Democrats chose him to represent their party.

And then when he won, the script had to be flipped. The president was introduced to reality, and he embraced his power to expand America’s war in the Middle East and Central Asia. He had genuine successes, like the operation to take out Osama bin Laden, which he then made his campaign slogan to the extent that it was actually surprising his nominating convention speech didn’t feature him standing over bin Laden’s body while exclaiming to the audience “Are you not entertained?

Indeed they were entertained. The thousands of Democratic Party voters and activists cheered on targeted assassination. In his foreign-policy debate with Mitt Romney, Obama taunted his challenger’s lack of appetite for the messy business of spilling bad-guy blood. His secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, then stepped down and immediately spread the word that Obama was insufficiently hawkish for her, and that, as she rocketed to the top of 2016 Democratic polls, she would take the country further into battle. You only think you’re entertained now, Clinton’s message intimated; you ain’t seen nothing yet.

And that was all before Obama abandoned Iraq and watched ISIS rise, march on territory, and then start beheading Americans. The public may have been war weary, but they won’t stand for being targeted with impunity. Obama did the right thing and agreed to try and push back ISIS and protect the ethnic and religious minority groups whose existence ISIS was trying to extinguish. He also was informed of credible threats against America and acted accordingly.

And Democratic candidates are following suit. The idea of “antiwar liberals” was always something of a misnomer. They were, mostly, anti-Bush or anti-Republican liberals. What matters most to the left is not who is being bombed but who is ordering the bombing. It’s why Jim Webb is probably kidding himself if he believes an antiwar candidate poses a credible challenge to Hillary Clinton. If he wants to know if there’s space on the left for a serious antiwar campaign, he’s going through entirely too much effort by traveling around the country and talking to prospective supporters. All he really needs to do is ask Jeanne Shaheen.

Read Less

Twenty-First Century Conservatism

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senators Mike Lee and Marco Rubio laid out a pro-growth, pro-family tax reform plan. It recommends two rates (35 and 15 percent), cuts the current corporate tax rate, eliminates or reforms certain deductions, ends the marriage penalty, and increases the child tax credit.

Read More

In a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed, Senators Mike Lee and Marco Rubio laid out a pro-growth, pro-family tax reform plan. It recommends two rates (35 and 15 percent), cuts the current corporate tax rate, eliminates or reforms certain deductions, ends the marriage penalty, and increases the child tax credit.

While important details would need to be worked out, this proposal holds great promise both for what it can do to strengthen the economy and help families. (For more, see here and here.) But I want to focus on how Messrs. Lee and Rubio frame their proposal.

In describing the challenges facing middle class Americans, they identify some of the fundamental transformations we’re undergoing and write this:

Despite these dramatic changes, the policies and practices of Washington remain stuck in the 20th century, leaving too many Americans unable to access the enormous potential of this new era.

If we hope to realize a new American Century, many institutions and government programs will need to be updated, reformed or replaced. Both of us have spent a large portion of the year proposing such reforms.

Perhaps no function of the U.S. government is more antiquated and dysfunctional than its tax system, so we are joining together to propose a federal tax-reform plan that will remove obstacles to investment, innovation, growth and opportunity.

This way of thinking about things has long had resonance with me. It’s especially effective now, I think, because our public institutions and programs, in some cases designed before the middle part of the last century, are badly outdated and desperately in need of reform; because modern-day liberalism is sclerotic and reactionary, in the sense that “progressives” fiercely oppose adjustments to our entitlement programs, education system, tax code, energy policies, and much else; and because advocating reform allows conservatives to be agents of change, modern, responsive, and serious about governing.

We’re seeing a collapse of confidence in the federal government; Americans understand it’s not aligned with reality (including demographic trends, advances in technology, and globalization) or our contemporary needs. Which means conservatives have an opportunity to reconceive the role of government in the 21st century, to do so in bold (but not radical) ways, and do it in a way that is a little less theoretical and a lot more practical, by which I mean showing how conservative policies are going to improve, on a daily basis, the lives of middle-class Americans. (In the 2012 GOP primary we heard more about electrified fences than we did about the costs of higher education.)

This is what Senators Lee and Rubio are attempting to do, and Republicans would be wise to follow them.

Read Less

Hong Kong and the Dream of Chinese Democracy

Call me naïve, but I’m a sucker for pro-democracy demonstrations against dictators. Admittedly, whether in Tiananmen Square or Tahrir Square, they don’t always work out well. But there is something thrilling about tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to demand the basic rights that most of us in the West have come to take for granted–knowing, all the while, that there is a real possibility of bloodshed on the part of a brutal regime bent on protecting itself at any cost.

Read More

Call me naïve, but I’m a sucker for pro-democracy demonstrations against dictators. Admittedly, whether in Tiananmen Square or Tahrir Square, they don’t always work out well. But there is something thrilling about tens of thousands of people taking to the streets to demand the basic rights that most of us in the West have come to take for granted–knowing, all the while, that there is a real possibility of bloodshed on the part of a brutal regime bent on protecting itself at any cost.

These thoughts are prompted, of course, by images of all the people who have been occupying the streets of central Hong Kong for three days now to demand direct election of their chief executive without limiting candidates to a list vetted and approved by the Communist Party leadership in Beijing. Police fired tear gas at the demonstrators on Sunday, but that did not disperse them. Now the security forces have backed off to ponder their next move.

From Beijing’s perspective this is a no-win situation. If they send the troops out to clear the streets by force, they will risk international opprobrium–and, perhaps more significant, delay for another generation any hope that Taiwan will agree to voluntarily become part of the People’s Republic of China. After all Beijing’s key selling point to Taipei is that it could enjoy the “one country, two systems” model implemented in Hong Kong after the British left in 1997. If Chinese forces carry out a slaughter in the streets of Hong Kong that message will be exposed as hollow. If, on the other hand, the government caves in to the demonstrators’ demands it could expose Beijing to more demands for democracy from dissatisfied people on the mainland.

