#FeelTheBern Sanders appoints 3 anti-Israel 'activists' to write Democratic party platform, Wasserman-Schultz appoints another one as chair, and Clinton appoints... Wendy Sherman
The Democratic party has revamped the way it appoints members of its platform committee, apportioning representation based on votes in the primary. As a result, Hillary Clinton has appointed six members of the platform committee, Bernie Sanders has appointed five, and party Chaircritter Debbie Wasserman Schultz ('I wear my support for Israel to work on my sleeve every morning') has appointed four.
One of Sanders' appointees is longtime anti-Israel activist James Zogby.
Sanders’s choices include James Zogby, a pro-Palestinian activist who
is president of the Arab-American Institute in Washington and a
frequent commentator on Arab-Israeli issues.
On Saturday Zogby
noted recent government shifts under Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
that consolidated his right-wing power base.
“His behavior has
been shameful, but so too is the extent to which Israelis, Americans and
others continue to enable his malevolent rule,” Zogby wrote.
The Obama administration has “repeatedly expressed displeasure over
Netanyahu’s settlement policies and his blatant interference in US
internal politics. Nevertheless the administration is now debating
whether to reward his government with a 10 year aid package valued at
$35 billion—while Netanyahu, supported by allies in Congress, is
brazenly holding out for $45 to $50 billion,” he wrote. “And so,
operating with virtually no restraints, Netanyahu continues to maneuver
and to aggressively advance his hard-line agenda. He maintains his grip
on power. Israeli society continues to become more extreme and
intolerant. Palestinians are more despairing and desperate. And peace
more remote.”
Other Sanders appointees include two other anti-Israel 'activists' - Cornel West and America's first Muslim Congresscritter, Keith Ellison.
One of Clinton's appointees is Wendy Sherman, the social worker turned nuclear negotiator, who brought us the disastrous nuclear agreements with Iran and North Korea.
And Wasserman Schutlz appointed as Chairman of the Platform Committee Representative Elijah Cummings, another member of the Hamas 54 (along with Ellison) who called for lifting the Gaza 'blockade' and letting Hamas continue to lob rockets at Israel.
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.
Israel to lose $175 million in foreign aid to US sequester
If President Obama and Congress don't reach a deal by Friday - and it seems unlikely that they will - Israel stands to lose $175 million in foreign aid as a result of the automatic sequester that is to take effect.
Israel is set to lose $143 million in foreign aid in 2013 and an
additional $32 million in direct military assistance if U.S. President
Barack Obama and Congress do not work out an agreement to prevent
automatic sequestration by Friday.
The cuts reflect a 8.2% cut in the remainder of Israel’s foreign aid
package for fiscal year 2013, and a 13% cut in the U.S. defense budget -
excluding military pay - from which Israel receives direct assistance
for specific military programs. Both aid packages are directed at
military assistance and security collaborations, though they come from
different sources within the U.S. budget.
Well-placed sources said that while aid to Israel enjoys wide support
in Congress, it has not been publicly singled out either by U.S.
lawmakers or by pro-Israel lobbyists during the ongoing and often
acrimonious debate about sequestration.
The sources added that although the sequestration aims to cut the U.S.
budget by $1.2 trillion over a period of ten years, from FY2014 onwards
it would be possible to exempt Israel from the mandatory budget
reductions.
I honestly don't believe that this will greatly impact Israel....
Meanwhile, Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Mn) unloaded on Sean Hannity on Fox News last night regarding the sequestration.
Of course: Muslim Congressman supports US foreign aid to Iran
I guess that it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise to anyone that Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Mn) supports giving US foreign aid to Iran. What is surprising (and maybe this also shouldn't be surprising) is that Keith Ellison has an ideological home in the US Democratic party.
Congressman Keith Ellison (D-Mn) wasn't too pleased with how the platform vote went on Wednesday at the Democratic National Convention.
Ellison was asked about his party's updating of their platform with the Jerusalem reference. But the congressman said the focus on it was misplaced.
"This issue is a side issue, it's a distraction issue," Ellison said. "And I personally believe that the last thing we need to do is have a big fight about the emergence of this issue. Because at the end of the day, we need a president who will try to bring these people together. And it won't be easy."
James Zogby seems even less pleased.
The language of the platform, the additional language, [is] absolutely inconsequential," said Dr. James Zogby of the Arab American Institute. "Frankly, we can live with it."
Yet Zogby blasted the way the proposal was adopted.
"You do not try to ram down the throat of Democrats, language that they had no time to think about or talk about," Zogby said. "I think they're disappointed in the way this happened."
