Boker tov: The Search for bin Laden Is Over

I suppose BtB cannot ignore the big news of the day that Osama bin Laden has been killed. Good riddance to him. He should rot in hell, next to Arafat, and both their names should be erased for all eternity.

This morning I find two reactions very troubling. One involves the spontaneous public celebrations that apparently took place in our country last night.  Is that any different than the Palestinians celebrating the 9/11 attacks, Arik Sharon's strokes and coma, and various mass murders of innocent Jews? I was unnerved by the "joy" expressed by Geraldo Rivera when the news came in to FOX last night, and I am saddened that there were demonstrations of the same in the streets of America.  This is uncomfortably similar to what the death-worshipping cultists of radical Islam do.  It doesn't seem appropriate for a people who are civilized and love life.  It's good for us that he's gone, the entire nation is relieved, we are grateful to our defenders in the military, but celebrations? I don't think so.

 

The other reaction I find disturbing is the immediate spin in dhimmedia that this is a monumental political victory for Obama. The following "news analysis" at the New York Lib Times was written by one Jeff Zeleny and titled, "President's Vow Fulfilled" (that's President's, not Presidents' -- singular, not plural).

WASHINGTON -- President Obama's announcement late Sunday that Osama bin Laden had been killed delivered not only a long-awaited prize to the United States, but also a significant victory for Mr. Obama, whose foreign policy has been the subject of persistent criticism by his rivals.

* * *

Bin Laden’s death is certainly one of the most significant and defining moments of Mr. Obama’s presidency. It allows him to claim the biggest national security victory in a decade — something that eluded President George W. Bush for nearly eight years — and instantly burnishes his foreign policy credentials at a time when he has been questioned about his decisions on the Middle East. 

Mr. Obama has been facing some of the lowest approval ratings of his presidency, largely because of domestic concerns over high gas prices and the rising federal debt. It remains an open question what lasting effect Bin Laden’s death will have on how Mr. Obama is seen by the American people, but it gives him an unmistakable advantage on national security heading into the 2012 presidential campaign.

* * *

Mr. Obama has unquestionably solidified his role as commander in chief. His world view is often challenged by his Republican rivals, who seek to portray him as a weak leader. That line of attack will almost certainly be more difficult to use as he begins running for a second term.

* * *

... as Mr. Obama delivered his remarks and the crowds continued to gather outside the White House, there was little question that his presidency had forever been changed by snaring Bin Laden. The search for him has played out over Mr. Obama’s maturation as a national political figure in the last decade.

 

Maybe I have Obama Derangement Syndrome, comparable to the BDS suffered by so many over the last decade and seemingly continuing into the next.  Maybe my opposition to this man is so absolute and has so solidified that I cannot appreciate anything that he does. The thing is, I just don't see this as his personal accomplishment. Of course he allowed for it to happen, but I would have the same (rather minimal) expectation of any president.  Maybe I'm wrong but the way I see it, Obama was as lucky that this happened on his watch, as Bush was unfortunate that 9/11 happened on his. Were not both events beyond their personal, direct control?

I could be wrong, but certainly the Sultan was right when he noted that "It's useless to conduct a political debate under these conditions."

.... Are we in a recovery or an economic disaster? If you believe the liars, we're in a recovery. And the only people denying it hate socialism, which as we all know is code, for race. Is Global Warming a serious problem? The liars say yes and that anyone who disagrees is a racist who hates the Third World countries that are suffering from GW. Is ObamaCare... well you get the drill.... 

If you agree with Obama, you're a liar. And if you disagree with him, you're a racist. It's useless to conduct a political debate under these conditions.

This level of divisiveness is less about Obama, and more about the way the left has used institutions under its control to promote him and silence his critics. And there's a price to pay for that. Constant propaganda works. And it doesn't. You end up with two types of people. One type who believes everything the authorities say. The other who wouldn't believe them if they said the sun was shining.

The media was meant to be a forum, instead it's become a propaganda megaphone. And the alternative is a crowdsourced media. Which is exactly what we have on the internet. Crowdsourced media means more mistakes, but it still beats a one note media apparatus which spends all day blaring OBAMA IS GREAT LOOK HOW GREAT OBAMA IS ISN'T HE GREAT THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIKE HIM ARE RACISTS....

 

It occurs to me finally that I might not begrudge Obama his "significant victory," "defining moment" and "unmistakable advantage" -- if anyone had likewise held him responsible for the attacks that have occurred during his presidency.  His "one note media apparatus" did not allow the Christmas Day bomber, the Times Square bomber or the mass murders at Fort Hood to cast a shadow on his presidency, so it seems to me inconsistent if not unjust that he should get the credit on this day, when the search for bin Laden is finally, thankfully, over.

