RUTHFULLY YOURS

In “The ‘Steve Jobs’ Con” (NYT 8/13), Joe Nocera does an excellent job of revealing the discrepancies between the Jobs whose career he followed closely and the mostly fictional character created for the movie. As an unwitting audience member who knew much less than Nocera, I too felt that the fast-talking, stubborn and abrasive character was a familiar stereotype found in other Sorkin films and tv shows and therefore, an un-inflected portrayal of this particular man.

Against a stylized framework of showing Jobs at three of his famous product launchings, we are meant to glean the essence of his character through his relationships with key figures in his professional and personal life. There is the rejected, neurotic former girlfriend, mother of Lisa, the “illegitimate” and unacknowledged daughter. Both are mostly stick figures who reappear to keep asking for money and recognition. There are the three male colleagues who have their grievances of varying legitimacy. And there is Joanna Hoffman, the maternal work-wife who understands everything about the business as well as the boss’ major character flaws. As played by Kate Winslet with an irrelevant Polish twang (competing with Meryl Streep’s superior Sophie), she is perpetually anxious, devoted and insightful, and if we are believe the screenplay, the one most responsible for forcing Jobs to reconsider his hurtful and intractable behavior towards Lisa. As Nocera points out, we never learn that this girl actually lived with Jobs throughout her high school years. A bigger surprise that is totally excluded from the film is that Jobs was married with three other children by this time in the film. Presented as a loner who has difficulty getting along with everyone, the truth of that last piece of information is crucial to our understanding of what appears to be a thaw in his icy intransigence and far more logical as an explanation for his softening temperament. Similarly, Kate Winslet’s character, presented as a woman with a single-minded purpose of taking care of Steve Jobs, was also married with a family of her own.

In its continuing humiliation of President Obama – who clings to his Iran deal despite Iran’s continuing to call for “Death to America,” banning of further negotiations with the U.S., convicting of one of its American hostages of bogus espionage charges, joining with Russia to prop up Assad by bombing America-backed insurgents, and contemptuously asserting that it will ignore provisions of the deal to which it objects – the jihadist regime in Tehran tested a ballistic missile over the weekend in blatant violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions, including Resolution 2231, which codifies the Iran deal.

The Obama White House response to Iran’s brazenness today is astonishing, even by delusional Obama standards. The president’s spokesman, Josh Earnest, acknowledged there were “strong indications that those missile tests did violate U.N. Security Council resolutions that pertain to Iran’s ballistic missile activities.” Nevertheless, he maintained with a straight face that “this is altogether separate from the nuclear agreement that Iran reached with the rest of the world.”

What? The resolution that implements the said nuclear agreement directs Iran, for approximately the next eight years,

The Yom Kippur War of 1973

The Yom Kippur War of 1973, began on the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur), the holiest day of prayer and fasting in the Jewish calendar.At the time of Yom Kippur, Israel was led by Golda Meirand Egypt by Anwar Sadat.

The War started with a surprise Egyptian and Syrian attack on Israel on Saturday 6th October 1973. The combined forces of Egypt and Syria totaled the same number of men as NATO had in Western Europe. On the Golan Heights alone, 150 Israeli tanks faced 1,400 Syria tanks and in the Suez region just 500 Israeli soldiers faced 80,000 Egyptian soldiers.

Other Arab nations aided the Egyptians and Syrians. Iraq transferred a squadron of Hunter jet fighter planes to Egypt a few months before the war began. Iraqi Russian-built MIG fighters were used against the Israelis in the Golan Heights along with 18,000 Iraqi soldiers. Saudi Arabia and Kuwait effectively financed the war from the Arabs side. Saudi troops – approximately 3,000 men – also fought in the war. Libya provided Egypt with French-built Mirage fighters and in the years 1971 to 1973, Libya bankrolled Egypt’s military modernisation to the tune of $1 billion which was used to purchase modern Russian weapons. Other Arabic nations that helped the Egyptians and Syrians included Tunisia, Sudan and Morocco. Jordan also sent two armoured brigades and three artillery units to support the Syrians, but their participation in the war was not done with vast enthusiasm – probably because King Hussein of Jordan had not been kept informed of what Egypt and Syria planned.

Facing such an attack, the Israeli forces were initially swiftly overwhelmed. Within two days, the Egyptians had crossed the Suez Canal and moved up to 15 miles inland of the most advanced Israeli troops in the Sinai. Syrian troops advanced by the same distance into the strategic Golan Heights in north Israel. By the end of October 7th, the military signs were ominous for Israel.

However, on October 8th, Israeli forces, bolstered by called-up reserves, counter-attacked in the Sinai. They pushed back the Egyptian military and crossed the Suez Canal south of Ismailia. Here, the Israelis used the Suez-Cairo road to advance towards the Egyptian capital, Cairo, and got to within 65 miles of it.

