#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.
'Our friends, the Saudis' funding Hillary's war on women and Israel
Greetings from Boston where the Sabbath doesn't start for quite a while. I was not on the ground very much yesterday, and when I was, I was trying to deal with a lost suitcase....
Nasser al-Rashid, an adviser to the Saudi royal family and one of the richest men in Saudi Arabia, has emerged as one of the largest donors to the Clinton Foundation, and his family members have emerged as large donors to the Democratic party.
Nasser al-Rashid, one of Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest figures and an adviser to the country’s royal family, has donated somewhere between $1 million to $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, putting him in an elite category of prominent donors.
Al-Rashid’s children—including one who pled guilty to assaulting his
estranged wife—have poured almost $600,000 into Democratic coffers
during the past several years, raising questions about influence
peddling by prominent foreign families.
The controversy has already rippled through Florida’s contentious
race for a Democratic Senate seat and threatens to further entangle
presidential contender Hillary Clinton, who has already faced questions
about her close ties to foreign governments.
“This raises a very simple question in my mind—why is this family of
one of Saudi Arabia’s richest billionaires and a key adviser to the
royal family pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into our political
system to elect and influence these Democrats?” asked Ian Prior, a
longtime Republican political operative and current spokesman for the
Senate Leadership Fund, which advocates the election of Republican
candidates.
Nasser Ibrahim al-Rashid, the family’s patriarch, is the founder and
chairman of the Riyadh-based Rashid Engineering, making him one of the
country’s top five wealthiest men.
His high-dollar donations to the Clinton Foundationput him in league with other prominent donors such as financial giant Barclays Capital and beer magnate Anheuser-Busch.
Al-Rashid's son Ibrahim might be even worse.
Al-Rashid’s three sons have followed in their father’s political
footsteps, contributing large sums to top Democrats, including Rep.
Patrick Murphy (D., Fla.), whose Senate race could help decide which
party controls the Senate in 2017.
Murphy has already returned a portion of al-Rashid’s donations due to his involvement in a domestic assault incident.
Ibrahim al-Rashid allegedly forced his way into his estranged wife’s
Pennsylvania home, where al-Rashid allegedly “grabbed her by the wrist,
struck her about the head and face with a closed fist then threw her to
the ground,” according to a copy of the police report viewed by the Free Beacon.
Following the 2014 incident, al-Rashid allegedly sent his wife a text
message stating, “I am not sorry this time I hope you die in hell,”
according to the police report.
Murphy, a longtime friend of al-Rashid, was recently forced to donate
around $16,000 in campaign funds to domestic violence groups after the
assault charge became a public liability for the campaign. Murphy also
returned all of the donations made by al-Rashid during the last three
political cycles.
However, that did not account for all of the money al-Rashid donated
in 2012 to a pro-Murphy Super PAC, prompting calls for Murphy to return
that money as well.
Al-Rashid has donatedat least$490,000mainly to Democratic campaigns,
the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, and Democratic Super
PACs, according to funding data, raising further questions about whether
these candidates and organizations also will return the controversial
cash.
Al-Rashid's other sons have also donated significant amounts to Democrats.
Ibrahim’s brother, Salman al-Rashid, also has sunk at least$57,600 into Democratic campaigns, including the DCCC.
This includes contributions to the campaigns of Murphy and Sen. Cory
Booker (D., N.J.), as well as Rep. Ted Deutch (D., Fla.), Rep. Keith
Ellison (D., Minn.), and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D., N.Y.), among
others, according to Federal Election Commission data.
A third son of Nasser, Mohammed al-Rashid, appears to have donated around $40,000 mainly
to Democrats, according to FEC data. This includes donations to the
DCCC, Murphy, Ellison, Booker, and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.,
Fla.), among others, according to the FEC.
One veteran political operative who has been tracking the 2016 election cycle told the Free Beacon that these donations raise questions about foreign influence in U.S. politics.
