The worry is that Dem Rep. Steny Hoyer, the number two House Dem,
may join with GOP Rep. Eric Cantor on a resolution or bill that will
either criticize the current temporary deal with Iran, or call for a new
round of sanctions, or set as U.S. policy some strict parameters on a
final deal with Iran, such as opposition to any continued
uranium enrichment, House Democratic aides say. House Dems and outside
foreign policy observers have communicated such worries to Hoyer’s
office, sources add.
Hoyer’s office confirmed to me that Cantor had produced a bill and
shared it with him, but declined to discuss details. “Cantor has a bill,
and it’s being reviewed by our office,” Hoyer spokesperson Stephanie
Young said. “No decisions have been made.” Spokespeople for Cantor
didn’t respond.
Any resolution or bill along these lines that has the support of any
House Dem leaders would increase the pressure on Senate Democrats to
pass a measure of their own, which the White House opposes. And some
fear that a measure in the House itself — even if the Senate didn’t act —
could have an adverse impact on international talks.
According to reports in the Hill and National Journal,
Cantor and House GOP leaders are looking for a way to express
opposition to, and put obstacles in the way of, the deal the Obama
administration is pursuing. But now that a bill has been produced,
and could be joined by Hoyer, that significantly ratchets up worries
that Congress could very well act in a way that scuttles hopes for a
long term deal.
Those wary of a possible Hoyer-Cantor measure point out that the two
have previously collaborated on measures relating to U.S. policy in the
middle east.
...
If the GOP-controlled House passes something with the support of someone
like Hoyer, it could make it harder for Senate Dems to resist pressure
to act. Indeed, it could exacerbate divisions among Senate Dems over how
to proceed. It could strengthen the hands of those — such as Senate
Foreign Relations Committee chair Robert Menendez — who want to pass
something right now. Senator Harry Reid appears to want to grant the
White House the flexibility it has asked for, but bipartisan movement in
the House could intensify the pressure on him to allow a vote on
something the White House doesn’t want.
Spokesman Behrouz
Kamalvandi was quoted by state news agency IRNA as saying that initial testing
on a new generation of more sophisticated centrifuges had been completed,
underlining Iran's determination to keep refining uranium in what it says is
work to make fuel for a planned network of nuclear power plants.
Although
the development does not appear to contravene the interim agreement struck
between world powers and Iran last month, it may concern the West nonetheless,
as the material can also provide the fissile core of a nuclear bomb if enriched
to a high degree.
"The new generation of centrifuges was produced with a
higher capacity compared with the first generation machines and we have
completed initial tests," Kamalvandi was quoted as saying.
"The
production of a new generation of centrifuges is in line with the (Iranian
atomic energy) agency's approach of upgrading the quality of enrichment machines
and increasing the rate of production by using the maximum infrastructure
facilities".
Kamalvandi said the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA) had been informed of the development.
Iran's development of a new
generation of centrifuges - machines that spin at supersonic speed to increase
the ratio of the fissile isotope - could enable it to refine uranium much
faster.
Things sure have changed a lot since JFK's days, haven't they? What could go wrong?
“It is both patronizing and deeply insulting for Nancy Pelosi to suggest any Jew is 'exploited' for their political beliefs or that support for Israel is somehow an 'excuse' for anything," Cantor (R-Va.) said in a statement.
During the TV interview, Pelosi agreed with the interviewer that Republican Jewish supporters are very politically active and that Jewish voters are intelligent enough to understand the situation.
"Well, that’s how they’re being exploited,” she said. “And they’re smart people. They follow these issues. But they have to know the facts. And the fact is that President Obama has been the strongest person in terms of sanctions on Iran, which is important to Israel.”
Pelosi also is facing criticism that she implied Obama as president has been to Israel "over and over again."
President Obama has not been to Israel since taking office. He did travel to the country during his 2008 presidential campaign and reportedly went twice as a senator.
Let me guess: No one can find any record of him having been here as a Senator. Just like Occidental and Columbia....