"This was a mistake. The fact is … at the end of the day, you're not going to win five Jewish votes with what happened yesterday on the platform. But you may lose some Arab-American votes. That's a bad thing. This could've been handled in a way where the Jewish community felt empowered and the Arab-American community felt empowered. And everybody comes out a winner."
That's okay. The Arabs won on 'Palestinian refugees' and 1949 armistice lines. What could go wrong?
NJ-9 proves mainstream pro-Israel Democrats no longer have a place in the party
This is from an Adam Kredo post-mortem on the Democratic Congressional primary in New Jersey's reconstituted 9th Congressional district.
Other activists said the race proves that mainstream, pro-Israel Democrats no longer have a firm place in the party.
“It means there’s no room for a Steve Rothman in the Democratic Party anymore,” said one pro-Israel activist who is closely following the race. “There’s no room for someone who stands up for Israel and who is willing to defend Israeli policies and actions.”
Rothman and Pascrell fought to outflank one another as the most progressive nominee—except when it came to the Jewish state.
“It’s important to remember this is a primary, and the core of the Democratic Party was voting in this primary,” said the source. “And the core of the Democratic Party in northern New Jersey sided with radical, anti-Israel beliefs over a champion of the U.S.-Israel alliance.”
The “most troubling” aspect of the race, the source added, is that “there’s no question Steve Rothman was further to the left on domestic issues than his opponent, which means Democrats did not reject Rothman on any domestic issue, but rather rejected his support of the U.S.-Israel alliance.”
In the weeks leading up to the race, Pascrell refused to condemn the rhetoric of his Arab supporters who charged that Rothman put Israel’s interests above America’s, a charge reminiscent of anti-Semitic rhetoric employed by white supremacists and other hate groups.
An Arabic campaign poster supporting Pascrell that surfaced in the days before the election urged the “Arab diaspora community” to “elect the friend of the Arabs” and billed the race as “the most important election in the history of the [Arab] community,” according to a WFB translation of the sign.
Pascrell waged a charm offensive in the Arab community, campaigning alongside a Hamas sympathizer and others who have expressed hostility towards Israel.
He also held a high profile event at a local mosque where he was joined by Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn), a prominent ally of the fringe group J Street and the first Muslim member of Congress.
I've been arguing that pro-Israel Democrats no longer have a place in the party since Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut US Senatorial primary six years ago. But now, with the help of far Left bloggers like Daily Kos and ThinkProgress, the Lamonts and Pascrells of the World have become the center of the Democratic party.
And in this case, Arab countries that have never recognized Israel would implicitly be doing so when they voted to recognize a Palestinian state that envisioned itself beside Israel in a two-state solution to their conflict. That in itself would be a breakthrough, confirming Israel’s solid standing in the region.
This is hopelessly convoluted. Ellison is arguing that Arab votes for statehood for Palestine would implicitly mean that those countries recognized Israel and characterizes that legerdemain as a breakthrough. Who's he kidding? When Thomas Friedman launched the Saudi "peace initiative" the members of the Arab league couldn't even agree to promise normalization with Israel. If the Arab world couldn't come to expressly promise normalization then, how would a vote on a different topic (Palestinian nationhood) mean anything? Later on Ellison writes:
Criticisms of the Palestinian Authority’s desire for the United Nations to act include assertions that this approach to statehood is unilateral and precludes negotiations with Israel. Yet the process of gaining recognition from the United Nations Security Council is multilateral by definition.
Palestinian statehood was to come about by way of bilateral agreements between the Palestinian Authority and Israel. In that context, the UDI as it's called is unilateral. Ellison is simply changing the context. This isn't a serious argument it's sophistry. There's plenty more to argue with. I don't have the stomach to do a complete job.
2) Mearsheimer digs deep
Once Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer submitted to an interview with Robert Fisk that was illustrated with an American that had a filed of 6 - not 5 - pointed stars, I saw no reason to give them the benefit of the doubt about their motives. Now Mearsheimer has written a defense of his decision to write a forward to a book written by Gilad Atzmon. (via memeorandum) David Bernstein of the Volokh Conspiracy critiques Mearsheimer's defense:
Mearsheimer is not content to argue, as he does, that he didn’t know Atzmon from a hole-in-the-head, and endorsed the book because he found it provocative and interesting. If he had limited himself to this, he could have then added that he wasn’t aware of Atzmon’s anti-Semitic background and didn’t read the book in that light. Now that he knows, he regrets his association with Atzmon and the book.Nope. Mearsheimer actually defends Atzmon from the charge of anti-Semitism. So here’s my challenge to Prof. Mearsheimer: I will give you space on the Volokh Conspiracy to explain how you can absolve Atzmon from anti-Semitism after reading this excerpt froman interview with Atzmon, not coincidentally hosted on the website of notorious anti-Semite “Israel Shamir”.
