Comment of the Day: “A Careful Conversation With An Old Friend”

See? An Ethics Alarms Comment of the Day does not have to be the length of an honors thesis to qualify for the honor.

This one, courtesy of A.M. Golden, resonated with me the second I read it. The post commented upon was about my discussion last night with a very dear friend—one of those relationships in which it doesn’t matter how long you are apart, it picks up, unchanged, from exactly where it was whether it’s after five minutes or 20 years—who was noticeably wary about expressing a clear opinion on the Hamas-Israel War Ethics Train Wreck in our conversation. Here’s the Comment of the Day, on the post, “A Careful Conversation With An Old Friend,” and I’ll elaborate after you read it….

***

We’ve had more than one careful conversation with a family member here and there myself.

Isn’t it a shame that your Jewish friend felt he had to test the waters before expressing his opinion, though?

We’re losing something precious in this country.

***

It’s me again. In the case of “Micah,” I believe his gingerly approach to a sensitive topic is more an indication of his basic character and his thorough familiarity with mine than it was an example of someone fearing being “cancelled” by a friend for a political opinion. He is a peacekeeper, a mensch, someone who takes people as they are and avoids confrontations. Micah is also apolitical, certainly in comparison to most people who have lived in the D.C. area. He also knows me, that I am always ready to provide an unfiltered opinion and analysis, and that I enjoy, indeed encourage, tough debate on complex subjects, because that’s how we learn. I don’t know: maybe he has seen too many friends he thought he knew lose their minds in the Age of the Great Stupid; maybe he was afraid that expressing unequivocal support for Israel’s right to exist and to protect its citizens might incite me into leaping to my feet, throwing a beer in his face, and shouting, “I will not sit here with someone who supports genocide and colonialism!” I doubt it, though.

In a larger sense, however, A.M. is right. By happenstance I read this absurd exchange from Fox News, in an interview with one of the more disgusting members of Congress, Rep. Jared Moskowitz (D-FL):

 Fox’s’ Sandra Smith: “Congressman, as far as the politics involved, that may or may not be involved — now, I’ve sent out a tweet to that effect — if all of this is indeed the case, what do you believe is the political impact on the president’s reelection campaign as this war continues?”

Moskowitz: “Well, look, Joe Biden has been an absolute champion of Jewish people, not just as President, not just as vice president, but in the Senate. He’s fought anti-Semitism his whole life. You’re talking about someone who established the first ambassador on anti-Semitism. You’re talking about someone who established the anti-Semitism coalition to get a definition, by the way also, I’ll give, you know, credit to President Trump establishing the Abraham Accords. That was a big deal for the state of Israel.

“But this administration has done a good job supporting Israel and supporting the Jewish people. I think the president is doing what he thinks is right. And I think he has to let the politics fall wherever they may. I don’t like, obviously, President Trump going out and telling the Jewish community that if you vote Democrat, somehow you’re a bad Jew.

“You know, we appreciate it, Mr. President, but maybe don’t have dinner with Nick Fuentes. You know, so like everyone right now, obviously everyone right now obviously is trying to posture because we live in that political season. Obviously there’s things I differ with the Biden administration on how they’ve met and some of the decisions they’ve made on Israel. But I think the last six months, the Biden administration has stood by Israel and stood by the Jewish Committee and appreciative of what President Biden did, obviously, with his speech on anti-Semitism, on the anniversary of the Holocaust.”

There is so much unethical and dishonest messaging going on in the Congressman’s blather that it is overwhelming, but before I go into that, he perfectly illustrates A.M.’s point. He implies that former President Trump is anti-Jewish because he had a meeting with Nick Fuentes, the infamous white supremacist. Like Joe McCarthy, many of today’s illiberal Democrats and progressives don’t believe in freedom of association any more than they support freedom of speech. This is the sick and divisive sentiment that has catalyzed cancel culture over the last decade and divided the nation into not-yet-armed-but-just-wait-a-while camps. It is a terrible social contagion, a world-wide pandemic in many ways, and I reject it unconditionally as it must be rejected. We can and should shun and isolate Americans for what they have done. Refusing to associate with people because of their political and social views, however, is socially and personally disastrous—crippling, in fact. Sometimes, you see, those people with views your friends find repulsive are right: you realize this possibility when you can’t counter their arguments with anything but emotion.

[I have never “un-friended” a Facebook friend because of their expressed opinions on the platform, stupid, ignorant, inflammatory or obnoxious as those opinions may have been. I have been blocked and dropped by countless friends myself, however. Well, their loss.]

I have no idea why Trump had dinner with Fuentes, and neither does anyone else that I know of. Personally, I have had some fascinating meetings, including lunches and dinners, with some pretty horrible people. I’m also in a profession, the law, in which we are sometimes obligated to represent the interests of horrible people if those interests are legal and arguably valid. I’d even have dinner with Jared Moskowitz; I think it would be a blast. As that quote above shows, he’s an asshole, but he’s not stupid. I’d take him on.