“Saudi Arabia is anti-Israel, anti-woman, and anti-human rights, yet
Hillary Clinton’s Foundation takes millions from the Saudi government
and well-connected billionaires like this al-Rashid,” the source said.
“Now we have down ballot Democrats looking the other way and taking
money from al-Rashid’s sons, one of whom committed domestic violence.
This from the party that uses divisive ‘war on women’ rhetoric at every
turn.”
Booker and Deutsch both have reputations for being pro-Israel. You have to wonder how true that is if they're taking money from the al-Rashid's.
This video came from Arutz Sheva (Hat Tip: Gershon D).
Let's go to the videotape.
Which party is pro-Israel? Which party is conducting a war on women? And why is Debbie "I wear my support for Israel to work on my sleeve every day" Wasserman Schultz taking money from the al-Rashid's?
Iran deal confirms need for regime change - but where?
In testimony to the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa, Matt Levitt reports that the main beneficiaries of the sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran are the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and Hezbullah.
While the Iran deal leaves much open to interpretation, one thing is
certain: for Iran this deal is strictly transactional, not
transformational. To the contrary, Iran is almost certain to increase
its clandestine activities and support for proxies engaged in asymmetric
warfare and reasonably deniable intelligence and terrorist operations.
In other words, Hezbollah is about to take a place of even greater
prominence within the planning of Iran's revolutionary elite. Hezbollah
heeded Tehran's call to step into the breach of the Syrian war, and as a
result has drifted even further into the Iranian orbit as a result of
its intimate operations with the IRGC there.
But designating only Hezbollah entities -- or those connected to other
Shiite militia or terrorist groups answering to Iran -- is not enough.
Whether through Treasury designations or other tools, IRGC and Qods
Force officers and entities engaged in Iran's ongoing illicit conduct
must also be taken to task.
There are many areas of the Iran deal that warrant close attention as
the agreement moves toward implementation. Contending with what
Secretary Lew referred to as "Iran's menacing behavior" -- in particular
through its own IRGC Qods Force and Lebanese Hezbollah -- must be at
the top of the list. Failure to do so would not only undermine the logic
of the Iran deal as articulated by the administration, it would also
add to the very real trust deficit currently affecting our relationships
with allies both in the region and around the globe...
Michael Rubin argues that the 'deal' is done, and the only answer now is for the West to push regime change in Iran.
With a deeply flawed JCPOA now a fact-of-life, with Iran empowered
and able to walk away with an industrial-scale, advanced nuclear weapons
program in 15 years, perhaps the best Plan B for the next
administration to consider is an all-out effort for regime change. After
all, the problem isn’t the Iranian people but rather the
unrepresentative theocracy which rules over them, nor is the problem
really the potential nuclear weapons; rather, it is those that would
wield them.
Regime change does not mean direct involvement, let alone military
involvement. Instead, it requires broadcasting geared to undermine the
regime and its legitimacy on bands to which the Iranian public actually
listens. It requires real and consistent support for Iranian trade
unions. With the IRGC or revolutionary foundations controlling most
Iranian industry and often failing to pay workers on time or failing to
provide them safe working conditions, there is ample room to organize.
If the Iranian government is forced to pump its windfall into back wages
rather than missiles, even Obama, and Senator Bernie Sanders cannot
object. And if those workers then organize and disrupt Iran’s oil
fields, for example, no one in Washington should shed any tears. There
are other economic tools in the U.S. arsenal as well which might exploit
the inflation that Iran will face as its economy absorbs its windfall
of cash.
There is no magic formula for regime change, but Obama and the
Democrats in Congress have effectively initiated a 15-year countdown.
Obama has cast America’s lot with Iran, and there is some wisdom to an
“Iranian strategy” so long as Iran is not led by the Islamic Republic.
Let the conversation begin, and efforts to undermine Khamenei’s rule to
accelerate exponentially. That would not only be the path to peace, it
would also be realization of a strategy that is decades too late in
coming.