After reading the quotes, I don't if anyone could explain that.
The university suspended the Muslim Student Union from campus for the fall semester; each of the offending Irvine students was disciplined. (The university declines to provide details because of federal privacy rights.) Yet the Irvine 11 - as they have become known - now face criminal misdemeanor charges for "conspiracy to disturb a meeting" and one misdemeanor count of "disturbance of a meeting." According to the prosecutor's office, each student could face up to six months in jail, if convicted. In a Feb. 4 news release announcing the charges, Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas asserted that the students' actions represented "a clear violation of the law and failing to bring charges against this conduct would amount to a failure to uphold the Constitution." Not true. Prosecutors make judgments all the time about whether justice would be served by trying particular cases. These types of disruptions are most frequently not prosecuted unless they result in threats or physical violence. Mr. Rackauckas has made his point; he should now use the power of his office wisely, give the students a warning and drop the charges. The protesters, too, have much to learn. Some have characterized the episode as trampling on the students' free-speech rights. That would have been the case had police officers tried to keep them from picketing outside of the auditorium during Mr. Oren's visit. That is not what happened. Instead, the students abused their privileges in an attempt to squelch the free-speech rights of others.
Given that the editorial acknowledged that the students went too far, I find it hard to justify the argument to drop the prosecution. Last week ten of the students were convicted. Even with Robert Mackey promoted to the Guardian, The Lede blog at the New York Times can be counted on to give a fair hearing to the anti-Israel side of the story:
Reached after the verdict on Friday, a lawyer for the students, Jacqueline Goodman, said they had acted because it was an opportunity to “speak directly to Michael Oren” about the violence in Gaza. “They couldn’t have foreseen they’d be convicted of a crime,” she said.Ms. Goodman said they planned to appeal the decision.At Sunday’s gathering in Orange County, Ms. Goodman reiterated that pledge. “We’re going to stand up and fight this,” she said, “even if it means going to the Supreme Court.”
The ADL provides background that shows that the Muslim Student Association isn't so innocent. Furthermore:
The university's investigation into the matter uncovered evidence that MSU organized a calculated demonstration at Ambassador Oren's speech in violation of university policy against disorderly conduct, obstructing university activities, furnishing false information and other campus policies.
“Every time there’s an event they’re opposed to, they disrupt it,” said Pam Chozen, a Laguna Beach resident who said she had felt concerned for her personal safety. “No one from the other side would think of disrupting an MSU event.”
Prof Eugene Volokh, though, found the prosecution and conviction to be sound.
I’m inclined to think that the situation here is quite different from that in In re Kay. First, the customs of presentation at universities seem to me to be much less tolerant of heckling; there is plenty of time for audience participation during Q & A, but shouting during the speech is not at all customary. (Perhaps the California Supreme Court got it wrong in interpreting the statute in a way that requires a determination of the particular customs of a certain kind of event; but that seems to be required under the Kay decision.)Second, and relatedly, the university administrators repeatedly stressed to students that such interruptions were improper. To the extent that Kay focused on what was said by the authorities during the meeting as evidence of custom (“Indeed, the principal speaker at the rally, an elected public official, stated that the relevant custom sanctioned the demonstrative conduct of petitioners as a legitimate means of expression”), this cuts the other way here.Third, while it’s hard to tell exactly how disruptive the hecklers were in Kay, it appears from accounts of the Irvine meeting and the court’s account in Kay that the Irvine hecklers were much more disruptive, and did indeed “substantially impair[] the conduct of the meeting.”
What's interesting here, is that Volokh writes that the Oren speech included a scheduled Q & A, as that would be the standard format for such a talk in an academic setting. An account from Stand with Us, confirms that a Q & A session was scheduled. This means that the students' lawyer lied about the heckling being the only way the protesters could address Oren, to The Lede, which, of course, published the statement without challenge. In a related article, Stanley Fish the Opinionator at the New YorkTimes asks Why has the conflict between Israel and much of the Arab world become a third-rail topic in the academy? I would argue that what's happened is that due to a number of factors (Daniel Pipes considers a number of them) the study of the Middle East has become increasingly politicized. Scholarship has been replaced by political correctness. It isn't that the Middle East conflict has become a "third rail" but that those who could challenge the corruption don't.
