Robert O'Rourke, the Democrat presidential candidate who pretends to be Hispanic by calling himself Beto, has managed to take yet another step to lose the luster with which he began the campaign: he has now denounced the prime minister of Israel as a racist. O'Rourke has had no real life achievements; he lost his race for the senate in Texas last year. Before that, he was a three term unknown congressman from El Paso who did little or nothing. Nevertheless, he had extremely favorable national media coverage after his loss last November that gave him a leg up a few months ago. Then the same stories that killed his chances in Texas began to circulate, and his media-created halo began to slip. People began to hear that O'Rourke had quite an arrest record. First he was arrested for burglary while in college. A few years later, he was arrested on a DUI. It was even exposed that O'Rourke fled the scene of the accident when he got hit with the DUI. The burglary charge was dropped before prosecution, but O'Rourke entered a plea on the DUI which let him avoid jail and a conviction record in exchange for attending training and performing community service. It's a typical response to initial charges brought against wealthy young guys who have good lawyers. Then all sorts of photos of O'Rourke's past surfaced from the days when he used to appear in his failed rock band dressed as a woman or in a furry animal costume. The halo fell off; most of the favorable press ended. O'Rourke didn't get to having negative press, but he's likely to suffer that fate.
O'Rourke and his advisers must have decided that the way to regain the media's favor would be to go as far left as possible. To out-progressive the other Democrats. O'Rourke came out in favor of tearing down all border walls. That was too much even for the true crazies among the Democrats, so he walked that back. Yesterday, he decided to take a different tack. O'Rourke denounced the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu as a racist. O'Rourke could have said he disagreed with Israeli policy or with the statements made on some topic by Netanyahu, but that wouldn't have garnered any headlines. As a result, O'Rourke called Netanyahu a racist, and he did that two days before the Israeli elections.
Now let's stop here for a moment. We just lived through a huge uproar particularly among Democrats because Russia mixed into our elections by, among other things, running some ads on Facebook. "How dare the Russians meddle in our elections," screamed the Dems, O'Rourke included. So what does O'Rourke do? He meddles in the Israeli elections by attacking Netanyahu two days before the Israeli elections. Now I doubt that many Israelis care much what this fool has to say about their prime minister, but the attack got coverage in the Israeli media. It doesn't take many votes being switched to change the outcome in this election which polls show will be very close. So O'Rourke does the very things which he condemns as unacceptable when the Russians do it.
But let's look at the charge. What was O'Rourke talking about? First and generally, Israel has not made peace with the Palestinians. Must be racism, right? No, wrong. The Israelis have twice offered major deals to the Palestinians that would have given the Palestinians a state and about 98% of everything else they wanted. All that the Israelis wanted was peace and recognition of Israel's right to exist. These offers were rejected by the Palestinians. That means no compromise of any sort could be reached. It wasn't racism by Israel; it was intransigence by the Palestinians.
Second, O'Rourke was responding to a particular comment by Netanyahu in which he said that the settlements in the West Bank would never be abandoned by Israel. To understand this, you need to understand what constitutes "settlements". Any land owned by an Israeli in territory that was under the control of Jordan prior to the 1967 war is deemed a "settlement" by the rest of the world. Just that terminology is a victory for the Palestinians. But understand what we are talking about. For example, there is in the old city of Jerusalem a section that has been called the "Jewish Quarter" for the last 800 years or so. It is the section of that city where most of the Jews lived in the middle ages. Prior to 1948, the area was heavily Jewish. Then came the war when the Arabs attacked Israel when it declared its independence. Jordanian forces eventually took the Jewish Quarter, and they ousted every Jew who lived there. When Israel took back Jerusalem in 1967, some of those Jews who had been forced to leave by the Jordanians twenty years earlier returned to the neighborhood. Those Jews live in "settlements" according to the terminology used by the world. Meanwhile, Jerusalem has grown so that it now has more than four times the population that it had in 1967 and the suburbs have grown as well. Jerusalem is now the largest city in Israel. When apartment buildings get built on the east side of the city or suburbs, those are settlements too. The reality is that nearly 80% of the Jews in "settlements" just live in metro Jerusalem.
