Another Tack: Clinton’s KuBa conceit.

Rare is the American president with true strategic comprehension of the convoluted intricacies of the Mideast’s assorted disputes, especially the one arising from the implacable Arab refusal to accept a sovereign Jewish state in what they consider their lebensraum (one of Hitler’s favorite terms claiming entitlement to “living space” for his superior race)

The wisdom or imbecility of any given US president is inevitably as good as that of the aides who whisper in his ear. But some have unquestionably displayed greater capacity for preposterousness than others. It may be a mere accident of history or the result of left-wing proclivities, but the greatest inanities have of late emanated from Democrats – the present White House resident and his two living Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.

Barack Obama’s grasp of the Mideast is so skewed and so predisposed to support the Arab/Muslim narrative that he liberally subscribes to its copious falsehoods as part of his multicultural, moral-relativist, postmodern aggrandizement of the Third World. His fawning Cairo address in 2009 was just the preview of coming attractions.

THE LESS said about Carter the better. Suffice it just to note that yesteryear’s self-professed honest broker, who had subsequently slandered Israel as an apartheid state, happens to be the closest ideologically to Obama and most like him in terms of abysmal failure as the leader of the free world.

Then comes affable Clinton, who manages to endear himself to all and sundry as a more pragmatic product of the Democratic Party machine and even a good friend of Israel. For all we know he may have convinced himself that he’s indeed the Jewish state’s outstanding chum. His utter immodesty surely leaves little doubt in his mind that he knows better than us what’s best for us. But does arrogance endow him with exceptional insight?

Hardly. His colossal pretentiousness is only matched by his cluelessness.

Hence he maintains that the greatest obstacle to Mideast peace are Israel’s Russian immigrants. Arab potentates probably agree and would like to be rid of “Israel’s Russians” as much as of any trace of Jewish presence in this land. Yet their genocidal hate and terror-mongering aren’t named by Clinton as obstacles to peace.

His problem is the makeup of Israel’s population. It’s who we are that gets his goat.

According to Slick Willy’s astute analysis, Russian immigrants constitute “the hardest-core people against a division of the land. This presents a staggering problem. It’s a different Israel. Sixteen percent of Israelis speak Russian.”

Clinton frets about who’ll confront the settlers as, heaven forefend, “an increasing number of the young people in the IDF are the children of Russians and settlers.”

It’s not that the former American commander- in-chief is satisfied with other components of Israeli society either.

“Moroccans,” for example, are too “right-of-center,” though they aren’t quite as disruptive an element as Russians. The Moroccans’ desire for “normal lives” (presumably as distinct from Russians) can turn them into “swing voters,” who might support the Israeli party of Clinton’s choice.

Clinton’s unconcealed officious intrusion into a fellow democracy’s internal processes is of course nothing new. He was always unabashedly partial to Israel’s Labor Party – the only tolerable Israeli voice, to judge by Clinton’s non-too-objective past rhetoric and record. Ehud Barak was his outright darling and Clinton spared no effort to help him defeat Binyamin Netanyahu in 1999. Indeed Clinton did for Barak what few American presidents ever dared openly do even for their most promising foreign protégés.

Clinton pulled out all stops in his bald-faced intervention in Israel’s domestic politics, boosting Barak in a fashion unseen since the CIA’s blatant interference in Italy’s post-World War II election. Brashly, Clinton didn’t even bother to cover up his tracks but dispatched his own spin doctors, private pollsters and campaign strategists to get Barak elected.

After Barak’s 1999 win, Clinton could hardly contain his glee. On the eve of Barak’s first Washington visit as prime minister, the eager American host quipped that he’s “as excited as a kid awaiting a new toy.” It was pretty demeaning to look upon the leader of an allied independent state as a plaything, but Clinton greeted with pomp and circumstance a guest whose success constituted the American president’s own personal triumph. With incomparable hutzpa and outrageous meddling, Clinton made Barak’s battle his own.

