<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>FrontPage Magazine &#187; Jamie Weinstein</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.frontpagemag.com/author/jamie-weinstein/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 31 Dec 2014 07:56:08 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en-US</language>
		<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
		<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>Standing with Obama – by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/standing-with-obama-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=standing-with-obama-%25e2%2580%2593-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/standing-with-obama-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Dec 2009 05:06:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[al Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[America]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[american security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Call]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[citizens]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[criticism]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[deadline]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decision]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[end]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[exit strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[General McChrystal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[John McCain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[merits]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mission]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[night]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[obligation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[oratory]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pakistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[plan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[point]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[policy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[president]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[President Obama]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Press Release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Qaeda]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[release]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[resolve]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[right]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[safe haven]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[security]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[speech]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Stimulus Bill]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[strategy]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[success]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Taliban]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[taliban in afghanistan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[TIME]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[trillion]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[united-states]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Vice President Dick Cheney]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[way]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[West]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[west point]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=40156</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Why the conservatives should back the president on Afghanistan. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><span style="color: black;"><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-40157" title="slide_3889_54735_large" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/slide_3889_54735_large.jpg" alt="slide_3889_54735_large" width="440" height="320" /></span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">One could come up with many criticisms of President Obama’s speech last night at West Point announcing his Afghanistan strategy.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Why, if he was willing to commit 30,000 troops, would he not go all the way and commit the 40,000 troops that General McChrystal was asking for? Why would the president give a deadline to remove the troops in a speech that needed to show resolve about defeating al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan? And, in giving a deadline of 18 months, why would he give one that approaches so quickly? As John McCain said in a press release after Obama’s speech, “Success is the real exit strategy.”</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">And how to account for the economic part of the speech? How is it that a president who wants to spend a trillion dollars on healthcare and who signed a pork-laden $787 billion stimulus bill is suddenly worried about the cost of a policy that directly relates to the government’s first obligation to protect its citizens?</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">One might also question the delivery. Whatever the merits of the speech, it certainly wasn’t one of the more rhetorically brilliant pieces of oratory that the president has given.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">Yes, there are plenty of criticisms that could be made of President Obama’s speech. And there are some questions that still must be answered by the president. But what matters most is that the president has declared, definitively, that America is shooting for success in Afghanistan and that he will provide the resources that the military needs to achieve that end. </span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">This is tremendously important and heartening, and all Americans should stand behind the president in this important mission. What happens in Afghanistan is directly related to American security. The president apparently recognizes this. And he is now acting to prevent Afghanistan from falling into the hands of the Taliban, which would once again provide al-Qaeda a safe haven to plan and plot against the United States like they did before 9/11. Perhaps even worse, a Taliban-controlled Afghanistan could be used to destabilize a nuclear-armed Pakistan.