The National Jewish Democratic Council immediately called on members of the Republican Party to denounce Huckabee’s comments, saying it is “not
only disgustingly offensive to the President and the White House, but
shows utter, callous disregard for the millions of lives lost in the
Shoah and to the pain still felt by their descendants today.”
“It may be the most inexcusable we’ve encountered in recent memory,” the organization added in a statement.
The Anti-Defamation League, a group that fights antisemitism,
said that while they are wary of the deal, Huckabee’s comments are “completely out of line and unacceptable.”
“To hear Mr. Huckabee invoke the Holocaust when
America is Israel’s greatest ally and when Israel is a strong nation
capable of defending itself is disheartening,” said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, in a statement.
The NJDC is an organization of the Democratic party that has come out in favor of the Iranian nuclear sellout. It exists to promote the Democratic party (and Jewish donations to it) and is definitely not Jewish. The ADL is a group of paranoid liberals that is too busy finding anti-Semitism on every street corner to think about what it means to be Jewish. In fact, I am surprised that they did not accuse Huckabee of being an anti-Semite.
I have never heard of any of the other organizations cited, although I do 'know' one of the people cited from his online persona.
And in true Leftist fashion not a single comment supporting Huckabee has been cited.
"Look, we have a very serious disagreement with the administration on
a very serious issue," Ambassador Ron Dermer told Capital Download.
"But what I don't doubt is the sincerity of the president or his team
when they say they believe this deal not only makes America safe but
makes Israel safe. Where we disagree is the judgment of actually what
this deal is going to do."
On Huckabee's comments, he said: "These are not words that I would use or that I think are appropriate."
But what did you expect him to saywhile he's the Ambassador? That Obama is at best indifferent and at worst hostile to Israel's existence as a state? Consider what Dermer's predecessor wrote once he was out of office (from a review by John Podhoretz):
It’s not that there’s lots of breaking news in “Ally” that will
startle people. Rather, it makes news on almost every page with its
incredibly detailed account of the root hostility of the Obama
administration toward the Jewish state.
What makes the details especially credible is that Oren is no
flame-breathing Israeli right-winger but very much (and at times
distressingly) an Establishment creature and one, moreover, who makes it
clear he drank the Obama hope-and-change Kool-Aid in 2008. (Indeed, he
now serves in Israel’s Knesset not as a member of Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud
but of the new centrist Kulanu party.)
On major matters, the administration seemed to hold Israel accountable for problems it had nothing to do with.
Example: The Palestinian Authority made moves toward seeking a
declaration of statehood at the United Nations in 2011, which would’ve
triggered a law shutting down their US mission and suspending all aid to
the PA and to UN agencies that recognized Palestine.
In response, Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides called Oren into his
fancy Foggy Bottom office and screamed at him: “You don’t want the
f - - - ing UN to collapse because of your f - - - - ing conflict with
the Palestinians, and you don’t want the f - - - king Palestinian
Authority to fall apart either.”
To which Oren replied that Israel didn’t want the United Nations to
collapse “but there are plenty of Tea Party types who would, and no
shortage of Congress members who are wondering why they have to keep
paying Palestinians who spit in the president’s eye.” He reports that
Nides “slumped into his Louis XVth chair.”
Oren also writes about bizarrely petty offenses. In 2010, Obama left
Israel off a list of countries he mentioned as having helped in the wake
of the Haiti earthquake when it was the first nation in the world to
dispatch relief teams and get them to the disaster sites — because the
president was angry about something having to do with the peace process.
Even when the administration is acting friendly, Oren senses it is
doing so not out of genuine fellow feeling but to keep Israel close —
hugging it to prevent it from acting, especially when it came to Iran’s
nuclear program.
I'd bet that Dermer is a lot closer to Huckabee and Oren on this than he is to the ADL or the NJDC - he just can't say so.
My own view is that while I'm averse to Holocaust analogies (they make me cringe because I think they're overused), there is something to the notion that 'ovens' reflects Obama's deepest wishes for the people of Israel, if not for (non-liberal) Jews generally. And it certainly reflects what Iran wants to do with its nuclear program.
