I detest Bob Novak...but he was an "Anti-Sharonist." Why?

[KoKo]

Here's some things I found that were "Anti-Sharon" from him. There are MORE on Google Search...this is just a couple.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: September 1, 2001 Saturday
ROBERT NOVAK, "CHICAGO SUN-TIMES":I think there's a divided policy. I think Al Hunt is wrong in that he's mouthing the conventional wisdom of Washington and the Clinton holdovers, as he -- you know, do the same thing we did -- well, they ended up with General Sharon in charge, and that what the disaster is.

In the first place you have, on the one hand, the president and the vice-president, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who almost are saying, "That a boy" to the Israelis -- go get them, go get those Arabs.

On the other hand, Secretary of State Powell and the State Department are saying, this is terrible. You're never going to win this war with targeted assignations.

Now the problem is that Mr. Boucher, the spokesman, reading in a monotone off a sheet of paper, is not giving the proper level of indignation that the Secretary of State would give, or better even still, the president would give. I don't think it's time now, Al, to have a negotiation. But for goodness sake, it's time for the United States of America to say that we do not in any way condone targeted assassinations. It's against the law in this country, ought to be against the law in Israel.

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:z8KJAr8nt0wJ:www.cwfpac.com/chairmans_corner_speeches_09_01_01.htm+Robert+Novak,+no+friend+of+Israel&hl=en


---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Friend or Foe?
Not only Israel's friends thought that way. Veteran Israel basher Robert Novak
expressed his fears that the celebrations of the American dead in the streets ...
www.tzemachdovid.org/Facts/friend.shtml


During the Gulf War, Israel was hit with dozens Scuds, killing at least 13 and injuring more than 230 people. Thousands of homes were damaged. Yet the United States stubbornly refused to let Israel stand up for itself; insisting that its forces were doing the job of protecting Israel.

The ugly epilogue to this friction occurred months after the Gulf War was over. In September 1991, as the Israeli government tried to secure loan guarantees from the United States for the purpose of resettling immigrants from the former Soviet Union, the President delivered his infamous "lonely little guy" speech. In that speech the President referred to himself as a "lonely little guy" who was going "up against some powerful political forces." He was referring to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee), the main pro-Israel lobbying group. Then he cast Israel's disagreement with the United States as a display of ingratitude, claiming that "...just months ago, American men and women in uniform risked their lives to defend Israelis in the face of Iraqi Scud missiles..." While the defeat of Iraq was a good thing for the world, as well as for Israel, Israel did suffer, and the defense that America provided Israel was inadequate. Bush's statement is still shocking 10 years later. America certainly did not set out to save Israel. To demand gratitude for doing so, while suggesting that Americans who support Israel don't have America's best interests in mind is absolutely unforgivable.

For the Gulf War then, Israel wasn't considered a friend, though it wasn't considered a foe either. The question now is, who are America's friends and who are its foes?

Initially, it appeared that Israel, after suffering through years of terrorism would be a natural member for the American coalition. Not only Israel's friends thought that way. Veteran Israel basher Robert Novak expressed his fears that the celebrations of the American dead in the streets of Ramallah would drive Israel and America closer together, harming (in Novak's opinion) America's interests in maintaining strong ties with the Arab world.

It quickly became obvious that Israel would not be included in the coalition. In President Bush's call to arms, he pronounced the need to fight "terrorism with a global reach." The Jerusalem Post's military correspondent, Arieh O'Sullivan explained why this undermines Israel's position. O'Sullivan presents President Bush's argument that terrorism of the type perpetrated by Osama bin Laden "has no brakes." The bad news for Israel is that America won't (and hasn't) put an emphasis on fighting groups like Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, and will place an increased value on gaining the support of Arab states even at Israel's expense.

The American position is clearly expedient, and it's not just how O'Sullivan explains it. In Congressional testimony, the Administration's coordinator for antiterrorism, Francis X. Taylor, stated, "In the early 1990s, we saw the emergence of radical fundamentalist terrorist groups that relied not on state sponsors but primarily on funds raised independently through front companies and so-called charitable contributions." In other words, since Al Qaeda isn't dependent on the largess of any government, there's no prevailing force to constrain its actions.