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">The president’s decision will almost certainly alienate a large portion of his base and therefore the decision he made is politically risky for him. It is, however, the right move in defense of the safety and security of the United States. Conservatives in the opposition cannot always act as obstructionists. So far, much of the president’s foreign policy has merited criticism. But when the president is right, conservatives need to stand behind him. In this case, while President Obama is skewered by many on the Left, conservatives should vocally stand with the president in support of one of the most vital missions in the terror war.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">In that vein, conservatives must also criticize poor behavior in their ranks. While former Vice President Dick Cheney has made many important and accurate statements since leaving office, his interview in the <em>Politico </em>yesterday, right before the president’s speech, was in poor taste. While he may have been correct on much of the substance, it was wrongheaded to call the president “weak” just as he was preparing to make a major policy declaration on Afghanistan. At the very least, the former vice president could have waited until hearing President Obama’s plan.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;">It may have taken too long, but in the end the president made the right call, or at least close to the right call. Conservatives must now stand with the president in supporting this important mission, even if they provide constructive criticism from time to time on elements of Obama’s plan with which they have disagreements.</span></p>
<p><span style="color: black;"><em>Jamie Weinstein is a columnist for The North Star National. He can be contacted through his blog, </em><a href="http://jamieweinstein.com/" target="_blank"><span style="color: black;"><em>JamieWeinstein.com</em></span></a><em>.</em></span></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/standing-with-obama-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>11</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Zelaya’s Useful Idiot – by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/zelaya%e2%80%99s-useful-idiot-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=zelaya%25e2%2580%2599s-useful-idiot-%25e2%2580%2593-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/zelaya%e2%80%99s-useful-idiot-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 05:08:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=37987</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democratic Rep. Jan Schakowsky shills for Honduras’s ousted leftist president. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-38004" title="Honduras Coup" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/610x1.jpg" alt="Honduras Coup" width="488" height="349" /></p>
<p>During the Cold War, Congressional Democrats compiled a long history of being useful idiots for leftist causes and regimes in Latin America. Democratic Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky of Illinois seems to be trying to revive the tradition for the 21<sup>st</sup> century.</p>
<p>Last week, Schakowsky became the first Congressional Democrat to visit Honduras since Manuel Zelaya was forcibly removed from the Honduran presidency in June. Zelaya’s removal was authorized by the country’s Supreme Court and legislature in response to multiple attempts by Zelaya to violate the Honduran Constitution. It is widely suspected that Zelaya was seeking to change the Constitution in order to extend his presidency, which is limited to one term by Honduran law.</p>
<p>In a hastily arranged conference call just hours after she returned from her three-day trip to Honduras last Thursday, Schakowsky claimed to speak for Congressional Democrats and the U.S. government when she stated “the coup against President Zelaya is illegal and, along with every other nation in the region and the world, we don’t recognize the coup regime as the legitimate government of Honduras.”</p>
<p>It is true that the international community condemned Zelaya’s removal as an illegal coup, a position with which the Obama administration has concurred. But Schakowsky’s statement that the coup was illegal is in conflict with an August report by the Law Library of Congress on the situation in Honduras. The report reviewed the relevant Honduran law and ultimately concluded that</p>
<blockquote><p>“available sources indicate that the judicial and legislative branches applied constitutional and statutory law in the case against President Zelaya in a manner that was judged by the Honduran authorities from both branches of the government to be in accordance with the Honduran legal system.”</p></blockquote>
<p>When asked about the report, Schakowsky said she disagreed with it and that it was an “outlier.” Instead, the congresswoman focused on what she saw as human-rights violations taking places under the new government of Honduras and singled out Zelaya himself as “a victim of serious human rights abuses.”</p>
<p>If human rights violations occurred, the perpetrators should certainly be punished. But the congresswoman may have only been getting only half of the story from Zelaya and his supporters. If Zelaya’s removal was an illegal coup d’état, as Congresswoman Schakowsky, the Democrats in Congress and the Obama administration maintain, it would be one of the odder coups in recent memory. Most illegal coups take place as a power grab. But Zelaya’s removal was supported not only by the Supreme Court, but by almost the entirety of the Honduran legislature, including by the vast majority of members in Zelaya’s own party. On November 29, Honduras will hold democratic elections in which Honduras’s interim President Roberto Micheletti will not participate. Micheletti has stated that he plans step down in January and turn over power to whomever is elected in the forthcoming elections.</p>