There is not much the U.S. can do to affect the situation one way or the other beyond showing clearly where our sympathies lie. There is no doubt a debate going on in the administration as I write this between the usual, predictable parties–the realists who say we have to accommodate ourselves to Beijing at any cost and the human-rights advocates who believe we have to stand up forcibly for the rights of people in Hong Kong and elsewhere around the world.

The Realpolitikers have a better case when they argue for overlooking human-rights violations among our allies–countries such as Bahrain and Saudi Arabia whose strategic support we need and where the alternative to an illiberal but pro-American monarchy could well be an Islamist dictatorship that is anti-American. But such considerations should not restrain us from pushing for democracy in countries such as Iran and China and Russia that are most decidedly not our allies–that are, in fact, either rivals or outright enemies.

China is in the midst of a massive defense buildup designed to dominate East Asia while pushing U.S. power out of the region. It is undertaking aggressive maneuvers with its navy against U.S. allies such as Japan and the Philippines. It is mounting nonstop cyber attacks on U.S. computer networks. It supports rogue regimes such as North Korea and Iran. And it works hand in glove with Russia to block international action in such countries as Syria. True, China also trades with the U.S. and holds a lot of our debt, but it is hardly our friend: At best it is a rival with whom we can do business but only warily.

In short, we should not be constrained by fears of alienating China from speaking out forcefully about its human-rights violations. The U.S. should champion the cause of Chinese democracy by every means available, much as we once worked by peaceful means to undermine the Soviet bloc. The Hong Kong demonstrations are a sign that Chinese people also want freedom–that even in the most prosperous city in China the people are not willing to trade away their “inalienable rights” for big cars and fancy apartments and the latest in high-tech electronics.

The people of Hong Kong are risking their lives for freedom. We should do what we can–and admittedly it’s not much–to stand with them.

Read Less

Our Lying President and His Lying Press Secretary

White House press secretary Josh Earnest has a problem. In a misguided effort to protect his boss, the president, he is continuing to lie.

Read More

White House press secretary Josh Earnest has a problem. In a misguided effort to protect his boss, the president, he is continuing to lie.

I use the word lie advisedly but, I believe, correctly. Here’s why.

In an exchange yesterday with ABC’s Jonathan Karl, Mr. Earnest continues to peddle the fiction that President Obama did not have ISIS/ISIL in mind when he referred to it in an interview in the New Yorker as a “jayvee team.” Several weeks ago I showed why that claim is false, and so have many others, including Glenn Kessler, the fact-checker for the Washington Post.

It’s simply not plausible to believe the White House press secretary is unwittingly mistaken on this matter. By now he has to know what the truth is. He has to know full well that Mr. Obama had ISIS in mind when he referred to it as a “jayvee team.” So, by the way, does Mr. Obama, who is also deceiving Americans about this matter.

I understand why the president and his press secretary would rather not admit to having mocked ISIS now that it is the largest, richest, most well armed, and most formidable terrorist group on the planet. But Mr. Obama did, and being duplicitous about the fact that he did isn’t going to help anyone. It will, in fact, further erode the president’s credibility.

It is bad enough for this administration to be so inept; it’s worse for them to be so obviously dishonest as well.

Read Less

Obama’s Mistakes Come Back to Haunt Him

President Obama sounded much tougher when he spoke at the United Nations last week than he has in a long time. But for anyone expecting the president to become a born-again hawk and repent of his earlier retreatism, the 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday should be chastening.

Read More

President Obama sounded much tougher when he spoke at the United Nations last week than he has in a long time. But for anyone expecting the president to become a born-again hawk and repent of his earlier retreatism, the 60 Minutes interview that aired Sunday should be chastening.

The headline-grabbing statement was the president blaming the intelligence community for underestimating ISIS and overestimating the capacity of the Iraqi army. And it’s true that Jim Clapper, the director of national intelligence, did recently tell David Ignatius, “We underestimated ISIL [the Islamic State] and overestimated the fighting capability of the Iraqi army” although he also said that “his analysts had reported the group’s emergence and its ‘prowess and capability,’ as well as the ‘deficiencies’ of the Iraqi military.” So the president can take refuge in asserting that he was simply claiming Clapper’s own self-critique.

But I doubt that will seem very convincing to intelligence community personnel who will feel that the president is throwing them under the bus–hiding policy errors behind a front of supposed intelligence failures. Indeed, the New York Times today quotes one “senior American intelligence official” as saying: “Some of us were pushing the reporting, but the White House just didn’t pay attention to it. They were preoccupied with other crises. This just wasn’t a big priority.”

The reality is that it didn’t require any specialized intelligence apparatus to know that the threat from jihadists like ISIS would grow or that the capabilities of the Iraqi army would decline if we left Iraq and Syria alone, as we have largely done since 2011. I and many other analysts were noting at the time that the departure of U.S. troops from Iraq was a “tragedy” that would leave Iraqis ill-prepared to defend themselves and that the U.S. failure to help the moderate Syrian opposition would cede ground to “Sunnis extremists such as al Qaeda.” That Obama chose to ignore such warnings was not the fault of his intelligence personnel; it was his own fault for believing what he wanted to believe–namely that the U.S. could retreat from the Middle East without increasing the danger of our enemies gaining ground.

Such a belief was fantastic enough in 2011; it became utterly preposterous when in January of this year Fallujah and Ramadi fell to ISIS. Yet even then Obama did nothing for another nine months. It took the fall of Mosul in June to shake him out of his complacency–although not to get him off the golf course–and at last try to come up with some strategy to stop ISIS. Again, this isn’t the intelligence community’s fault. It’s Obama’s fault, and he would enhance his own credibility if he would accept some of the blame for this failure.

Instead he is once again pointing fingers, not only at the intelligence agencies but also at former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. “When we left, we had left them a democracy that was intact, a military that was well equipped, and the ability then to chart their own course,” Obama said. “And that opportunity was squandered over the course of five years or so because the prime minister, Maliki, was much more interested in consolidating his Shiite base and very suspicious of the Sunnis and the Kurds, who make up the other two-thirds of the country.”

