Why AIPAC's Israel monopoly deserves to come to an end
Bruce Abramson is a politically conservative former lawyer colleague of mine. Jeff Ballabon is currently best-known as the man behind the Iron Dome Alliance, which is seeking to undo AIPAC's 'accomplishment' in making sure that the 2012 Republican platform was no more pro-Israel than the same year's Democratic platform. Jeff is a long-time pro-Israel activist with whom I am occasionally in touch (and who follows me on Twitter).
Bruce and Jeff have written a lengthy piece in which they demonstrate that AIPAC, the big 'pro-Israel' lobby, has lost its monopoly on pro-Israel lobbying. In the course of their article, you will understand why that's probably the best thing that has happened to US-Israel relations in a long time.
By eschewing policy innovation while occupying the entire field,
AIPAC has imposed upon pro-Israel activism the same sclerosis that
monopolists commonly impose upon the markets they dominate. In Israel’s
case, that sclerosis is both misplaced and dangerous. Israel is a small
state surrounded by enemies seeking her destruction and the genocide of
her citizens. As a foreign government dependent on the United States,
Israeli diplomacy compels conciliatory statements about American policy
and leadership. American activists are under no compulsion to believe
such statements. To the contrary, American supporters add maximum value
when championing the tough truths that diplomacy puts beyond Israel’s
reach.
Yet rather than pushing to expand Israel’s political playing field,
AIPAC has instead filtered Israel’s necessary diplomatic risk-aversion
through the partisan and policy preferences of its own membership. To
pick but one example, numerous American Jewish leaders, including
prominent members of the Conference of Presidents, have recognized that
American energy independence would weaken OPEC’s hold over American
policy and thus serve Israel’s interests. Rather than taking a
leadership role on the issue, however, AIPAC demurred, explaining: “We
knew as American Jews we couldn’t touch environmental issues and have
any credibility with our community. American Jews don’t want to destroy
Alaska to import a few barrels less from Angola.”
A political monopolist
who avoids alliances for reasons unrelated to its mission necessarily
weakens that mission—in AIPAC’s case, lobbying in Israel’s best
interests.
In classic monopolist form, AIPAC protects its market by playing to
avoid losing rather than to win. A pro-Israel lobby that played to win
would articulate basic, immutable principles for which it would
fight—and it would count among its “friends” only those elected
officials who supported these positions even when politically
inconvenient. Such a lobby would pressure Israel’s neighbors to work
with Israel while removing pressure on Israel to take risks that
compromise its security, and it would stop pushing to reward Arab
incitement and terror with a PLO-led state. Above all, a pro-Israel
lobby playing to win would innovate on policy, promoting truths and
ideas that run counter to conventional wisdom—even if such innovations
remain minority positions for the years that lobbyists often need to
assemble winning coalitions.
Anti-Israel forces understand the strategic imperative of policy
innovation, and they are rarely bashful about pushing ideas whose
absurdity is apparent to all people of good faith. Yasser Arafat first
fabricated Temple Denial from whole cloth in 2000, but within the past
year the New York Times has detailed the “controversy”
surrounding Jewish “claims” to the Temple Mount, and UNESCO has declared
the Kotel a Muslim holy site. BDS, which grew out of the United
Nations’ rabidly anti-Semitic Durbin Conference in 2001, began in
earnest with a coalition of radical fringe NGOs in 2005. By 2015,
allegations of Israeli apartheid and genocide had come to dominate
discourse among American academics and European parliamentarians.
Or consider the course of the so-called “Two-State Solution,” once a
policy innovation of the far left but now conventional wisdom. In 1980,
Jimmy Carter—hardly an Israel advocate—opposed as destabilizing the
emergence of an Arab state wedged into disputed territories that Israel
had liberated in 1967. Yitzchak Rabin, martyred in 1995 for his dovish
politics, never wavered from his opposition to a Palestinian state. In
1998, five years into the Oslo process, Hillary Clinton publicly implied
support for an independent Palestine; her husband’s White House issued
an official repudiation. Yet AIPAC now doggedly promotes “a negotiated
two-state solution—a Jewish state of Israel living alongside a
demilitarized Palestinian state.”