<p>When I asked Congresswoman Schakowsky to explain why nearly the entire leadership of Honduras and the country’s Supreme Court would support the removal of Zelaya, if not for some sort of power grab since Micheletti will be giving up power, Schakowsky didn’t have a particularly compelling answer. “I think there were a number of things,” she said, “including raising the minimum wage. A number of things that the Zelaya administration had done that were offensive to the business class, the elites in Honduras, and so, I know, I think they wanted him out.”</p>
<p>So it was a business conspiracy aimed at preventing Zelaya from raising the minimum wage, according to the congresswoman. But what of the fact that the new president of Honduras will be chosen by democratic elections? Wouldn’t these nefarious business leaders have hand-picked a replacement? If they wanted a puppet in power, why not install someone they could control to rule Honduras instead of allowing the new leader to be chosen by unpredictable democratic elections? It doesn’t make much sense.</p>
<p>Asked by another reporter whether she was concerned about accusations that Zelaya was moving toward the orbit of Venezuela’s anti-American president Hugo Chavez, Schakowsky brushed off the concern as unfounded, citing an unimpeachable source. “I talked to President Zelaya about that and he felt those fears were way overstated,” she declared. Well, that settles that.</p>
<p>On second thought, perhaps Schakowsky shouldn’t be taking Zelaya at his word on such matters. After all, this is a man who reportedly told the <em>Miami Herald</em> with a straight face that “Israeli mercenaries” were torturing him by pumping toxic gases and high-frequency radiation into the Brazilian Embassy in Honduras, where he is currently holed up.</p>
<p>Schakowsky said these comments by Zelaya were “completely inappropriate.” But the comments were not so much inappropriate as they were insane. Does this sound like a person who is capable of leading a country? Or, for that matter, a man from whom Schakowsky can be confident she is getting the truth?</p>
<p>Schakowsky’s trip raises many questions. While the Congresswoman says “democratic order needs to be restored in Honduras,” by which she means “President Zelaya needs to be restored” to power, one may wonder why she is so eager to rush to the defense of a leader who is of such questionable reputation. Why not just allow the elections to go forward at the end of the month and allow the Honduran people to decide their new leader? More broadly, why were so many of those on the Left so hesitant to criticize the fraudulent elections that occurred in Iran over the summer, but so quick to criticize Honduran internal matters that the Library of Congress says were legitimate?</p>
<p>These questions deserve answers. As for Congresswoman Schakowsky, perhaps the explanation is as simple as her longing to return to the good old days, when trips to exotic Latin American locales simply entailed stumping for some leftist leader.</p>
<p><input id="gwProxy" type="hidden" /><input id="jsProxy" onclick="jsCall();" type="hidden" /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/zelaya%e2%80%99s-useful-idiot-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>8</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Learning from Iraq – by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/learning-from-iraq-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=learning-from-iraq-%25e2%2580%2593-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/learning-from-iraq-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=36056</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The success of the Iraqi troop surge suggests a way forward in Afghanistan. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-36057" title="petraeus" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/petraeus1.jpg" alt="petraeus" width="470" height="318" /></p>
<p>As Barack Obama deliberates over whether to grant General Stanley McChrystal’s request for 40,000 more troops in Afghanistan, one of the president’s greatest concerns is reportedly the unreliability and questionable legitimacy of the current Afghan government.</p>
<p>While this is hardly a trivial concern, it should be remembered that this same concern weighed heavily on those contemplating what turned out to be the hugely successful Iraq “surge” ordered by President George W. Bush in January 2007. Indeed, the same arguments now made against the Afghanistan surge – especially the dubious legitimacy and cooperation of the central government – were also made in the case of Iraq.</p>
<p>At the time, Charles Krauthammer best articulated the concern in a <em>Washington Post</em> column opposing the surge in Iraq. “If we were allied with an Iraqi government that, however weak, was truly national — cross-confessional and dedicated to fighting a two-front war against Baathist insurgents and Shiite militias — a surge of American troops, together with a change of counterinsurgency strategy, would have a good chance of succeeding,” Krauthammer wrote in January 2007. “Unfortunately, the Iraqi political process has given us Nouri al-Maliki and his Shiite coalition.”</p>
<p>Calling Maliki’s government “hopelessly sectarian,” Krauthammer concluded, “If it were my choice, I would not ‘surge’ American troops in defense of such a government. I would not trust it to deliver on its promises.” And despite his confidence in General David Petraeus, Krauthammer lamented that he was “afraid the effort will fail…because the Maliki government will undermine it.”</p>
<p>Krauthammer’s concerns were eminently reasonable. Indeed, they were shared by others, including many in the military establishment. But it proved a rare instance in which Krauthammer was wrong. The Iraq surge worked. While it remains to be seen whether Iraq ultimately will turn out to be a stable country, President Bush’s risky decision to increase America’s troop strength helped defeat al-Qaeda in Iraq, undeniably reversed a losing war, and gave the United States the opportunity for success.</p>
<p>In many ways, the earlier debate on the Iraqi surge is now being replayed. Last month, Afghanistan held national elections that were widely viewed as corrupt. After the United States persuaded Afghan President Hamid Karzai to participate in a run-off election against his leading challenger, Abdullah Abdullah, Abdullah withdrew, citing concern that the forthcoming elections would be equally corrupt.</p>
