Charles Krauthammer ist eine schillerne Persönlichkeit unter den Journalisten, er ist ein Meinungsmacher, eine wahre Thinkmachine. Ich verfolge immer gerne seine Kolumne bei der Washington Post.
Seine neueste Kolumne ist Obama gewidmet (Link):
For all of his philosophy, the philosopher-king protests too much. Obama undoubtedly thinks he is demonstrating historical magnanimity with all these moral equivalencies and self-flagellating apologetics. On the contrary. He’s showing cheap condescension, an unseemly hunger for applause and a willingness to distort history for political effect.
Distorting history is not truth-telling but the telling of soft lies. Creating false equivalencies is not moral leadership but moral abdication. And hovering above it all, above country and history, is a sign not of transcendence but of a disturbing ambivalence toward one’s own country.
Vor einigen Tagen hat die „Jerusalem Post“ ihn interviewt, und den Text möchte ich auch empfehlen (Link):
[…] you defined Jewish music broadly as based on a sensibility rather than DNA. The lineup included the non-Jewish Dmitry Shostakovich’s so-called „Jewish finale,“ itself one of the only pieces that featured recognizably Jewish melodies. What, then, did you mean by a Jewish sensibility?
It’s music that’s either consciously or unconsciously drawn from the folk, the klezmer, the liturgical, the shtetl. Shostakovich, interestingly, absorbed that through his fellow musicians without having experienced it firsthand.
In music it would be drawn from the music of the folk. In literature it’s an interesting question, what’s a Jewish novel? Again, it has to do with whether there’s an attachment to or a feeling of or a concern with the Jewish experience and Jewish destiny, though that’s to put it very broadly and bluntly and crudely.
We’re not going to do Felix Mendelssohn. He was genetically Jewish, but he was so consciously Christian, and he tried to be European. That’s fine – he’s one of the great composers and he’s in the European canon – but he’s not particularly of interest to us simply because he happened to be genetically Jewish.
[…] In Europe I think it is that the era of Holocaust guilt is over. It was a generational phenomenon. Now that it’s over, Europe is reverting to its natural anti-Semitism – not with the virulence obviously that we saw in the early 20th century, but the norm for the 19 centuries before that – Jews as alien, Jews as troublesome, Jews as not quite trustworthy. And it’s writ large for Israel. The Jewish people have lost Europe. Israel’s lost Europe. The one place it hasn’t been lost is America, where there are tens of millions of Americans who are strongly Zionist and many other who are sympathetic. One of the things I try to do is make the case, which I find a very easy case to make, to oppose the fashionable anti-Israeli trend.
[…] How do you see the ultimate resolution?
Everyone knows what the resolution will be. It will be along the lines of the Clinton-Barak proposal in 2000 at Camp David. And I can give you the terms of the agreement on the back of an envelope right now. It will be 5 percent of the West Bank, which will involve some of the larger Israeli settlements, which Israel will take. Israel will give Palestinians equivalent territory out of Israel proper. There will be a Palestinian state, a Jewish state, and Jerusalem will be divided along the lines Ehud Barak offered, and that’s what it’s going to look like. […]