The erosion of Israel’s reputation and diplomatic standing among
Western governments—and in particular, among Western parties to the left
of center—should provide fertile ground for policy innovation. Who
objects to the canard that Israel is an occupier? Who lobbies the White
House to recognize an undivided Jerusalem—within its full current
municipal boundaries—as Israel’s capital? Who takes to task every
politician who differentiates the anti-Israel terror of Hamas, Fatah,
and Hezbollah from the world’s other instances of Islamist terror? Who
challenges the calls for “balance” in confronting the terrorist
mini-state of Gaza that are oddly absent from any discussion of other
terrorist safe havens? Who emphasizes the connection between
anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism? Who pushes American politicians to
revisit the Oslo agreement—particularly following Mahmoud Abbas’s
unilateral withdrawal from its terms during his 2015 speech to the U.N.
General Assembly?
To each of these questions, the answer is “not AIPAC.” In typical
monopolist fashion, AIPAC does more than underinvest in policy
innovation: It objects to policy innovations that might imperil its
monopoly. That objection traps pro-Israel activism behind a
lowest-common-denominator bipartisan strategy in an increasingly
partisan world.
...
Unsurprisingly, those taking these divergent worldviews also see
Israel very differently. To a progressive, even one with no inherent
animus toward Jews, Israel mirrors the worst of America—an oppressor
state occupying the territory of an indigenous people, practicing
apartheid policies, demonstrating contempt for the international
community, and seeking to play by a unique set of rules. To a
conservative, the situation is just as clear. Israel possesses all of
the right cultural norms and values, stands allied against America’s
enemies, and places itself on the front lines of a civilizational
battle. Israel holds itself to exceptional standards of humanity and
decency despite the constant threats to its existence and widespread
opprobrium. Support for Israel is thus a logical and consistent part of
the conservative worldview, while an outlier among progressives.
The elections of 2006 through 2010 solidified the resorting of the
parties by worldview, and furthered their divergent views of Israel.
Hillary Clinton’s hawkish Senate record cost her the 2008 Democratic
nomination. Foreign-policy realists boasting impeccable Republican
pedigrees—from James Baker and Brent Scowcroft to Colin Powell and Chuck
Hagel—suddenly found warmer receptions on the left than on the right.
Tony Blair, leader of the maturing European left in the 1990s,
discovered that Republicans were his most receptive American audience.
In 2016, Sen. Bernie Sanders galvanized young Democrats behind positions
overtly hostile to Israel. Sanders was also the only presidential
candidate who skipped AIPAC’s 2016 Policy Conference; his submitted
comments parroted much of the standard progressive anti-Israel
rhetoric—and earned widespread praise from the left, including J Street.
AIPAC’s strategic bipartisanship inevitably dismays both those who
view Israel through the progressive lens and those who view it through
the conservative lens. In the face of the post-9/11 transformation of
the American foreign policy debate, AIPAC remains rigidly dedicated to
blind bipartisanship, doing little to educate or inform its members that
most of them are trapped in an increasingly progressive Democratic
Party boasting an increasingly powerful anti-Israel caucus. Polls show a
partisan split on the issue of Israel v. Palestinians of 83R-48D, with
pro-Israel Democrats now representing a minority of their party. That 35
percent gap makes Israel one of the most extreme partisan issues in the
current political climate, not remotely a matter of bipartisan
consensus.