<p>As a result of the disputed election outcome, critics have warned that, without a reliable ally in the Afghan government, America’s mission in the country is doomed to failure. Therefore, the argument goes, it is best for the United States to scale back its military footprint rather than increase it. As conservative columnist George Will wrote last week, “If (Obama) is looking for a strategy that depends on legitimacy in Kabul, he is looking for a unicorn.”</p>
<p>The concern over the reliability of the Afghan government is not lost on General McChrystal. In his August report to the president, McChrystal expressed acute awareness of the failures of the Afghan government. Nonetheless, he concluded that America could still work with it and that success was possible in Afghanistan—but only if the mission was afforded the necessary resources, including troops.</p>
<p>The stakes are high. If America were to abandon or fail in the Afghan mission, a resurgent Taliban could very well retake the country with the only difference being that the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are now reportedly more closely allied than ever before.</p>
<p>With a safe haven in Afghanistan, al-Qaeda would be free to regroup and train. The result would be an increased terror threat to America. While some opponents of the Afghan surge try to minimize the importance of Afghanistan to al-Qaeda, terrorism expert Peter Bergen correctly noted in a recent article in the <em>New</em><em> Republic</em> that “nearly every major jihadist plot against Western targets in the last two decades somehow leads back to Afghanistan or Pakistan.”</p>
<p>Looming in the background is also the fear that failure in Afghanistan would create further instability in Pakistan. If Pakistan were to fall to Islamists, there is the frightening prospect of jihadists finally getting hold of a nuclear arsenal. “If we are good here (Afghanistan), it will have a good effect on Pakistan,” McChrystal told <em>The New York Times</em>, explaining how success in Afghanistan is also important to fostering stability in Pakistan. “But if we fail here, Pakistan will not be able to solve their problems—it would be like burning leaves on a windy day next door.”</p>
<p>The two wars are not exact parallels, but the lessons learned in Iraq can certainly be applied to Afghanistan. One of those lessons is that, despite concerns over the Iraqi government’s ability to do its job to complement the U.S. military’s surge of troops and change in strategy, the ultimate result was successful in reversing a losing situation (at least so far).</p>
<p>If General McChrystal believes that he can achieve a similar result with the current Afghan governmental situation, President Obama ought to trust him. After all, it was Obama who appointed General McChrystal in May, and it was Obama who set the mission General McChrystal is now asking for more troops to complete. It would be the height of irresponsibility if the president now denied the general the resources to carry out the job he hired him to do.</p>
<p><em>Jamie Weinstein is a syndicated columnist with The North Star National. He can be reached through his blog, </em><a href="http://www.JamieWeinstein.com"><em>www.JamieWeinstein.com</em></a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/learning-from-iraq-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>4</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>J-Street Exposed – by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/j-street-exposed-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=j-street-exposed-%25e2%2580%2593-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/j-street-exposed-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:16:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=33324</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[J-Street’s annual conference reveals that the self-styled “pro-Israel” group is anything but.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-33325" title="4048116699_4987c85e50" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/4048116699_4987c85e501.jpg" alt="4048116699_4987c85e50" width="350" height="232" /></p>
<p>While covering J-Street’s first annual national conference over the last three days, I think I recognized one of 1,000-plus attendees from television. Proudly wearing a Code Pink t-shirt, the woman was handing out cards advertising a December 31 march to “break the illegal Gaza siege.” If I am right in my recollection, I remember watching her being removed by Capitol Hill police officers with her Code Pink compatriots for protesting some congressional hearing I was watching on C-Span. She may not have been welcome on Capitol Hill, but she sure seemed in her element at J-Street.</p>
<p>After three days among J-Streeters, I have reached some important conclusions about the nature of the organization, its followers and its future. By listening to its executive director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speak during the plenary sessions, one would be led to believe that J-Street was founded to fill the void for a “pro-Israel” lobby that supports a “two-state” solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and opposes settlement expansion.</p>
<p>But the largely unspoken reality, which was only sometimes acknowledged by conference attendees and speakers, is that J-Street has arisen to challenge the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the hugely successful bipartisan lobby that supports a strong U.S.-Israel relationship.</p>
<p>If so, this is more than a little strange. I happen to know many people who work at AIPAC, who used to work at AIPAC and who are active supporters of AIPAC. For the record, I interned for AIPAC when I was in college. Of all the people I know (we are talking dozens), I am not aware of a single person associated with AIPAC who does not support a two-state solution to the conflict. Indeed, AIPAC as an organization supported Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 and the Oslo Accords in the 1990s. The natural implication of both polices, of course, was the creation of a Palestinian state down the road.</p>