Still, if there's a measure of comfort provided by O'Sullivan's analysis of American intentions, it's that Israel is not the focus of bin Laden's activities. So even if Israel isn't on America's list of coalition partners right now, it might be after America has defeated bin Laden. Once bin Laden is defeated, America might turn its attention to foes common both to America and Israel.

The Administration's differentiation between kinds of terror affects how it views its friends; it also affects how it views its foes. Will this approach of opposing "terrorism with a global reach" be successful? Two opinions question whether America has the correct approach. In an essay for Arutz-7, entitled "Why America has Already Lost the War" (September 28, 2001), Moshe Feiglin argues that-contrary to Bush's politically correct declarations differentiating between Muslims and terrorists-America's enemy truly is Islam, and that America will be unable to prevail until it recognizes that enemy. According to Mr. Feiglin, the two major religions that broke off from Judaism, Christianity and Islam, each took a quality from Judaism.

Christianity took the quality of mercy and Islam took the quality of strict justice. Islamic resentment of the West is based on the jealousy Islam feels toward the success of the merciful (Christian) West in gaining widespread acceptance around the world. (This view is similar to the analysis expressed by Bernard Lewis in an excellent article, "The Roots of Muslim Rage," http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/90sep/rage.htm which was written 11 years ago.)

A variation on this critique was offered by Daniel Pipes in the Jerusalem Post ("What Bush got Right, and Wrong," http://www.jpost.com/Editions/2001/09/26/Opinion/Opinion.35375.html) Dr. Pipes' most serious criticism of the President's declaration of purpose was that he had confused a tactic, terrorism, with the true enemy: Islamism. Islamism, as Dr. Pipes defines it, is an ideology that views Islam as both a political and religious philosophy with the intent to subjugate the world. While Dr. Pipes doesn't view Islamism as a majority view within Islam, he also rejects the idea that it is simply a fringe interpretation of the religion. It has significant support. Unlike Mr. Feiglin, Dr. Pipes doesn't view the whole Islamic world as the enemy.

The question still remains, is American's policy of holding Israel at arms' length, encouraging a Palestinian state, and acquiescing to the demands of the Arab states a good idea?

An answer to that question may be gleaned by going back 10 years and observing the help America has received from its Gulf War allies. Stating that the world had changed, at the end of 1991, the first President Bush pursued an initiative to repeal the United Nations' resolution that "Zionism is racism." The initiative was successful, but not a single Arab nation voted for its repeal. The best response the United States got was from Egypt, which receives $2 billion in annual aid from America and had billions in debt forgiven for its participation in the Gulf War coalition, and from Kuwait, whose country was restored. Neither of those countries voted.

Friends, like Jordan, which backed Saddam Hussein, and Saudi Arabia, which was protected by America, voted against repeal. None of these countries paid a diplomatic price for their failures to support this American initiative.

More recently, these "friends" have given little inkling that they've changed in the past decade. Writing in the October 8, 2001, issue of U.S. News ("The Mirage of a Coalition"), Fouad Ajami, a leading scholar and critic of the Islamic world, notes the number of vicious anti-Semitic rumors that have originated in Egypt and concludes, "A country that gives credence to this paranoia can hardly associate with America's campaign."

William Safire, ("High Cost of Coalition", October 4, 2001) wrote in his New York Times column that the Saudis have not been very helpful either. They have consistently impeded the American investigations into two terrorist attacks on Saudi soil that killed Americans. In the current crisis, the New York Times reported that Saudi Arabia has been hindering the American efforts at tracing bin Laden's finances.

[JI7]

1. he has been anti Israel for a while and he was against the war in IRaq

also.

he is kind of like Pat BUchanan and many other conservatives who are anti israel.

[pretzel4gore]

4. somebody's got to do it...

the nazipoos like to manage all aspects of an issue, so they assign buchanon and novak the job of opposing israel and war etc.....
it's called 'having your kaka and eating it too'
the mepukes love their kaka (with some ka on the side!) and as anyone who's ever looked at a buncha gopigs can see, they do alot of eating!