Well, yeah, but who says we have 15 years (that assumes Iran abides by the deal)?
I also doubt that the Obama administration - or any successor Democratic administration - would be willing to do anything that would undermine the Iranian regime. Obama's whole goal in making Iran a nuclear-armed power was to provide a counter-balance to Israel in the Middle East. If Iran does not become a nuclear power, or is not willing to use that power, Israel remains the dominant power in the region, something the obsessively anti-Israel Obama (and the Left-dominated Democratic party) wish to avoid at all costs. This will only change if the Republicans win the next US Presidential election.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz (@DWStweets) puts party over country and people
It was really, really hard (/sarc), but Florida Congresswoman and Democratic party chairlady Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has chosen loyalty to her party, her position in the party and her fuhrer over loyalty to her constituents and to the Jewish people generally. Dumb Debbie is going to vote in favor of a nuclear-armed Iran.
"There's nothing that's more important to me, as a Jew, than to
ensure Israel's existence is there throughout our generations," she said
Sunday, choking back tears. Wasserman Schultz announced her vote for
the deal, which will ease economic sanctions in return for Iran scaling
back its nuclear program, on CNN's "State of the Union" and in an op-ed
for the Miami Herald.
Holding back tears, Wasserman Schultz said that in her op-ed, she
talks about her "Jewish heart and how important this [decision] was to
me ... as a Jewish mother."
"In weighing everything, all the information, I've concluded the best
thing to do is vote in support of the Iran deal and put Iran years away
from being a nuclear state," she said. The Obama administration secured
enough votes this week to ensure the deal will survive efforts to kill
it.
In making her decision, Wasserman Schultz met with President Obama,
Vice President Biden, Treasury Secretary Jack Lew, Secretary of State
John Kerry and Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, as well as dozens of
intelligence experts. She has been to the Situation Room twenty times in
the past two years, she said, and has personally verified with the
Obama administration that Iran will have to allow inspectors in to
verify that it is scaling back its nuclear capacity and cannot
self-inspect.
Wasserman Schultz said there are "a number of things" in the deal
that gave her "angst and pause" and made her decision to vote in favor
of it very difficult.
"I worry that the vigilance over the life of deal may wane ... that
complacency could set in," she said. "I worry that the additional
resources, no matter how little ... Iran could divert to terrorist
activity that could cause harm to Jews and others around the world. I
worry that we have to make sure that the monitoring is really as
gap-free as possible."
Despite her discomfiture with the deal, Wasserman Schultz said she is "confident" that she made the right choice.
כי אם החרש תחרישי בעת הזאת רווח והצלה יעמוד ליהודים ממקום אחר ואת ובית אביך יאבדו ומי יודע אם לעת כזאת הגעת למלכות.
With apologies to those who are Hebrew-impaired or don't get it... I am not going to explain the reference.
The real reason Debbie's voting in favor?
"Most importantly, I had the privilege of talking with President Obama
last night, who assured me that as we move forward and discuss with
Israel the enhanced security package that will absolutely be essential
for us to provide to Israel, as well as ensure that we tighten our
ability to enforce this deal that I'll be part of a group of members of
Congress that's working with his administration on that," said Wasserman
Schultz.
Unless they're giving us bunker busters immediately that can do what the US won't (and giving us the unrestricted right to use them), this is pretty worthless. But it's a nice candy for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, who wears her loyalty to Israelher fuhrer to work on her sleeve every day.
Jonathan Tobin takes the Union of Reform Judaism to task for refusing to take a position on President Obama's sellout to a nuclear-armed Iran.