<p>So if there is no void to fill here, what about J-Street’s emphasis on removing settlements? Well, if you support a two-state solution, then you necessarily understand that the natural implication of that policy is that most settlements will be removed from the West Bank in a final peace settlement. There is a difference of emphasis, of course. J-Street seems to think by the nature of its emphasis that settlement expansion is the number one impediment to peace in the Middle East. As far as I am aware, AIPAC does not subscribe to this fantasy, though the organization is ideologically diverse enough that some of its members very well may. But certainly the settlements issue is an unpersuasive reason for J-Street’s existence.</p>
<p>So, what sets J-Street apart as an organization? One wouldn’t discover the crucial differences between AIPAC and J-Street by only listening to Jeremy Ben-Ami’s speeches or by reading J-Street’s website. These differences can best be gleaned by listening to J-Street attendees and observing their actions.</p>
<p>You can learn a lot by observing how people act. During this week’s conference, J-Streeters most often applauded when Israel was criticized or when a speaker demanded that Israel remove settlements. Quiet invariably filled the room when a speaker defended Israel. Such a stance was not to be tolerated. Thus, when liberal Rabbi Eric Yoffie blasted the biased Goldstone Report, which unconvincingly accused Israel of war crimes, some people booed.</p>
<p>It is also instructive to listen to what J-Streeters asked when they were given the opportunity to question various speakers. Again, more often than not, these questions were critical of Israel. For instance, at a panel discussion on Iran, one J-Streeter asked why Israel could have nuclear weapons and not Iran? The question was warmly received with applause.</p>
<p>Just as significant as what J-Street’s leaders and supporters say is what they do not say. While Jeremy Ben-Ami tried to walk a fine line and present as moderate an image as he could without completely alienating his audience, it was notable how rarely he mentioned Palestinian terrorism or the threat to Israel of a nuclear Iran. When he gave the floor to pre-selected members of the audience, their comments were most often critical of Israel in some way. Not once did I hear someone from J-Street praise Israel for its liberal values or its democratic system.</p>
<p>In <a href="http://spectator.org/archives/2009/10/27/obamas-jewish-lobby">interviews</a> I conducted on Sunday night at the opening of the conference, some J-Streeters told me that it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if the international community tried Israeli leaders for “war crimes.” Many also told me they couldn’t see much of a moral difference between a democratic Israel and Israel’s totalitarian enemies. As much as Jeremy Ben-Ami pretends that J-Street is a moderate, pro-Israel organization, its membership is chock full of left-wing  radicals. Against this background, it should come as no surprise that J-Street’s campus offshoot <a href="http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1256557968276&amp;pagename=JPost/JPArticle/Printer">recently dropped</a> the “pro-Israel” part of the organization’s increasingly untenable “pro-Israel, pro-peace” slogan.</p>
<p>The contrast with AIPAC is acute. At AIPAC conferences, you get a sense that the attendees actually like Israel and admire it for the values it upholds in very difficult circumstances, even as they recognize that the country is not perfect. With J-Street, too many members are embarrassed by Israel. They are more willing to give the benefit of the doubt to Israel’s repressive enemies than the democratic Jewish state.</p>
<p>I have written previously that J-Street will ultimately collapse because it was built on a foundation of fallacies. But this collapse could come more quickly than one might expect. After all, this is an organization that calls itself a “pro-Israel” lobby but spends most of its time criticizing Israel. And if, as may well be the case, the leadership of J-Street is saner than many of its members, what will happen if, down the road, J-Street takes a relatively rational stance in defense of Israel that alienates its radical base? If J-Street’s conference this week is any guide, that will be the end of this already unnecessary organization.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/j-street-exposed-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>27</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>J-Street: Built on a Body of Lies &#8211; by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/j-street-built-on-a-body-of-lies-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=j-street-built-on-a-body-of-lies-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/j-street-built-on-a-body-of-lies-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Oct 2009 04:02:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=32753</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The founding fallacies of the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby.]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-32764" title="29hamas_fire" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/29hamas_fire.jpg" alt="29hamas_fire" width="455" height="315" /></p>
<p>This week J-Street, the self-proclaimed “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby, will host its first ever policy conference in Washington, D.C.</p>
<p>J-Street, which is just over a year old, was essentially founded to be a more “progressive” version of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), one of the most effective lobbies in Washington. But J-Street is built on a body of lies. Indeed, one can decipher at least three fallacies upon which J-Street is founded. Let’s examine them.</p>
<p><strong>Fallacy #1: AIPAC is a “right-wing” organization.</strong></p>