Cantor: 'There is no substitute for American leadership in the Middle East'
The contrast between Representative Eric Cantor (R-Va) and the Obama administration could not be more striking.
Beyond the strategic challenges posed by the Arab Spring lies an urgent threat -- Iran's determination to achieve nuclear weapons capability. Iran's effort, if successful, could destabilize the Middle East, spur a regional nuclear arms race and undermine America's influence in this pivotal region.
Unfortunately, the window to solve this problem without conflict gets smaller with each passing day as Iran attempts to master the enrichment of uranium. Several administrations have tried engaging Iran and offering security guarantees, but that has not prevented the country from pursuing the bomb or patronizing the world's most dangerous terrorist groups. Economic and diplomatic pressures haven't worked either, but they have been episodic, gradual and largely unilateral. While the U.S. left Iran's market years ago, we can still exert great pressure through financial sanctions, and President Barack Obama should do so.
...
The latest round of European sanctions is designed to compel Iran to come back to the negotiating table. If the Iranians do so, the desire for a deal at any cost should not be permitted to overshadow our long experience in negotiating with rogue states. We must focus on the results rather than the process of negotiations.
With its nuclear centrifuges continuing to spin, Iran cannot be allowed -- as it has been in the past -- to further delay this process. Mere promises cannot be rewarded with a loosening of pressure. Iran's leaders must feel dramatic pressure that imperils their very hold on power until their abandonment of nuclear program can be verified.
...
In addition to sanctions, we must actively combat Iran's influence throughout the Middle East.
Our partners are perplexed at what they perceive as our lackadaisical response to Iran's support of extremist proxies. And in Iraq, our partners believe that America's abandonment of that country has left a vacuum that Iran is only too eager to fill. It is hard to see why the Obama administration has not expended more effort in trying to keep Iraq -- a potentially rich and influential country at the heart of the Middle East that was liberated at such great cost -- more firmly in the American camp.
Finally, there is the low-hanging fruit of Syria.
Bashar al-Assad's regime may be Iran's most important strategic partner. Instead of aggressively combating Syria's support to Hamas and Hezballah and interference in Lebanon and Iraq, the Obama administration came to office seeking to engage al-Assad. It failed.
Now the president has finally acknowledged that it's time for al-Assad to go. America should not defer to obstinate Russian diplomats at the United Nations about Syria. Instead, we should lead an international effort to apply tremendous pressure on Syria and provide demonstrable support to its growing political opposition. The longer the Syrian crackdown is allowed to continue, the greater the risk of chaos and the harder it will be to put Syria back together. If Syria goes down, it would be a serious blow to the Iranian regime.
There is no substitute for American leadership in the Middle East. It is time for the Obama administration to show it.
Can the world survive until next January? What happens if God forbid Obama is reelected?
Earlier this week, I ran a rather nasty interview that was done by 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl in which she harangued House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) for what she claimed was a contradiction between 'Jewish values' and Republican policy positions. Stahl is Jewish, but one had to wonder who 'educated' her in Jewish values, and why this became such an issue in an interview with the House Majority Leader. She certainly seemed to have a lot more on her mind than the standard non-Orthodox claim that Judaism is identical with Liberalism.
I suspect - although obviously I cannot prove it - that this blog post had something to do with Stahl's attack on Cantor. Failed Messiah is a blog that apparently many Orthodox Jews love to hate (personally, I had heard of it, but had never read it before I researched this post). Failed Messiah is written by someone named Shmarya Rosenberg who apparently grew up unaffiliated, became Orthodox for some period of time through Chabad-Lubavitch, and then had a falling out with them over the Lubavitcher Rebbe's failure to accept his 'advice' to rescue Ethiopian Jewry. The Rebbe had other priorities. In 2006, Rosenberg went full circle and became an apikores. He is in cherem (excommunicated), but has become very popular as a muckraker attacking the Jewish community.
How anyone could consider anything written by Rosenberg as representative of Jewish belief or doctrine defies comprehension. He clearly has an axe to grind. But perhaps, Rosenberg said what Stahl wanted to say, and therefore she used the content of his post to attack Eric Cantor. Perhaps it is also no accident that Cantor has a connection to Chabad, and that might have had something to do with him being targeted by Rosenberg.
