Posted on 08/26/2002 6:06:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
The front page of the New York Times carried an alarming story about outrageous foreign manipulation of American politics. Under the headline, "ISRAELI'S VISIT ROILS FLORIDA," the newspaper reported that "Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's plan to appear with Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida at a rally in Miami has angered Democrats, who suspect White House interference in the election for governor."
To get further details on the controversy you had to dig deep into the newspaper (page A10, to be exact), so all those who stopped at the front page might feel properly indignant about a controversial Middle Eastern head of state making an utterly inappropriate appearance at a partisan political event on behalf of the president's brother.
As a matter of fact, the Times news summary seriously misled the public: The "rally in Miami" it mentioned wasn't a political gathering at all, but rather a "Rally for Israel" in which the visiting prime minister would make the major address and Gov. Bush would represent only one among many politicians – Democrats as well as Republicans – making an appearance.
Of course, to those who believe the pernicious myth that Israel somehow "dominates" American politics, the details of the Miami story make very little difference. To them, the only important "fact" is that Jewish power represents such an overwhelming force in our national life that it compels all candidates and office holders to take a reflexive and reckless pro-Israel position.
According to this analysis, those who refuse to support the Jewish state always pay a political price – as did Democratic House members Cynthia McKinney of Georgia and Earl Hilliard of Alabama, both of whom lost recent primaries to challengers who received generous financial support from outside their districts. "I definitely have some feelings about any outside group exerting this kind of influence in a race, " said Black Caucus Chair Eddie Bernice Johnson, "and I've been receiving angry calls from black voters all day, saying they should rally against Jewish candidates."
Representative Johnson conveniently forgot to mention that in the Hilliard and McKinney races pro-Israel elements weren't the only "outsiders" to provide generous contributions: both incumbents received lavish support from Arab American and Islamic activists including, in McKinney's case, several contributors identified by the Justice Department as directly linked to international terrorism.
Pro-Palestinian and pro-Israeli forces will inevitably get involved in heated primary campaigns in which U.S. Middle Eastern policy represents one of the few points of contention between the candidates – just as green activists from outside a district will send in money to local races where environmental issues take center stage.
Moreover, the entire notion of Jewish-American "control" of U.S. policy in the Middle East rests on a series of patently false assumptions. For instance, critics of "the Zionist Lobby" and its clout suggest that Jews put Israel's interests above America's in casting their votes. This is demonstrably untrue: In nearly all elections – statewide as well as national – Jews vote for the most liberal candidate, not the most pro-Israel.
No president proved so reliably, so viscerally supportive of the Jewish state as Ronald Reagan, but in both his presidential races, his feckless Democratic opponents got more Jewish votes than he did. By the same token, George McGovern had a Senate record showing more outspoken criticism of Israel than any presidential nominee – before or since – yet he still beat Nixon in the Jewish community by a margin of more than two-to-one.
Today, it's evangelical Christian voters (nearly 10 times more numerous than their Jewish counterparts) who comprise the most significant pro-Israel constituency, and certainly wield more influence than Jews with the Bush administration.
It's also a myth that Jews use their "control" over the media to assure sympathetic coverage of Israel. In fact, of the four major television networks, only one (Disney subsidiary ABC) is owned by a conglomerate that could be described as even vaguely Jewish.
More importantly, there's no evidence at all that Jewish ownership brings about more sympathetic coverage for Israel. Fox News, for example, is run entirely by gentiles and owned by the very Catholic Rupert Murdoch, but its reporting is famously less pro-Palestinian (and vastly preferred by Israelis) than CNN's – despite CNN's association with an arguably Jewish company, Time Warner.
If Jews in Hollywood use their clout for Zionist propaganda, then why have we seen no pro-Israel cinematic epics since the days of "Exodus" – more than 35 years ago? In fact, Hollywood honchos have gone out of their way to avoid identifying terrorism with Islamic extremists in nearly all recent thrillers, including "Sum of All Fears," "Bad Company," "XXX," and the forthcoming "Extreme Ops" – all of which make a point of featuring Euro-trash terrorists rather than radical Arabs.