<p>“What we’re responding to is that for too long there’s been an alliance between the neo-cons, the radical right of the Christian Zionist movement and the far-right portions of the Jewish community that has really locked up what it means to be pro-Israel,” J-Street Executive Director Jeremy Ben-Ami has written. While Ben-Ami sometimes makes a point of suggesting that his organization is not meant to be the “anti-AIPAC,” it is quite obvious that this is exactly what J-Street is trying to be. J-Street and its supporters clearly see AIPAC as the epicenter of this supposedly right-wing pro-Israel alliance.</p>
<p>But AIPAC is hardly the extreme right-wing group that J-Street makes it out to be. During the 1990s, AIPAC supported the Oslo Accords. In 2005, AIPAC backed Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, which led to protests from the right outside its 2005 Policy Conference. These are not radically right-wing stances.</p>
<p>The fact is that liberal and conservative American supporters of Israel have found a home in AIPAC – that is why AIPAC is so successful.</p>
<p>For further evidence that AIPAC is no right-wing front, just take a glance at AIPAC’s Board of Directors (past and present). There’s Nancy Pelosi’s good friend Amy Friedken (who not too long ago served as AIPAC President); mega Democratic donor and Slim Fast founder S. Daniel Abraham; and former DNC Chairman Steve Grossman (also a former AIPAC President), just to name a few.</p>
<p>Now, there are also Republicans on AIPAC’s board. But it is demonstrably untrue to claim, as J-Street does, that AIPAC speaks only for the radically right-wing. AIPAC is a mainstream, bi-partisan organization, which is why it has been so effective.</p>
<p><strong>Fallacy #2: J-Street represents mainstream Jewish opinion on Israel.</strong></p>
<p>Despite J-Street’s repeated insistence that they represent mainstream American Jewish opinion, the record doesn’t seem to support that claim. Look no further than mainstream liberal Rabbi Eric Yoffie’s rebuke of them during the Israel-Gaza war last December. Yoffie is the president of the Union for Reform Judaism and has been described as the America’s leading liberal Rabbi. One would imagine he fits exactly the demographic that J-Street claims to represent.</p>
<p>Yet Yoffie strongly condemned J-Street’s response to the Gaza War. J-Street’s statements about the war, according to Rabbi Yoffie, were “morally deficient, profoundly out of touch with Jewish sentiment and also appallingly naïve.”</p>
<p>Yoffie was responding to a J-Street blog post stating that</p>
<blockquote><p>“While there is nothing ‘right’ in raining rockets on Israeli families or dispatching suicide bombers, there is nothing ‘right’ in punishing a million and a half already-suffering Gazans for the actions of the extremists among them.”</p></blockquote>
<p>In essence, J-Street was arguing that Israeli actions fighting back against Hamas terrorists were the moral equivalent of Hamas and its strategy of deliberately targeting Israeli civilians. This is hardly mainstream thought among American Jews. And, remember, this was a liberal Rabbi speaking—one that J-Street respects and has invited to be a marquis speaker at their policy conference.</p>
<p><strong>Fallacy #3: There is a dire need for a more “evenhanded” approach in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and it is necessary for the American president to engage the conflict continuously at a high level.</strong></p>
<p>Underpinning everything J-Street stands for is the idea that, if only previous American presidents, especially George W. Bush, were more engaged in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process from the very beginning of their terms, and were more “evenhanded,” everything would somehow be so different in the Middle East.</p>
<p>This idea is also shared by wide swaths of the liberal foreign policy establishment and was recently clearly expressed by former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk in a long article on J-Street in <em>the New York Times Magazine</em>. Indyk, who is not affiliated with J-Street, explained J-Street’s emergence by commentating,</p>
<blockquote><p>“In the Bush years, when Israel enjoyed a blank check, increasing numbers of people in the Jewish and pro-Israel community began to wonder, if this was the best president Israel ever had, how come Israel’s circumstances seemed to be deteriorating so rapidly?”</p></blockquote>
<p>This premise is J-Street’s reason for being. In essence, it holds that a more engaged, more evenhanded American president is better suited to creating peace in the Middle East. But you can’t create peace where you don’t have a leadership that earnestly seeks peace and is willing to take the compromises necessary to achieve peace, as has long been the case on the Palestinian side.</p>
<p>Bush did seek to negotiate some type of peace settlement during his first years in office and he became the first president to openly call for the creation of a Palestinian state while in office. But Bush quickly came to the determination that Yasser Arafat was not willing to make peace and therefore came to the correct conclusion that you can not magically create peace in the Middle East when only one side is genuinely committed to peace.</p>
<p>Not long after Arafat’s death, Hamas took control of Gaza. How do you create peace with a terrorist organization that not only calls for the destruction of Israel, but calls for the killing of Jews generally? American presidents are powerful, but they aren’t miracle workers.</p>
<p>Ultimately, J-Street seems more interested in criticizing supporters of Israel in America than the countries that threaten Israel. It is an organization built on fallacies and its claims to mainstream respectability should be dismissed as just another of the group’s many delusions.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/j-street-built-on-a-body-of-lies-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illusions of Insignificance – by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/illusions-of-insignificance-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=illusions-of-insignificance-%25e2%2580%2593-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/illusions-of-insignificance-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 04:04:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=25387</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[America is still the world’s preeminent power – even if the Left doesn’t know it. ]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><em><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-25388" title="eagle" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/eagle2.jpg" alt="eagle" width="560" height="420" /></em></p>