The National 'Jewish' Democratic Council doesn't just support President Hussein Obama's nuclear sellout to Iran because there's no choice. They 'strongly support' it.
The statement is likely a signal to wavering Democrats, including Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY).
In a statement explaining
its reasoning, the NJDC ignores the fact that the deal expires after a
decade, and that it will give billions of dollars to Iran, some of which
will fund terror. The NJDC also ignores the fact that the deal will
lift an arms embargo and ballistic missile sanctions on Iran over time.
The NJDC seems to rely on an analysis by the White House that the
deal meets the five conditions set out by the Washington Institute for
Near East Affairs. Those White House talking points are false; the Iran deal fails each of the Institute’s criteria.
The NJDC also claims the deal achieves “the core goals of
negotiations and will ultimately lead to a safer and more secure
region.” But the deal does not even meet the administration’s own goals,
and our regional allies are unanimous in opposing it–including the
Israeli left.
...
In its rhetoric and aims, Iran is little different from the Nazi
regime. One could understand if the NJDC gave the Iran deal reluctant
support, out of a mistaken belief that there is no alternative.
But to “strongly support” a deal with the Iranian regime–especially a
flawed agreement such as this one–is to collaborate with the Nazis of
today.
Both Democrats and Republicans have something to crow about in a new Smith poll regarding Israelis' views on President Hussein Obama. While fewer Israelis consider Obama hostile to Israel than was the case in the past, most are not yet willing to declare that he is more pro-Israel than pro-'Palestinian.'
The National Jewish Democratic Council and
the pro-Republican Emergency Committee for Israel both claimed victory and spun
the numbers in favor of their agenda.
“I’ve been in Israel since before
President Obama arrived and was in the convention center for the extremely
well-received speech,” NJDC interim executive director Aaron Keyak said. “The
Israeli public has reacted very positively to the president’s visit and his
message that the United States has Israel’s back. President Obama sent this
message to the Israeli people and made sure it was heard by those who seek to
destroy our way of life and the Jewish state of Israel.
This poll is just
the latest example of how clearly that strong message was
heard.”
Emergency Committee for Israel executive director Noah Pollak
said he was not surprised that only one percent of Israelis were persuaded by
the visit that the Obama administration was more pro- Israel than
pro-Palestinian.
“President Obama said some good, long-overdue things –
but he continued blaming Israel for the failure of the peace process,” Pollak
said. “Why did he lecture Israelis on peace but not Palestinians? Why did he
demand that Israelis see things from the Palestinians’ perspective, but not the
other way around? Why didn’t he admonish the Palestinian people to demand that
their leaders pursue peace, as he did the Israelis? Israelis know that Obama, at
bottom, still promotes key aspects of the Palestinian narrative of the
conflict.”
Another skeptic is Jewish Home party leader and Economics and Trade Minister Naftali Bennett.
In a lengthy Hebrew post on his official Facebook page, Bennett said the
atmosphere during Obama's visit reminded him of the Oslo period. He
recalled that during that time in the mid-1990s, there was a feeling
that if Israel conceded enough, peace would come.
"There were the usual statements about both sides wanting peace and
two states side by side being the only chance for peace," Bennett wrote.
"These are nice statements but they are distant from reality."
Bennett
noted that in the Second Intifada that followed Israel's concessions in
Oslo, hundreds of Israelis were killed in suicide bombings in cafes and
on buses in Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, and Haifa. He singled out the 2002
bombing of Netanya's Park Hotel on Passover Seder night that left 32
Israelis killed and 160 wounded.
"Back then they also said that
there is no military solution to terror and that only diplomatic talks
would work, but Operation Defensive Shield proved that they were wrong
and that actually only force can defeat terror," Bennett wrote. "We
trounced terror."
Bennett said he was proud that he came back from
the United States where he was advancing his hi-tech company to fight
in the operation in Tul Karm.
"Now that I am a minister, I will
act in every way possible to prevent another tragedy, even if it's not
popular," he wrote. "I will use my brains and will not drift after
conventional wisdom. I want peace with the Arabs no less than anyone
else, but giving territory to our enemies is not the answer."
Bennett
said he told Obama that the time has come to consider new directions on
the Palestinian issue that would be different and creative. He said the
president responded that he wanted to meet with him and listen.