True enough, but this analysis ignores the important role of Obama’s own administration in helping Maliki to win a second term in 2010 when he actually won fewer parliamentary seats than Ayad Allawi. It is also ignores the fact that those of us who were in favor of keeping U.S. troops in Iraq past 2011 (and that includes senior U.S. military commanders on the ground) believed it was essentially in no small part to allow the U.S. to continue exerting pressure on Maliki to stay non-sectarian. That Maliki would unleash his inner sectarian as soon as we left was also utterly predictable and cannot be blamed on any intelligence failure.

Of course Obama won’t accept responsibility for pulling out of Iraq either–he blames that too on the Iraqis for failing to agree to grant U.S. troops legal immunity in a status of forces agreed ratified by their parliament. Yet it turns out this was a bogus issue all along. How do I know? Because Obama has now sent 1,600, and counting, U.S. troops to Iraq without any legal immunity or any Status of Forces Agreement ratified by parliament. If he’s doing it now, why couldn’t he do it in 2012? Simply because he didn’t want to–Iraqi leaders almost certainly would have acceded if Obama had shown the will to remain past 2011.

Rather than accepting blame for his own misjudgments, Obama stubbornly continues to defend his mistakes such as failing to arm moderate Syrian fighters in 2011-2012 as most of his security cabinet was urging him to do. “For us to just go blind on that would have been counterproductive and would not have helped the situation. But we also would have committed us to a much more significant role inside of Syria,” Obama said.

Yet Obama’s own officials, including Robert Ford, his former ambassador to Damascus, have said that the U.S. has had the information for years that it needs to figure out who’s who among the Syrian rebels. It’s just that Obama refused to act on that information precisely because he refused to accept a “more significant role inside of Syria” even if such a role could have stopped the growth of ISIS.

If Obama is going to rebuild shattered confidence in his foreign policy, he needs to accept blame for what he did wrong before and act to correct those mistakes now instead of scapegoating others and taking refuge in half-measures such as his current air strikes without boots on the ground, which he characterized on 60 Minutes as a “counterterrorism operation” rather than “the sort of occupying armies that characterized the Iraq and Afghan war.”

Read Less

Oklahoma Beheading: Nothing to See Here

The beheading last week of a 54-year-old woman and the attempted beheading of a second by a radicalized Muslim convert in Oklahoma is certainly an outrage. But as so often happens with such cases, the event itself has quickly become obscured by a secondary outrage as the authorities display an almost compulsive need to push a farcical politically correct line about what really happened. The suspected killer’s background and the nature of the incident itself should be enough to convince anyone of the role that a particularly warped and extremist strain of Islam played in this murder. And yet, as we have seen on previous occasions, the powers that be will have none of it.

Read More

The beheading last week of a 54-year-old woman and the attempted beheading of a second by a radicalized Muslim convert in Oklahoma is certainly an outrage. But as so often happens with such cases, the event itself has quickly become obscured by a secondary outrage as the authorities display an almost compulsive need to push a farcical politically correct line about what really happened. The suspected killer’s background and the nature of the incident itself should be enough to convince anyone of the role that a particularly warped and extremist strain of Islam played in this murder. And yet, as we have seen on previous occasions, the powers that be will have none of it.

First, there has been the question of whether or not the Oklahoma attack was an act of terrorism. Governor Rick Perry has been particularly vocal about the need for the White House to come out and address the killing as what it “appears to many people that it is—and that is an act of violence that is associated with terrorism.” The word “associated” here is probably the most accurate one. The suspect, Alton Nolen, apparently carried out the murder shortly after having been fired, and indeed the victims he targeted were his co-workers at the Vaughan Foods Plant. So this does not appear to be a standard premeditated terror attack—although that is not to say that Nolen wasn’t planning to eventually carry out a beheading of this kind anyway; his postings on social media show that he was more than a little enamored with the subject.

The problem is that FBI investigators have outright rejected even an association with Islamist terrorism. As the Washington Post reported, having labelled Thursday’s attack as simply a standard incident of “workplace violence” an FBI official stuck to the line that “there was also no indication that Nolen was copying the beheadings of journalists in Syria by the Islamic State.” But that just isn’t at all credible. Not only is murdering one’s co-workers hardly the standard reaction to losing one’s job, but beheading is also far from the preferred method for most would-be killers in this country today. Besides, it’s not as if the FBI are unaware of Nolen’s extremist background and his armchair support for ISIS.

On Facebook, where Nolen goes by the name Jah’keem Yisrael, there is a trail of incriminating postings that glorify Islamist violence against America. Nolen uploaded photographs of Osama bin Laden and pictures of the World Trade Center in flames. He posted a picture of a woman receiving a Sharia-mandated flogging and added the caption “Islam will dominate the world. Freedom can go to hell.” In another post he simply wrote “Jihad. Jihad. Jihad.” But if all of this isn’t explicit enough for the FBI, still apparently convinced that Nolen was in no way seeking to imitate ISIS, then perhaps they might consider reviewing a picture that Nolen posted to his Facebook page back in March; it is none other than a picture showing an ISIS-style beheading. But then, the FBI has already confirmed that Nolen had been watching Islamist beheading videos online.

This macabre interest clearly derived from Nolen’s newly found Islamic extremism. Along with the image of the beheading uploaded by Nolen came the attempt to justify such acts with the inclusion of the Koranic quotation: “I will instill terror into the hearts of the Unbelievers; smite ye about their necks.” As Michael Rubin explained here recently, this verse has been seized upon by those Islamic extremists following a hardline Wahhabi literalism, and as such has come to be associated with the recent resurgence of beheadings among Islamists.

For the FBI to continue to insist that this was a standard act of workplace violence, with no terrorist association, is simply absurd. As MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough asked incredulously, “and who exactly are they afraid of offending? ISIS?” After all, as Scarborough alluded, to suggest that the Islam connection here must be hushed up for fear of offending moderate Muslims would be pretty appalling. Presumably any genuinely moderate Muslim would be as eager as the rest of us to have this kind of extremism exposed and stamped out.

