Hillary, Haman and the Jews

This week Jews celebrated the holiday of Purim, which, according to some, is a day even holier than Yom Kippur. (In fact, Yom Kippur, usually translated as "day of atonement," literally means "day like Purim"). According to the Jewish Sages, the biblically mandated holy day of Yom Kippur presages the day a millennium later on which the Jews would be saved from a high Persian official named Haman by a G-d whose "face" had up to that point been hidden. Purim's message to the Jews today, as it has been to the Jewish people since their exile from the First Temple over over 2400 years ago, is that G-d is in control of events great and small. The designs and plans of the most mighty of men to oppress or destroy the Jews can instantly "turnabout" and suddenly the Jews marked for destruction are redeemed and their would-be destroyers are destroyed.

It is impossible to predict the future course of events. But there are disturbing signs of late of a trend that if not halted or reversed could lead to a dark and difficult period for the Jews. Perhaps at no time since Hitler and the Nazis snuffed out the lights of European Jewry have events warranted a comparison to those days in ancient Persia which seemed so bleak and yet ultimately led to triumph for the Jews.

To wit:

1. Anti-Jewish attacks are on the increase in Europe and the U.S. I referred in an earlier post to incidents in Amsterdam, London, France, Scandinavia and even Miami and Chicago in which Jews or their institutions were physically attacked or threatened. Anti-Jewish incidents in the U.K. in particular have created a sense of panic and gloom in religious Jewish communities. Says CNN.com, "the Community Security Trust, a non-governmental organization which monitors anti-Semitism in Britain, recorded more than 200 incidents in the month of January alone, the highest monthly total it has seen since it began keeping records in 1984."

2. These incidents are either ignored or justified by much of the world media. They are tossed off as an understandable display of raw anger at the brutal policies of Israel's government, or the anti-Jewish nature of the attacks are pooh-pooed. In the face of the horrific attacks in Mumbai in which a Chabad rabbi and his wife were targeted for killing, The New York Times and others went to great lengths to suggest that the Jews were more or less hapless bystanders who got caught in the crossfire, not intended victims.


3. The elite governmental and quasi-governmental world bodies are invested in an unprecedented level of hatred towards Israel. This manifests itself in a variety of ways. The United Nations General Assembly cast a troubling vote roundly castigated Israel during Operation Cast Lead (Israel's military campaign to halt rocket attacks from Gaza against its citizens) for using "disproportionate" force, while failing to condemn the deliberate targeting of civilians by the rulers of Gaza. The European Union engages in similar diatribes against Israel, such as the one this week accusing Israel of illegally annexing East Jerusalem (which, it should be recalled, was conquered by Israel in a defensive war 42 years ago). The U.N. Human Rights Council is run by totalitarian countries with a single-minded obsession with condemning Israel. And "Durban II," the U.N. -sponsored second conference on "racism" scheduled for this spring in Geneva has a hate-filled agenda of Israel-bashing destined to outdo its 2001 orgy of anti-Jewish hate in South Africa.

4. Iran marches relentlessly toward nuclear capabilities while the world pretends to wring its collective hands. The IAEA, the hapless and ineffective U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, released a report the other day complaining that Iran is blocking access to its nuclear facilities and refuses to respond to questions about its nuclear intentions. In an appearance that surely has Teheran quaking, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice (no great supporter of Israel herself) asked a Security Council subcommittee "to vigorously support the IAEA in its continuing investigations of these critical matters." At the same time, a U.S. diplomat downplays Teheran's ability to go nuclear "any time soon." That's comforting, since Iran makes no secret of its desire and intention to blow Israel--a U.N. member state--to smithereens (with nary a tut-tut of protest from that great world body).

5. President Obama signalled his desire to change the long-standing pro-Israel bias of American Middle East policy by the timing and substance of his remarks to al-Arabiya television early in his thus-far unimpressive presidency. In choosing the quasi-Saudi-controlled channel as the situs of his first media presidential interview Obama sent an unmistakable message to Jews--prepare for an overhaul of U.S. foreign policy centered on appeasing Israel's enemies. The substance of the interview hammered home the point: Obama practically endorsed the shelved Saudi peace plan of a few years back which effectively calls for a "one-state" solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. It goes without saying that the "one state" the Saudis have in mind would not long remain a Jewish state, or for that matter a state with Jews.



6. While the U.S. has declared its intention not to attend the anti-Israel "Durban II" conference, it left the door open to re-engage the conference organizers if the draft agenda is changed suitably. The U.S. has also announced it will join the U.N. Human Rights Council as an observer or perhaps run for a membership slot. Either way it is prepared to lend an air of legitimacy of the Council, which is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Organization of Islamic States and exists for the sole purpose of de-legitimizing Israel.