***
J Street studied its market well before launching. Its founders
understood that AIPAC could not help but alienate the large numbers of
Jewish Americans who consider themselves Progressives but harbor some
affinity for Israel. The rival organization built upon AIPAC’s
unyielding dogma that there is no difference between the parties to
insist that the anti-Israel policies gaining salience among Democrats
represent the true pro-Israel positions. By redefining Zionism as
something close to its opposite, J Street gives American Jews a license
to remain proudly progressive and frees Democrats to be increasingly
adverse while still maintaining they are pro-Israel. To J Street’s
supporters, Israel’s true interests at any given point in time are
precisely those that the left says they are—thereby eliminating any
potential dilemmas arising from a divergence of Israel’s interests from
those of the Democratic Party’s progressive wing. Furthermore, by
providing consistent visible Jewish support for President Obama’s
foreign-policy agenda, J Street has already conferred value upon both
its members and the Democratic politicians who need their support.
The Obama policy agenda that enabled J Street’s rise caught AIPAC
sleeping. For the first six-plus Obama years, nearly every policy or
pronouncement touching upon Israel produced a predictable sequence: J
Street emerged as an early, enthusiastic supporter, lauding the
president’s boldness and urging him to move in an even more progressive
direction. AIPAC noted both positives and negatives in the president’s
moves, studied their implications from all angles, and eventually
announced cautious, grudging support. As late as December 2013, amid
widespread alarm triggered at the Obama Administration’s dealings with
Iran, AIPAC called a special meeting of the Conference of Presidents to
demand that Jewish groups stop criticizing the president. AIPAC
Executive Director Howard Kohr declared at that meeting that AIPAC and
Obama share the “same goals” and have only “a difference of strategy”—an
assertion that AIPAC ought now regret.
Finally, in year seven, Israel’s government took an unprecedented
step to preempt AIPAC. In 2014, AIPAC had been willing to support the
president’s call to end sanctions on Iran as a step toward easing
negotiations. When it came to assessing the package that the Obama team
negotiated in 2015, however, Israel’s prime minister delivered a bold
and controversial speech to Congress that forced AIPAC’s hand. AIPAC had
little choice but to agree publicly with the Israeli consensus that the
deal represented an existential threat. For the first time in many
years, AIPAC appeared to launch a full-throated campaign to defeat a
Democratic administration priority—though it simultaneously offered
counter-productive (if not overtly cynical) reassurances that it would
exact no price from “friends” who supported the deal.
In 2016, AIPAC continues to monopolize the field of activists eager
to provide policy support for Israel, while J Street provides a useful
outlet for those unwilling to abandon progressive policy priorities
while maintaining or manipulating a pro-Israel self-image. Another
clearly visible market niche, however, remains unfilled: activists
adopting the conservative worldview unsatisfied with the compromises
inherent in bipartisan policy formulations.
The arrival of a partisan pro-Israel group to AIPAC’s right will
dethrone the Israel monopolist but not destroy it. AIPAC has invested
decades in developing a powerful brand, exceptional connections, a
demonstrated ability to work across the aisle, and unrivaled lists of
donors and grassroots supporters. Furthermore, AIPAC’s flagship
product—the foreign aid bill—is likely to become increasingly important
as fallout from the Iran deal triggers a regional arms race. Whether
broadly appropriate or not, to the degree that AIPAC can retain its
bipartisan relationships, it can help ensure continued military aid to
Israel regardless of the configuration of power in Washington.
In addition, though few cast it in such terms, AIPAC plays two other
critical roles: It serves as a Jewish pride organization and as a safe
space for Truman Democrats. Its annual Policy Conference provides Jewish
pro-Israel activists with a brief respite from pervasive anti-Semitism
and anti-Zionism. And AIPAC’s membership may represent the largest
remaining group of hawkish Democrats—voters who reject progressive
foreign policy even as they support other parts of the progressive
agenda. By providing a forum for such voters, AIPAC fills a niche
critical to American national security—as well as to the State of
Israel. Voters who place primacy on the ascendance of progressive
cultural mores and/or economic distribution, while still favoring a
strong national defense, deserve a forum in which they can speak
comfortably. AIPAC appears to be the only prominent organization filling
that need. Without such a forum, Democratic approaches to this
traditionally bipartisan belief will range from cavalier to
disdainful—much to the detriment of national security.
