The Washington Post has added Jennifer Rubin to their stable of writers. I can't express how thrilled I am that the author of one of the more infamous anti-Semitic hit pieces in the past couple of years is joining America's preeminent political paper.
Meanwhile, a Goldblog reader points out the emergent trend of conservative pro-Israelism being expressed in seemingly anti-Israel ways. Cites include Rep. Ros-Lehtinen's break-up of Israeli/Cuban rapprochement, Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) trying to make it easier for Congress to vote against aid for Israel by decoupling it from the general foreign aid bill, and the hilariously-named Emergency Committee for Israel backing ex-Rep. Pat Toomey (R-PA), who voted against aid for Israel on several occasions, in his successful Senate bid against Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA).
... and adding to the list, Republican opposition to the new START treaty. Anybody who is worried about Iran's nuclear ambitions has to be worried about the proliferation of loose nuclear material floating around. Israel, of course, has more to fear than most from nuclear proliferation extending to Iran, which is why START is so clearly critical to its long term security needs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
David,
You write: "Israel, of course, has more to fear than most from nuclear proliferation extending to Iran, which is why START is so clearly critical to its long term security needs."
Have you heard high ranking Israeli officials agreeing with you on this? I read the Israeli papers. I have not seen it. I think that START is, to Israelis, a matter of indifference.
Russia is not going to help the US deal with Iran because Russia has nothing to gain by doing so. Rather, Russia's interest is to complicate US relations in the world.
While START may be in the US interest - and I have no reason to doubt that it is - and may also be in Russia's interest, Iran has little to do with it. The importance of START is for the US and Russian direct interests, not as a stepping stone to anything else.
I have heard your argument from the same people who thought that Iran was looking to speak with the US. It is the same mistake in both cases. Russia's interest, I repeat, is to weaken the US, not to help the US and that is the case with or without START. And, there is no quid pro quo for agreeing to START. If there were, that would be poor policy for both the US and Russia, since Iran is a current problem while START deals with a long term problem the impacts the US and Russia directly.
I didn't read Rubin's piece when you originally posted it, but reading it now... wow.
She gets recent and easily-Googleable facts wrong (claiming "a rally protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN in the fall of 2008 was canceled at the behest of Obama supporters, no doubt to deprive Palin of that platform," when in fact the rally did occur, but Palin was disinvited in order to avoid having any currently-campaigning politicians speaking);
she pretends that Palin isn't an overt abortion prohibitionist (conservative supporters of Palin say that she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to a court only because (a) the applicant didn't mention the membership; and (b) the applicant was no more liberal than the single other option Palin had);
she erroneously assumes the Palins hadn't achieved an upper middle class income by the time of the VP nomination (in fact, they made over $100k in both 2006 and 2007, the only years for which they released tax returns, which put them in the top quintile of American households; that "blue-collar worker who labored alternately on a fishing boat and an oil pipeline" made $120k in 2006 -- as "The Millionaire Next Door" long ago explained, blue-collar work can be higher-earning than white-collar -- though his earnings necessarily declined during Palin's 2007 governorship as he worked only part time in order to take on more domestic responsibilities)...
I'm sure there are more problems with the Commentary essay, but those were the ones obvious to me. And this level of journalism goes on the WaPo opinion page? Yeesh.
As for the Israeli government's silence on the new START:
The [Israeli] official said that the Israel government was sensitive to perceptions that they were interfering in American domestic politics, following a meeting earlier this month between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).
I didn't read Rubin's piece when you originally posted it, but reading it now... wow.
She gets recent and easily-Googleable facts wrong (claiming "a rally protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN in the fall of 2008 was canceled at the behest of Obama supporters, no doubt to deprive Palin of that platform," when in fact the rally did occur, but Palin was disinvited in order to avoid having any currently-campaigning politicians speaking);
she pretends that Palin isn't an overt abortion prohibitionist (conservative supporters of Palin say that she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to a court only because (a) the applicant didn't mention the membership; and (b) the applicant was no more liberal than the single other option Palin had);
she erroneously assumes the Palins hadn't achieved an upper middle class income by the time of the VP nomination (in fact, they made over $100k in both 2006 and 2007, the only years for which they released tax returns, which put them in the top quintile of American households; that "blue-collar worker who labored alternately on a fishing boat and an oil pipeline" made $120k in 2006 -- as "The Millionaire Next Door" long ago explained, blue-collar work can be higher-earning than white-collar -- though his earnings necessarily declined during Palin's 2007 governorship as he worked only part time in order to take on more domestic responsibilities)...
I'm sure there are more problems with the Commentary essay, but those were the ones obvious to me. And this level of journalism goes on the WaPo opinion page? Yeesh.
As for the Israeli government's silence on the new START:
The [Israeli] official said that the Israel government was sensitive to perceptions that they were interfering in American domestic politics, following a meeting earlier this month between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).
I didn't read Rubin's piece when you originally posted it, but reading it now... wow.
She gets recent and easily-Googleable facts wrong (claiming "a rally protesting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN in the fall of 2008 was canceled at the behest of Obama supporters, no doubt to deprive Palin of that platform," when in fact the rally did occur, but Palin was disinvited in order to avoid having any currently-campaigning politicians speaking);
she pretends that Palin isn't an overt abortion prohibitionist (conservative supporters of Palin say that she appointed a former Planned Parenthood board member to a court only because (a) the applicant didn't mention the membership; and (b) the applicant was no more liberal than the single other option Palin had);
she erroneously assumes the Palins hadn't achieved an upper middle class income by the time of the VP nomination (in fact, they made over $100k in both 2006 and 2007, which put them in the top quintile of American households)...
I'm sure there are more problems with the Commentary essay, but those were the ones obvious to me. And this level of journalism goes on the WaPo opinion page? Yeesh.
As for the Israeli government's silence on the new START:
The [Israeli] official said that the Israel government was sensitive to perceptions that they were interfering in American domestic politics, following a meeting earlier this month between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the new House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA).
pg,
The problem with expecting the Russians to help the US with Iran is that Russia's interest is to help Iran undermine the US. Were Russia to think it was in Russia's interest to help the US with Iran, Russia would not need the incentive of START. And, if the benefit to START for the US is that Russia will do us a favor on Iran, then START is not very important to the US or otherwise. And, where is the benefit to Russia in all of this?
Again, Russia is not going to help the US one way or the other. Russia is going to help Russia. And, Russia is enjoying putting pressure on the US, tying us up dealing with Iran, etc. That is what Russia wants.
N. Friedman,
How is your comment responsive to mine? Or did you just want to impart unto me your insight into the binary (0=doesn't want to help us; 1=wants to help us; without admitting of any 0.5=could be incentivized to help us) mind of Russia?
Post a Comment