From the point of view of those opposed to the Iran nuclear deal, the decision of the Union of Reform Judaism (URJ) to sit out the battle
is not the worst possible outcome. To expect a religious denomination
whose very identity is inextricably tied with liberal politics to take a
stand against President Obama — a man that the majority of their
adherents likes and admires — was a stretch. That was especially true
since the president is treating this debate as a litmus test of loyalty
to the Democratic Party. Equally unlikely was the possibility that the
Reform movement would align itself with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu — a man that most of their members dislike and distrust — on
any issue. Indeed, the unwillingness of the URJ to join the ad hoc group
of liberal rabbis that have endorsed the pact with Iran reflects the
unease among even liberal Jews who care about Israel over what President
Obama has done. Yet the eagerness of Reform leader Rabbi Rick Jacobs to
pat himself on the back for staying out of the fray merits criticism.
Contrary to Jacobs’s formulation, the real problem with the debate about
Iran is not the nature of the rhetoric being used by both sides but the
way in which the administration is downgrading the U.S.-Israel
alliance. As difficult as it may be for Reform Jews to admit it, Obama
is forcing his Jewish admirers to choose between him and Israel and that
is not a choice any American, let alone a Jewish supporter of the
Jewish state, should be asked to make.
That's true. But count this non-admirer of Obama's as someone who could have predicted that the one thing the official arm of Reform Judaism could not do would be to oppose what President Obama has in effect turned into a 'no confidence' vote on his Iran policy. For most Reform Jews, loyalty to the Democratic party - and particularly to its Left wing - trumps any identification with Judaism or Israel.
When President George H.W. Bush spoke of fighting a lobby when he
opposed loan guarantees to Israel in 1991, a united Jewish community
slammed him for using language that was redolent of anti-Semitic slurs.
When conservative commentator Pat Buchanan also spoke of Jews not
fighting in a war they wanted America to fight for Israel, he was
labeled an anti-Semite. Yet liberals aren’t being as tough on Obama with
many of them looking for ways to rationalize or excuse his rhetoric.
Yes, yours truly slammed Bush Senior for his behavior toward Israel. For that matter, if you look back in this blog, I slammed Bush Junior many times too, even though he might have been the most pro-Israel President the US ever had this side of Lyndon Johnson. I am more loyal to the Jewish people and to Israel than to any American political party (I moved to Israel in 1991). But you won't find a whole lot of liberals slamming Obama on Iran (Tobin mentions Leon Wieseltier; I could have added Alan Dershowitz).
In examining the choices that the URJ and other liberal Jewish groups
face, it is fair to ask how they would react if a Republican president
had embraced détente with Iran and feuded with Israel. The answer is
pretty obvious. In spite of the growing alienation of many of their
members from Israel, even the Reform movement would have acted as
American Jews did a generation earlier when the elder Bush aligned
himself against a Jewish state that had yet to take the sort of risks
for peace that were made in the following two decades.
Polls have showed that the majority of Americans oppose the deal with
Iran. But if the deal is going to survive, it will be because
partisanship is a far more potent factor in our political life than many
of us are prepared to admit. If Reform Jews are incapable of choosing a
side in a battle where the interests of the Jewish people and the U.S.
is at stake, it is because they reflect the demographic reality of an
American Jewry that sees liberal politics as being equal to if not more
important than their support for Zionism. Throw in their affection for
Obama and antipathy for Netanyahu and the Reform decision not to back the president must be seen as a victory of sorts for the deal’s opponents.
Greetings once again from thirty-something thousand feet. This time I'm on my way to... Philadelphia (sorry Philly fans - not staying very long and not planning to leave the airport).
Remember President Hussein Obama's and Hillary Clinton's non-existent 'Asia re-pivot' from the first term? Michael Rubin argues that it's Israel that ought to be re-pivoting toward Asia and away from the Jew-hating Europeans.
Israel has long considered itself almost a European country; the
European immigration that marked early Zionism shaped that character,
even if geography and immigration from Turkey, Iran, India, and the Arab
world also bestowed Israel with a Middle Eastern character. Indeed, Tel
Aviv is much like Alexandria and Beirut once were, and like Istanbul
still is, at least for the time being: a veritable mixing grounds of
east and west.