And so, on reflection, the Sultan is absolutely correct that our divisiveness is less about Obama and more about the institutions of the Left.  I don't resent him so much as the psychophants in his media entourage.  It wouldn't have been enough for them [Lo Dayevu ??] to say simply that bin laden is dead.  The NYT just had to squeeze The Won into that historic headline: Bin Laden Is Dead, Obama Says

 

 

And at one of the NYT "blogs," they spell it out more fully: Bin Laden is Dead, President Obama Says.

All this makes me wonder what the Times headline was when saddam hussein was captured.  It's in here somewhere but for the life of me, I can't find it :)

More importantly, I wonder why I'm still blogging if indeed it's "useless to conduct a political debate under these conditions" in which I take issue with everything the enemedia says?  Am I simply enabling more divisiveness, or is it worthwhile to push back? 

While I get more coffee and read around the innernut, please let me know what you think of all this.

Comments

[Mannie Sherberg]

Yael -- Agreed, on both counts: (1) Jews do not celebrate death. The Passover Haggadah explicitly states that we do not rejoice over the deaths of the Egyptians at the Sea of Reeds; indeed, we do not rejoice over any deaths at any time. We are -- and must always remember that we are -- the people who have been commanded to "choose life." As for the celebrations outside the White House last night, I suspect these were as much an expression of hooliganism (and too much booze) as of patriotism. (2) The NYT story is pure unadulterated bunk. To call bin Laden's death the "biggest national security victory in a decade" is to betray an ignorance of reality. We are no more secure today than we were a week ago. Bin Laden may be dead but al Qaeda is alive, as are bin Laden's lieutenants. Moreover, as far as American security goes, Hezbollah is much more of a threat than al Qaeda. The organization is firmly entrenched in South America, it receives aid from Hugo Chavez, and it is able to infiltrate operatives across the Mexican border and into the U. S. It's a safe bet that Hezbollah sleeper cells are now in this country, just waitng for word from Iran to wreak havoc on all of us. America is NOT secure -- and only fools and Obama worshippers (is there a difference?) believe otherwise.

[yeshiva son]

That's wrong, we do celebrate the death of the wicked. The Haggadah says no such thing at all. The Jews sang a song at the red sea when God killed the Egyptians. The verse in Mishlei (Proverbs) says "וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה" - The downfall of wicked people brings joy.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Yeshiva Son -- Sorry to disagree, but ... Mishlei 17:24 says, "If your enemy falls, do not exult; if he trips, let your heart not rejoice, lest Hashem see it and be displeased, and avert his wrath from him." Moreover, I was taught as a boy that the reason we dip the wine during the reading of the Ten Plagues at the seder is that dipping is a sign that we refuse to raise a glass to celebrate the affliction of the Egyptians; the dipping, if you will, is a way of showing that we Jews are reading about an event that brings us no joy. Finally, there is a Talmudic passage (sorry,I can't put my finger on it at the moment) in which Hashem rebukes the Jews for singing a song after the drowning in the Reed Sea. The line, as I recall it, goes something like this: "My creatures are drowning, and you have decided to sing about it!" I repeat: Jews do not celebrate death -- even the death of our enemies.

[Tom Glennon]

I feel no joy in Bin Laden's death, but I do admit to feelings of Relief, Expectation and Anticipation. Relief that my family and friends who are in Afghanistan have a few less terrorists to face today than they did yesterday. I also expect both the Taliban and those affiliated with Bin Laden's organizations will, at least in the short run, step up their attacks on American interests. Certainly, with the huge numbers of Hezbollah sympathizers in Dearborn Michigan, we can expect some trouble as they will be angry over the death of their "martyr". However, that said, I anticipate that at least some of the potential radicalized Muslims will decide not to take part in terrorist organizations, as the mortality rate among them seems to be increasing. And that is to the good.

[yeshiva son]

As they say in yiddish, "zer gut gezugt" (you're saying good). The verse you brought (24:17) seems to contradict the one I brought (11:10). So I don't know, tzarich iyun (this needs further study). However, I don't know of a source for the idea of dripping wine to show that we are sad. I would be surprised if there was one. The Talmudic source says that God told the ANGELS not to sing shira - the Jews He let sing!