<p><em>Rachel Maddow: Every member of every country that was in the finals sent a head of government or a head of state…</em></p>
<p><em>Mike Murphy: But there’s a difference, Rachel. The president of the United States is a special category of one, and you don’t put a president in that position…</em></p>
<p><em>Rachel Maddow: Sure. And tell a Spaniard that King Carlos is second rate…</em></p>
<p><em>Mike Murphy: King Carlos knows deep down he’s second rate to the president of the United States…</em></p>
<p><em>&#8211; Discussion (edited for clarity and brevity) on President Barack Obama’s trip to Copenhagen, Meet the Press, October 4, 2009</em></p>
<p>It is unlikely that one would have to convince Spanish King Juan Carlos that he is not as significant an international figure as any American president. Unlike MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow, the Spanish King surely is fully aware of this reality. Indeed, with the possible exception of megalomaniac dictators and French presidents, most world leaders understand this implicitly.</p>
<p>To be sure, there are some who see things changing in the international arena; others who would like things to change; and a few who are acting to make such a change a reality. Still, as of now, the United States is the world’s only superpower. Why would Maddow, an American, be more deluded then the rest of world’s leaders as to the significance of the American president?</p>
<p>Perhaps it’s because she is consumed by a mania that infects left-wing “intellectuals.” Many leftists refuse to see America as an exceptional nation. To them, the notion is egotistical, inconsistent with the multiculturist worldview with which they were indoctrinated in college. To these global citizens, America is just another country in the world. If it is exceptional in anything, it is exceptionally imperialistic or exceptionally racist or exceptionally (insert a pejorative).</p>
<p>On ABC’s This Week on Sunday, Maddow’s point was indirectly echoed by <em>The Nation</em> magazine editor Katrina vanden Heuvel. Vanden Heuvel declared that “America is no longer a superpower.” She didn’t put it out there for debate. She just stated it as if it was an inarguable, uncontroversial fact.</p>
<p>Of course, the statement is false, even if vanden Heuvel, like Maddow, relishes the idea that America is just one country of many. But it is not hard to find commentators these days gleefully predicting the demise of Pax Americana. While the United States unquestionably remains the world’s strongest country both militarily and economically, long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led some to suggest America is overstretched. With the financial collapse, some countries have argued that America’s economic leadership has come to an end. At the same time, some see China’s rapid rise as a forthcoming threat to America’s dominance in the world. Combine all this, some say, and the American epoch is over, or if not over yet, rapidly coming to a conclusion.</p>
<p>Whatever the merit of these arguments, the fact is that America remains the top dog in the world. And we shouldn’t be resigned to losing that position. After all, such songs of America’s demise have been sung before only to be proven premature. There are certainly great obstacles and challenges that confront the United States, but these can be overcome. There is no reason the 21st century cannot be another “American Century.”</p>
<p>Unfortunately, even the American president seems to harbor doubts about the endurance of U.S. leadership. During the presidential campaign, Barack Obama spoke magnificently about how his story was only possible in the United States, which is true. But since assuming the Oval Office, Obama has gone on an apology tour, feeling it necessary to apologize for America in different locales throughout the world. When asked whether he believes in American exceptionalism by a reporter overseas, he responded that he believes in it but only in the same way other countries believe that their own country is exceptional. When he speaks of American decency, as he did recently to the United Nations, it is often with the implication that America has only become decent since he took office.</p>
<p>Retaining America’s position as the world’s only superpower requires the president to act like the leader of the world’s only superpower. Showing up to press America’s case for the Olympics in Copenhagen only to have the United States come in fourth place out of four doesn’t exactly exude the aura of leader of the world’s only superpower. Obama might also want to consider refraining from apologizing to the world at every turn and instead speak up for America’s record as leader of the free world. In that vein, Obama may want to stand up for those vying for freedom against oppression – something he failed to do during the recent democratic uprising in Iran. Finally, to remain the world’s superpower, Obama must act to reduce America’s massive debt load. Unfortunately, his domestic agenda would have the opposite effect.</p>
<p>President Obama, by virtue of his position, is the most significant leader in the world, even if certain MSNBC commentators disagree. It’s his job to preserve that position so that America can continue to lead the world long into the future. If his policies and actions aren’t aiding that goal at the moment, let the unrivaled stature of his office serve as a reminder that it isn’t yet too late to change course.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/illusions-of-insignificance-%e2%80%93-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>6</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>The Quintessential Capitalist &#8211; by Jamie Weinstein</title>
		<link>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/the-quintessential-capitalist-by-jamie-weinstein/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=the-quintessential-capitalist-by-jamie-weinstein</link>