[Canuckistanian]

2. Why, he's anti-semitic!

Because when you criticize the civilian government of Israel, you criticize all of Judaism iteslf!

[11cents]

3. Actually, he probably is.

And no, I don't think that criticizing Israel is tantamount to antisemitism, and I despise Sharon myself. But this is particular to Novak -- he was raised as a Jew, converted noisily to Catholicism, and is known to dislike reminders about his origins. I've heard for years that people who know him think he's an antisemite.

[KoKo]

5. What warped him to see two sides though. He seems quite extreme..

goes from Judaism to Catholicism...and it seems to be quite extreme to me. He should have become an Episcopalian. :D

Why go from one extreme to the other? And, then...end up what he is... a LIAR and a TOOL for CIA?

[Canuckistanian]

15. No, that's just what the RW says whenever Israel is criticized.

Don't like what Sharon is doing? You must hate Jews!
It's the black/white mentality. It's the same concept with supporting the war.
Against the war? You must be
a.) Against the troops
b.) With the terrorists
Etc, etc.

So, in Novaks case, it's deep shame about his background?
Self-loathing, in other words?

[Coastie for Truth]

16. It's defensive antennae

From the Council of Nicea, from the Crusades (yes, the Jews were victims too, wasn't only the Muslims who were massacred), from the Inquisition (yes, the Jews were victims too - it wasn't only Muslims who were burned at Torquemada's stake), and racially restrictive covenants, and numerous clausus, and, oh yes, the Holocaust, and even tax treatment of Canadian Mogen Dovid Adom, and even the CRC's stand on MDA's application to the ICRC.

So, when I hear any ambiguous statement that could interpreted by a paranoid as anti-semitic -- the antennae re out and the shields are up -- and the burden is on the other guy to reassure me of his bona fides.

BTW - I was educated as a Chemical Engineer (which in my era was Petroleum Refinery Engineering) - so I have been in the belly of the beast.

"Coastie"
Chartered Professional Engineer - Province of Saskatchewan

[Caleb]

6. He's a paleocon

Most paleocons are anti-Semites. i.e. Pat Buchanan.

[11cents]

7. That too.

The paleocons largely come from the "Old Right" tradition which was overtly racist and in particular antisemitic. Linked to the pre-WWII isolationists and post-war organizations like the John Birch Society.

[KoKo]

9. Please...your definition of "anti-Semite." Do you mean

anti-Jew? Is that what you are saying? Please clarify.

[Coastie for Truth]

17. I will tell you what I mean by an "anti-Semite"

And it has very, very little to do with Israel, Zionism, or the Middle East.

First, let's get something out of the way -- I was educated as a Chemical Engineer (which in my era was Petroleum Refinery Engineering) - and the petroleum industry is as "judenrein" as the Third Reich. I have never, ever worked for the petroleum industry -- and I used to be a safety and environmental regulator (LNG ships, double hulled super tankers).

Second, let's get one other thing out of the way - most of my maternal grandmother's family and most of my wife's family were killed in the Holocaust.

What do I mean by "anti-Semite" - tacit support or looking the other way for

1) Numerous Clausus admissions criteria for law and med schools and universities (against anybody, African American, Latino, Arab-Americans, women, GLBT, people over 45, handicapped, anybody).
2) Racially restrictive practices in the availability of housing (against anybody, African American, Latino, Arab-Americans, women, GLBT, people over 45, handicapped, anybody).
3) Discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, employee evaluations, work assignments (against anybody, African American, Latino, Arab-Americans, women, GLBT, people over 45, handicapped, anybody).

I am 64 years old - I have lived full time in 8 states and worked on extended assignment in 4 more states; I have worked for about a dozen employers. One thing I have learned - "most" anti-Semites also have "problems" with others who are "different" (e.g., African American, Latino, Arab-Americans, women, GLBT, people over 45, handicapped) except for a few who have a "Deicide" form of anti-Semitism.

You know something - whatever the basis is -- I don't have enough years left to waste them with anybody who is any kind of a racist or any semitic or anti-African American, or anti-Latino, anti-Arab-American, anti-women, or anti-choice, or homophobic, or anti-handicapper, or ageist.