The Israelis experienced similar success in the Golan Heights where the Syrian forces were pushed back and Israel re-captured lost land. Using the main road from Tiberias to Damascus, the Israelis got to within 35 miles of the Syrian capital.

On October 24th, a cease-fire was organized by the United Nations. The United Nations sent its own peacekeepers to the highly volatile regions affected by the fighting. Between January and March 1974, Israeli and Egyptian forces disengaged along the Suez Canal region. Here, the Israelis managed to keep control over the strategic Sinai Desert – an area that allowed Israel a buffer to ensure any fighting there did not spill over into Israel itself. In the Golan Heights, 1,200 United Nations troops were sent to keep the peace there in May 1974. They effectively formed a United Nations buffer between Syria and Israel.

How much Islamic mayhem before politicians link the dots? And do note that I say ‘Islam’ and not ‘Muslims’. Taught that the Koran is the ultimate authority in all matters, the faith’s adherents have no chance to evolve the tolerance our leaders demand of those not raised in the shadow of the minaret
Recently, The Australian, in one of its irritating two-bob-each-way editorials, described those objecting to the building of a mosque in Bendigo as a ‘mob’ and ‘bigoted’. Apparently, according to reports, the mosque will cost $3 million for the three hundred Muslims in Bendigo. That is $10,000 per person. I think there is an expectation that more will come.

I wrote to The Australian pointing out that that those objecting to the building were not necessarily bigoted if they believed that the mosque would propagate values inimical to Australian values. To his credit, the Prime Minister said more or less the same thing last week, though in a different context. “It’s not compulsory to live in Australia,” Mr Turnbull intoned. “If you find Australian values are unpalatable then there’s a big wide world out there and people have got freedom of movement.” Well said, Malcolm.

He said this when talking at the NSW Liberal Party State Council meeting in Sydney. “We acknowledge the right of each individual to observe his or her faith, to be true to their own conscience, to express freely their own beliefs provided they do no harm to others and provided that they do not preach hatred against others.”

It is hard to disagree with either of these two statements. Yet gnawing away is the premise of the second. Is it possible to observe the Islamic faith and do no harm to others? Mr Turnbull might profitably try to find Muslim spokespersons, even of the most moderate kind, willing to stand up and say that Australian law trumps sharia law. Good luck with that one. There will, however, be plenty of empty platitudes on display, as required.

What are the roots of Barack Obama’s foreign policy? Some focus on the man and his flaws of character, particularly his inability to learn from his mistakes and to adjust his ideas to changing facts on the ground. Others see more sinister motives, an animus against the United States that drives policies diminishing America’s power and influence. Old bad ideas like one-world internationalism and the power of diplomacy to resolve conflicts have played a major role. And of course, domestic political considerations enter into his foreign policy calculations.

Whatever the origins, the end result of Obama’s foreign policy has been a weakening of America’s global clout and respect, one unseen since the Carter administration. One way to make sense of these serial disasters is to see them as the predictable result of a schizophrenic foreign policy that has indulged simultaneously stealth isolationism and “moralizing internationalism,” as historian Corelli Barnett called it.

Isolationism is the default attitude of Americans toward relations with other nations. From the beginning, protected by two oceans, our citizens assumed they could keep their distance from the dynastic power-struggles rending Europe. These sentiments are frequently expressed in the speeches of early presidents. In his First Inaugural Address Jefferson noted that the U.S. was “Kindly separated by nature and a wide ocean from the exterminating havoc of one quarter of the globe.” Given that advantage, he counseled “peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.” John Quincy Adams in 1821similarly declared the U.S. a “well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all,” but it “goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

Can we still celebrate October 12 as an American holiday?Two narratives….
1. Born to a working-class wool weaver in the port city of Genoa, Italy, Cristoforo Colombo apprenticed as a sailor and went to sea as early as age ten. A self-taught and curious man, Colombo lived by his wits and rose in the heady world of 15th-century sea traders, until he hit upon an ingenious idea: He would outflank the Mohammedan Turks and reach the East Indies by sailing west across the Ocean Sea. After weathering nearly a decade of rejection and failure, in 1492 Colombo won the support of the Spanish Crown and set off on an uncertain journey that inadvertently opened a New World, laying the foundation for that most glittering daughter of the Western heritage: America.

2. Christopher Columbus, a dead white male of the worst variety, was a slaver, a capitalist, and a murderer of millions who embarked on a voyage motivated only by greed, which brought European imperialism to the shores of the “New World” and laid waste the ancient indigenous peoples there. Columbus deserves little credit (Leif Erikson had “discovered” the “new” continent 500 years earlier) and much blame for the horrors of the Columbian Exchange — the vast transfer of people, animals, and plants between the Western and Eastern Hemispheres. In his wake, the “New World” suffered smallpox, starvation, the cruel subjugation of the indigenous peoples, and the establishment of that most dastardly spawn of the West: America.