For too long, however, Israel has if not ignored Asia than put it on
the backburner. Sure, there was been sporadic outreach to China, but
this was both half-hearted and misguided: When it comes to the Middle
East, Beijing is the ultimate realist. Immediate commercial concerns
means everything, broader principle mean little if anything.
India—the world’s largest democracy—was largely hostile to the Jewish
state for the same reason it was hostile to the United States. Indian
nationalist diplomat Vengalil Krishnan Krishna Menon coined the term
‘non-alignment’ in a 1953 United Nations speech, and the following year
Jawaharlal Nehru, India’s first prime minister, co-founded the
Non-Aligned Movement. In theory, it sought a third path separate from
the Cold War rivalry between the Soviet Union and the United States but
in practice it was marked by disproportionate hostility to the West.
Non-alignment, a fondness for socialism, and a suffocating
bureaucracy hostile both to direct foreign investment and free market
enterprises long restrained India’s economic potential. While India
still has a way to go, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has sought to bring
India’s economy, political culture, and foreign into the 21st
century. He recognizes how much India and Israel have in common. They
are both democracies in a region where democracies otherwise have not
thrived. And Islamist radicals target them both. In the case of both,
land disputes — be they have Jerusalem and its environs in Israel’s
case, or the Kashmir in India’s — are only an excuse for a far more
murderous agenda.
Earlier this year, Modi announced that he would become the first Indian leader to visit Israel. Among tech-savvy Indians, the twitter hashtag #IndiaWithIsrael is trending. Nor does it seem that Modi’s looming visit will be the end-all and be-all of warming ties. As COMMENTARY readers know, the UN Human Rights Council has long been a cesspool of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic bias. Consider these statistics
of cumulative Council condemnations from its founding in 2006 to the
present: Israel has been condemned more than 60 times, yet slave-holding
Mauritania, blogger-whipping Saudi Arabia, journalist-repressing
Turkey, freedom-extinguishing China, migrant worker-killing Qatar, and
expansionist Russia have faced no condemnation. Condemning Israel has
become a knee-jerk reaction around the world and, for decades, it has
been India’s position as well. But on Friday, July 3, India shocked
the Council by abstaining on its condemnation of Israeli actions in
last year’s Gaza War. Now an abstention isn’t the same as a vote
against, but clearly India-Israel relations are on the upswing, or could
be if Israeli leaders are willing to work hard to cultivate them.
But India is not alone. The Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC)
has long sought to cultivate ties between Israel and other Southeast
Asian countries—Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore, the Philippines, and
even Malaysia. The momentum is promising, as have been the results
considering the relatively small scale. If Israel made a concerted
effort to cultivate these ties, they might find a much more receptive
audience than in past years. Not only would this create a strategic
buffer, but it might also correct the narrative that all Muslims embrace
the radical, anti-peace positions put forward by more rejectionist Arab
states and European and American proponents of the Boycott, Divestment,
and Sanctions (BDS) movement. After all, Indonesia is the largest
Muslim country on earth by population, and India the second largest,
even though it is not even majority Muslim.
Such diplomacy need not be an either-or scenario, but just as
Washington navel-gazes and forgets that the United States and the
targets of our interest are not alone in the sandbox, so, too, do
Europeans forget that they are not the world’s moral barometer or the
doyens of the elite club with which everyone wants favor. Not only is
Southeast Asia booming as many of its countries largely abandon ruinous
socialist practices and authoritarianism, but many now also face the
same Islamist terror threat which Israel has been confronting for
decades.
By the way, found out yesterday that someone we know - an American married to a Spaniard living in France for more than 20 years - is immigrating to Israel this summer with her family. Last Jew out of Europe should please shut the lights of decency, human rights and intellectual achievement. Europe's brain drain is exactly what it deserves.
Yet to think of ISIS and Hamas as being in a state of war may be to
overestimate their hostility and underrate their grasp of political
reality. Hamas doesn’t so much fear ISIS as it does worry about a wild
card group making decisions for them about war with Israel at a moment
when they might prefer to continue the truce with the Jewish state.