"The lesson is never be silent, even if everyone thinks differently," Bennett concluded.
I don't think most Israelis were fooled by Obama. But perhaps I run in the wrong circles.
President Hussein Obama has nominated John F.N. Kerry to be Secretary of State, and the National Jewish Democratic Council, which had no comment about Chuck Hagel for Defense, has announced that it's 'ecstatic.'
“John has earned the respect and confidence of leaders around the
world. He is not going to need a lot of on-the-job training,” Obama said
in announcing his pick at the White House. “I think it’s fair to say
that few individuals know as many presidents and prime ministers, or
grasp our foreign policies as firmly as John Kerry.”
Current
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who has been recovering from a
stomach virus and concussion, was not present at the announcement. But
she sent out a statement welcoming his announcement which referenced
their shared experience as unsuccessful presidential candidates.
“As
I have learned, being able to talk candidly as someone who has won
elections and also lost them is an enormous asset when engaging with
emerging or fragile democracies,” she said.
Kerry has often
traveled to the Middle East during his role as foreign relations
committee chairman, including meetings with Syrian President Bashar Assad before the civil war there began and with Afghan and Pakistani
leaders to smooth US relations with those countries.
Several
Senate colleagues welcomed the appointment, which comes after Obama
confidant and US Ambassador to the United Nations Susan Rice withdrew
her name from contention after being criticized for her handling of the
Benghazi, Libya controversy.
The picture from the meeting with Assad is above. The second picture is a letter that Kerry sent on behalf of Code Pink's Gaza 'freedom march' when they went to visit Hamas in Gaza. I'll have more pictures from the Kerry highlight reel below.
Kerry’s selection was also welcomed by several Jewish groups.
Americans
for Peace Now Spokesman Ori Nir said of Kerry: “He has consistently
demonstrated a deep understanding of the complex foreign policy
challenges facing the United States in the Middle East and around the
world, and a profound appreciation of and respect for the vital role
that US diplomacy can and must play in addressing these challenges.”
And the National Jewish Democratic Council sent out a strong statement of support.
"We are ecstatic to see that President Obama has selected Senator Kerry to be the next secretary of state,” the group said.
“His
record on the foreign policy issues of special interest to the Jewish
community is exceptionally strong,” the statement continued. “He has
been a leader when it comes to Israel and has made it abundantly clear
that he – like the Obama Administration – stands squarely behind the
Jewish state.”
Just last week, the NJDC couldn't find its tongue to oppose Chuck Hagel at Defense. I guess they find Kerry more palatable. Since they claim to be pro-Israel, one has to wonder why.
The emir told Kerry
to focus on Syria as the path toward resolution of the Arab-Israeli
conflict. Kerry agreed with the emir that Syrian President Bashar
al-Assad is a man who wants change but pointed out that his arming of
Hezbollah and interference in Lebanese politics were unhelpful. Kerry
said that Assad "needs to make a bolder move and take risks" for peace,
and that he should be "more statesman-like." Kerry also agreed with the
emir that the Golan Heights should be given back to Syria at some point.
"The
Chairman added that Netanyahu also needs to compromise and work the
return of the Golan Heights into a formula for peace," the diplomatic
cable reported.
As
for the peace process, Kerry defended the Obama administration's drive
to use indirect proximity talks (which were only being discussed at that
time) as a stepping stone to direct talks between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. He said the two sides should first agree on the amount of
land to be swapped and then work on borders, followed by settlements.
Kerry also said that final agreement would have to include a Palestinian state with a capital in East Jerusalem.
...
In a separate meeting
the day before with the prime minister, Kerry resisted the Qatari
leader's assertion that Hamas was ready to accept the existence of the
State of Israel, but he agreed that urgent action was needed to rebuild
Gaza.
According to the leaked diplomatic cable, the prime
minister told Kerry, "We need to broker a quick reconciliation between
Hamas and Fatah and move forward quickly on rebuilding Gaza… Senator
Kerry asserted that HBJ [Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim Al Thani] was
preaching to the converted and told the PM he was ‘shocked by what I saw
in Gaza.'"