Finally, lest any of you try to read anything about my affiliations into this post, I am not a Chabadnik - I am not a chassid at all. I am from pure Lithuanian stock and have a strong connection to the Lithuanian yeshiva world.
Video: 60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl pounds Eric Cantor for being Jewish and not Liberal
In case any of you missed it, the Torah does not command that you be politically liberal. It does not favor abortion on demand, it does not favor Communism or Socialism. The Torah commands that you give charity, but to whom you give it is your prerogative, and in many instances how much you give is voluntary.
But Leslie Stahl of 60 Minutes has no clue what the Torah says. And Eric Cantor, who does have a clue, let her off the hook.
Let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: Sunlight via Atlas Shrugs). I actually added a fuller interview to the excerpt that Pamela posted.
By the way, Judaism might want the community to take care of those in need - but that's the community and not the government. There's a difference.
It must be tough to publish a newspaper 100 miles south of Washington DC. All the good writers and all the big names want to have their opinion pieces published in the Washington papers, where American decision makers are more likely to see them. What's an editor to do? At the Richmond Times Dispatch, they decided to give a soapbox to former Arafat adviser and current Knesset member Ahmed Tibi three days before Christmas. That it took nearly a week before anyone in Israel heard about it shows what a failed strategy it was.
What's more astounding is whom Tibi goes after. Much of his article goes after House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va), and it does so in an incredibly disingenuous manner. Here are two examples.
The arrogance of some American politicians and presidential candidates toward the Palestinians and Palestinian national aspirations is breathtaking. Last week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor stated, "If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state." He appeared to hold all Palestinians responsible for the violence of a few.
'Violence of a few'? You've got to be kidding. While the percentage of 'Palestinians' who support 'armed resistance' and outright terror against Israel has allegedly declined, violence is still supported by far more than a 'few' 'Palestinians.' Moreover, incitement against the Jewish state in 'Palestinian' media and in the 'Palestinian' educational system - both of which are controlled by the 'Palestinian Authority' - continues unabated. Perhaps that's why Cantor says that the 'Palestinians' must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state? Perhaps he means that they must demonstrate an as-yet-unexpressed willingness to accept and live in peace with their neighbors and not to make additional demands?
Back to Tibi:
A man living in a glass home ought not to throw such stones. Cantor's remarks ignored the fact that Americans engaged in genocidal violence and enslavement when establishing the United States of America. He vilifies a Palestinian "culture of resentment and hatred" yet says not a word about his own Richmond neighborhoods that still extol the virtues of Confederate leaders who fought to uphold slavery.
He's got to be kidding. Slavery has not existed in the United States in nearly 150 years. Even when it did exist, it exploited blacks, but did not randomly murder them. It was not enforced or promoted by suicide bombers or by machine gun-wielding plantation owners. Tibi's comparison is absurd and ought to be offensive to the very people he is trying to convince.
Read the whole thing. Tibi and the 'Palestinians' are clearly not ready for prime time.
Speaking to a conference of Reform Jews, Cantor told of a Palestinian woman treated for burns at an Israeli hospital who tried to return for a follow-up visit wearing a suicide belt.
“What kind of culture leads one to do that? Sadly, it is a culture infused with resentment and hatred,” Cantor said.
“If the Palestinians want to live in peace in a state of their own, they must demonstrate that they are worthy of a state,” said Cantor, one of the highest-profile Jewish Republicans and a staunch Israel supporter.
...
While Cantor and other House leaders have firmly backed Israel’s right to defend itself, they are generally careful to distinguish between those who commit terrorist acts and Palestinians as a whole. That nuance was absent in Cantor’s Thursday address to the Union for Reform Judaism.
“It is not morally equivalent when the offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel,” he said to a few thousand conference participants, who offered Cantor a polite but guarded reception.