Yet we’ve been here before. This is the same perverse attempt to distort reality that we witnessed following the 2009 Fort Hood massacre. There, when the base’s resident psychiatrist went on a shooting rampage, murdering 13, the PC line pushed by the liberal media was that the assailant had suffered from “compassion fatigue.” Apparently Nidal Hasan had been so moved by the heartrending war stories of his patients returning from Afghanistan that eventually he couldn’t take it anymore and ended up murdering the people he just felt too much compassion for.

The fact that Hasan carried a business card that declared his occupation as “Soldier of Allah” apparently had nothing to do with it. Just as the FBI would have us believe that Alton Nolen posting pictures of ISIS fighters and beheadings online has nothing to do with the events in Oklahoma on Thursday. As Scarborough so eloquently put it, “How stupid does the FBI really think we are?”

Read Less

What Israel Really Wants from Ties with China and India

Writing in Foreign Affairs last week, Rory Miller made the classic mistake of using accurate facts to jump to an erroneous conclusion. He gleefully pronounced the failure of Israel’s effort to convert burgeoning economic ties with India and China into diplomatic capital, asserting that while Israel had expected these ties to “help secure greater international support” for its positions, in reality, China and India have both maintained staunchly pro-Palestinian policies. But though Miller is right about the Asian powers’ policies, he’s utterly wrong about the diplomatic gains Israel hoped to reap from these relationships.

Read More

Writing in Foreign Affairs last week, Rory Miller made the classic mistake of using accurate facts to jump to an erroneous conclusion. He gleefully pronounced the failure of Israel’s effort to convert burgeoning economic ties with India and China into diplomatic capital, asserting that while Israel had expected these ties to “help secure greater international support” for its positions, in reality, China and India have both maintained staunchly pro-Palestinian policies. But though Miller is right about the Asian powers’ policies, he’s utterly wrong about the diplomatic gains Israel hoped to reap from these relationships.

For instance, Miller makes much of the fact that China still votes against Israel on every conceivable issue at the UN. But you’d have to be an idiot–which most senior Israeli politicians aren’t–to expect it to do otherwise.

Flipping China into the pro-Israel camp might be possible if and when it democratizes, since it’s one of the few countries where public opinion actually leans pro-Israel. Indeed, as the Australian paper Business Spectator noted this month, China was among the few places worldwide where Israel was actually winning the social media war during the summer’s fighting in Gaza. And it certainly makes sense for Israel to cultivate this public support in preparation for the day when democratization occurs. But right now, China remains a Communist dictatorship that sees America as its chief foreign-policy rival. Thus as long as Washington (thankfully) remains Israel’s main patron at the UN, Beijing will naturally take the anti-Israel side–not because it cares so passionately about the Palestinian cause (which, unlike Miller, I don’t believe it does), but because it cares about the anti-American cause.

India, despite growing ties with Washington, also has a long tradition of anti-Americanism, as well as a large Muslim minority. Thus New Delhi was never a likely candidate for UN support, either.

And in fact, Miller doesn’t cite any Israeli politician who actually espoused such unrealistic expectations. He simply assumes, on the basis of vague bromides like Naftali Bennett’s “diplomacy can follow economy,” that they musthave held such expectations.

But in reality, Israel is seeking a very different foreign-policy benefit from its trade ties with India and China–one it has never spelled out explicitly, for very good reason: What it wants is an economic insurance policy against European countries that it still officially labels as allies.

The EU currently accounts for about one-third of Israel’s exports. This constitutes a dangerous vulnerability, because Europe is the one place worldwide where Israel faces a real danger of economic boycotts and sanctions. Granted, few European leaders actually want this; they consider the economic relationship with Israel mutually beneficial. But European leaders are generally far more pro-Israel than their publics, and since European countries are democracies, public opinion matters.

To date, the public’s anti-Israel sentiment has produced only marginal sanctions, like those on Israeli exports from the West Bank (a minuscule percentage of Israel’s total exports). But Israel can’t rule out the possibility that public pressure will eventually produce more stringent sanctions if Jerusalem continues refusing to capitulate to EU demands on the Palestinian issue that are antithetical to its security. In short, Israel could someday face a devastating choice between its economic needs and its security needs–unless it can diversify its trade enough to be able to weather EU sanctions if and when they occur.

And that’s precisely what Israel seeks from China and India, two countries with a history of not allowing policy disagreements to interfere with business: If it can build up its Asian trade enough to reduce its economic dependence on Europe, it will be better placed to withstand European pressure to adopt policies inimical to its survival.

Whether Israel will succeed in this goal remains to be seen. But if it does, that will be a diplomatic gain of unparalleled importance–even if it never wins Chinese or Indian support in a single UN vote.

Read Less

Who Will Show Leadership on Iran?

One of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s goals in his speech today before the United Nations General Assembly was to put the debate about Iran’s nuclear program back on the international community’s front burner. But whether he succeeded or not—and given the hate for Israel that is integral to the culture of the UN it is unlikely that many nations will heed his warnings about the moral equivalence between ISIS and Hamas Iran—the real question that needs to be asked is why the Iranian threat has dropped off the radar screen here in the United States in the last year and whether anyone of stature in this country is willing to speak up consistently and forcefully on the issue.

Read More

One of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s goals in his speech today before the United Nations General Assembly was to put the debate about Iran’s nuclear program back on the international community’s front burner. But whether he succeeded or not—and given the hate for Israel that is integral to the culture of the UN it is unlikely that many nations will heed his warnings about the moral equivalence between ISIS and Hamas Iran—the real question that needs to be asked is why the Iranian threat has dropped off the radar screen here in the United States in the last year and whether anyone of stature in this country is willing to speak up consistently and forcefully on the issue.

