Ha'aretz's Ranking of Presidential Candidates: Silly and Wrong
Ha'aretz has taken to giving US Presidential hopefuls Pitchfork-style numerical rankings based on who's good for Israel. Two observations can be made about this, the newest Ha'aretz assault on people who don't like reading things that make their brains bleed:
(1) It's quite silly to handicap the race this early. American political experts won't go out on limbs much further than "Hillary may or may not run".
(2) It's incoherent and wrong. We have a number of concerns, which we have helpfully subpointed for you:
(a) Hillary at 4: She kissed Suha Arafat right after Suha Arafat accused Jews of poisoning Palestinian children (Arafat apparently didn't get the memo from the Left on how you're supposed to use anti-Semitic canards there days - you accuse Israel of using using depleted uranium, not Jews of poisoning wells... that way, you get to say you're anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic - Clinton kissed her anyway). Then she had to run for Senate in New York, so she had to take it back and appear pro-Israel. Ha'aretz mentions the Suha incident, and then only uses quotes from 2005 and 2006 to argue that she's pro-Israel (they also weirdly list her as First Lady from 1993-2000, which can't be made correct no matter how you count when Presidential terms start and stop). We're not sure where she actually falls on issues relating to Israel or political Islam, but we are sure that Ha'aretz can't help us figure that out by describing what she did as a Senator from New York - a state with over a million Jews and 3,000 citizens who were murdered by political Islamists five years ago. She's not quite a blank slate (because you can guess her likely policies based on what foreign policy elites she rubs shoulders with), but her Senate record is useless as an indictor.
(b) Gore at 5: He still believes in land-for-peace. You only think he's good for Israel if you think that land-for-peace is good for Isra - oh.
(c) Rice at 9: Seriously? No, seriously? You've got to be kidding.
Via AK Sommer we found a quip on Dutchblog describing it as "useless and stupid journalism [from]... a newspaper that I normally think quite highly of". We agree with all of that up to the word "newspaper" (then he loses us). The only possible excuse for this is if the Ha'aretz editors have taken to intentionally baiting Walt, Mearsheimer, and David Duke. Which would make it funny and brilliant, and would force us to take back that time we implied that Ha'aretz is run by traitors. Or that time we implied that they were on the side of terrorists. Or that other time we implied that there were on the side of terrroists. And so on.
UPDATE: Sigh. Go, learn. As MR continues its slide into ironic-music-blog territory...
UPDATE 2: The Walt, Mearsheimer, and David Duke joke turns out to be not funny. Ha'aretz is getting email saying that this will just embolden people who think that Israel controls US politics. We're actually on Ha'aretz's side on this: screw those people. Israel is supposed to be the only country on the planet that doesn't evaluate how US elections will affect it, just because anti-Semites are anti-Semitic? Listen, anti-Semitism isn't a conspiracy theory for nothing - it can use any evidence to justify its claims. If Ha'aretz puts up a chart of pro and anti-Israeli candidates, it's taken as evidence that Israel controls American politics. If Ha'aretz was silent about pro and anti-Israel candidates, it would be taken as evidence that they're so confident that AIPAC controls Washington that they don't have to bother paying attention to the election. You can't reason these people, and it's absurd to ask Ha'aretz not to publish something on their account. Don't worry about legitimate journalism that "make it easier" for anti-Semites to be anti-Semitic - a frank evaluation of history shows that they'll find a way to be anti-Semitic no matter what you do.
(1) It's quite silly to handicap the race this early. American political experts won't go out on limbs much further than "Hillary may or may not run".
(2) It's incoherent and wrong. We have a number of concerns, which we have helpfully subpointed for you:
(a) Hillary at 4: She kissed Suha Arafat right after Suha Arafat accused Jews of poisoning Palestinian children (Arafat apparently didn't get the memo from the Left on how you're supposed to use anti-Semitic canards there days - you accuse Israel of using using depleted uranium, not Jews of poisoning wells... that way, you get to say you're anti-Zionist and not anti-Semitic - Clinton kissed her anyway). Then she had to run for Senate in New York, so she had to take it back and appear pro-Israel. Ha'aretz mentions the Suha incident, and then only uses quotes from 2005 and 2006 to argue that she's pro-Israel (they also weirdly list her as First Lady from 1993-2000, which can't be made correct no matter how you count when Presidential terms start and stop). We're not sure where she actually falls on issues relating to Israel or political Islam, but we are sure that Ha'aretz can't help us figure that out by describing what she did as a Senator from New York - a state with over a million Jews and 3,000 citizens who were murdered by political Islamists five years ago. She's not quite a blank slate (because you can guess her likely policies based on what foreign policy elites she rubs shoulders with), but her Senate record is useless as an indictor.
(b) Gore at 5: He still believes in land-for-peace. You only think he's good for Israel if you think that land-for-peace is good for Isra - oh.
(c) Rice at 9: Seriously? No, seriously? You've got to be kidding.
Via AK Sommer we found a quip on Dutchblog describing it as "useless and stupid journalism [from]... a newspaper that I normally think quite highly of". We agree with all of that up to the word "newspaper" (then he loses us). The only possible excuse for this is if the Ha'aretz editors have taken to intentionally baiting Walt, Mearsheimer, and David Duke. Which would make it funny and brilliant, and would force us to take back that time we implied that Ha'aretz is run by traitors. Or that time we implied that they were on the side of terrorists. Or that other time we implied that there were on the side of terrroists. And so on.
UPDATE: Sigh. Go, learn. As MR continues its slide into ironic-music-blog territory...
UPDATE 2: The Walt, Mearsheimer, and David Duke joke turns out to be not funny. Ha'aretz is getting email saying that this will just embolden people who think that Israel controls US politics. We're actually on Ha'aretz's side on this: screw those people. Israel is supposed to be the only country on the planet that doesn't evaluate how US elections will affect it, just because anti-Semites are anti-Semitic? Listen, anti-Semitism isn't a conspiracy theory for nothing - it can use any evidence to justify its claims. If Ha'aretz puts up a chart of pro and anti-Israeli candidates, it's taken as evidence that Israel controls American politics. If Ha'aretz was silent about pro and anti-Israel candidates, it would be taken as evidence that they're so confident that AIPAC controls Washington that they don't have to bother paying attention to the election. You can't reason these people, and it's absurd to ask Ha'aretz not to publish something on their account. Don't worry about legitimate journalism that "make it easier" for anti-Semites to be anti-Semitic - a frank evaluation of history shows that they'll find a way to be anti-Semitic no matter what you do.
