Friday, April 16, 2010

BloggeRhythms 4/16/2010

It seems I begin my entries quite often by having to state that this isn't a political blog. I do that because despite my intentions to stay non-political, politics, or perhaps it's more government actions, become the blog focus due to their being in the news. And because of their importance, impact and timeliness they naturally weigh on my mind. And, that's exactly what happened today.

A friend suggested I read an article in yesterday's New York Times titled "Obama Phrase Highlights Shift on Middle East". Now, I haven't read the Times or had any interest in their paper for quite a long time. That had to do with discrepancies I suspected between their political bents and the truth. In fact, prior to cancelling my subscription a couple of years ago, the only reason I kept renewing was to receive the Sunday magazine section. Because I enjoyed the puzzle although I tossed the rest of the paper out without reading a word.

I did the Times puzzle every Sunday for more than thirty years, and proudly completed it in ink (the completion part isn't really 100% true because I sometimes didn't know the answer to every clue, but would leave those boxes blank. In all though, there really weren't an awful lot of blank spaces over the years. I also never looked up an answer, both as a matter of personal pride and also because I rarely cared to find out things like who was the seventh king of Mesopotamia a zillion years ago just to be able to enter three letters in number 14 across. I further doubted the information would be of use elsewhere in my life.)

After that paragraphical aside, let me get back to the story. This morning I bit my tongue, held my nose, picked up the Times and read the suggested article. Boiled down, it suggests that the administration is gradually shifting its policies toward Israel and others in the Middle East. It seems Mr. Obama isn't pleased that Israelis don't immediately fall in line behind everything he suggests regarding their country, especially when his suggestions aren't necessarily in Israel's best interests. Simultaneously, there seems to be more acceptance of the desires of Israel's enemies in the president's rhetoric. In all, that, in and of itself, perhaps isn't so odd.

But, what is slightly different is that General David H. Petraeus, "military commander overseeing America's wars in Iraq and Afghanistan" is now suggesting that Israel's positions may be slowing America's progress toward peace in the Middle East. Though he denied further saying that Israel's actions perhaps are putting American troops in harm's way, from the article it seems he was thought to have done so.

What interested me the most, however, was not specifically what was said by General Petraeus but the fact that there was "piling on" on the issue. Ordinarily, to my recollection, Mr. Obama usually does this sort of thing himself while others in the administration explain to the press that the president didn't really mean what he said about Israel, or that he was simply misunderstood. This time, he got military support for his comments.

All of this brings me to the crux of today's blog. Way back when the presidential campaign began one of the questions I had was not only why would folks of the Jewish faith vote for Obama, why would they vote for any Democrat at the presidential level? It got so bad during Obama's campaign they had to hide the Reverend Wright to keep his rants from the public. But, that's just the current situation.

Going back in history, while the Roosevelt administration was very favorable to Jews, and very strong bonds were created between them and the Democrat party, Roosevelt, the great idol of Jewish voters, refused to let Jews fleeing the holocaust land in the United States.

Jimmy Carter, too, was no friend of Israel or American Jews when he was in office, and still isn't today. I think he'd gladly see the Israeli nation pushed into the sea. And the Clinton's, especially Hillary, were extremely close to Yasir Arafat and his wife and met with them quite often. Yet I don't recall any particular friendship between the Clinton's and any Israelis.

On the other hand, Richard Nixon had his own rabbi whom he consulted with often. And Israel certainly had a friend in Ronald Reagan. Both Bush's, Herbert Walker and W, were very close to Israel as well as to American Jews...steps taken like the Gulf War and the war in Iraq are as much protective of Israel as they are anything else.

So, politically, I'm back at square one. Way back when the president was on the campaign trail his perspective of the Middle East, if not absolutely known, was certainly suspected by anyone who did their homework. Thus, if Israel is in the process of being hung out to dry, why is anyone surprised, especially those of Jewish persuasion?

That's it for today folks.

Adios

No comments:

Post a Comment