Many objections

Submitted by LaoK (United Kingdom), Jan 29, 2006 at 18:16

This ... shows that one of us lives in another dimension than the other, such is its extremity to my eyes. Here's why I think my dimension is closer to the real world:

The "public debate" Mrs. Glick speaks of was more like talking points on conservative radio shows, with opinion leaders doing most of the damage. In the end, it was the Republican control of the Senate that did in the Miers nomination, not public outrage over the cronyism. The Republican leadership, miles away from an American public that only gave Bush a mandate of about three percent in the last election, simply did not want someone who wasn't guaranteed to further erode the rights of individuals on the Supreme Court (specifically vis-a-vis women and gays).

Those who felled the Miers nomination, than, are more comparable to the people who couldn't stop the withdrawl from Gaza. That is, they are a minority. The anti-disengagement crowd, though I hate to admit it, were based at the grass-roots level, but the wider Israeli public supported the plan time and time again (59% in Spetember 2005: http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2005/p17ejoint.html). Yes, they voted against left-wing policies in the last election, but that was at the height of the fighting. Moreover, it was the trusted Sharon bringing about the policy this time, and even when he pulls a new party out of the blue, Israelis support him. Maybe they understood that Gaza was a drain on their resources, and that by withdrawing, Sharon could hold onto more of the West Bank. Now, Israeli politicians are already saying that the Palestinians "closed the door on peace that Sharon opened," or words to that effect. By giving up just a bit, the Israelis have won support even from the Saudis (http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/329A5885-98A7-436D-9C80-C85CD3ABB13A.htm). No wonder the disengagement was so popular. In short, the success of disengagement shows how Israel's government responds to the public, whereas the Miers episode shows how the American government can do whatever it pleases, regardless of public opinion.

And as for Haaretz - I'm not going to go through every complaint, but is it possible that American newspapers are more sensitive to the issues that CAMERA would be complaining about than Haaretz is? That blessed newspaper is more radical than anything I have ever read in a respectable North American publication.

P.S. Wasn't it Israelis from Eastern Europe who were most in favour of the anti-disengagement ideology?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".