A number of participants could be heard outside the ballroom where Cantor was speaking discussing their choice not to attend his speech so as to not lend their support to his conservative views.
Warning that the 2,000-year-old dream of a Jewish state is in jeopardy, Cantor said the international community is replete with anti-Semitic vitriol and pointed to the success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt’s post-revolution elections, which he said presented major challenges to U.S. interests in the region.
Aren't Presidential campaigns fun? Let's hope this continues afterward. Too bad the Reform Jews don't seem to be enjoying it.
In May, we saw how Prime Minister Netanyahu got under President Obama's skin. In the budget negotiations, we saw another Jew do the same: Republican House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (Va).
I won't go into this too deeply, because it's off topic for this blog, but I'm sure Prime Minister Netanyahu would agree with this assessment (Hat Tip: Manhattan Dan):
Like Mr. Cantor, President Obama is also a man of deep and strong convictions, and perhaps that's why they seem to dislike each other so much. Call it, to adapt Freud, the narcissism of big differences. Mr. Cantor cautions that he isn't a "psychoanalyst"—before politics, he was a real-estate lawyer and small businessman—but he says, "It's almost as if someone cannot have another opinion that is different from his. He becomes visibly agitated. . . . He does not like to be challenged on policy grounds."
Obama sounds like someone I know (a certain individual) in a position of authority here. The 2012 campaign debates should be fun.
One more AIPAC tape. Here's House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) speaking at the AIPAC convention. The speech is in two parts. The part I really want you to see starts around the 4:00 mark of the second tape and watch the crowd reaction.
Here's Part 1. Let's go to the videotape.
Here's Part 2. Let's go to the videotape.
A few observations. First, I think the American people are starting to get the idea that the conflict is existential and not about borders. Certainly Cantor gets that.
Second, I don't think Cantor or anyone else expects Abu Bluff to stop teaching hatred and accept Israel's right to exist. I think he's calling Abu's bluff.
Prominent Republicans call for aid cutoff to 'Palestinian Authority'
Republicans Eric Cantor (Va) and Peter Roskam (Il) have called on the Obama administration to cut off aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' due to its partnership with Hamas.
With this agreement, it has made an unequivocal decision that its route to a potential state cannot include peace with Israel. Nor will it include negotiations with Israel; a disavowal of and crackdown on terrorism or any official recognition of the Jewish state — a set of conditions demanded by the U.S. and its allies but fiercely opposed by Hamas. What a slap in the face to the Obama administration.
Don’t be fooled by Hamas apologists in the West, who refuse to accept Hamas at its word. Let us not blind ourselves to Hamas’s genocidal outlook. This reconciliation does not mean Hamas will moderate itself. It means the PA is dealing a death blow to a troubled peace process, in which it has seldom demonstrated the courage to engage.
Terror in the Palestinian territories has taken a decisive step forward. Peace is in retreat.
Under the new accord, for the first time, Hamas’s TV broadcasts are to be sent into the West Bank. Shows designed to poison the minds of young Palestinians by lauding the ways of jihad and perpetuating hateful lies about Israel, Jews and the U.S. will likely further radicalize the West Bank.
Remember, these are the same broadcasts that notoriously aired a Mickey Mouse-like cartoon character teaching children to “annihilate the Jews.”
...
Given the dire risks this agreement poses to Israel’s security, Washington must draw a hard line and suspend aid to the Palestinian government. U.S. tax dollars have no place going to governments composed of terrorists.
Indeed.
The question is why this piece was published in Politico and not in the New York Times or the Washington Post. Well, thanks to Jennifer Rubin, it's at least linked and discussed in the Washington Post.
For reasons that have more to do with the administration’s aversion to drawing lines and its phobia about being at odds with the countries that populate the U.N., the Obama administration has not yet publicly delivered a forthright message to the Palestinians. The administration has said that Hamas needs to renounce terror, recognize the Jewish state, and abide by past agreements (not even Abbas is willing to do that now) in keeping with the Quartet’s conditions. But Obama has yet to say what will happen if Hamas doesn’t do this. He’s not delivered an unequivocal statement that the unity government and Abbas’s renunciation of past agreements are unacceptable. In short, the PA should be identified as an international lawbreaker, not rewarded with statehood.