6. Obama's diplomatic and foreign-policy appointments thus far are troubling to say the least from a pro-Israel perspective . One of them, Chas Freeman, who was nominated as National Intelligence Council chief, withdrew his nomination under enormous pressure from AIPAC and other members of the so-called "Jewish Lobby" over concerns that published statements of his evince a bias against Israel. (Ironically, in blaming the "dark forces" of the "Lobby" for his withdrawal Freeman vindicated those opposed to his nomination). But he is just the tip of the iceberg. Consider:

• Samantha Powers, the professor, intellectual and human rights activist who withdrew as an advisor to Obama's campaign last spring after calling Hillary Clinton a "monster." Powers has reemerged as a foreign policy advisor to the administration. She is known as a Palestinian sympathizer who believes the American Jewish community is too influential.

• George Mitchell, Obama's emissary to the Middle-East, is in the mainstream of elite opinion on the matter of Israel,which is itself problematic. According to columnist Caroline Glick of The Jerusalem Post, Mitchell's "first order of business... is to pressure the outgoing government to destroy the so-called outpost communities in Judea and Samaria and expel the hundreds of Israeli families who live in them." In the most optimistic scenario Mitchell will promote and implement the same failed policies that he recommended to President Clinton in 2000, the basic elements of which are (1) to publicly state that both sides are equally to blame for the Palestinian terror war against Israel; and (2) pressure Israel into making concrete and irrevocable concessions in exchange for Palestinian promises of "100 % effort" to fight terror. More likely, reflecting the decided shift in American policy away from Israel, Mitchell will go further and attempt to pressure Israel to quickly agree to give away the Golan, Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
• Robert Malley, who is not now a formal advisor to Obama but who is known to influence his thinking, is a revisionist activist who is an apologist for Yassir Arafat who has co-authored article after article with former Arafat crony Hussein Agha blaming Israel for Palestinian terrorism. His think-tank is funded in part by George Soros and his work is used by Israeli Leftists to oppose Israel's Palestinian policies.


• Most troubling of all is Hillary Clinton, the newly minted Secretary of State, who is a dedicated and professional liar (unlike her husband who is merely a pathological one). This is evidenced not only by her presidential campaign statements claiming falsely to have been shot at in the Balkans but also her cynical courtship of the Jewish vote during her first Senate campaign in which she repudiated her warm embrace of Suha Arafat earlier in the 1990s. She is deeply dangerous since she will surely use her current position to advance her interests. And if her interests are served by implementing Obama's appeasement agenda, then so be it.

Hillary's moves so far are cause for concern. Her first action item on her first Middle East trip as secretary was to attend a donor's conference in Sharm-al-sheik in which the U.S. pledged almost a trillion dollars for reconstruction in Gaza following Operation Cast Lead, untethered to any conditions concerning halting Palestinian rocket attacks against Israel. Since all money to Gaza flows through the dirty and bloody fingers of Hamas, this is essentially a giveaway to a terrorist entity we don't officially "recognize."

Hillary then proceeded to Jerusalem, where she appeared all smiles with Ehud Olmert, the disgraced soon-to-be former Israeli prime minister. Hillary reportedly admonished Israel for not doing more to help rebuild and re-arm Hamas even while Hamas continues to lob missiles into southern Israel at its pre-Cast Lead pace. She also criticized the mayor of Jerusalem for demolishing illegally built structures in East Jerusalem as "unhelpful," even though the city's order applies to Jewish and Arab owned structures alike.

Hillary intentionally declared a two-state solution (which many observers find untenable given among other things the rivalry between Hamas and Fatah) as "inescapable" presumably for the purpose of limiting the negotiating room of incoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Some ally.

Finally Hillary made a big show of sending two U.S. envoys to Syria to feel out that brutal dictatorship for signs that it is ready to engage with Israel. It remains to be seen whether Syria, or for that matter any of the thug Arab regimes that surround Israel, will come in for the same criticism and harsh rhetoric that seems to be reserved only for our allies these days.

It is possible that these dark omens for Israel and the Jews are merely fleeting ones. However the observable phenomenon point to increased pressure on Israel to give up its claim to Jewish lands and thus to participate in its own de-legitimization. Sadly, its greatest friend and ally seems to be its greatest threat. It all adds urgency to the warning of journalist Claudia Rosett that "the world is tacitly coming to accept not only persecution of the Jews, but the possibility of a second genocide."

I'm not suggesting that Obama and Hillary are modern day stand-ins for the evil plotters of the Purim story. But clearly there are actors on the world stage who are gunning for Israel and the Jews, including some who are at or very close to the center of power in Washington. The events of Purim give us confidence that ultimately those who have evil designs on the Jews and Israel will be instruments of a great "turnabout" in which they are destroyed and the future of the Jews is finally secure.