Similarly, ISIS has enough on its plate fighting in Syria and Iraq
against forces that would like to see it destroyed without opening up a
new front in Gaza at a moment when its strength there is minuscule
compared to the enormous military that Hamas can deploy against Israel.
But despite animosity and distrust, it is more than obvious that both
Hamas and ISIS share a common enemy in Egypt. The Sisi government in
Cairo is dedicated to the eradication of the Muslim Brotherhood and
regards Hamas, which was founded by Brotherhood supporters and whose
help to the group during the unrest in Egypt was included in the charges
against former President Mohammed Morsi, as a hostile entity. Egypt is
even more determined to isolate Gaza than Israel. In that sense, the
Hamas-ISIS connection is a natural alliance.
That’s why Hamas has a vested interest in creating more chaos in
Sinai than exists along its border with Israel. No matter what their
opinion of each other might be, Hamas understands that the Egyptian
government is a far more dangerous threat to its continued survival than
is Israel. Under the circumstances it doesn’t take much of a leap of
imagination to believe that Israel’s intelligence about
Hamas’s involvement in ISIS activities in Sinai has the ring of truth.
This realization ought to do more than cause concern in both Cairo
and Jerusalem. The Sinai had already been transformed into something of a
Wild West for terror in the years since a bloody Hamas coup allowed the
group to seize control of the independent Palestinian state (in all but
name) that currently exists in Gaza. But with ISIS moving into the void
of security that the Sinai has become, a low level conflict with
terrorists may be about to turn into something far more serious.
More to the point, this tacit alliance between otherwise rival
Islamist terror groups ought to cause some foreign policy experts
who have regarded Western acquiescence toward Hamas’s continued grip on
Gaza as a given to rethink that assumption. If Gaza is no longer merely a
launching pad for rockets and tunnels aimed at terrorizing Israelis but
is also a base for terror aimed at toppling moderate Arab governments,
continued tolerance of its sovereignty in Gaza is not only morally
wrong; it is a suicidal proposition for the West.
Just as the Israelis have refrained from toppling Hamas in Gaza lest
they be stuck governing the dysfunctional strip, so too do Western
nations have a distaste for regime change in the strip. But perhaps it
is time that those who were so quick to criticize Israel for launching a
counter-attack against Gaza-based terrorism last summer realize that
the perpetuation of Hamas rule there is a threat to more than the Jewish
state. So long as an Islamist terror group has a secure base next to
both Egypt and Israel and is getting aid from Iran, it is reasonable to
assume that it will be undermining the security of both of those states
as well as the rest of the region.
While I cannot prove it empirically, there are many scholars who believe that had Adolph Hitler and the Nazis (may their name and memory be obliterated) not been so obsessed with murdering Jews, the outcome of World War II might have been different and we might all be speaking German now. Will the West (particularly Europe and the Democratic party in the US) allow its all-consuming hatred of Israel and/or Jews to overlook the storm that is brewing in Gaza?
First, the prime minister should not cancel his trip just because the
White House and the Democrats are whining about it. They are not upset
because there wasn’t the usual coordination on this invitation between
the White House and Congress; they are upset because Netanyahu
intimidates the Democrats and exposes the weakness of their commitment
to stopping Iran from having nuclear weapons. Netanyahu’s presence will
put in vivid relief the lip service the Democrats give to the
U.S.-Israel alliance and Washington’s ambivalent support for Israel
under President Obama. The fact is, the Democrats have been artful at
maintaining a sizable majority among Jewish voters at home despite being
much less supportive of the state of Israel than Republicans have been
for at least the past 20 years. Netanyahu’s planned visit helps expose
that disconnect. Obama has refused to meet with Netanyahu, Vice
President Joe Biden will conveniently be traveling overseas,
and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) went so far as to say
that Democrats may not attend the joint meeting because “it’s not a high-priority item for them.” Really? That doesn’t sound like a mere excuse; Pelosi wanted to deliver an insult — and she succeeded.