Well, it's probably expecting too much for Obama to announce a cutoff in aid to the 'Palestinian Authority' on Thursday night. But we can dream, can't we?
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) issued the following statement on Wednesday's terror attack in Jerusalem:
“Today’s bombing in Jerusalem is another chilling reminder of the obstacles Israel faces in its quest to live in peace with its neighbors. Israel is a true friend to the United States and a vital strategic ally in an unstable region. In the face of unremitting terror, Israel can count on the continued support of the United States as exercises its right to defend its people.
“Within the past two weeks, Palestinian terrorists in Gaza have launched dozens of unprovoked rocket attacks at innocent Israelis, while in the West Bank a terrorist brutally murdered a family as they slept in their home. These attacks must not be downplayed as mere episodes in a game of tit-for-tat between Israelis and Palestinians. There is absolutely no justification for deliberate and deadly attacks on innocent civilians.
“This kind of violence does not emerge in a vacuum; it is incubated through education and nurtured by popular culture. The sooner the world comes to grips with this reality, the sooner that there will be peace in the region. That’s why we must use the recent attacks to address the root cause of this violence: anti-Israel incitement in Palestinian mosques, schools and media – and the blanket refusal on the part of the Palestinians to accept Israel’s right to exist that it has created.
“The Administration has called on Israel to make sweeping concessions that I believe will endanger its security, but it doesn’t seem to demand similar from the Palestinians. That’s why I support bipartisan efforts in the House and Senate that call on the White House to put an end to anti-Israel incitement in the Palestinian territories. No matter how much we desire Mideast peace, it will remain a pipe dream so long as Palestinian culture makes martyrs of terrorists who target innocents.”
And President Obama's statement - by noting the accidental killings of 'Palestinians' in Gaza on Tuesday - implied precisely the type of tit-for-tat games that Cantor says (and I agree) we must avoid. There is no moral equivalence.
Cantor and Hoyer call on Obama to veto Security Council resolution
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) and House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md) have issued a joint statement calling on President Obama to veto a UN Security Council resolution condemning Israel's 'settlement construction.'
“As we wrote to the President last month, the Palestinian leadership’s decision to reject the difficult but vital responsibility of making peace with Israel through direct negotiations, and instead to advocate for anti-Israel measures by the United Nations Security Council is counterproductive and unacceptable. Successive Israeli governments have proven Israel’s steadfast commitment to peace and our Secretary of State has noted that the current Israeli government took an ‘unprecedented’ step in pursuit of peace with its ten-month moratorium on Israeli housing construction in the West Bank. Furthermore, since the beginning of the current Israeli government, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for direct negotiations with the Palestinians anytime and anywhere, without preconditions.
“Instead of negotiating directly with Israel to achieve a peaceful solution to the conflict, Palestinian leaders continue to seek to circumvent the negotiating process by advocating anti-Israel measures at the U.N. Security Council, U.N. General Assembly, and U.N. Human Rights Council. The U.S. should not condone or reward this behavior by supporting their resolutions. We strongly urge the Administration to veto this resolution and to uphold our longstanding commitment to Israel’s security.”
Senior members of House urge Obama to veto Security Council resolution on 'settlements'
A group of senior members of the US House of Representatives has sent a letter to President Obama urging him to veto the 'Palestinian'-sponsored resolution condemning Israeli 'settlements' that is to be voted upon in the UN Security Council next month.
U.S. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and five fellow senior Members of Congress sent a bipartisan letter today to the President, requesting that the Administration take a number of steps to advance security and peace between Israel and the Palestinians, including to pledge to veto a pending United Nations Security Council resolution that condemns Israel. The letter also calls on the President to hold the Palestinian leadership accountable for their actions that undermine opportunities for peace and security. In addition to Ros-Lehtinen, the letter was signed by: House Majority Leader Eric Cantor; House Democratic Whip Steny H. Hoyer; Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Howard L. Berman; and U.S. Reps. Steve Chabot and Gary L. Ackerman, the Chairman-designate and Ranking Member-designate, respectively, of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.