Now Clinton echoes assorted self-promoted experts (generally with an ax to grind) who rationalize that it’s not Labor’s policies which were its downfall, but the composition of the electorate. Clinton blames Israel’s objectionable voters for frustrating his wishes. It may be childish, churlish and petulant, but it’s essentially the familiar psychological phenomenon of transference.

Had he not been raised high on the pedestal of statesmanship and omniscience, Clinton’s bizarre gibberish might all be chalked up to his personal hang-ups.

However, as in Carter’s case, asinine humbug gains inordinate currency when spouted by exalted, supposedly super-savvy senior luminaries. It therefore sways more impressionable minds and is exploited to greater effect by unscrupulous propagandists than would otherwise be the case.

THE DANGER is that Clinton’s careless prattle would delegitimize aliya just as much as Jewish settlement has already been delegitimized. Since the advent of Zionism, the Arab subtext had been that whatever betokens Jewish life and vitality in this land perforce undermines harmony and bliss. Bottom-line priority – weaken Jewish interests in the Jewish homeland.

Clinton could, albeit unintentionally, reinforce that. Disapproving of Israel’s newcomers, he appears to furnish new impetus with a new twist to the old Arab agenda – the need to keep immigrants from altering Israel’s landscape.

Clinton’s displeasure with the preferences of Israel’s electorate is reminiscent of Kurt “KuBa” Barthel, secretary-general of East Germany’s Writers Union and the DDR’s propaganda ace during 1953’s popular proletariat uprising. It was the first such mutiny inside any USSR satellite. What rankled most was that many of the protesters were communists and the very blue-collar laborers whom the party purported to represent.

KuBa was especially cross with construction workers who marched down Berlin’s Stalinallee. “You should be ashamed of yourselves,” he chastised them. “You’ll have to behave very well in future before your shame is forgotten… The people,” he judged, “had forfeited the confidence of their government.”

With paternalistic condescension he advised them to “go to sleep at 9 p.m. like good children. The Soviet army and comrades of the German People’s Police are standing on guard for you and for world peace.”

Communist KuBa despaired of the proletarians. Democratic Clinton despairs of participants in Israel’s democracy.

Bertolt Brecht’s reply to KuBa, in a short poem entitled “Solution,” could well apply also to Clinton’s father-knows-best airs:

“…Wouldn’t it be simpler,
In that case, for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?”

Wouldn’t it be simpler for Clinton to dissolve the Israeli people and elect another population (more to his liking) in its stead?

6 thoughts on “Another Tack: Clinton’s KuBa conceit.

  1. Bravo for another awesome exposure of the deep filth that lurks in Clintonism, in a sense far worse than Carterism and Osamaism – oops, I mean Obamaism. Because if Bill Clinton is a friend – we need lots more enemies instead please. I mean, at least the Nazis were honest about it.

    May those who call a death-to-Jews 3-state as a 2-state burn in hell for their Nazi arithmetics they conduct every few years. Born-in-sin must apply to those whose parents were silent of the Balfour’s corruption. The truth will never set these free.

  2. Dear Sarah,

    I fully agree with your intelligent appreciation of three American presidents, who felt before or feeling now the call to settle the Mideast conundrum once and for all – destroying Israel’s existential fundamentals if necessary … of if possible …

    In one breath and almost perfectly, you characterize Carter, Clinton and Obama as follows: “The greatest inanities have of late emanated from Democrats – the present White House resident and his two living Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Barack Obama’s grasp of the Mideast is so skewed and so predisposed to support the Arab/Muslim narrative that he liberally subscribes to its copious falsehoods.”

    My only problem is your temporal qualifier “of late” in the case of Carter and Clinton.

    One shudders in horror when Benjamin Netanyahu encourages Abbas to go for “the peace of the brave, as our predecessors Sadat and Begin did in 1978” — with the phrase “the peace of the brave” being coined out by Sadat who was encouraged by Carter to take ALL from Israel and to give her in return just a few signatures, leaving her with the albatross of Gaza on her neck.

    The same game and under the same slogan has been played out by Clinton, with two new comic characters, Rabin and Arafat. Clinton, too, was referring to Oslo as “the peace of the brave” (BBC, September 13, 1993).