Shutting down the debate about Iran is one of President Obama’s few political triumphs during his second term. Though the president pledged to shut down Iran’s nuclear program during his campaigne for reelection, his main focus after his victory was on appeasing Tehran and enticing the Islamist regime to sign an interim nuclear deal that undermined economic sanctions while doing nothing to end the threat. Having squandered immense political, economic, and military leverage over Iran in order to secure that agreement, he then branded critics of this travesty as warmongers. With the help of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, he was able to squelch efforts to increase sanctions on Iran if negotiations failed despite the support of majorities in the both Houses of Congress for a measure that would have strengthened his hand in talks with the ayatollahs.

Since the collapse of that effort, the issue has remained largely dormant in the U.S. as diplomacy with Iran has remained largely under the radar. And while conservatives can generally be counted on to attack virtually any Obama initiative, let alone one as misguided as his attempt at engagement with Iran, many on the right have been far more interested in following Senator Rand Paul’s lead in criticizing the president’s misuse of executive authority rather than sounding the alarms about Iran. Even if, in the wake of the new concerns about the rise of the ISIS terrorist movement, it appears that the isolationist moment in American politics may be fading, the president is probably right if he thinks he still has plenty of room to maneuver in negotiating a new Iran deal that may be even more dangerous than last year’s accord.

Given the leaks about possible compromises—including the absurd one last week about an American proposal that Iran disconnect the pipes that link the centrifuges that enrich the uranium used for nuclear fuel—there is little doubt about the administration’s zeal for a deal. In response, Iran has stiffened its demands to the point where it is clear that any accord will leave their nuclear infrastructure in place and quickly eviscerate sanctions while making it impossible to re-impose them even if it quickly became clear that Tehran wasn’t keeping its promises.

But in the absence of serious debate about the issue or the willingness of GOP leaders to draw a line in the sand on the nuclear issue, it is possible to envisage a repeat of last year’s fiasco in which critics of Iran appeasement were routed by the administration.

That is why Senator Ted Cruz’s decision to stake out an extremely tough position on Iran is such an intriguing development.

Cruz has critics, including COMMENTARY bloggers, who rightly point out that his success in buffaloing congressional Republican leaders into supporting the confrontation that led to last year’s government shutdown was a huge mistake. So, too, is his continued unwillingness to concede that it was an error. But like it or not, the Texan has become an extremely influential figure in the GOP who is clearly interested in running for president in 2016. While Cruz goes into the next election cycle as a huge underdog who is probably not a viable Republican option to defeat Hillary Clinton, what is most interesting about his effort is the fact that this Tea Party hero seems to think foreign policy is where he can best differentiate himself from other conservatives or a libertarian like Rand Paul.

Where last year he rushed to the Senate floor to second Rand Paul’s dubious but wildly popular filibuster about the administration’s use of drones, in recent months he has been throwing down the gauntlet to the Kentucky senator. Though he claims he should not be confused with an all-out interventionist like John McCain, Cruz’s op-ed in Politico Magazine published yesterday seemed to indicate he is prepared to use opposition to the Obama drive for détente with Iran as a rallying point for his presidential hopes.

Cynics will say this is just about Cruz seeking an edge for 2016 and, as with his courageous stand against anti-Semitic critics of Israel among those protesting persecution of Christians in the Middle East, dismiss his statements as politics as usual rather than principle.

But at a time when the administration appears to be operating with a free hand on Iran, this is no time to questioning the bona fides of anyone on the national stage that is willing to prioritize this issue. Cruz’s insistence that justified concerns about ISIS should not allow the West to give Iran a pass on both its use of terrorism and its nuclear ambitions is exactly what we should be hearing from Republicans on Obama. But, for the most part, this point and others he made about Iran’s egregious human rights record haven’t been said loudly or often enough.

Even if we were willing to accept the premise that Cruz is doing this for political reasons—and his record on both Israel and Iran suggests that his foreign-policy views have been both consistent and sincere—that doesn’t change the fact that his effort to change the conversation about the issue is timely and much needed. If he steals a march on Paul or other 2016 contenders by pushing Republicans to speak up on Iran the way he did about the shutdown, then so much the better for him, his party, and the country.

Read Less

Will the Met Opera Silence the Jews?

Over the course of the last century, whenever Jews rose up to protest anti-Semitism, they were invariably told that they were doing more harm than good. Whether it was in pre-Holocaust Europe or even in the United States, Jewish leaders were often counseled by those in power that their complaints would provoke anti-Semitism rather than repress it. While the lessons of history should have consigned this sort of advice to the unhappy history of prejudice, it appears that it has been resurrected by the head of the Metropolitan Opera when confronted with criticisms of his decision to stage an opera that rationalizes both terrorism and Jew hatred. As such, it has raised the stakes in the debate about The Death of Klinghoffer and the specious claim that the opera’s critics are seeking to suppress freedom of expression.

Read More

Over the course of the last century, whenever Jews rose up to protest anti-Semitism, they were invariably told that they were doing more harm than good. Whether it was in pre-Holocaust Europe or even in the United States, Jewish leaders were often counseled by those in power that their complaints would provoke anti-Semitism rather than repress it. While the lessons of history should have consigned this sort of advice to the unhappy history of prejudice, it appears that it has been resurrected by the head of the Metropolitan Opera when confronted with criticisms of his decision to stage an opera that rationalizes both terrorism and Jew hatred. As such, it has raised the stakes in the debate about The Death of Klinghoffer and the specious claim that the opera’s critics are seeking to suppress freedom of expression.

As I wrote last week, the controversy over the Met’s upcoming production of Klinghoffer heated up with the start of the 2014-15 opera season in New York. Armed with the support of the New York Times and an arts world that has closed ranks around the opera company, composer John Adams, and his controversial creation, Met General Manager Peter Gelb stood his ground on going forward with the new production of the opera that debuts on October 20. He agreed back in June not to include the piece on the roster of operas that will be broadcast to theaters around the world because of its possible role in fomenting anti-Semitism at a time when hatred for Jews is on the rise. But Gelb is unmovable about going ahead with the staging on the famed stage in New York. And in defending that stance in a private meeting with New York Jewish leaders, he not only displayed the arrogant stubbornness that has marked his tenure at the Met; Gelb also chose to lecture them about what was good for the Jews.