		<comments>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/the-quintessential-capitalist-by-jamie-weinstein/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 Oct 2009 07:11:06 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jamie Weinstein]]></dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[FrontPage]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://frontpagemag.com/?p=24860</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Will Michael Moore spread his wealth around to other directors?]]></description>
				<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img class="alignnone size-full wp-image-24861" title="moore" src="http://cdn.frontpagemag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/moore.jpg" alt="moore" width="461" height="346" /></p>
<p>I think Michael Moore would be proud of me.</p>
<p>You see, when I went to see his pseudo documentary<em> Capitalism: A Love Story</em> at an artsy independent theatre on Sunday in Washington, D.C., I actually bought a ticket to another movie. I figured that Moore had already made so much money on his movies that he would want me to spread the wealth around to other directors that weren’t as financially successful. This, after all, is an approach that fits nicely with Moore’s overt hatred of capitalism.</p>
<p>The truth of the matter is that Michael Moore is among my least favorite people. His movies, which he calls documentaries, are deceptive and if they are not filled with out and out lies, they are chock full of distortions and misrepresentations. His latest film doesn’t deviate from this model.</p>
<p>Moore provides little context for many of the scenes in his anti-capitalist rant.  He plays off individual personal tragedies to manipulate the viewer into adopting his message. He shows us people being evicted from their homes and we are directed to lash out against the scourge of capitalism. He hopes that the movie will inspire a revolution that will ultimately overthrow the capitalist system and establish an economic system he terms “democracy.” Despite playing coy, it is clear that Moore longs for socialism.</p>
<p>The world’s recent economic troubles could actually be the subject of a great documentary and Moore’s film at times strays near interesting conundrums that are worth exploring. Certainly, the irresponsibility of those on Wall Street would be a great topic to delve into. There are difficult questions which need to be posed and, ultimately, answered.</p>
<p>But Moore skews everything to fit his world view. The “evil” capitalist system has failed he wants us to believe, despite the fact that it has been the greatest wealth creator in human history.</p>
<p>In promoting this film, Moore has once again proved himself to be a compulsive liar.</p>
<p>When interviewers bring up the obvious fact that Moore himself benefited from the capitalist system and that he is in that wealthy 1 percent he lambasts. Moore brushes it off saying “I don’t think I’m in that 1 percent” and “I make documentary films” as if to suggest he hasn’t made oodles and oodles of money off those films. When CNN’s Wolf Blitzer pressed this line of questioning further in an interview, Moore blathered:</p>
<p>“It’s, like, you know, sometimes people, even people who have actually had the good fortune and blessings in life to not have to struggle with worrying about their health care, whether or not it’s going to be here tomorrow or the next week - sometimes those people actually are willing to take great risks and create sacrifices for themselves, in the hopes that others will have it just as well.”</p>
<p>Oh, yes. Now we are getting to Moore’s psychosis. He has what I would term a celebrity martyr’s complex. He has convinced himself he has sacrificed so much by pushing his leftist agenda when in actuality he hasn’t sacrificed a damn thing. His supposed “sacrifices” are what has made him very rich. Moore’s self-righteous drivel is either an act or pure delusion.</p>
<p>When CNN’s Larry King brought up in an interview the fact that many conservatives also opposed the bank bailout, Moore concurred but suggested the reason they opposed it was “because the bailout was going to protect the teacher’s pension fund in California and they don’t want to do that so they are against the bailout.”</p>
<p>Here we have yet another lie. Has anyone ever heard anyone say they oppose the bailout for that reason? It most assuredly is not the motivating factor for why conservative and libertarian free market purists ardently opposed the bank bailouts. Not that Michael Moore doesn’t know that.</p>
<p>The fact of the matter is that Moore’s movie and interviews are often simply incomprehensible. When pressed to define what a “democratic” economic system actually means, Moore can’t really explain it because he made it up. It would be easier if he just came out and told the truth that he wants socialism.</p>
<p>But Moore doesn’t actually believe he needs to be honest. In April 2002, Moore appeared on CNN’s <em>Lou Dobbs Money Line</em> to promote his book <em>Stupid White Men</em>. When Dobbs mentioned an article from Slate Magazine that pointed out “glaring inaccuracies” in his book, Moore brushed off the criticism, asking, “How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?” This is a convenient wall for a liar to hide behind.</p>
<p>Moore is as big a phony as there is in American life. His latest diatribe of a film should be ignored.  But, alas, it won’t be. Instead, he will undoubtedly be given yet another Oscar from Hollywood, a community that has benefited greatly from the economic system Moore’s film rails against.</p>
<p>Go figure. Just remember, if you do go see Moore’s flick, make Michael Moore proud by buying a ticket to another movie before sneaking in.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.frontpagemag.com/2009/jamie-weinstein/the-quintessential-capitalist-by-jamie-weinstein/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>32</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Object Caching 663/696 objects using disk
Content Delivery Network via cdn.frontpagemag.com

 Served from: www.frontpagemag.com @ 2014-12-31 07:03:53 by W3 Total Cache -->