The pro-Israel community should push AIPAC to reposition itself with a
clear eye on contemporary reality. AIPAC can best serve the pro-Israel
cause by redeploying its formidable assets to help pro-Israel,
national-security-conscious Democrats defeat the anti-Israel
progressives ascendant in their party—certainly the most effective way
to ensure continued bipartisan support for Israel. New organizations
promoting policy innovation and adaptive political strategies must also
enter the pro-Israel market, however, to address challenges, push
policies, and forge alliances on behalf of Israel that run counter to
AIPAC’s strategic approach and the preferences of its members. AIPAC’s
directors and customers—i.e., the Jewish community’s leading
philanthropists and the grassroots activists who genuinely want to
protect Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship—should accept nothing
less.
Feel the Bern: 'Israel is the cause of Middle East strife'
Democratic Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders claims his 'judaism' is an important part of who he is. Israel is apparently not part of his 'judaism' liberalism. Here he is speaking on Monday in Dearbornistan, Michigan
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Jack W).
Honestly, he doesn't sound that much different than Trump ('level playing field treating everybody equally').
For those who need those words explained, here's an explanation:
Praising
former Democrat presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton for their
presumably good faith-endeavors to resolve the Israeli-Arab conflict,
Sanders implied that America unjustifiably treated the various parties
unequally.
In
other words, allegedly favorable treatment of Israel at the expense of
its Arab enemies needed to change. Moral relativism was also deployed
via implication, declaring all sides as entitled to equal treatment.
“For
decades now, there has been hatred and warfare in the Middle East,”
Sander said.
“All I can tell you is I will make every single effort to
bring rational people on both sides [of the Israel/Arab conflict]
together, so that hopefully we can have through a level playing field -
the United States treating everybody in that region equally - hopefully,
and I know that there are people of goodwill in Israel and the Arab
communities,” Attributing
regional conflict to Israel’s existence by conflating Israel with the
entirety of the Middle East, Sanders neglected to comment on the roles
of Muslim and Arab social and cultural pathologies driving the “hatred
and warfare” of the region.
Approximating
the modern state of Israel’s age - sixty-seven years - Sanders pushed
via implication the narrative framing peace between Jews and Arabs in
and around Israel as the master key to regional utopia, asserting, "We
cannot continue to have for another sixty years the kind of hatred and
conflict that exists in the Middle East.”
Earlier
in his address, Sanders described Muslims in America as being
“scapegoated” by Donald Trump, framing them as an at-risk minority group
in need of benevolent Democrat protection while simultaneously casting
the Republican front-runner as a modern iteration of Adolf Hitler, as
per the weekly left-wing media narrative.
Sanders was introduced by Representative Keith Ellison, whose endorsement he procured months earlier.
If anyone needs more evidence that the Democratic party does not support Israel (Hillary Clinton is no better but much shrewder), please let me know.
Barbara Mikulski completes the betrayal of America (and Israel)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md), who will never have to face the consequences of her vote, announced on Wednesday that she will vote for the Obama-Kerry sellout to a nuclear Iran. Her vote gives President Hussein Obama 34 votes - enough to sustain a veto if the sellout ever comes to a vote at all. This is from the first link.
Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski
announced Wednesday she’s supporting the international agreement with
Iran regarding its nuclear capabilities. In doing so, the Maryland
Democrat gives the Obama administration a veto override-proof list of 34
Senate supporters, all from the Democratic caucus.
“No deal is perfect, especially one negotiated with the Iranian
regime,” Mikulski wrote in a statement Wednesday. “I have concluded that
this Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action is the best option available to
block Iran from having a nuclear bomb. For these reasons, I will vote
in favor of this deal. However, Congress must also reaffirm our
commitment to the safety and security of Israel.”
The announcement from the Appropriations ranking member came as the
top Democrat on Foreign Relations, her colleague on “Team Maryland” Benjamin L. Cardin continued to weigh his options. Cardin met Tuesday with college students at Johns Hopkins University.