I believe that the photo with Ayatollah Ali Khameni is a photoshop. The rest are real.
Time for Obama's court Jew to speak out against Hagel (UPDATED)
For someone who got Chuck Hagel so right in 2007 - in a post that was disappeared down the memory hole, but may still be found via the Way Back Machine - Ira Forman's silence is deafening. Forman, chair of the National Jewish Democratic Council and most recently the Obama campaign's liaison to the Jewish community, had this to say about Hagel in March 2007.
As Senator Hagel sits around for six more months and tries to decide
whether to launch a futile bid for the White House, he has a lot of
questions to answer about his commitment to Israel. Consider this:
- In August 2006, Hagel was one of only 12 Senators who refused to write the EU asking them to declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization.
- In October 2000, Hagel was one of only 4 Senators who refused to sign a Senate letter in support of Israel.
- In November 2001, Hagel was one of only 11 Senators who refsued to
sign a letter urging President Bush not to meet with the late Yassir
Arafat until his forces ended the violence against Israel.
- In December 2005, Hagel was one of only 27 who refused to sign a
letter to President Bush to pressure the Palestinian Authroity to ban
terrorist groups from participating in Palestinian legislative
elections.
- In June 2004, Hagel refused to sign a letter urging President Bush to highlight Iran's nuclear program at the G-8 summit.
In 2009, when Hagel was appointed to be co-chair of President Obama's National Intelligence Advisory Board, Forman had this to say:
Back in 2009, when President Obama appointed Hagel to co-chair the
President's National Intelligence Advisory Board, the NJDC's then
executive director, Ira Forman, reserved criticism, as The Weekly
Standard reported at the time.
"Anybody who's looking for purity from us is going to be
disappointed," he said, after apparently being pressed to criticize
Hagel's appointment. Forman at the time also suggested that the RJC was
engaging in selective criticism and hadn't been so exercised about Hagel
until the former Republican senator was embraced by Obama.
But Forman (who since went on to be the 2012 Obama campaign’s Jewish
outreach coordinator) added: "If [Hagel] was taking a policy role, we'd
have real concerns."
Secretary of Defense sure sounds like a 'policy role' to me. But last week, Forman refused to comment when contacted by the Daily Beast's Eli Lake.
Hagel doesn't just represent someone who is anti-Israel or who is an obsessive believer in 'engagement.' As Bret Stephens points out in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, Hagel has attempted totar American Jews with the anti-Semitic canard of dual loyalty.
Prejudice—like cooking, wine-tasting and other consummations—has an
olfactory element. When Chuck Hagel, the former GOP senator from
Nebraska who is now a front-runner to be the next secretary of Defense,
carries on about how "the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people up
here," the odor is especially ripe.
Ripe because a "Jewish lobby," as far as I'm aware, doesn't exist. No
lesser authorities on the subject than John Mearsheimer and Stephen
Walt, authors of "The Israel Lobby," have insisted the term Jewish lobby
is "inaccurate and misleading, both because the [Israel] lobby includes
non-Jews like Christian Zionists and because many Jewish Americans do
not support the hard-line policies favored by its most powerful
elements."
Ripe because, whatever other political pressures Mr. Hagel might have
had to endure during his years representing the Cornhusker state,
winning over the state's Jewish voters—there are an estimated 6,100
Jewish Nebraskans in a state of 1.8 million people—was probably not a
major political concern for Mr. Hagel compared to, say, the ethanol
lobby.
Ripe because the word "intimidates" ascribes to the so-called Jewish
lobby powers that are at once vast, invisible and malevolent; and
because it suggests that legislators who adopt positions friendly to
that lobby are doing so not from political conviction but out of
personal fear. Just what does that Jewish Lobby have on them?
Ripe, finally, because Mr. Hagel's Jewish lobby remark was well in
keeping with the broader pattern of his thinking. "I'm a United States
Senator, not an Israeli Senator," Mr. Hagel told retired U.S. diplomat
Aaron David Miller in 2006. "I'm a United States Senator. I support
Israel. But my first interest is I take an oath of office to the
Constitution of the United States. Not to a president. Not a party. Not
to Israel. If I go run for Senate in Israel, I'll do that."
