Sunday, January 24, 2010
H/T to Adam Holland on this one. It starts with a primary challenge to Jane Harman (D-CA) from the left by someone named Marcy Winograd -- apparently a serious candidate. Marcy Winograd is a darling of the "progressive" left, and someone with a Jewish name who, as is the fad on the far-left today, an Israel hater. This has motivated Henry Waxman (D-CA) to send out a fund raising letter on Harman's behalf alerting concerned parties to Winograd's objectionable positions. This is pretty standard stuff -- there's an issue, you think it works against them amongst a group of constituents who are concerned with said issue, so you alert them to your opponent's objectionable position, and, so long as you're not lying fair's fair.
According to this story at The Huffington Post, there's nothing inaccurate in what's being said about Winograd. On the contrary, she confirms it. In fact, she seems quite proud of her lunacy, it's just that now she's upset someone is pointing it out: Waxman Attacks Winograd on Israel; Ignites a Political Firestorm. You'll find the line of defense interesting. First, both Winograd and HuffPo writer Milazzo ask why anyone is remarking on Winograd's anti-Israel statements when there are so many other issues out there, then go on to denounce Israel once again. Relish the reference to "heroic" George Galloway and his Viva Palestina.
The main gist of the thing is that "real Americans" don't care about Israel. Jews who do care, as most American Jews do, are suspect. This is a line of thought traditional on the anti-Semitic right, now most common and growing on the "progressive" left.
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: HuffPo Writer Linda Milazzo: Real Americans Don't Care About Israel.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.solomonia.com/cgi-bin/mt4/mt-renamedtb.cgi/17370
1 Comment
Leave a comment to: HuffPo Writer Linda Milazzo: Real Americans Don't Care About Israel
Comment Info and Policy:
1) You must have Javascript enabled in your browser in order to comment (blame the spammers). If you don't know what that is, you're probably fine.
2) HTML is on, so basic html should work. Raw links will be made auto-clickable, too, so even if you don't know html you can just paste in the link and it should work fine. Keep the "http://" in it.
3) Comments are generally unmoderated, which means I don't necessarily agree with the tone and tenor of everything posted. In fact, sometimes people post things they don't really mean just to make other people look bad. The internet is an anonymous place for the most part. That said...
4) I welcome you to post here. I'd love to have your input, agree, disagree or just offer a different data point, really. If I didn't want any participation, I'd turn off comments. Be aware, however, that this blog and the comments section exist for my entertainment. Therefore, I reserve ALL RIGHTS here, including the right to remove any or all comments on nothing more than a whim. Please don't even bother complaining. I'm the one providing the space and the free news and thought buffet. I don't owe anyone anything.
Anyone who posts here will be treated as my guest. That means I'm happy to be polite as a default, but if anyone is rude to the host they'll be unceremoniously shown the door.
It may pay to recall a famous line from the Tom Selleck magnum opus, Mr. Baseball: "Jack-san, you want Yoji's advice about the babes, you come to Yoji with respect."
5) Enjoy your stay!
, p.44
In her letter to Waxman, Winograd writes:
"As a Jew, I do not want my name associated with occupation or extermination." Frankly, I am mystified as to why you would find my words objectionable. Surely, you are not saying the converse is true - that you want Jewish people associated with occupation and extermination. Such a legacy would dishonor our people."
What Waxman wrote about her support for a one-state solution was this:
"In Marcy Winograd's foreign policy, Israel would cease to exist. In Marcy Winograd's vision, Jews would be at the mercy of those who do not respect democracy or human rights. These are not trivial issues; they cannot be ignored or overlooked. Jane's victory will represent a clear repudiation of these views."
People who read her letter and rely on the information included in it are thus grossly deceived. This is a vile distortion of Waxman's fully justified concern for the fate of Israeli Jews in case Winograd's vision is enforced. It is tantamount to slander.
You will note, however, how she inexpertly pedals back from her publicly state position and modifies her "vision" to a point where it is quite unrecognizable. All of a sudden:
"To stop the suffering of the Palestinian people and to end the rocket attacks on Israelis near the border, I am ready and willing to accept a negotiated peace agreement that adheres to principles of justice and recognizes a two-state solution based on withdrawal of illegal settlements to the 1967 borders or a mutually-agreed exchange of territory."
Well, well. Isn't this exactly what Ehud Olmert offered to Abbas?
"Abbas said that the proposed swap would have given the Palestinians land that would equal 100 percent of the West Bank. He added that there are no Israeli settlements or Israeli Arab residents in the land surrounding Gaza that was offered to the Palestinians, according to the report.
"I clarified that I refused to annex even one Israeli Arab citizen," Abbas was quoted as saying."
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1136351.html
So what is the problem, exactly? Why did Abbas reject this offer? Perhaps Winograd can explain the logic that underlies the insistence on a Judenrein Palestine and a summary rejection of any land on which an Arab Israeli might reside.
I doubt it.
The same person who rushed to accuse Waxman of implicitly supporting "occupation and extermination" (!) then either ignores some of the most recent developments in the I/P conflict or simply lies about it.
You will also note the change in tune: from flaunting most "courageously" her support for a one-state solution she makes a craven about-face to mouth support for the universally acknowledged two-state solution. In other words, she seems quite at ease changing her positions in order to taylor them to the wishes of a pro-Israel constituency.
How can she be trusted, after all these dizzying zig zags, to adhere to any of her promises, if ever elected?