Regardless what Cardin decides, it is a big victory for the Obama
administration to get the necessary votes locked up before Labor Day
weekend, and it is made all the more significant because Republicans and
outside groups opposed to the agreement have been beating the drum
against it, including on the airwaves. Opponents led by Trump and Cruz
are set to gather outside the Capitol one week from today to warn of
consequences.
...
Mikulski joined the list of supporters one day after two Democratic
senators who had been seen as having among the most significant concerns
made detailed presentations to explain their support.
Sen. Bob Casey of Pennsylvania wrote a 17-page memo to explain his analysis, and Sen. Chris Coons
of Delaware, who has already developed into a key voice at the Foreign
Relations Committee, gave a speech at the University of Delaware and
spoke to reporters about his decision.
For Senate Democrats, party loyalty takes precedence over all other considerations. When will they pay the price?
Last night at a public hearing on the budget in Prince George’s
County, Maryland, a flyer with the following headline was circulated:
From Baltimore to Jerusalem It’s the Same Game. In 10 years Chris Van
Hollen and Ben Cardin sent 1.2 billion dollars of Maryland Federal
taxpayer money to the Apartheid state of Israel to build schools, roads
and other infrastructure while saying Maryland doesn’t have the money to
help develop our communities.
...
Who circulated the flyer? Surely, it was supporters of Donna Edwards,
the African-American congresswoman who is running against Van Hollen
for the Senate. It would be interesting to hear what Edwards has to say
about this attack on her rival and a sitting Democratic (Jewish)
Senator.
Anti-Israel rants by Black radicals are nothing new; nor is Black
anti-Semitism. But injecting them into a Democratic primary campaign via
a publicly circulated flyer suggests that the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic
Black left has become emboldened.
Why? Perhaps it’s because President Obama has been so eager to attack
Israel, though not, of course, as viciously as Edwards’ supporters
have. Israel bashing is now acceptable for left-wing Democratic officer
holders.
Read the whole thing. But don't hold your breath waiting for American Jews to wake up and vote Republican and donate to Republicans.
We can dream, can't we? Jewish Democrats supposedly angry with Obama over nuke deal
It's a refrain we've heard before. The Wall Street Journal reports that Jewish Democrats, upset with the White House over the Iran nuclear sellout, are switching parties (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Many U.S. Jewish leaders are unnerved both by the new Iran nuclear
agreement and the public falling out between President Barack Obama and
his Israeli counterpart, developments that are creating a rift in the
durable alliance between Jews and the Democratic Party in the run-up to
the 2016 elections.
Worried that Iran might still develop a nuclear weapon despite the
accord announced Thursday, the Jewish leaders say they feel torn between
an Obama administration that has pressed hard for a deal and an Israeli
government that has repeatedly warned that Iran is a grave threat to
the Jewish state and can’t be trusted to abandon its nuclear ambitions.
A group of Jewish Democratic House members met with White House Chief
of Staff Denis McDonough in his office last week and cautioned that for
them to help “sell a very unpopular [Iran nuclear] deal to our
constituents,” Mr. Obama must “increase his popularity with our
constituents,” said a Democratic congressman involved in the meeting.
Republicans have begun making moves to try to capitalize on this
unease, hoping to peel away Jewish votes and campaign contributions that
have historically skewed Democratic.
Sadly, this is likely wishful thinking. Most American Jews couldn't find the Republican lever in a polling booth if it had flashing neon pink lights and punched them in the face.
More Americans want a more engaged foreign policy, but...
In the run-up to the US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton has been arguing for a more engaged foreign policy while Rand Paul has been arguing for isolationism. The American people would like a more engaged foreign policy. That would seem to favor Clinton, but in fact it may ensure that neither candidate is his or her party's nominee.
The percentage of the public saying the country does too little has
almost doubled since November, from 17 to 31 percent. Thirty-nine
percent say the U.S. does too much.