4) The only thing he should be managing is his anger
The New York Times and Washington Post carried slightly different accounts of Turkish PM Recep Erdogan's encounter with UN security. Neil MacFarquhar reported for the New York Times:
Mr. Erdogan was having a tête-à-tête with President Jalal Talabani of Iraq on the obscure fourth floor of the General Assembly hall — tiny meeting spaces have been tucked into every nook and cranny because the Secretariat Building is gutted for renovations. Learning that the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, was making his address demanding full United Nations membership for a state of Palestine, Mr. Erdogan, a big fan, rushed to the nearest entrance to take Turkey’s seat on the main floor. But the fourth floor is actually the visitors’ gallery, with no access to the main floor, and it was packed. So a United Nations security guard refused to let the Turkish leader pass. When Mr. Erdogan pressed forward, the guard pushed him (by most accounts), and then a fracas erupted that was audible four flours below.
A UN security guard was sent to the hospital. According to the New York Times, the Ban Ki Moon apologized to Erdogan. The AP has some additional details but couldn't confirm the apology.
The tumult caused a security alert that led to diplomats outside the General Assembly hall being ordered out of U.N. headquarters to wait in a steady rainstorm until the situation was under control.The sources say that initially as many as nine U.N. security guards were suspended but after a protest, they were called back to work and placed on administrative duty, out of uniform and off the beat as the matter is investigated. It was not immediately known if the Turkish security guards have been similarly reassigned or punished.One diplomat said he witnessed Turkish security officials being involved in another incident during a high-level meeting at the U.N. on Libya last Monday. The diplomat said a Turkish security member went under the rope in a cordoned-off corridor as U.S. President Barack Obama was about to arrive and was confronted by U.N. security guards. There was some pushing and shoving until Turkey’s U.N. ambassador stepped in and calmed the situation, the diplomat said.
I'm sure that the Turkish security guards were not punished. If anything, I'd guess that they were rewarded. It sounds as if Erdogan and company think that the regular rules don't apply to them. Yesterday the New York Times also reported In Riddle of Mideast Upheaval, Turkey Offers Itself as an Answer, a paean to the vision of PM Erdogan:
Not so long ago, the foreign policy of Turkey revolved around a single issue: the divided island of Cyprus. These days, its prime minister may be the most popular figure in the Middle East, its foreign minister envisions a new order there and its officials have managed to do what the Obama administration has so far failed to: position themselves firmly on the side of change in the Arab revolts and revolutions. No one is ready to declare a Pax Turkana in the Middle East, and indeed, its foreign policy is strewn this year with missteps, crises and gains that feel largely rhetorical. It even lacks enough diplomats. But in an Arab world where the United States seems in retreat, Europe ineffectual and powers like Israel and Iran unsettled and unsure, officials of an assertive, occasionally brash Turkey have offered a vision for what may emerge from turmoil across two continents that has upended decades of assumptions. Not unexpectedly, the vision’s center is Turkey.
There are good observations here mixed with an uncritical view of Erdogan's successes. (Omri Ceren recently argued that these successes are somewhat mixed.) But if the recent incidents at the UN are any indication, Erdogan's arrogance may well be his eventual undoing.
Alana Goodman reports that the Congressman from CAIR told J Street on Monday that 'progressive' members of Congress are afraid to take positions on Israel because it will hurt them electorally.
Ellison, who co-chairs the House Progressive Caucus, said that fellow caucus members who took positions that aren’t traditionally pro-Israel “found themselves primaried from the right on the issue of Israel.”
“There are prices to pay,” he added. “These folks who have impeccable pro Israel credentials found themselves in pretty tough primary races, and not just in one part of the country.”
He also stressed that J Street needed to be more effective at protecting these members of Congress from attacks from groups like the Emergency Committee for Israel.
“J Street needs to continue to strengthen its muscles … so that a politician can take a position that is pro-Israel, pro-peace, pro-Palestinian … and not have to worry about [election-cycle attacks],” said Ellison.
...
But according to Ellison, the pressure to be pro-Israel is so intense that the House Progressive Caucus often avoids taking positions on Israel because its members are so concerned about being attacked by pro-Israel organizations. “We don’t take them on because we can’t come to a clear consensus on the question,” said the congressman.
And the cause of this has to be... the conspiratorial Israel Lobby.
Let's go to the videotape.
No, Mr. Ellison. Your group doesn't take those positions because they are WRONG positions to take. And because the American people know it.
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