The more I see of Ros-Lehtinen, the more I hope she'll run for higher office some day.
Amid high expectations from Israel's supporters, the 112th United States Congress will be installed on Wednesday.
Though the Democrats’ shellacking in the November election reduced the numbers of Jewish members from 43 to 39 – though a new Democrat Jewish representative and senator will be among them – Silverman pointed out that the sole Jewish Republican, incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Virginia, will be the highest-ranking Jewish member ever.
Silverman predicted that the most visible change on Israel will be the extent to which Congress now challenges the Obama administration over its handling of the Middle East.
“The biggest difference we expect is how bold and how tough an approach we expect to see in congressional oversight,” he said. The members are “going to be skeptical and ask questions and conduct vigorous oversight of government policies.”
The non-partisan American Israel Public Affairs Committee described the 112th Congress as “expected to be the most pro-Israel Congress ever” in its Near East Report on the incoming legislative class produced after the elections.
“Many of Israel’s strongest supporters were reelected,” according to the AIPAC report. “AIPAC lay leaders and staff have established relationships with every new senator” already and received position papers in which “the new members of Congress express their support for a strong US-Israel relationship.”
But others, particularly Democrats, are concerned about what effect the new Congress will have on Israel, especially since many of the freshmen are Tea Party candidates without a long history of involvement in international issues and bent on cutting the budget.
“My greatest concern is two-fold: one is the unknown [members] and second is the ramifications of the deep fiscal conservatism and what that means for foreign aid and America’s involvement in the world,” said David Harris, president and CEO of the National Jewish Democratic Council.
What's left unsaid is that the extent of support for Israel in this Congress is going to be dependent in many instances on Congress' willingness to clash with a President who does not feel any warmth toward the Jewish state (how's that for nuance?). The facts that the House is now controlled by Republicans and that most of the Senators facing elections in 2012 are Democrats makes it more likely - in my opinion - that Congress will be willing to go to the mat against the President when it comes to Israel.
The number of Jews in Congress is irrelevant (although Cantor's (pictured) position is nice). Most of Israel's support in the US these days comes from Christian Zionists like the ones who read this blog, and not, unfortunately, from Jews.
The New York Times raises the concern that Israel is becoming a partisan issue (in fact, it has been one for at least the last two years) in the US Congress, but frets that some Republicans may not be as supportive of Israel as we would like them to be. However, the Times only has one example: Rand Paul.
Scores of Tea Party-backed candidates are entering Congress, many of whom favor isolationist policies and are determined to cut American foreign aid, regardless of its destination. Rand Paul, the newly elected Tea Party-backed senator from Kentucky, bluntly told the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, that they were going to disagree about the need for foreign aid and suggested that they move on to other topics, according to a person briefed on the meeting.
...
Yet the Tea Party-backed lawmakers remain something of a mystery. One of their brightest stars, Marco Rubio, went on a personal trip to Israel days after winning his Florida Senate race. But pro-Israel analysts point out that Mr. Paul once said he did not view an Iran with one nuclear bomb as a threat, though he has subsequently been more hawkish. Mr. Paul did not reply to a request for comment.
Yes, there may be an issue with Rand Paul. But the same issues exist with some Democrats as well (Keith Ellison?).
But is the Tea Party Rand Paul or is it Marco Rubio? And didn't most of the Tea Party candidates (Christine O'Donnell) supposedly lose anyway?
I'll put up with one Rand Paul if the rest of the Republicans are more pro-Israel than their Democratic colleagues. Marco Rubio? John Boehner? Eric Cantor? Mike Pence? Do I need to go on?
I have a feeling this may just be the Times trying to head off a massive flood of Jewish votes to the Republicans in 2012. I'm inclined to wait and see how Paul behaves once the new Congress is in session.
UPDATE 2:05 PM
For a more positive view of Tea Party support for Israel, go here.