As for the rest of that drivel—

1. Reciting Biden’s past regarding Israel and anti-Semitism is like John Kerry saying, “I was against the Iraq War before I was for it.” Moskowitz’s argument is a melange of rationalizations, especially 11A, “[He deserves] this! or “Just this once!;” and #21. Ethics Accounting, or “I’ve earned this”/ “I made up for that.” The issue at hand isn’t what Biden has done in the past, it’s what he is doing now. What he is doing now is saying he whole-hardheartedly supports Israel’s right to exist and agrees that Hamas must be destroyed while simultaneously taking actions that ensure Hamas’s survival while validating their tactics, which include murder, rape and taking hostages.

2. Giving aid to Gaza doesn’t “support the Jewish people.” Withholding the weapons Israel needs to wipe out the major Hamas stronghold in Gaza doesn’t “support the Jewish people.” Siding with masked pro-Hamas campus protesters chanting “From the river to the sea…” doesn’t “support the Jewish people.” Moskowitz’s statement is an “It isn’t what it is” orgy.

3. The President isn’t doing what he thinks is right, and everyone, including Moskowitz, knows it. He is doing what he thinks might salvage the far Left’s votes in November, and if he is as much of a supporter of Israel as Moskowitz claims, selling his metaphorical soul to do it.

4. Praising Biden’s “speech on anti-Semitism, on the anniversary of the Holocaust” is especially nauseating and unforgivable. (Maybe I wouldn’t want to have dinner with this creep after all…). As many have pointed out, Biden had the gall to mouth “never again” knowing that the very next day he would make an announcement that made “again” inevitable unless Israel defied him. The speech was the equivalent of a wolf donning sheep’s clothing and giving a speech on Sheep Day.

5. What Trump said, in his typical meat-axe way, was not that “if you vote Democrat, somehow you’re a bad Jew,” which is one more example of Democrats twisting Trump’s eminently twistable word-bombs to distort his meaning, but rather, “Any Jewish person that votes for Biden does not love Israel and frankly, should be spoken to.” The first part is a valid, if un-nuanced analysis: Biden’s policy supports Hamas and encourages more terrorism. If someone supports Biden’s handling of the Gaza mess, he or she doesn’t “love” Israel very much. What Trump’s analysis omits is the very real possibility that such American Jews support Israel, sort of, but support illegal immigration, crippling the economy in the name of climate change, restricting speech and gun rights, imprisoning political opponents, discrimination against males and whites and being able to kill babies in the womb more.

9 thoughts on “Comment of the Day: “A Careful Conversation With An Old Friend”

  1. Once again, I’m honored.

    Moskowitz’s argument about Trump claims about Jews is particularly galling considering that Candidate Biden literally said that African-American voters who didn’t vote for him weren’t really black.

  2. I wonder how many former friends of people in the commentariat have blown off commenters because they are not sufficiently apoplectic about Donald Trump’s being able to trod this earth. I’ve lost, I’d say, ten, easily.

      • The 2008 Obama campaign was brilliant. He presented himself as a cipher and people eagerly saw him as whatever they wanted to think, hoped, he was. Brilliant. He never said anything of substance.

        • I think a Democrat would have been elected over McCain if he had been an avocado. Bush got the blame for the bad loans collapse (though it was bi-partisan botch) and the Iraq War had already imploded. Plus everyone was excited about the opportunity to elect a black POTUS and put the “systemic racism” canard aside for good (the FOOLS!). Meanwhile, McCain was just a terrible campaigner, while Obama was the most glib Democrat in memory.

          • The Senator from Budweiser made Bob Dole seem cuddly. Of course, I’m sure he had justification for being angry.

        • Sure he did: “Hope & Change” and “Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we’ve been waiting for. We are the change that we seek.”

          That’s not empty blather or silly platitude. Nope. It is frickin’ profound. I wept the first time I read it and heard it and, hell, I still get misty eyed and choked up when I think about it.

          But, nowhere is “change” defined.

          Let’s test it “We want change! or “we are the change we want.” Cool. Okay, what kind of change? Or, better yet, “change” from what to what? Maybe my idea of “change” means that races should be kept separate but equal. Maybe I reminisce about the good old days when certain segments of society had their own lunch counters and water fountains. Regression is change, right? Or, maybe I think members of a certain group are misers and cheats and should “live” in their own areas. That’s “change,” right?

          Obama showed so many times that he was the proverbial empty suit – or perhaps the naked emperor – but a fawning media and political system refused to ask the tough questions or hold him accountable for the vapid things he said while engaging in truly divisive actions. My parents used to say, “don’t worry so much about what someone says; look more closely at what that person does.”

          jvb

          • Crazy how the Dems think any presidential win is a mandate for them to implement every crazy assed policy they can dream up.

Leave a reply to Jack Marshall Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.