Read these staccato utterances again to better appreciate their
insipid and insinuating qualities, all combining to cast the usual slur
on Jewish-Americans: Dual loyalty. Nobody questions Mr. Hagel's loyalty.
He is only making those assertions to question the loyalty of others.
When someone in as prominent a position as Hagel is making those kinds of assertions against American Jewry, it's time for the American Jewish leadership to circle the wagons and fight back. And yet, Ira Forman is hiding in the brush along the side of the road (as, admittedly, are many others who find anti-Semitism in every pro-Israel pronouncement of a Christian Zionist - I looked in vain for a statement about Hagel from Abe Foxman over the last month).
What's the matter, Ira? Cat got your tongue? Or has Obama threatened your pocket?
“Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the
American Jewish community’s friends of Israel. His record relating to
Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at
worst, very troubling. The sentiments he’s expressed about the Jewish
lobby border on anti-Semitism in the genre of professors John
Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and former president Jimmy Carter.”
Chuck Hagel: Our first battle of Obama's second term
Former AIPAC spokesman Josh Block has a blunt assessment of Chuck Hagel, President Obama's apparent nominee for Secretary of Defense (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
“The record speaks for itself, on issues like consistently voting
against sanctions on Iran to stop their pursuit of nuclear weapons
capability, against naming [Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps] a
terrorist organization, refusing to call on the European Union to name
Hezbollah — which has killed more Americans than any terrorist group in
the world except Al Qaeda — as a terrorist organization,” said Josh
Block, a former AIPAC spokesman.
But former US Ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer claims that Hagel is no different than anyone else in the Senate... or the House.
“Anybody who has ever talked to senators or congressmen behind closed
doors knows you hear a lot of that,” Kurtzer said. “A lot of people
won’t talk about that publicly, but Hagel talks about it in public. One
can question whether it’s good politics from his standpoint, but it’s
not a view that’s foreign on the Hill. … A lot of lawmakers resent being
called anti-Israel if they don’t sign these letters. Then, they go out
and sign these letters.”
Kurtzer called the criticism of Hagel’s policy views “terribly misguided.”
“I found him in all the years I served, including as ambassador to
Israel, to be a supporter of Israel and a man also ready to discuss very
frankly with the Israelis the concerns we had about certain Israeli
policies,” he said.
It goes without saying that J Street is in favor.
“Sen. Hagel, should he be nominated, would be an outstanding choice for
secretary of defense, and we’d be surprised by any concerted effort by
anyone claiming to represent [the] mainstream of the Jewish American
community raising any opposition,” said Dylan Williams of J Street. “The
center of the community is exactly where Sen. Hagel is on issues
relating to Israel.”
But the comparisons with Chas Freeman have already started.... And a lot of Israel haters admit that appointing Hagel would be 'payback' for Prime Minister Netanyahu's 'lack of support' for Obama's reelection bid (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
Stephen Walt, junior partner of the better-known Israel-hater John
Mearsheimer, writes that if President Obama nominates Hagel, it will be
“a smart move.” Why? Because, “unlike almost all of his former
colleagues on Capitol Hill, he hasn’t been a complete doormat for the
Israel lobby.” Indeed, a Hagel pick would “pay back Benjamin Netanyahu
for all the ‘cooperation’ Obama received from him during the first
term.” Furthermore, Walt writes approvingly, Hagel is “generally thought
to be skeptical about the use of military force against Iran.”
For those of us who are pro-Israel, a Hagel nomination would be a test of how much we can help protect Israel in Obama's second term, just like defeating Chas Freeman showed that Obama wasn't going to get very far against Israel in his first term. Oops. We didn't defeat Chas. Someone else found all those great quotes from him about China....
Why is President Obama tempted by the prospect of nominating Hagel? Because Hagel was a Republican
senator. The Obama political types think they’d get credit for
bipartisanship by appointing Hagel. And they think they would avoid a
confirmation fight because Hagel’s former GOP colleagues wouldn’t dare
oppose him: senatorial courtesy, party solidarity, and all that.
Whether Hagel is nominated is above all a test for President Obama.