    Then came Sharon, who even didn’t need an American president to be absolutely brave (with Netanyahu waiting in his wings and refusing to resign in protest from the government). He has surrendered to terrorists of Hamas the heroic, creative, and absolutely legal existence of Gaza’s settlers, with their houses and synagogues being “despoiled and demolished by gleeful Gazans” (your blog “Another Tack: Requiem for Kfar Darom”).

    So let us stop to analyze the inanities of American presidents — with all chances that, the American money and power avalanching down the drain, the next one after Obama, Democrat or Republican, will be much worser for us.

    Let us start instead to question the inanities our own “inglorious basterds” — we have not much time left to ake back our destiny from inane, addicted to and bought out by the Arabs oil, and — let’s spell it finally — just patently jealous of our resurrected Jewish dignity American presidents.

  3. Dear Sarah,

    I fully agree with your intelligent appreciation of three American presidents, who felt before or feeling now the call to settle the Mideast conundrum once and for all – destroying Israel’s existential fundamentals if necessary … of if possible …

    In one breath and almost perfectly, you characterize Carter, Clinton and Obama as follows: “The greatest inanities have of late emanated from Democrats – the present White House resident and his two living Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton. Barack Obama’s grasp of the Mideast is so skewed and so predisposed to support the Arab/Muslim narrative that he liberally subscribes to its copious falsehoods.”

    My only problem is your temporal qualifier “of late” in the case of Carter and Clinton.

    One shudders in horror when Benjamin Netanyahu encourages Abbas to go for “the peace of the brave, as our predecessors Sadat and Begin did in 1978” — with the phrase “the peace of the brave” being coined out by Sadat who was encouraged by Carter to take ALL from Israel and to give her in return just a few signatures, leaving her with the albatross of Gaza on her neck.

    The same game and under the same slogan has been played out by Clinton, with two new comic characters, Rabin and Arafat. Clinton, too, was referring to Oslo as “the peace of the brave” (BBC, September 13, 1993).

    Then came Sharon, who even didn’t need an American president to be absolutely brave (with Netanyahu waiting in his wings and refusing to resign in protest from the government). He has surrendered to terrorists of Hamas the heroic, creative, and absolutely legal existence of Gaza’s settlers, with their houses and synagogues being “despoiled and demolished by gleeful Gazans” (your blog “Another Tack: Requiem for Kfar Darom”).

    So let us stop to analyze the inanities of American presidents — with all chances that, the American money and power avalanching down the drain, the next one after Obama, Democrat or Republican, will be much worser for us.

    Let us start instead to question the inanities our own “inglorious basterds” — we have not much time left to take back our destiny from inane, addicted to and bought out by the Arabs oil, and — let’s spell it finally — just patently jealous of our resurrected Jewish dignity American presidents.

  4. I think it’s because of Jewish morality that they cannot grasp the evil and perfidy that is directing this peace war against Israel.
    It’s that or just plain stupidity ?
    Clinton understands that the Russian Jews are a threat to their agenda of dismanteling Israel because they have not been dumbed down as the rest of Israel has been.
    The Russian Jews have knowledge unlike the rest of Israel which has been fed illusions and lies for so long they can’t reason between reality and fantasy.
    The easily seduced sheep headed for slaughter have been mesmerized by the wide smiles of their destroyers who use peace to wage war against Israel.Russian Jews are not as naive and sold on the snake oil labled as peace by the globalist oligarch’s like Billy,Jimmy,Bush,Obama.
    What is remarkable in all of htis is how all these snakes charmed gullible Jews and got their vote. They have BEEN INSTRUMENTAL IN THEIR OWN DESTRUCTION. It’s suicide by stupidity.

    My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge
    Hosea 4:6

  5. Thanks for another great article.

    Clinton’s obnoxious comments are hardly surprising.

    When you have the likes of Barak, Beilin, and others virtually throwing Israel’s sovereignty into the wind, the results are predticable.

  6. Pingback: The KuBa Conceit Revisited | Bucking the Trend …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s