As the New York Jewish Week reports, a broad coalition of mainstream Jewish organizations sent leaders to meet with Gelb earlier this month prior to the opening of the opera season. While the demonstration at the opera’s Lincoln Center home that greeted those attending the Met’s opening night last week was the work of groups that are often considered right-wing, the meeting was very much a broad-based affair and included the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the UJA-Federation of New York, the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, and the New York Board of Rabbis. But rather than demonstrate any sensitivity for the concerns of those who met with him, Gelb doubled down on his decision.

According to one of the participants, Rabbi Joseph Potasnik of the Board of Rabbis,

“He took the outrageous position that challenging this opera would increase anti-Semitism because it would appear that Jews were controlling the arts,” the rabbi recalled. “We said this opera is an affront not only to Jews but also to all decent people, especially those victimized by terrorists. Many 9/11 families have spoken against it. Given this mentality what’s next, an ISIS love story?”

Heretofore, Gelb’s position merely reflected the tone-deaf attitude of many in the arts world that views any protests against their work as evidence of Philistinism or a desire to censure artists and deny them the right to freely express themselves. As I have previously explained, this is an absurd distortion of the facts of the case since no one is trying to deny the Met’s right to stage anything it likes or to repress art. Rather, the protests are based, as I have written, on the recognition that there are always limits observed even in the world of the avant-garde. The Met would never dare stage an opera rationalizing, let alone glorifying in part the Ku Klux Klan or apartheid but somehow thinks there’s nothing wrong with one that treated the terrorist murder of an old man because he was a Jew as merely a debatable concept rather than something that is beyond the pale of civilized behavior.

However, Gelb’s comments escalate the argument here from one about a lack of sensitivity and double standards to something even more shocking. Instead of merely attempting to defend the indefensible, Gelb has apparently switched to offense and is seeking to shut the Jews up. But the opera executive, who has often provoked the anger of the Met’s employees and subscribers, should understand these sorts of comments would not make the debate go away.

It is true that anti-Semites believe Jews control the arts. They also think they control the media, Congress, and the government in general and are guilty of promoting both capitalism and socialism. The fact that none of this is true and that the smears are largely self-contradictory does not deter them. Nothing the Jews do or don’t do is responsible for any of these allegations since they reflect the conspiratorial mindset and delusions of Jew-haters rather than reality.

But that has also never stopped those who wish to pursue agendas that benefit anti-Semites from playing off these fears in order to silence criticism. That is exactly what Gelb is doing. Having committed himself to staging Klinghoffer at all costs, he is now ready to cross the line that ought to separate debate between civilized persons and hateful arguments aimed at suppressing criticism of prejudice.

The question now is whether New York elites—including many Jews who support the opera—are willing to cross it with him. It is now up to those philanthropists and agencies that support the Met—a rightly beloved institution that is a central pillar of the arts community in one of the musical capitals of the world—to step in and tell Gelb he has gone too far.

The decision to stage Klinghoffer was egregious to start with and reflected the willingness of the arts world to accept the delegitimization of Israel and the Jews as legitimate fodder for art. But it must be understood that the stakes in this controversy have now been raised. This is no longer merely an argument about a despicable opera. It is now also about whether the Metropolitan Opera will be led by a man who, despite his Jewish origins, is prepared to use statements that are redolent of the rationalizations that were offered by those in the past who counseled Jews to be silent about a host of evils including the Holocaust. Even in the arts, this is unacceptable under any circumstances.

As Judea Pearl, father of slain journalist Daniel Pearl, wrote in a letter-to-the-editor to the New York Times protesting its endorsement of Klinghoffer:

We might someday be able to forgive the Met for decriminalizing brutality, but we will never forgive it for poisoning our music, for turning our best violins and our iconic concert halls into megaphones for excusing evil.

Read Less

Tom Perez and the Trusted Few

The Obama administration’s active engagement with pop culture can sometimes backfire, as it seemed to last night. Valerie Jarrett apparently made a cameo on last night’s episode of The Good Wife, urging a main character to run for state’s attorney. But, lamented a New York Times arts critic, “The political functionaries can’t act — they’re a distraction, and they flatten every scene they’re in.” At least the role was believable.

Read More

The Obama administration’s active engagement with pop culture can sometimes backfire, as it seemed to last night. Valerie Jarrett apparently made a cameo on last night’s episode of The Good Wife, urging a main character to run for state’s attorney. But, lamented a New York Times arts critic, “The political functionaries can’t act — they’re a distraction, and they flatten every scene they’re in.” At least the role was believable.

Jarrett made another cameo over the weekend, also backing a favored candidate. But this one was in the real world, in a Politico consideration of possible successors to Attorney General Eric Holder–and one in particular: Tom Perez.

Perez is already a member of President Obama’s Cabinet; he’s the labor secretary. But the administration is seeking to replace Holder at Justice, and some insiders, Jarrett among them, reportedly like the idea of shifting Perez over to Holder’s spot. It’s not that there aren’t any traditional candidates; Solicitor General Donald Verrilli is apparently on the list, as is outgoing Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who served as assistant attorney general for civil rights in the Clinton administration.

Perez, in fact, isn’t even on some of the speculative lists circulating in the political press. But in this insular White House, there are few trusted by the president. Few enough, it appears, to have to shift them from Cabinet secretarial post to Cabinet secretarial post:

Perez has made more stops with the president than any other Cabinet secretary, events that are often followed by rides home and private meetings on Air Force One. And he’s often been out on his own, making over 40 appearances around the country since May where he’s pumped out the message of an economy that is actually recovering and has urged people not to see the president as having given up or disappeared.

