The stupid is strong in this one

David Brooks , who pretty much serves as first-chair piccolo in the Beltway Insiders Band, opines that Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is a “disaster” for Israel.

“It’s a substantive disaster for the state of Israel. I think it’s political disaster for Bibi Netanyahu back home, because they’re — most Israelis are really worried about the state of the relationship. It’s different than the past times, in part because it’s — as Mark said, it’s partisan now. Suddenly, Republicans are pro-Israel. And what are Democrats supposed to do?”

Where on earth to begin in disentangling this knot of imbecility? Most Israelis are worried about the relationship? After six years of the most intransigent arrogance on the part of the Obama administration toward Israel, this is Bibi’s fault how, exactly? And what are we to make of this: “Suddenly, Republicans are pro-Israel.” Suddenly?!? And those poor Democrats, forced into a corner because of their, presumably, perfectly reasonable desire to differentiate themselves from Republicans no matter what, even if it means doing something wrong or moronic ; what are they supposed to do? Why, you know the answer, Dave: like the loyal lickspittles they are, they’re supposed to line up in support of their Lilliputian king as he squeaks defiance at a man who is orders of magnitude wiser than their own leader. Perhaps if some of them had had the gumption to stand up to Obama years ago, they wouldn’t find themselves being used as pawns now.

And this is simply Brooks’ larynx operating as an autonomous republic: “Second, support for Israel, especially on the Democratic left, especially on college campuses, is more fragile than it’s ever been before”. Which is a function of an ominous revival of anti-Semitism, in conjunction with a willfully myopic view of Palestinian “aspirations” that has become part of the very mortar, like climate change hysteria and socialism, that holds the vast leftist edifice together. If Netanyahu stayed home, I guess the big anti-Israel boycott that is all the rage on college campuses would simply wither away, right?

Brooks closes with this oratorical cowpie:

“Third, the Iran situation is just this gigantically big issue, and existential for Israel, a serious issue for the United States. And to mess this up at a time when this issue is looming is cataclysmic, distracted the debate over the — what’s being settled between the U.S. and Iran [emphasis mine – Paco] into some sideshow. And I happen to think Netanyahu’s concerns about what — the deal we’re apparently getting close to with the Iranians are legitimate, but he has sidetracked that debate into something very self-destructive.”

The whole problem is that this issue is being “settled between the U.S. and Iran”, without any evidence that our policy has been genuinely vetted with people, foreign and domestic, who know what they’re talking about, including people whose physical existence is at stake. Obama’s hopelessly amateurish and uninformed foreign policy team are negotiating with fanatical killers who incessantly threaten to destroy Israel; why should Bibi (or anyone else, for that matter) stake Barry the Tinhorn in this most dangerous poker game with experienced and murderous sharpers? (“Hey, I’ve got three cards with faces; is that anything?”) Under the current American regime, you’ve got to talk over the president’s head because his cranium is hermetically sealed against the intrusion of any thoughts that are not his own, and his own cogitations are so woefully inadequate to the task that he makes Jimmy Carter look like one of the crafty old doges of Renaissance Venice. Whereas David Brooks simply looks like…the David Brooks of opinionizing.