Currently, opponents of an American strike against Iraq promote yet another misleading characterization of the role of American Jews in shaping Middle East Policy – suggesting that only "pro-Israel elements" actively promote going to war against Iraq, and that Israel would be the only party to gain from such a conflict. This argument ignores the deep ambivalence – and even dread – felt by most Israelis at the prospect of another American-Iraqi war.
If Saddam Hussein is driven to desperation, it is Israel – not America – that would become the direct target of his most devastating attacks, just as Israel received 39 Scud missile strikes the last time. Iraq is certainly hostile to the Jewish state, but it remains mostly irrelevant to the daily threats faced by Israelis – there is no reason to believe that Palestinian fanatics would cut back on homicide bombings or scale back the intifada even if America effectively terminates the Butcher of Baghdad.
There is also no logical connection between imposing some Israeli-Palestinian settlement and curbing Hussein's power. Despite solemn assumptions by the liberal media, it makes little sense to assume that another agreement on the model of the Oslo accords would automatically moderate Saddam's regime or curb his drive to construct weapons of mass destruction.
Like most aspects of the ongoing Middle East conflict, the questions of Jewish communal power and Iraqi policy remain inconveniently complex. That's especially true at a time of increasingly intense divisions within the Jewish community over Israel's present and future.
The attempt to come to terms with America's challenges in the Middle East with reference to a crude ethnic determinism in domestic politics represents one more example of an eternal temptation defined by Oscar Wilde. "For every complex problem," he wrote, "there is a simple solution that is elegant, direct and entirely wrong."
Smith will be defeated in the general election and Bibi knows it. If Republicans lose that senate seat, Israel is to blame.
If you go for emotional rants, then you wouldn't like Medved. If you appreciate intelligent debate you'll like Medved. If you prefer self promotion, self aggrandizement, listen to Rush or Hannity.
Anymore Hannity is too busy promoting his book and TV show to work in any political issues.
Although I love Michael Medved, he can't hold a candle to Rush Limbaugh, as far as knowledge of political strategy combined with entertainment. Rush Limbaugh has created the market that Michael Medved flourishes in.
Sean Hannity may be young, but we need energetic self-promoters PR'ing themselves to get the word out about conservativism...Michael Medved fails here, but just reaps the rewards of a larger and larger market inspired by Hannity and Limbaugh.
As for the smartest talk-radio show host, who equally battles his phone-callers...there is another equally brilliant (besides Limbaugh and Medved), and his name is Hugh Hewitt.
Hewitt thinks his listeners are stupid. He asks these simple questions that callers can anwer with a yes, no or maybe. He sure doesn't encourage intelligent discussions. And then there is his poetry hour, his religious hour, race car segment and his theme move reviews. He does a regular radio PBS program. If I wanted to listen to PBS, I wouldn't be listening to Hewitt, a so called political talk show.
You must not listen to Rush and Hugh as much as I do (I also frequently listen to Medved). Rush Limbaugh is a masterful debater - not saying that Medved isn't awesome in his own right
As far as Hugh Hewitt is concerned, Hugh thrashes Medved on political theory and experience. Medved doesn't focus on politics, but side-tracks on social issues, movie-reviews and the preposterous supposition that conspiracies, for the most part, don't exist. Medved is also missing the point, when talking about Jews running media, by saying that there isn't pro-Israel slant in movies and T.V. coverage. Jews running and propagandizing in media is not necessarily evidenced by pro-Israel rhetoric. A lot of Jews are Marxist ultra-liberals who aren't Orthodox by any stretch of the imagination.
Take all commentators and journalists with a grain of salt. Journalism is, was, and always will be politics. Anyone who tells you different is selling something. Nobody is unbiased; everyone has their own perspective.That is the only perspective, IMHO, from which the First Amendment makes sense. If indeed someone is unbiased, why then we should all just shut up and listen to him or her. But I think we Americans will not do that . . .
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.