Category Archives: Israel

‘We Are All Socialists Now’

America, Israel, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Political Philosophy, Socialism

The editors of the left-liberal NEWSWEEK are congratulating themselves for “accepting” and then “thinking clearly ” about the America of 2009 becoming a more socialist country. What Golda Meir once said to someone who needed a poke in the eye applies: “Don’t be so modest, you’re not that great.”

I was under the distinct impression that Newsweek’s agitprop actively helped change hearts and minds so as to bring about the “shift that began not under a Democrat but a Republican … a trend that began under President Bush, not President Obama.” At least that last fact our agitpropists got right.

The complete editorial is “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Updated: 'Who Won In Israel's Elections?'

Democracy, Individual Rights, Iraq, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Natural Law

Writes Daniel Pipes: The real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who raised the specter of the country’s increasingly hostile Arab citizens:

“Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima party, can credibly claim victory in the elections on Tuesday because her party won the most seats. Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud party can also claim victory as the head of the largest party in the larger of the two coalitions, the national camp.

Both Livni and Netanyahu can plausibly claim ‘I won’ the elections this week – but neither did.

But the real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. A Moldovan immigrant who started his career in Likud and as then served as director-general of Netanyahu’s prime ministerial office, he founded Yisrael Beiteinu in 1999.

Lieberman has introduced a new issue into Israeli domestic politics – the place of the country’s Arab citizens. Noting their increasingly public disloyalty to the state, he has argued that they should lose their citizenship and their right to live in Israel unless they declare their loyalty to the Jewish state.

This topic has clearly struck a nerve among the Israeli Jewish electorate and prompted responsible Arab voices to acknowledge that Israeli Arabs have ‘managed to make the Jewish public hate us.’ As I wrote in 2006, Israel’s ‘final enemy’ may finally, be joining the battle. The consequences of this for the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole could well be profound.”

By Daniel Pipes, Wednesday 11, Feb 2009

Related: “When I Am The Stronger, I Take Away Your Freedom, Because That Is My Principle”

Update (Feb 12): In response to the always provocative Myron hereunder: As a classical liberal, I’m wary of conflating the vote, for what it’s worth, with natural rights. I agree with you that the latter must be inviolable. But the vote? That’s a political right. Neither is citizenship a natural right. Talk about taking away property or denying due process: those are unconscionable, and violate natural rights.

Preventing more hostile Arabs from migrating into Israel proper is perfectly legitimate in natural law. It’s non-aggressive self-defense.

Updated: ‘Who Won In Israel’s Elections?’

Democracy, Individual Rights, Iraq, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Natural Law

Writes Daniel Pipes: The real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu Party, who raised the specter of the country’s increasingly hostile Arab citizens:

“Tzipi Livni, the head of the Kadima party, can credibly claim victory in the elections on Tuesday because her party won the most seats. Binyamin Netanyahu of the Likud party can also claim victory as the head of the largest party in the larger of the two coalitions, the national camp.

Both Livni and Netanyahu can plausibly claim ‘I won’ the elections this week – but neither did.

But the real winner was the politically and personally unpredictable figure, Avigdor Lieberman, 50, of the Yisrael Beiteinu party. A Moldovan immigrant who started his career in Likud and as then served as director-general of Netanyahu’s prime ministerial office, he founded Yisrael Beiteinu in 1999.

Lieberman has introduced a new issue into Israeli domestic politics – the place of the country’s Arab citizens. Noting their increasingly public disloyalty to the state, he has argued that they should lose their citizenship and their right to live in Israel unless they declare their loyalty to the Jewish state.

This topic has clearly struck a nerve among the Israeli Jewish electorate and prompted responsible Arab voices to acknowledge that Israeli Arabs have ‘managed to make the Jewish public hate us.’ As I wrote in 2006, Israel’s ‘final enemy’ may finally, be joining the battle. The consequences of this for the Arab-Israeli conflict as a whole could well be profound.”

By Daniel Pipes, Wednesday 11, Feb 2009

Related: “When I Am The Stronger, I Take Away Your Freedom, Because That Is My Principle”

Update (Feb 12): In response to the always provocative Myron hereunder: As a classical liberal, I’m wary of conflating the vote, for what it’s worth, with natural rights. I agree with you that the latter must be inviolable. But the vote? That’s a political right. Neither is citizenship a natural right. Talk about taking away property or denying due process: those are unconscionable, and violate natural rights.

Preventing more hostile Arabs from migrating into Israel proper is perfectly legitimate in natural law. It’s non-aggressive self-defense.

The Know-Nothings At The New York Times

IMMIGRATION, Israel, Journalism, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Media, Multiculturalism

In a revoltingly biased editorial titled “The Nativists Are Restless,” the New York Times libeled immigration restrictionists, including VDARE.com, in the usual despicable terms.

But a revolt occurred in the ranks of the newspaper’s readers, in the Comments section. A good chunk of the responses exposed the Times’ smear for what it was: an ad hominem attack.

The financially flailing Times followed up with “The Nativists Are Restless, Continued.” Read it. Do I detect here a tinge of panic? Could it be the panic that comes with looming bankruptcy? One can only hope. Nevertheless, I do think that the second response, with its urgent tone, comes off as slightly apologetic, at least for the insufferably arrogant New York Times editorialists.

See “Part II: American Newspapers Dying Of Self-Inflicted Wounds. Good.”