* * *

Writing in The Atlantic in 1992, in the run-up to the 500th anniversary of Columbus’s landfall on the island of San Salvador in the Bahamas, Arthur Schlesinger Jr. noted that the “great hero of the nineteenth century seems well on the way to becoming the great villain of the twenty-first.”

“The Tel Aviv shoreline has turned into the French Riviera,” says a colleague who spends his summers in Israel, and I hear it’s the same along the beaches of Netanya. French immigrants who haven’t gravitated toward the Israeli coast are raising property values in Jerusalem and Modi’in. Until now, mass immigration to Israel has come from countries lowest on the freedom index. What are we to make of the current flight of Jews from the country that gave us enlightenment, emancipation, religious tolerance, political liberty and freedom of thought?

That is the main question of Alain El-Mouchan’s essay on the rise of anti-Jewish violence in France and consequent increased Jewish movement to Israel. Analyzing the causes of departure, he charts the familiar debate between those who urge flight and those—including French Prime Minister Manuel Valls—who urge French Jews to stay. As it happens, this very predicament is the subject of A Happy End, a new play by Iddo Netanyahu, younger brother of the prime minister of Israel. The play is about a Jewish family that struggles with the decision of whether to leave Germany in the 1930s. A Happy End doesn’t have one.

Looting is a great way to advance the increasingly violent, racist Black Lives Matter movement, an agitator is teaching students after being rewarded by the Left with a teaching gig at prestigious Yale University.

The words of Twitter star Deray Mckesson expose for the umpteenth time the lie that Black Lives Matter, whose members idolize unrepentant cop killers Mumia abu Jamal and Assata Shakur, is a law-abiding, peaceful movement and that those who loot and riot in its name are a fringe or unrelated element. Lawless violence and bloody insurrection are how Mckesson and his followers pursue their vision of so-called social justice.

Mckesson led a class that was discussing, “In Defense of Looting,” an essay by Willie Osterweil whose bio at the New Inquiry website describes him as “a writer, editor, and member of the punk band Vulture Shit.”

It would be hard to find someone whose background better suited him to write about the U.S.-Israel relationship than Dennis Ross. A long-time diplomat and policymaker, he has been involved in Arab-Israeli negotiations in every administration from Carter to Obama, with a single time-out under the first Bush. His new book does not disappoint: Doomed to Succeed devotes a pithy chapter to each administration, explaining its policies and the reasoning behind them.

Ross describes a recurring pattern wherein a president with warm feelings toward Israel tends to be replaced by a chillier executive, only to be replaced in turn by a friend. Thus Truman (friendly) is replaced by Eisenhower (not so much) then by Kennedy (who initiated arms sales), Johnson (also friendly), but then Nixon-Kissinger (a Machiavellian combination in outmaneuvering Israel), and so on.U.S.-Israel relations have hit a nadir with the current president. Ross quotes National Security Adviser Susan Rice playing the race card as she tells ADL chief Abe Foxman that Benjamin Netanyahu “did everything but use ‘the N-word’ in describing the president.” Yet the changes at the top matter less than they might seem to. Ross’s chief contribution is to show how certain unchanging and misguided assumptions have driven U.S. policy since Israel’s birth and remain idées fixes in the minds of U.S. policymakers to this day. He writes, “I was struck by the similarity of the arguments. I found them recycled, often (to my amazement) couched in the exact same terms.”

Dennis Ross and “Middle East Peace Process” are nearly synonymous, and Mr. Ross wrote an 800-page book on the subject, “The Missing Peace,” after serving as a Mideast envoy to President Bill Clinton. So why another volume now? In “Doomed to Succeed,” the Washington hand brings his account up to date by covering the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations and looking at U.S.-Israel relations from Truman on.

The chapters that cover administrations in which Mr. Ross served—especially at a high level, as he did under Messrs. Bush, Clinton and Obama—are predictably the most lively. There is always the danger that familiarity breeds forgiveness, and the author is indeed less critical of mistakes under Messrs. Clinton or Bush than others might be. But that grant of clemency is withdrawn toward Mr. Obama, as Mr. Ross’s familiarity breeds page after page of criticism.

Mr. Ross’s portrait reinforces the recent account by Israel’s former ambassador, Michael Oren, in his book “Ally.” Six years of Mr. Obama get more pages here than eight years of Messrs. Clinton or Bush, and the author writes that “the president’s distancing from Israel was deliberate.” Though he credits Mr. Obama with deep sympathy for the Jewish state, the incidents he recounts contradict him.