And if your support for justice for the Palestinians (which I agree with) crosses that fine line into what I perceive as anti-Semitism - just read Genesis XXXVIII............

[KoKo]

8. Why do you use that word..."Anti-Semite." All these people supported the

NeoCon/PNAC's vision of the "Democracy in the Middle East Scenario."

The only difference I saw was that it was on HOW one manged to Invade and Control the Middle East. It was a difference of "strategy" to me..and not "intent." :shrug:

I don't get the tar brush of "Anti-Semite." Maybe I'm dense or stupid or naive...but, I just don't get that I'm some kind of Nazi Sympathizer here. ????:eyes: Because I and others opposed Iraq Invasion mighten we be classified as "Anti-Semitic" if one takes such a narrow view of the term...and what is the term defined by. Novak seems to be much more hostile to Israel than I or others might be. :shrug:

On Edit: Novak is a "scum." But, wasn't he a useful tool for someone? Who or Whom...I don't believe he had a principled bone in his body...it was all about "HIM."

BTW: In the interest of fairness...I know many "self loating Catholics" and have some in parts of my family. They actually gave up ALL belief in religion because they were disillusioned. As a Protestant from a liberal wing...it's hard for me to understand...except I'm so angry at my own "liberal leaning faith" that they didn't have the guts or spine to DENOUNCE and SUPPORT their members who tried to STOP Iraq Invasion. I can't get into "self loathing" over that. How can one "self loath" a faith that refused to stand up for itself. But, I never felt a need to "act out" against them for that. I just felt sad that they couldn't see the moral depravity Bush and NeoCons were leading us into. :shrug:

[Bumblebee]

10. He actually is one -- or, more precisely, a self-hating Jew

He always wears the loudest red vests on Christmas. He is the works.

[KoKo]

11. Okay....I guess I can see what you mean. Self Loathing for what one

"has been" is often acted out by going to an extreme of the other side of whatever one's new "reformed" beliefs might be.

That's interesting what you say about his Christmas Vests. For years I watched Novak (in my Pre-2000 Selection Days) and always wondered what it was with that vest. I didn't really know he was a converted Jew until about 6 months ago. It didn't matter to me...at that time I thought he was picked to report the news..and was picked for "balance." I was very naive before "Selection 2000."

I did notice he always had a bone to pick about Israel...but thought he was presenting a view of his own based on what he knew. And, some of us out there in TV land did wonder why Israel seemed to be so important that our whole foreign policy seemed to start to be driven by it when Benjamin Netanyahu (or BeBe as Ted Koppel called him) was the "Fav" of the Networks and talk shows. I wasn't into seeing "dark sides" at that point. It's only since then that I noticed what he has become. The Red Vest is kind of pathetic, then. Only folks clued into his background would have seen the terrible "insult" that was to his heritage. Makes me think he's even worse scum that I realized..if anyone can go lower than his actions on Plame led him. :-(

[durutti]

12. But you will never, ever see the ADL go after him like they've gone after

the Left.

[Caleb]

13. I use that word anti-Semite

because that is what a lot of so-called paleocons are. Pat Buchanan, the leading paleocon, is an anti-Semite. It has nothing to do with Israel and everything to do with their hatred of Jews.

[KoKo]

14. Why would Buchanan need to

"hate Jews, though?" I've not seen anything in his background for that. Frankly Buchanan seems to hate everything...even though he can be charming and be spot on in his analysis of politics sometimes. He worked for Nixon though...and my impression of Nixon was that he hated most people and always felt that he had grown up downtrodden and that DC was filled with folks trying to "put him down" along with his wife. He had some huge inferiority complex. Buchanan seems to have done very well in DC ...he gets money from somewhere and has survived all this time...even has his own new Magazine. So why would he be a hater of Jews? What did anyone Jewish ever do to him. I haven't seen any articles that would explain that. :shrug: His sister seems to do well on the talk show circuit and they both seem to be favorites of the old Strom Thurmon wing of the Repug Party. Maybe he's just a racist...and it's not just focused towards Jews but towards everyone who doesn't agree with him...like Nixon.