Obama’s not the only one in the White House who’s come to rely on him. Obama senior adviser Valerie Jarrett’s been a Perez fan and promoter for years, going back to Perez’s time in the Civil Rights Division, and she and Holder continued to call on him for advice even as the violent protests overtook Ferguson last month. (Perez refers to that as “part of other duties as assigned.”) At Holder’s resignation announcement Thursday at the White House, Perez was right there in the front row, clearly emotional. And White House Domestic Policy Council Director Cecilia Muñoz has known Perez since they were both Hill staffers in the 1990s, and their relationship has expanded as they’ve collaborated over the past year and a half.

This is not to cast doubt on Perez’s qualifications–he’s already served as an assistant attorney general as well–nor to imply that there aren’t quite logical political reasons to nominate him to replace Holder. Chief among those reasons would be (as Politico also notes) the fact that as a Cabinet secretary, Perez has already been confirmed by the Senate. That takes some of the air out of Republican opposition, though his last confirmation vote was fairly close.

It does, however, reinforce a theme we’ve seen surface intermittently throughout the six years of the Obama presidency: insularity and a fortified inner circle. In differentiating the Bush administration’s prosecution of the war in Iraq and Obama’s botched health-care reform, Dana Milbank nonetheless saw eerie similarities:

But the decision-making is disturbingly similar: In both cases, insular administrations, staffed by loyalists and obsessed with secrecy, participated in group-think and let the president hear only what they thought he wanted to hear.

In a damning account of the Obamacare implementation, my Post colleagues Amy Goldstein and Juliet Eilperin described how Obama rejected pleas from outside experts and even some of his own advisers to bring in people with the expertise to handle the mammoth task; he instead left the project in the care of in-house loyalists.

MSNBC described the same phenomenon thus: “Obamacare burned by culture of secrecy.” Ron Fournier asked: “Will Insularity, Incompetence, and Lies Doom Obamacare?” Brent Budowsky said Obama “governs through a tightly controlled and highly centralized White House staff that is overloaded, dangerously insular, short on gravitas, and often hostile to outside advice even from friends and supporters.”

It was not a new concern. In 2010, the L.A. Times reported that Democrats worried about Obama’s insularity. He was replacing staffers and appointees with loyalists everywhere you turned, the paper noted, from the Council of Economic Advisors to his own chief of staff–and of course, always leaning on Valerie Jarrett:

Obama’s executive style relies heavily on a cordon of advisors who were with him at earlier points in his career. In nearly every instance, as senior advisors have resigned, Obama has filled the vacancies with trusted confidants who are closer to him than the people they replaced.

It should be noted that, as the above examples suggest, it is Democrats who are more worried about this than Republicans. Democrats are the ones getting shut out of the inner circle while the party’s congressional candidates have to suffer for Obama’s sins. And Democrats are the ones doomed to a mess of a bench thanks to the dried-up talent pool that, aside from a select few (Susan Rice, for example), leaves Democrats with a team of political hacks and yes-men staffing the White House. The atmosphere of suspicion and mistrust in this administration, on the other hand, would make a Clinton succession pretty seamless.

Read Less

Some Terrorists More Equal Than Others

Last week, when President Obama denounced ISIS during his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations and called for a concerted effort by the international community to defeat the terrorist group, he received some well-deserved applause. But when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called for the same body to judge Hamas and Iran by the same standard they use for ISIS, he might as well have been talking to a wall. At the UN, some terrorists are more equal than others, a double standard that was also present when Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spoke to the world body on Friday.

Read More

Last week, when President Obama denounced ISIS during his speech to the General Assembly of the United Nations and called for a concerted effort by the international community to defeat the terrorist group, he received some well-deserved applause. But when Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu called for the same body to judge Hamas and Iran by the same standard they use for ISIS, he might as well have been talking to a wall. At the UN, some terrorists are more equal than others, a double standard that was also present when Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas spoke to the world body on Friday.

That Netanyahu wouldn’t persuade a UN General Assembly that has repeatedly voted to demonize Israeli acts of self-defense against Palestinian terrorism was a given. But the real tragedy is not the indifference of a world body that is tainted by the same virus of anti-Semitism that is gaining strength around the world. It is that those who are supposed to represent the Palestinians are still so cowed by the Islamists that they refuse to understand that the Islamists are as much if not a greater threat to them than they are to Israel. Though much of the Arab and Muslim world is belatedly coming to grips with the fact that ISIS must be destroyed (a task they hope will be largely accomplished by the United States with minimal aid from local forces), if they are to avoid being swept away by a sea of murderous fanaticism, so-called moderate Palestinians must understand that Hamas poses the same threat to their survival.

Instead, when PA leader Abbas had his turn last week at the UN podium, he devoted his remarks to some of the usual calumnies against Israel. He spoke of “war criminals” and genocidal crimes against the Palestinian people having been committed during the 50-day war launched by Hamas this past summer. The problem with this speech wasn’t just that, in stark contrast to Netanyahu who spoke repeatedly of his desire for peace and willingness to compromise to attain an agreement, Abbas talked only about conflict.

More to the point, Abbas refused to point out that the only party that committed war crimes against the Palestinian people was Hamas, his erstwhile partner in the PA government following the signing of a unity pact last spring. It was Hamas, as Netanyahu rightly pointed out, which used Palestinian civilians as human shields behind which it launched thousands of rockets at Israeli cities. It was Hamas that sought to maximize Palestinian civilian casualties so as to create more anti-Israel talking points, not a Jewish state that was reluctantly dragged into the conflict and did its best to minimize the impact its counter-attack hand on the people of Gaza.

Abbas has repeatedly demonstrated that he is willing neither to make peace with Israel nor to confront Hamas. Instead, he wishes only to avoid an agreement while continuing to milk the international community for aid that keeps his corrupt government and the soulless oligarchy that runs it afloat. This is a tragedy for the Palestinians who have been abused by their leaders and so-called allies in the Arab and Muslim world for the past 70 years.