Democratic former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has been arguing for a more engaged in U.S.
presence in the world ahead of a possible presidential run, in contrast
to possible opponent Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and, to some extent,
President Obama.
Despite the overall increase in those saying
they want the U.S. to do more, however only 24 percent of Clinton's own
party say the U.S. does too little, compared to 36 percent who say too
much. For Republicans, the numbers are reversed, with 46 percent saying
too much and 37 percent too little.
Okay, that last sentence doesn't sound right, does it? So I went to the source:
Republicans, Democrats and independents all are more likely to say the
U.S. does too little to solve world problems, but the shift among
Republicans has been striking. Last fall, 52% of Republicans said the
U.S. does too much to help solve global problems, while just 18% said it
does too little. Today, 46% of Republicans think the U.S. does too
little to solve global problems, while 37% say it does too much.
Oh yeah, and then there's this:
Obama gets his best rating for handling race relations; nearly half
approve of how he is handling race relations (48%) compared with 42% who
disapprove. His ratings for handling other issues – including policy
toward Israel (37% approve), the situation involving Russia and Ukraine
(35%) and the situation in Iraq (35%) – are more negative than positive.
But The Hill doesn't mention that.
Oh, and by the way, Pew says that a majority of Americans thinks Obama isn't tough enough on foreign policy. What a surprise....
Obama’s approach to foreign policy continues to be viewed as not tough
enough: 54% say Obama is not tough enough in his approach on foreign
policy and national security issues, while 36% say his approach is about
right and just 3% say he is too tough.
Are Americans waking up to the disaster Obama has wrought? We can only hope.
On the Senate floor on Monday, Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) called for US Secretary of State John FN Kerry to resign after Kerry warned of 'Israeli apartheid.'
She 'wears her love for Israel to work on her sleeve every day' but she opposes sanctions on Iran
Forced to choose between her professed love for Israel and her love for Barack Hussein Obama and the Democratic party, you know which one Debbie Wasserman Schultz chose. Yes, of course, she chose Obama and the Democrats. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl) is blocking bipartisan approval in the House of new sanctions against Iran. Because King Barack wants her to....
Wasserman Schultz has broken with leading pro-Israel Democrats like
New York Senator Chuck Schumer and New Jersey Senators Robert Menendez
and Cory Booker, privately urging her fellow Democrats to follow the
White House’s lead by opposing a bipartisan House resolution backing new
sanctions on Iran, according to multiple congressional sources close to
the debate.
The Iran resolution fell apart in the final days of 2013 after House
Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) withdrew his support for it following a
last minute lobbying campaign helmed by Wasserman Schultz, who sources
identified as the “key Democrat” leading the anti-sanctions charge.
Wasserman Schultz’s backroom bid to kill the sanctions measure has
angered some Democrats on Capitol Hill and in her hometown of South
Florida.
“Debbie has been busy at home telling her constituents she is doing
all she can to stop Iran, but in reality it appears she is busy behind
the scenes working to scuttle bipartisan action to put increased
sanctions pressure on Iran,” said one Democrat on Capitol Hill who is
closely tracking the Iran debate.
“Every minute she is publicly silent, or working against bipartisan
efforts to pressure Iran, is a minute she is siding with the Mullahs
over the American people who overwhelmingly want mounting pressure,”
said the source, who asked for anonymity.
Sources inside Wasserman Schultz’s heavily Jewish South Florida
community say that the lawmaker’s opposition to strengthened sanctions
has become a “problematic position” for her constituents.
Wasserman Schultz has become “one of the two problems in Florida in
regards to support for those sanctions,” according to one South Florida
Jewish community insider.
The other Democratic opponent is Rep. Alan Grayson (Fla.), according to the source.
So will the Jewish community in South Florida stand up and get rid of Dumb Debbie in November? What? And vote for a Republican? Not a chance.