As
I always say, in politics, it’s best to start from an honest place.
America’s relationship with Israel is nothing new, but we are at a point
now where that relationship needs to be politically recalibrated. The
Democrats need to either renew their support for Israel or admit their
diminished commitment.
The second reason Netanyahu needs to
address Congress is that Obama is not making the case that America must
be prepared to do whatever it takes to stop Iran from making a nuclear
weapon. In fact, Obama appears to be doing the opposite.
He is allowing Iran to skate by, leaving much of its nuclear
infrastructure in place and accepting at face value the Iranians’
promise that they are absolutely not lying about their nuclear
intentions this time. Alarm bells are ringing and bipartisan experts are
cautioning against the trajectory the Obama administration is taking
with its negotiations. Obama seems to be focused on making a unilateral
agreement that would allow him to say in one of the future books he
plans on writing about himself that Iran didn’t have a single nuclear weapon under his watch. That seems to be driving the train here, but that isn’t going to keep us safe in the long run.
Has Israel got anything to lose with the Democrats?
Netanyahu response to Biden skipping speech should be "Big F'ing deal!" Ah, the embarrassment continues with these clowns.
— ODCGIRL (@ODCGIRL127) February 6, 2015
Does Israel really have anything to lose with the Democrats? Flashback 2012. Let's go to the videotape.
Zaid Jilani has many credentials as an activist of the left. He was a
blogger at the Center for American Progress’ Think Progress site, the
unofficially official spin project for Obama Inc, until he was fired for excessive anti-semitism, even by the standards of a site run by a man who had helped fundraise for Hamas before going to work for Nancy Pelosi.
Jilani went on to blog for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee,
also known as Bold Progressives, which is behind the Draft Elizabeth
Warren campaign. He currently writes for Salon.
Ronald Reagan famously quipped, "I didn't leave the Democratic party. They left me." Could it be that American Jews are starting to do the same? According to Michael Goodwin, there are some hopeful signs (Hat Tip: Jammie Wearing Fool).
So, is this the moment when American Jews realize the Democratic Party has left them?
Gallup surveyed 88,000 Americans through June and found that 55
percent of Jews approved of the president, while 41 percent disapproved.
Among all religious groups, Muslims gave him the highest approval, at
72 percent.
The 55 percent Jewish approval marks a big decline from the 69
percent of the Jewish vote Obama got in 2012, and the 78 percent he got
in 2008.
Despite what anti-Semites believe, not all Jews care equally about
Israel, and certainly don’t agree on what is best for Israel. Other
issues affect their vote as well.
Still, the well-being of the lone Jewish state is a significant
factor for many, and they want a president who shares their concern.
Given Obama’s recent hostile conduct and comments, a new poll likely
would find his support falling even more.
It’s not a “Reagan moment,” but it’s getting closer.
Party uber alles: Emergency Committee for Israel statement on withdrawal of Democratic support for vote on Iran sanctions bill
The Emergency Committee for Israel has issued a statement on the withdrawal of support by Senate Democrats for forcing a vote on the Menendez-Kirk Iran sanctions bill.
We commend 42 Senators for their strong letter demanding a vote on S. 1881, the bipartisan Nuclear Weapon Free Iran Act, which has been cosponsored by more than half of the Senate. The bill is simple and reasonable. It would reimpose existing sanctions suspended under the interim agreement if Iran cheats; it would ensure that a final agreement requires Iran to dismantle its illicit nuclear infrastructure; and it promises to impose additional economic sanctions in the future should Iran fail to agree to a final deal that dismantles its nuclear infrastructure.
As the Senators put it in their letter to the Majority Leader, “Now we have come to a crossroads. Will the Senate allow Iran to keep its illicit nuclear infrastructure in place, rebuild its teetering economy and ultimately develop nuclear weapons at some point in the future?”
