Thursday, August 9, 2012

MJ Rosenberg is Offended

Recently unemployed blogger MJ Rosenberg has been discussing politics, leaving his hatred of Israel on his much more uncensored Twitter feed. His latest article is about how he finds Mitt Romney to be insulting, and bends over backwards to find something to be offended about. As I said before, I still don't care that much about American politics and the intricacies therein, but some of what Rosenberg says are so ridiculous that I can't help but point them out. First up:
"I wonder how many American Jews are getting mighty uncomfortable about the way Israel has become politicized this election year."
Yeah! Politicization is bad!
"I do not mean that Israel should not be discussed in the context of a campaign. Of course it should be. Any foreign policy issue that affects U.S. national interests should be discussed and argued about."
Um, okay? So what did you mean when you said that Israel shouldn't be politicized?
"The specifics of U.S. support are not anything the country agrees upon, or, I would guess, even talks about...Nothing is off-limits in elections or, more precisely, nothing should be. Israel should be politicized, like everything else. As is the case with every other issue, that is how democracies make decisions. Or should....This year the argument that Israel not be politicized is coming almost exclusively from Democrats who, as supporters of the incumbent president, vehemently oppose making Israel an issue."
Really? I wasn't aware that Americans for Peace Now are the same thing as "Democrats," as they also complaining about the "politicization" of the Israel issue. But this isn't the point of the post, I just wanted to say how funny it is that Rosenberg is both calling for politicization and complaining about it at the same time. But now it's time for his favorite activity, strawmanning Mitt Romney:
"The difference between Romney and Obama is that Obama has never suggested that he would allow the Israeli government to make key decisions on Israel for him, rather than decide himself based on U.S. national interests. Romney has."
He has?
"On Iran, Romney's spokesman said during the governor's recent visit to Israel that whether or not Israel bombs Iran is up to Israel. "If Israel has to take action on its own, in order to stop Iran from developing that [nuclear] capability, the governor would respect that decision."" 
That isn't "making decisions for him." On the contrary, it's not making Israel's decisions for Israel. Yes it's true as Rosenberg later says that an attack on Iran has consequences for American interests around the region, but it also has consequences for Israel. Not attacking also has consequences.

Now if this isn't telling enough, take a look at this section from Rosenberg further down the page:
"It's crazy. The United States has never contracted out its foreign policy to any foreign country.. Even when our closest ally, the United Kingdom, was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany, President Roosevelt made his policies based on his perception of U.S. interests, not Prime Minister Churchill's. (Churchill would have had us join the war against Germany in 1939, long before we were ready)."
I'd like to ask MJ Rosenberg to do something he probably has never done, no matter how many times he has pretend to be "pro-Israel."

I would like him to look at this situation from Israel's point of view.

If Israel does what he asks, that is exactly what they will be doing. Contracting out their foreign policy to a foreign country, i.e. America. Rosenberg wants Israel's strategic interests and possibly survival to come second place to America's strategic interests. That's fine for him to say, because he is an American, but it seems very hypocritical for him to criticize Mitt Romney for daring to let Israel do what it wants. The historical analogy here actually works better for Israel's case than America's. Israel is facing a threat now while America is dithering around and maybe America should have listened to Britain in 1939.

Oh and by the way, America wasn't ready in 1941 either. And if we had entered the war earlier, maybe more lives could have been saved.

Now you're probably wondering how MJ Rosenberg is offended, seeing as how that's one of the most powerful words a Huffington Poster can use. Well, here it is:
"As a Jew, it strikes me as deeply offensive. Does Romney really believe that this is what Jewish voters want?...The fact is that Romney has crossed the line from pandering to American Jews to insulting us. The insult is his belief that the way to gain support from Jews is by promising to make the policies of our country subservient to those of Israel. Mitt Romney is not hostile to Jews, far from it, but if he was, he could not be more offensive."
Can you say "manufactured outrage?" The only thing Mitt Romney said was that if Israel feels they need to go against Iran, he would let them. That's not offensive to American Jews. They may not agree with it, but MJ Rosenberg is making more assumptions here than AIPAC has members. Romney never said anything about American Jews, he is speaking to the supporters of Israel (most of whom, as Rosenberg really ought to know, are not Jewish).

The truth is that Rosenberg just doesn't like Romney, because he's a Republican, but can't find a good way to attack him. So instead he relies on the oldest canard in the book, playing the "asaJew" and the "I'm offended" cards in sequence. Maybe it will work out for him. But from where I'm standing, he's looking pretty weak.

1 comment:

  1. That pure and absolute, out and out hypocrisy of MJ Rosenberg is astounding!

    Has he no shame?
    (Don't bother, it's a rhetorical question)


Hey guys we've started to employ a slight comment policy. We used to have completely open comments but then people abused it. So our comment policy is such: No obvious trolling or spamming. And be warned: unlike the Huffington Post we actually enforce our comment policy.