It is easy to understand why most of the world refuses to accept Netanyahu’s analogy between ISIS and Hamas. Though, as the prime minister pointed out, the two have common ultimate goals in terms of establishing Islamist rule over the region and the world as well as speaking a common language of terror and using many of the same tactics, the international community sees ISIS as threatening other Muslims and Westerners while clinging to the belief that all Hamas wants to do is to kill Jews. The former is rightly held to be unacceptable while the latter, when cloaked in the language of anti-Zionism, is somehow rendered palatable since denying Jews the same right to sovereignty, self-determination, and self-defense that others are routinely granted is considered debatable if not completely reasonable.

But the Palestinians are the big losers here. So long as Abbas won’t fight Hamas, the Palestinian people will not be forced to choose between peace and coexistence with their Jewish neighbors and a never-ending war that Hamas and much of his own Fatah Party desires. It is the people of Gaza who live under the despotic Islamist rule of Hamas and the people of the West Bank who may well do the same if Israel does not continue to protect Abbas from a coup who suffer most from the pass Hamas gets from the international community. The same is true of those who live under the thumb of the other Islamist terrorist regime that Netanyahu mentioned in his speech: the people of Iran.

UN delegates may mock Netanyahu and his use of audio-visual aids during his UN speech (this year’s device was an enlarged photo of Hamas using Palestinians as human shields) or the American pop culture references in his speech (this year’s favorite was his contention that pretending that Iran didn’t employ terrorism was as crazy as saying Derek Jeter didn’t play shortstop). But the people of Israel sent him to New York to tell the truth about the calumnies hurled at the Jewish state. It is the Palestinians who lack a leader who is similarly interested in telling the truth. Until they do, they will continue to wait for a solution to the conflict and be forced to live with the prospect of being ruled by their own Islamist killers.

Read Less

China’s New Era of Disobedience?

A quarter-century ago, thousands of Chinese students occupied the heart of Beijing, in Tiananmen Square, hoping to push the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) toward democracy. They were crushed, literally, by a government unwilling to surrender any of its political control. The twenty-five years since that 1989 massacre have seen China become perhaps the world’s second-most powerful nation, yet one that is just as politically and socially repressive, if not more so.

Read More

A quarter-century ago, thousands of Chinese students occupied the heart of Beijing, in Tiananmen Square, hoping to push the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) toward democracy. They were crushed, literally, by a government unwilling to surrender any of its political control. The twenty-five years since that 1989 massacre have seen China become perhaps the world’s second-most powerful nation, yet one that is just as politically and socially repressive, if not more so.

While those young students in Tiananmen Square were attempting to create new freedoms for themselves, today’s protests in Hong Kong, by equally young students, are aimed at ensuring that the island does not lose any more of its freedoms. In that sense, they may well be more passionate and potentially explosive.

The immediate cause of the demonstrations being called the “umbrella revolution” was Beijing’s decision not to allow free elections in 2017 for Hong Kong’s chief executive, per the 1984 joint declaration agreement with Great Britain that set the guidelines for post-colonial Hong Kong. Instead, Beijing will allow only a handful of pre-approved candidates on the ballots. Hong Kongers rightly assume this is just the beginning of a broader move to restrict their freedoms, including an independent judiciary and press.

Yet Hong Kong should not be seen in isolation from China’s broader crackdown on any potential liberalization or separatism in areas it controls or hopes to control. As I wrote last week in the Wall Street Journal, Beijing is comfortable risking greater blowback to try and stamp out even moderate voices, such as Uighur academic Ilham Tohti, who was given a life sentence for criticizing the government. China’s military and police presence has been strengthened in both Xinjiang and Tibet in recent years, and there has been no reduction in the military threat to Taiwan. Even smaller issues, such as occupied Indian territory or territorial disputes in the South China Sea, have seen Beijing’s position harden and its military activities increase.

These are worrisome signs that President Xi Jinping, who is just 18 months into a decade-long rule, is comfortable flexing Chinese muscle, intimidating his neighbors, and cracking down on domestic unrest. Whether out of confidence or fear, Beijing is adopting a far more antagonistic attitude that makes it ever harder for it to back down.

That is why what happens now in Hong Kong is so important. If a tiny island of 7 million people can successfully oppose Beijing’s will, then the gates will be opened to the dissatisfied in Xinjiang and Tibet, on Taiwan, and possibly even on the mainland. This is something that Beijing cannot allow. Yet should the People’s Liberation Army move out of their Hong Kong barracks to support the territory’s police, or other pressure be put on the island’s government to suppress the demonstrators, then the fiction of Hong Kong independence and of China’s essentially benign nature will be exploded.

Sadly, such brutality did not prevent China from scaling even greater heights 25 years ago after Tiananmen, but today such an outcome it will mean either a China of far greater strength and influence, or an Asia of greater instability and possibly conflict, or possibly both.

Read Less




Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor to our site, you are allowed 8 free articles this month.
This is your first of 8 free articles.

If you are already a digital subscriber, log in here »

Print subscriber? For free access to the website and iPad, register here »

To subscribe, click here to see our subscription offers »

Please note this is an advertisement skip this ad
Clearly, you have a passion for ideas.
Subscribe today for unlimited digital access to the publication that shapes the minds of the people who shape our world.
Get for just
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
YOU HAVE READ OF 8 FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
FOR JUST
Welcome to Commentary Magazine.
We hope you enjoy your visit.
As a visitor, you are allowed 8 free articles.
This is your first article.
You have read of 8 free articles this month.
YOU HAVE READ 8 OF 8
FREE ARTICLES THIS MONTH.
for full access to
CommentaryMagazine.com
INCLUDES FULL ACCESS TO:
Digital subscriber?
Print subscriber? Get free access »
Call to subscribe: 1-800-829-6270
You can also subscribe
on your computer at
CommentaryMagazine.com.
LOG IN WITH YOUR
COMMENTARY MAGAZINE ID
Don't have a CommentaryMagazine.com log in?
CREATE A COMMENTARY
LOG IN ID
Enter you email address and password below. A confirmation email will be sent to the email address that you provide.