The Times also expresses concern about foreign aid to Israel, but the truth is that what Israel needs (and mostly gets) is military aid, much of which is paid for in cash or in kind, albeit generally at a discount.
Cantor spokesman clarifies remarks on Netanyahu meeting
Since none of the Leftist bloggers who attacked House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) bothered to call Cantor's office, here are some clarifications from Brad Dayspring, Cantor's press secretary regarding the readout they've been parsing since last Thursday.
As the author of these two sentences, I feel it is my obligation to set the record straight, starting with the first point: “Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington.”
This sentence was intended to summarize the portion of their conversation about the U.S. election. The checks and balances message was a dominant theme of the 2010 campaign, and certainly played a role in the defeat of many incumbent members. In that context, it would be difficult to imagine a serious conversation about the post-election shift in power without at least mentioning the role of the new Republican majority in the 112th Congress.
The separation of powers was designed by the Founders to prevent a majority from unbridled rule, prohibiting any branch of the new American government from attaining too much power. In a divided government, policy differences will naturally be more prevalent than during periods of one party rule.
With that in mind, it hardly seems shocking that a senior member of the House would reiterate the constitutional responsibility of checks and balances. Additionally, it is noteworthy that nothing in this sentence relates to, sides with, or advocates for Israel or its prime minister – despite efforts by Think Progress and others to insert that notion for argumentative convenience.
Second: “He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other.”
To be clear, Eric understands this special relationship, and he felt it important to make clear to the prime minister that the new Republican majority does as well.
Do you know who else does? According to this White House Press Office readout, President Barack Obama does: “…The President and the Prime Minister reaffirmed the strong, unbreakable bonds that characterize the special relationship between the United States and Israel.”
In other words, Eric reiterated administration policy, according to its own definition.
The second half of the statement, “and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other,” is something that Eric wanted to stress, particularly in the current global environment.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton seems to agree, if her remarks to AIPAC are any indication.
“Given the shared challenges we face,” Clinton said, “the relationship between the United States and Israel has never been more important. The United States has long recognized that a strong and secure Israel is vital to our own strategic interests. And we know that the forces that threaten Israel also threaten the United States of America. And therefore, we firmly believe that when we strengthen Israel’s security, we strengthen America’s security.”
Last, Rozen wrote on Politico, “Kampeas also characterized the one-on-one meeting between the prime minister and the lawmaker as unusual.”
Yet both Kampeas and Rozen failed to mention that on the same day Netanyahu met with Eric, the prime minister held a similar meeting with the New York Democrat, Sen. Chuck Schumer.
For some reason, neither found that meeting to be so unusual.
Somehow I doubt we'll be seeing any mea culpas from Kampeas, Rozen, Sullivan, Benen, etc. But this certainly is a different perspective.
Forgive me, but I was actually hoping the Leftists were correct and that Cantor really was telling Bibi, "we've got your back against Obama." My, my, these Lefties really are becoming paranoid, aren't they?
Liberals have been outraged by Representative Eric Cantor's (R-Va) meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu last week, and especially with the statement issued at the end of the meeting that said
"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," the readout continued. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."
The liberals have called for Cantor's prosecution under the Logan Act.
In an earlier post, I mentioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Damascus during the Bush administration. The liberals were silent on that occasion, but now some of them are quoting Cantor's reaction to Pelosi's trip in calling for his prosecution.
Laura Curtis gives a lengthy list of apparent violations of the Logan Act over the last 40 years - mostly by Democrats - and argues that the Logan Act should be enforced or repealed.
Are all these examples actual violations of the Logan Act? That’s for a court to decide, but the problem is that one never will. Government officials, especially Democrats, violate it with impunity because they’re confident they’ll never be prosecuted. It’s rare they even get bad press for doing so. If these were social visits, perhaps Democrats should reconsider who they’re hanging out with.