Is he serious about having Israel’s back? Is he serious about preventing
Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
It’s a test as well for pro-Israel, anti-nuclear-Iran Democrats. Will
they go along with a major policy role for a man they know shouldn’t be
in one?
But a Hagel nomination is also a test for Republicans. Does
senatorial clubbiness trump the good of the country? Do former party
ties trump the importance of having a sensible and mainstream secretary
of defense over the next four years?
The Weekly Standard salutes the Republican senators who stood up
against the prospect of U.N. ambassador Susan Rice as our next secretary
of state. But let’s be clear: Chuck Hagel would do far more damage at
Defense than Rice would have done at State. To have blocked Rice and
then roll over for Hagel would be a disgrace. It would even give some
credence to the thesis that Rice fell victim to a kind of sexism and
certainly to old-boy-network-ism. So, if President Obama goes ahead and
advances what we might call a Hagelian thesis, Republicans have an
obligation to embrace their role as Obama’s antithesis, and to block
him. The synthesis we’ll end up with—a mainstream liberal at the
Pentagon—will still be problematic, but will better serve the nation
that the older Hegel once called “the land of the future, where, in the
ages that lie before us, the burden of the World’s History shall reveal
itself.”
Indeed. Every Senator should be contacted on this one. Every last one of them.
NJDC's fake video and what real Israelis think of Obama
The National Jewish Democratic Council has produced a video, which purports to show 'ordinary Israelis' saying that they support President Hussein Obama.
Let's go to the videotape, and I'll have much more afterward.
First, it bears pointing out that Israel has been working on Iron Dome since long before Obama was President. If you go back to 2006, you will see that some of the earliest posts on this blog dealt with Iron Dome (and an American system that we probably should have bought instead called Nautilus). But let's break down each person interviewed in this very unrepresentative sample of Israelis.
Sasson Sara - Prove to me that he was talking about Obama and not about someone else.
David Segev - Obama supporter. Does he live in Sderot or in a nearby Leftist Kibbutz?
Chaim Yosef - Talking about Iron Dome, not Obama.
Albert Tsadikov - Obama supporter.
Jacob Dahan - Obama supporter. Does he live in Sderot or in a nearby Leftist Kibbutz (Israelis know why I didn't ask that question about Tsadikov - Sderot is full of Russians but the Kibbutzim are not. I wonder why)? Obviously quite impressed that Obama visited Sderot. Maybe his lack of visits is why so many other Israelis don't like him?
Last anonymous Sderot resident - Obama supporter? Or an actor asked to say that Obama is concerned about Israel.
First anonymous shuk merchant: Who says he's talking about Obama?
Second anonymous shuk merchant: Who says he's talking about Obama? (Same as to his second blurb).
Woman in shuk: Who says she's talking about Obama?
Man in shuk: Who says he's talking about Obama?
Gur: The only true Obama supporter who even claims a right to vote.
Woman in pink: Who says she's talking about Obama?
Man in brown shirt: Who says he's talking about Obama?
Note that all the Jerusalemites except for 'Gur' are anonymous. Why?
Pinchas Amar: Obama supporter, but is he from Sderot or nearby Leftist Kibbutz.
And what do real Israelis think of Obama? According to the Tel Aviv University peace index, which asked, who in your opinion assigns more importance to defending Israel’s national interests?
1. Barack Obama 18.6
2. Mitt Romney 39.9
3. Both to the same extent 9.9
Hmmm.
Remember the video four years ago by the 'Jewish Council on Education and Research' where the participants all claimed they were taken out of context as soon as the video was released. Look for that again. I'll be most of these ordinary Israelis had no clue they were being used to endorse Obama.
The suit specifically charges that the NJDC “conveyed to the public that Mr. Adelson personally approved of and profited from prostitution” in resorts that he owned. It further accuses the NJDC of seeking “to advance their perceived political interests by assassinating Mr. Adelson’s character, punishing him for exercising his right to make monetary contributions to political causes and candidates of his choice, and demeaning him within the Jewish community.”
He is seeking $60 million dollars in compensatory and punitive damages.
I hope Adelson wins and puts the NJDC out of business. It's long overdue.
