Herman Cain is getting an education on the Middle East. Here he is on Fox News in May. Note what he has to say regarding 'Palestinian refugees.'
Let's go to the videotape.
Fast forward five months. Here's what Cain told Yisrael HaYom in Friday's editions.
I believe that his lack of a firm stand regarding Israel has emboldened Israel’s enemies, and America's enemies. When I was in Israel in August, I met with the deputy prime minister and he said that this was one of the biggest concerns that they had. Because he threw Israel under the bus with the statement about the 1967 borders. He just threw them under the bus. He threw Prime Minister Netanyahu under the bus prior to his visit to America. In a Cain administration there would be no question in the minds of the world and the American people that we would stand with Israel. No question. It wasn’t the president's right to suggest that they change those borders and I didn’t agree with that. For example, I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak. I haven’t seen all the facts but I think this whole assassination attempt [alleged Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in Washington] was another example of seeing this president as weak, in that regard. So, weakness invites attack and I think that he has projected a sense of weakness. [Emphasis and link added. CiJ]
He then went on to say that he would move the US embassy to Jerusalem. And that he'd take Newt Gingrich as his Vice President. Hmmm.
Daniel Greenfield has a lengthy analysis of Texas Governor Rick Perry's record on dealing with Islam and Muslims in his home state. He raises some valid concerns, but he also raises some concerns which I found irrelevant.
For instance, he worries that under Texas' Halal law (see signing above), which he admits is similar to Kosher laws in many states, militant Islamists may get to decide... whether meat is Halal or not.
Then there's the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that's not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.
"Halal," as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.
That comes from the bill's definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.
Not really. Is he suggesting that the statute should have named an organization? That would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is precisely why it's not done that way. Besides, the law is a consumer protection law, designed to make sure that there is some minimum standard. It doesn't preclude more than one authority and it doesn't mean that everyone has to accept one particular authority. There are plenty of 'rabbinic authorities' who have the right to advertise themselves as Kosher in New York and New Jersey (and Israel for that matter) whose Kashruth I would not trust.
On the other hand, this point raised by Greenfield bothers me more.
As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn't stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.
Well, yes. And unless we can elect someone like a Marco Rubio or Allen West - whose pro-Israel credentials are solid and long predate their running for President - we're going to see Presidents in the US who will come under pressure from the Arab world and who mayalmost certainly will cave in to it. The question is to what extent and how strongly they will pressure Israel as a result. Ronald Reagan is remembered as a solidly pro-Israel President and yet if you recall how he pressured Israel during and after Operation Peace for Galilee (the 1982 First Lebanon War), you might think otherwise.
At the end of the day, Greenfield has this right:
Whatever we say and do, he may be the inevitable candidate. The man who merges the strongest points of Huckabee and Romney into one populist friendly package. Who sells a pro-business compassionate conservatism that comes off as a low pain alternative to Obama. But before that it might not be such a bad thing to pore over the details of his record in office.
Perry is certainly an improvement on Obama. But in a race where Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Palin and Gingrich have spoken out about the dangers of Islam-- everyone is gathering to cheer a man who celebrates it. Is this what the struggle of the last 3 years comes down to? Did we go through all this just to put Bush era policies back into office?
Well, yes. But Palin's not running yet, and Gingrich and Cain have no chance (I guess Daniel did a quick edit to take Pawlenty out). Are Bachmann and Santorum electable? Because much as I like them, I'd rather have Perry (or Romney for that matter) than four more years of Obama (something from which - in my view - neither the US nor Israel is likely to recover in our lifetimes).
Mr. Cain said that, as commander-in-chief, he would “make it crystal clear [that] if you mess with Israel, you’re messing with the United States of America,” but stressed that his “Cain Doctrine” would not be a “blank check” for Israeli military action.
“There will be a set of conditions and circumstances that I will work with Israel on for them to understand that they cannot abuse that doctrine,” said Mr. Cain, a former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza.
However, if Israel is ever attacked first by Iran, he said he is “not going to sit back and get a vote from the United Nations as to what we ought to do.”
“If they [Iran] start lobbing rockets and stuff over at Israel, then we’re going to shoot back with Israel,” he said.
This isn't really much of a big deal. First, he's not advocating preemptive action, which is probably what's really needed. Second, I'm sure that most Republicans whose name isn't Ron Paul and most Democrats whose name isn't Barack Obama would attack Iran without waiting for UN approval if Iran attacked Israel first. The question is who is willing to take the initiative to stop Iran before it can attack. Unfortunately, so far, I don't see that from Herman Cain. Maybe he would take preemptive action and maybe he would not, but there is no conclusive evidence one way or the other here. If anything, his caveat to Bolton's statement indicates that he would not take preemptive action.
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