It's worth noting that for decades, Israel has always said that Jerusalem is its ancient and current capital and that it will remain undivided. That means that these so called settlements will not be abandoned. When Netanyahu repeats this, however, O'Rourke decides that it must be racism.
All that O'Rourke has proven with his statement is that he doesn't understand the realities or the history of the Middle East. He still managed to shoot his mouth off while knowing next to nothing about what he was saying. He's proving that he is just not up to the job of president.
O'Rourke and his advisers must have decided that the way to regain the media's favor would be to go as far left as possible. To out-progressive the other Democrats. O'Rourke came out in favor of tearing down all border walls. That was too much even for the true crazies among the Democrats, so he walked that back. Yesterday, he decided to take a different tack. O'Rourke denounced the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu as a racist. O'Rourke could have said he disagreed with Israeli policy or with the statements made on some topic by Netanyahu, but that wouldn't have garnered any headlines. As a result, O'Rourke called Netanyahu a racist, and he did that two days before the Israeli elections.
Now let's stop here for a moment. We just lived through a huge uproar particularly among Democrats because Russia mixed into our elections by, among other things, running some ads on Facebook. "How dare the Russians meddle in our elections," screamed the Dems, O'Rourke included. So what does O'Rourke do? He meddles in the Israeli elections by attacking Netanyahu two days before the Israeli elections. Now I doubt that many Israelis care much what this fool has to say about their prime minister, but the attack got coverage in the Israeli media. It doesn't take many votes being switched to change the outcome in this election which polls show will be very close. So O'Rourke does the very things which he condemns as unacceptable when the Russians do it.
But let's look at the charge. What was O'Rourke talking about? First and generally, Israel has not made peace with the Palestinians. Must be racism, right? No, wrong. The Israelis have twice offered major deals to the Palestinians that would have given the Palestinians a state and about 98% of everything else they wanted. All that the Israelis wanted was peace and recognition of Israel's right to exist. These offers were rejected by the Palestinians. That means no compromise of any sort could be reached. It wasn't racism by Israel; it was intransigence by the Palestinians.
Second, O'Rourke was responding to a particular comment by Netanyahu in which he said that the settlements in the West Bank would never be abandoned by Israel. To understand this, you need to understand what constitutes "settlements". Any land owned by an Israeli in territory that was under the control of Jordan prior to the 1967 war is deemed a "settlement" by the rest of the world. Just that terminology is a victory for the Palestinians. But understand what we are talking about. For example, there is in the old city of Jerusalem a section that has been called the "Jewish Quarter" for the last 800 years or so. It is the section of that city where most of the Jews lived in the middle ages. Prior to 1948, the area was heavily Jewish. Then came the war when the Arabs attacked Israel when it declared its independence. Jordanian forces eventually took the Jewish Quarter, and they ousted every Jew who lived there. When Israel took back Jerusalem in 1967, some of those Jews who had been forced to leave by the Jordanians twenty years earlier returned to the neighborhood. Those Jews live in "settlements" according to the terminology used by the world. Meanwhile, Jerusalem has grown so that it now has more than four times the population that it had in 1967 and the suburbs have grown as well. Jerusalem is now the largest city in Israel. When apartment buildings get built on the east side of the city or suburbs, those are settlements too. The reality is that nearly 80% of the Jews in "settlements" just live in metro Jerusalem.
It's worth noting that for decades, Israel has always said that Jerusalem is its ancient and current capital and that it will remain undivided. That means that these so called settlements will not be abandoned. When Netanyahu repeats this, however, O'Rourke decides that it must be racism.
All that O'Rourke has proven with his statement is that he doesn't understand the realities or the history of the Middle East. He still managed to shoot his mouth off while knowing next to nothing about what he was saying. He's proving that he is just not up to the job of president.
No comments:
Post a Comment