Isn’t the real lesson here that the Logan Act is meaningless except for its value as a political cudgel? If the Logan Act is not going to be enforced, it should be repealed. I don’t know whether Cantor violated the Logan Act by making those comments to Netanyahu but if the DOJ thinks he did, by all means, prosecute him for it. Democrats are going to be hit a lot harder by Logan Act enforcement than Republicans will. And if the DOJ continues to enforce the law unequally (sanctuary cities get a pass, yet Arizona is prosecuted; some voter intimidation is more equal than others) then the 2010 teanami is going to seem like a pleasant day at the beach for Democrats in comparison to the 2012 wipeout.
I believe that there is value to a Logan Act even if it is never enforced. I've been in Israel long enough to see the unfettered discretion self-appointed leaders appropriate to themselves in the absence of a Logan Act-type statute. In Israel, it's not just politicians who attempt to make their own foreign policy; private citizens attempt to do the same. For example, see this incident involving a 'Peace Now' activist who took US officials on a tour of Jewish towns in Samaria, apparently to point out construction going on in the aftermath of the 'settlement freeze.'
The value of a Logan Act that is never enforced is what the US Supreme Court has referred to as a 'chilling effect.' Even if the law is unlikely to be enforced, knowing the law is on the books is likely to make a person obey it, or at least be more discrete about violating it. For example, while the odds of being caught speeding may be quite low in certain areas, one will drive within the speed limit anyway, because there's always that small chance. It is for this reason that states were forced to remove laws - for example - that forbade inter-racial marriages in the 1950's and 1960's. Even though those laws were rarely, if ever, enforced, their existence acted to deter what they prohibited. The same is true of the Logan Act. That's why the Logan Act ought to stay.
If the Act is going to be enforced, it ought to be enforced fairly. But with the Holder Justice Department in power, there is little or no chance that anyone other than Cantor will be prosecuted. If anything, Cantor ought to be treated more leniently than most of the other cases Laura Curtis cites, because Cantor was dealing with an ally while the other cases dealt mostly with enemy states. There ought to be a difference.
Andrew Sullivan rips incoming House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va) for his meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu last week and his remarks about supporting Israel against the anticipated Obama administration onslaught.
This is a legitimate scandal worthy of far more attention. When dealing with foreign policy and climate change, Republicans believe in trying to deliberately sabotage the position of the U.S. government. The same is true of U.S. policy towards Iran, and in the case of New START, possibly even U.S. policy towards Russia. Now it's true of U.S. policy towards Israel, too.
It's obviously not unreasonable for Americans to debate whether the Obama administration is pursuing the correct course on foreign policy, and I fully expect members of Congress from both parties to demand accountability of the White House. People can and should speak out when they disagree with the administration's approach to Israel, Iran, Russia, or any other country.
But Cantor's move is something altogether different. Just a few years after he suggested it was literally criminal for an American official to talk to a foreign leader and work against the sitting president, Cantor has done just that.
Where's the outrage?
Where indeed?
Funny, I don't recall hearing anything from Sullivan in 2007 when then-House speaker Nancy Pelosi led a delegation of Democrats to Damascus to undermine the Bush administration's policy of isolating Bashar al-Assad.
So maybe Sullivan's (and Benen's) criticism is just partisan?
On Wednesday night, Prime Minister Netanyahu met for an hour with Eric Cantor (R-Va), the incoming House Majority Leader. Ben Smith has all the details here, but the statement issued after the meeting is a doozer and bears highlighting.
"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," the readout continued. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."
Veteran observer of U.S.-Israeli relations Ron Kampeas said he found that statement "an eyebrow-raiser."
"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president," Kampeas wrote at JTA's blog -- an interpretation which Cantor's office later disputed to Kampeas. (For my part, I detected in Cantor's statement on the meeting an effort as well to be a bit more restrained and statesman-like -- the nod to the United Nations -- than the usual partisan campaign fare of a hardcharging politico now moving into a Congressional majority leadership position that may require more diplomatic guidance than he needed as minority whip.)
Kampeas also characterized the one-on-one meeting between the prime minister and the lawmaker as unusual, adding that he has "it on good authority that as late as last week, Bibi's people were at pains to deny that such a meeting would take place."
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
