Mail Bag

One of my few loyal readers (okay, it was my sister, but she still counts) asked the question, "what are you doing hawking a site that thinks Howard Dean is bad for the Jews?!" She is referring specifically to Good for the Jews, which has a post, Howard Dean: Bad for the Jews. [link]

It's a fair question, and I thought it deserved an honest answer. First, however, I disagree that I am "hawking" anything. Not to be snippy about it, but hawking implies I get some reward, whereas blogging is (sadly) without much reward other than psychological.

Regarding my modus operandi, mine is an expansive and somewhat eclectic reading list. Part of the appeal of blogging to me is tramping around the web, seeing what's out there, and then sharing what I have found with the readers of my blog. That process sometimes take me (and by extension, my readers) to blogs that I don't entirely agree with, but which are nevertheless interesting -- indeed, those blogs are frequently the most interesting ones out there because they challenge me to ponder what I think and why I think it. "Good for the Jews" fit that description. As for their position on Howard Dean, I think they're wrong (see below). But I still find the site "interesting" and worth visiting from time to time, and so I labeled it as "interesting" and invited others to see for themselves.

Second, while we're on the subject of Good for the Jews' criticism of Gov. Dean, I do want to comment briefly. In essence, their criticism was based on his statement that the United States ought to be "even handed" in its treatment of Israel, which, the blog claims, is the same language used by the PLO, Hamas and Palestinian supporters. According to this logic, adopting Gov. Dean's formulation would amount to a fundamental shift in American policy.

I response, I refer you to my own comment on September 18, 2003 [link]:

Since you asked my opinion, let me say that I have half a mind that says Dean's off-the-cuff position may have been the right approach notwithstanding his more nuanced position. The fact is that a two-state solution is probably the only morally defensible and politically feasible solution: it satisfies the Arab and Palestinian need for self-determination; and it gets Israel out of the apartheid business, which, to a Jewish state, is ultimately unsustainable. And to get to the two-state solution, it is true that Israel will have to withdraw protection for some settlements, while the Palestinians have to resolve the terrorism in their midst. None of that will happen on its own, however; somebody has to step up and broker the deal. What's more, it's not going to be the United Nations, which is captive to Arab and pan-Islamic interests, and it won't be Europe, which has historically been more supportive of the surrounding Arab states. That leaves the United States. The fortunate or unfortunate result of that is that we have to be perceived by both sides as being even-handed.

My sister asks a second question that I don't have time to answer right now (what do I think about Israel's killing of Sheik Yassin), but would like to answer when I do have time. Watch this space.

**Note that this post was edited after it was originally posted in order to refine the point a bit more. As I noted in the text, I was somewhat rushed when I wrote this initially. Because I have called others to task for editing posts without noting it, I offer this comment as a public service.