It's Harry Reid's fault Hagel is being asked to disclose foreign funders
You can blame Senate Majority leader Harry Reid (D-Nv) for Chuck Hagel being asked about his foreign funding. Reid asked Henry Kissinger about his foreign funding in 2002 when Kissinger was up for an appointment to the 9/11 commission. Kissinger refused to disclose the foreign funding and did not get the appointment. Will Hagel do the same?
The Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is
trying to give President Obama's nominee to lead the Defense Department
some cover. In a letter released to the press, Carl Levin, the chairman
of the committee, says that the call to release this information is
"unprecedented." He says that the committee asks for a nominee to
release "foreign affiliations." Which it does, but it does not ask for
foreign financial dealings to be fully disclosed.
Which was Reid's concern about Kissinger in 2002. The difference?
Reid called for Kissinger to disclose when a Republican was president,
and is now not standing up for full disclosure. Which seems like an odd
double standard.
Israel as a wedge issue: 57% of Americans, but only 41% of Democrats, support Gaza operation
There's no election in the US right now, and Israel is still a 'wedge issue' that divides Democrats and Republicans. The Washington Post reports on a poll that shows that while 57% of Americans support Israel's actions in Gaza, only 41% of Democrats (compared with 74% of Republicans and 50% of Independents) do so (Hat Tip: Lance K).
Seventy-four percent of Republicans said the action is justified, compared with 59 percent of independents and 41 percent of Democrats. Overall, nearly one-in-five (19 percent) Americans said they had no opinion.
Nearly six-in-10 Americans polled (59 percent) said their sympathies were more with the Israelis in the situation in the Middle East, while 13 percent said they were more sympathetic to the Palestinians. Eleven percent said they were not more sympathetic to either side, while 13 percent said they had no opinion. The poll was conducted Friday through Sunday.
The reality is that support for Israel is already a wedge issue in the US, and it is only getting worse. I doubt that there is anything Israel can do - short of committing suicide God forbid - to change that reality. The Left isn't going to become Israel supporting in the foreseeable future. The bigger issue is how we keep Jews who are drifting Left from writing Israel off. The answer to that question is in establishing a connection between these people and Israel, and that can only come about by establishing a connection between these (mostly young) people and Judaism.
Although it's unlikely he will do so, Mitt Romney should push for a recount of the results of last week's election. Voting fraud happened in 2008, it apparently happened in 2012, and if left unchecked, it will continue to happen in every US election.
Leaked emails from the intelligence group Stratfor recently revealed some shocking allegations
of massive Democrat voter fraud in 2008. The emails revealed by
WikiLeaks say that the McCain campaign decided to ignore the wide spread
voter fraud in order to avoid massive civil unrest — even though it
meant he’d lose the White House.
The emails say that Democrats were caught “stuffing ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio,” but the McCain campaign decided to let it all go.
After discussions with his inner circle, which explains the
delay in his speech, McCain decided not to pursue the voter fraud in PA
and Ohio, despite his staff’s desire to make it an issue. He said no.
Staff felt they could get a federal injunction to stop the process.
McCain felt the crowds assembled in support of Obama and such would be
detrimental to our country and it would do our nation no good for this
to drag out like last go around, coupled with the possibility of
domestic violence.
J. Christian Adams, a former United States Department of Justice official, notes how fraught with danger these revelations are.
With the blessings of hindsight, we see that fear of mob
violence in our country is no longer a hypothetical in the mind of a
presidential candidate. The call by the New Black Panther Party in
Sanford, Florida, to seize (or kill) a private citizen is no longer the
stuff of a senator’s imagination.
Adams was the member of the Justice Dept. that revealed to the world
that Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, decided not to prosecute the
obvious law breaking perpetrated in Philadelphia by the Black Panthers
during the 2008 general election.
Martin Kramer eviscerates the Democrats' Israeli shill, Ephraim Halevy
Former Mossad Director Ephraim Halevy, who has become a professional shill for the Democrats, wrote the following in the New York Times last week:
Whenever the United States has put serious, sustained pressure on
Israel’s leaders—from the 1950s on—it has come from Republican
presidents, not Democratic ones…. Despite the Republican Party’s shrill
campaign rhetoric on Israel, no Democratic president has ever
strong-armed Israel on any key national security issue.