The answer to this question must be no. The Senate should act now to deliver that answer. It would be nice if there were universal bipartisan support for acting now to stop a nuclear Iran. But there apparently is not. And it would be terrible if history's judgment on the pro-Israel community was that it made a fetish of bipartisanship -- and got a nuclear Iran.
Unfortunately, that seems to be exactly the direction in which we are headed. The 'pro-Israel community' is being made into a fetish of bipartisanship, and a nuclear Iran is likely to result.
AIPAC gives cover to Debbie Wasserman Schultz's anti-AIPAC campaign
Are there some Congresscritters who are too big to oppose? That appears to be the case with Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fl). Adam Kredo reports that none other than AIPAC itself is giving cover to Dumb Debbie's anti-AIPAC campaign.
AIPAC’s initial letter on the controversy, which circulated two weeks
ago, urged Wasserman Schultz’s constituents to “respectfully ask” that
she clarify her position on the congressional measures and issue a
statement supporting them.
However, on Jan. 24, AIPAC’s Southeastern states director Mark
Kleinman issued a second letter, this one defending Wasserman Schultz.
Some pro-Israel activists in South Florida are not happy about AIPAC
reversing course to defend Wasserman Schultz, who continues to stand in
opposition to the group’s own legislative efforts.
“Friends, I wanted to forward a statement issued by AIPAC national
board member Ike Fisher after the Huffington Post released an inaccurate
article regarding AIPAC and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz,”
Kleinman wrote in the letter sent on AIPAC letterhead, a copy of which
was obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
“Thank you and Shabbat Shalom,” Kleinman added before attaching a statement from board member Fisher.
“Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz has a strong record of support for
the U.S.-Israel relationship,” read Fisher’s statement. “She is a good
friend of Israel and a close friend of AIPAC, and we look forward to our
continued work together for many years to come.”
The letter did not state why AIPAC considers the Huffington Post report to be inaccurate.
When asked about the controversy on Twitter, Huffington Post reporter Jennifer Bendery said that no one at AIPAC ever “contacted me with any problems.”
“Sounds like they just need an excuse to flip,” Bendery said on Twitter.
Fisher, by the way, is the guy who told Florida Jews in 2008 that Barack Hussein Obama is a genuine supporter of Israel. A lot he knows....
But the real question is why AIPAC is supporting Wasserman Schultz despite the fact that anyone with their eyes open and a brain in their head can see that her position on Iran sanctions stands in stark opposition to AIPAC's. Kredo has an ominous explanation.
Jewish activists in Washington and South Florida say that AIPAC’s
flip-flop is unusual for an organization that typically exercises great
restraint and discipline.
“This is clearly a problem for them,” said another pro-Israel
activist for has worked with AIPAC. “One of these letters shows their
incompetence; we’re just not sure which one it is.”
Others said that the contradictory letters are a sign of deeper trouble at AIPAC.
“This is only the beginning,” said Steve Rosen, a former top AIPAC
official. “At the center of AIPAC is bipartisanship and the day it
breaks with either of two parties is the day it ceases to exist—and
they’re pretty close to this.”
AIPAC is facing a “terrible dilemma because [Wasserman Schultz] is not going to change her position,” Rosen said.
And you thought that J Street would support the Democrats and AIPAC would end up supporting the Republicans, didn't you?
Today the Emergency Committee for Israel released "Double Talk," a 30-second TV ad that will begin airing this weekend in Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz's congressional district.
The ad highlights Wasserman Schultz's attempt to deceive her constituents by portraying herself as a staunch supporter of Iran sanctions -- even as news reports confirm she is working behind the scenes to kill bipartisan House and Senate measures that endorse new sanctions should talks with Iran fail.
The spot will air multiple times on cable news and Sunday political shows in South Florida over the next several days.
Emergency Committee for Israel executive director Noah Pollak said, "Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is trying to play her pro-Israel constituents for fools -- telling them she supports Iran sanctions while she's hard at work in Washington trying to kill bipartisan House and Senate measures for the most partisan of reasons."
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