[Mannie Sherberg]

Yeshiva Son -- You're right: It was the angels, not the people, who were rebuked. But surely that fact counts for something in this discussion. If Hashem had been elated at the drowning of the Egyptians, would He not have ENCOURAGED the angels to sing? The mere fact that there was any rebuke at all strikes me as pretty compelling evidence for my argument. By the way, I interpret Mishlei 11:10 differently than you. The full passage reads: "When the righteous prosper the city exults; when the wicked perish there are shouts of joy." It doesn't say there SHOULD be shouts of joy, only that there ARE -- as happened last night in front of the White House. Perhaps I have been wrongly taught -- or perhaps I didn't pay attention to what I was taught -- but I am simply unaware of any authoritative Jewish teaching that Jews should celebrate the death of anyone.

[yeshiva son]

Well, the entire Song that the Jews sang at the Red Sea is a pretty compelling proof. We sing the song every day. The simple understanding of why the angels were not allowed to sing is that they were not oppressed, whereas the Jews were. Also, regarding the verse you quoted, the Talmud actually addresses this (megillah 16a): After Haman cut his hair, he dressed him in the garments. Haman told him to get up and ride. Mordechai: I can't, for I am weak from fasting. Haman bent down, so Mordechai could step on him to mount the horse. As he did so, he kicked him. Haman: Aren't you commanded "Do not rejoice in the fall of your enemy"? Mordechai: That applies to an enemy who is a Jew. Regarding you it says "And you will step on their high places." Also, the Talmud in Berachos 33a says "Vengeance is great, as we see that it was placed in between two names of God, as it says, "El Nekamos Hashem" - "God is a God of Vengeance." Also, this is from the talmud in Megillah 11: R. Yehoshua ben Levi would begin to expound with "And it will be, like Hash-m rejoiced over you to do good to you, so He will rejoice over you to do evil to you." Hash-m does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked!? (R. Yochanan)Answer: "(Yehoshafat appointed singers, and) when they went out to war they would say 'Hodu la'Shem Ki l'Olam Chasdo'" (Give thanks to God, because his kindness is forever). 'Ki Tov' (For He is Good) is omitted, because Hash-m does not rejoice at the downfall of the wicked. (R. Yochanan) What does it mean "V'Lo Karav Zeh El Zeh Kol ha'Laylah" (They did not approach each other all the night)? The angels wanted to sing (this is like "V'Kara Zeh El Zeh"), but Hash-m said to them 'the works of My hands are drowning in the sea, and you sing?!' (R. Elazar): Hash-m does not rejoice, but He makes others rejoice (to punish the wicked). (Regarding punishing) it says "Yasis" (He will make rejoice), not 'Yasos' (He will rejoice). The end of the Gemara is pretty clear.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Yeshiva Son -- I was with you almost to the end -- but I simply cannot buy Rabbi Elazar's interpretation that Hashem does not rejoice but "makes others rejoice" to punish the wicked. I don't believe Hashem does anything of the sort. What I do believe is that Hashem gives each of us the free will with which to determine for ourselves when we will rejoice and when we will not. And I believe with equal fervor that it is Hashem's wish -- which He chooses not to force upon us -- that we will FREELY choose not to rejoice at the death of others, not to sing and dance at their demise -- no matter how wicked they may be. Many of my fellow Jews, I know, have chosen to celebrate bin Laden's death; I have chosen not to. I cannot and do not believe that I have thereby contravened Hashem's wish.

[Tom Glennon]

Although not Jewish, I fully understand Mannie's thoughts, and agree with them. As I noted, I take no joy in the death of an evil man, but do feel some relief that he can do no more harm. However, with so many family and friends still in harms way, I know that more evil will be done in his name. I can only pray that we will have the strength to withstand that which will inevitably come, and that good will eventually prevail.

[Mannie Sherberg]

Tom -- I share your sentiments. I believe the much-deserved killing of bin Laden was the right thing to do, and as an American I find it both fitting and gratifying. There is such a thing as justice -- and while this one killing comes nowhere near balancing the scales for 9/11, it was certainly a step in the right direction. If there is ever such a thing as complete justice, it will come when the very idea of jihad has been made a thing of the past. We are, unhappily, a long, long way from that. In the meantime, the thought that bin Laden himself can no longer do any harm is heartening. Now we must get serious about the many bin Laden wannabes out there, who have the collective capacity to do massive harm to every American. At this very moment, Iranian terrorists who are not part of al Qaeda but share its jihadi goals, are active in both Iraq and Afghanistan, trying to devise new and better ways to kill American soldiers. I don't think our government has given this problem nearly the attention it deserves, primarily because doing so would interfere with our peace-at-any-price policy vis-a-vis Iran. The administration is still, I believe, putting ideology ahead of security. This must stop, but it will probably take a different president to make it stop. At the moment, we can be sure of only one thing: The threat of terrorism, notwithstanding bin Laden's death, will get hotter before it gets colder.