Martin Kramer strongly disagrees. But instead of taking an example from recent times - from President Obama's and President Clinton's pressure on Israel with respect to the 'Palestinians' - Kramer discusses an example that is older, but in many ways more relevant: The Kennedy administration's handling of Israel's purported nuclear capability.
Former Mossad head Efraim Halevy likes Barack Obama and dislikes
Mitt Romney. He’s entitled to his opinion. What he isn’t entitled to do
is make categorical statements that do violence to the historical
record.
I’m teaching a graduate course this semester on relations between
Israel and the United States, and one of my purposes in following a
historical approach is to fortify my students against people who
misrepresent the past for some present purpose. Just the other week, we
spent two hours discussing how President John F. Kennedy (yes, a
Democrat) put the screws on Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and
his successor, Levi Eshkol, over Israel’s nuclear end-run. The story has
been told at considerable length elsewhere, most ably by Avner Cohen, Zaki Shalom, Michael Karpin, and Warren Bass,
so I’ll just recap it here. It’s relevant not only as a corrective to
Halevy’s erroneous claim. It’s essential background to the renewed
debate over Israel’s nuclear posture that the Obama administration has helped to prompt.
When Kennedy entered the White House in January 1961, the CIA had
just concluded that the facility under construction in Dimona, with
French assistance, was destined to become a nuclear reactor. U.S.
intelligence had been one to two years behind the curve on the pace of
Israel’s nuclear program, and Kennedy was worried. He had campaigned on a
promise to stop proliferation. In his third debate with Richard Nixon,
he had warned
that “there are indications because of new inventions, that 10, 15, or
20 nations will have a nuclear capacity, including Red China, by the end
of the Presidential office in 1964. This is extremely serious.” The CIA
would soon list Israel right behind China as a potential proliferator.
In May 1961, just months after his inauguration, Kennedy raised the
issue of Dimona with visiting Israeli Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion,
and received a boilerplate assurance that the project had a peaceful
purpose. Kennedy and his advisers continued to suspect otherwise, given
the size of the plant. Israel allowed informal visits, but they were far
from thorough, and in May 1963, Kennedy finally decided to press the
issue and insist on regular inspections. He wrote a letter to Ben-Gurion (May 18), warning that an Israeli weapon would throw open the gates of proliferation everywhere:
We are concerned with the disturbing effects on world
stability which would accompany the development of a nuclear weapons
capability by Israel. I cannot imagine that the Arabs would refrain from
turning to the Soviet Union for assistance if Israel were to develop a
nuclear weapons capability—with all the consequences this would hold.
But the problem is much larger than its impact on the Middle East.
Development of a nuclear weapons capability by Israel would almost
certainly lead other larger countries, that have so far refrained from
such development, to feel that they must follow suit.
Then came the threat. Kennedy, noting the ways the United States had
assisted Israel, warned Ben-Gurion that the U.S. commitment to his
country “would be seriously jeopardized in the public opinion in this
country and in the West as a whole if it should be thought that this
Government was unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as
vital to peace as the question of the character of Israel’s efforts in
the nuclear field.” Years later, Yuval Ne’eman, the physicist who helped
Ben-Gurion write his replies, told
a journalist that “Kennedy was writing like a bully. It was brutal.”
Kennedy’s “Scylla and Charybdis-like letter,” writes Zaki Shalom, “made
it absolutely clear that he wanted Israel to accede to his demands
unconditionally and immediately, and a request of this sort from the
pinnacle of American power, in language so blunt, left Israel no space
for maneuvering.”
For a different perspective on Ben Gurion's dealings with Kennedy over the nuclear issue go here.
The gentleman between Ben Gurion and Kennedy in the picture at the top (which was taken when Kennedy was still a Senator) is Franklin Delano Roosevelt Jr.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