The National Jewish Democratic Council must have been under enormous pressure. Just a week after they announced a petition drive to try to force Mitt Romney not to accept campaign contributions from Sheldon Adelson, they have called off the campaign.
"Regarding our recent campaign surrounding Sheldon Adelson, we don't believe we engaged in character assassination," said the statement sent late Wednesday by David Harris, NJDC's president, and Marc Stanley, its chairman. "We stand by everything we said, which was sourced from current, credible news accounts."
...
"Accusations against Mr. Adelson were made not by us, but by others, including Senator John McCain (R-AZ)," Harris and Stanley said.
"Nonetheless, we regret the concern that this campaign has caused. And in the interest of shalom bayit (peace in our home / community), we are going to take down our petition today. Moving forward, we'll continue to work hard to fight against the unique threat posed by the outsized influence of certain individual megadonors, which rightly concerns most Americans and most American Jews."
I don't believe that they did this for shalom bayit; that's never been a real NJDC concern. They're Democrats first and Jews second.
But I find it curious that they say that they will "continue to work hard to fight against the unique threat posed by the outsized influence of certain individual megadonors, which rightly concerns most Americans and most American Jews." If anyone gets the chance, please ask them whether that means they will refuse to support candidates who take Soros money, including one Barack Hussein Obama.
It’s hard to find anyone who has done as much for the Jewish community as Sheldon Adelson.
Adelson grew up in Boston in near poverty and is a shining example of the American dream. He is a self-made multi-billionaire who has contributed significantly to the world of modern technology and to the economic growth of Las Vegas and other areas. His generosity has helped repair the world.
I AM a Democrat and do not agree with many of Adelson’s political views, but I think it’s outrageous for the National Jewish Democratic Council to level unfounded allegations against Adelson. They do not speak for me, and for the many other Jews who admire Adelson’s contributions to the world, to America, to Israel and to the Jewish community.
I don’t know who Harris purports to speak for as president of the NJDC, but his partisan gamesmanship is an embarrassment to many Jewish Democrats. The attack comes with particular ill grace from a Jewish organization, considering all that Adelson has done for Jewish causes, and considering the fact that there is nothing uniquely “Jewish” about the questionable allegations against him.
Moreover, the demand that Mitt Romney return Adelson’s contributions is absurd. If all candidates had to return the contributions of every businessman against whom questionable allegations were made in a vengeful lawsuit, millions of dollars would have to be returned by hundreds of candidates all around the country.
Five years ago, when Mitt Romney opened his Presidential campaign at the Henry Ford Museum, which is named for one of America's most notorious anti-Semites, one of the first to criticize him was Ira Forman, then director of the National Jewish Democratic Council, and now President Obama's liaison to the Jewish community, was the first out of the gate to criticize Romney. Now, with President Obama about to appear at the same museum, Forman and the NJDC are both silent.
“Once again the NJDC has one set of rules when it comes to Republicans and a different standard as it relates to Democrats,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, the NJDC’s chief political rival.
“We see the shameless hypocrisy of the NJDC, which was so quick to attack Mitt Romney for an event he held at the Ford Museum, yet remains silent when Obama hosts a major event at the same Museum,” Brooks added.
Another longtime political insider said that the NJDC has become an ineffective embarrassment to the Democrats.
“They are a shameless organization that time has already forgotten, and the next time we see a press release from them attacking Mitt Romney for hosting an event supposedly with anti-Semites, the voters will know there is no validity to such claims,” said a senior GOP adviser who tracks the Jewish community.
The insider added, “The NJDC, heretofore, has lost all credibility on these issues. It can never again attack a Republican candidate on issues like anti-Semitism.”
The NJDC has become Obama's Jewish council, with a commitment to liberalism and to Obama, but no commitment to anything Jewish. Is anyone really surprised?
“The increase among Jews is greater than in the general public, and greater than the increase in an number of other religious groups,” said Alan Cooperman, associate director for research at Pew.
Jews who support or lean Republican jumped from 20% in 2008 to 29% in 2011. And Jews who support or lean Democratic fell from 72% in 2008 to 65% in 2011. The 2011 study has a 6.5% margin of error.
Republican Jewish officials greeted the survey as a confirmation of trend they claim to have observed for years.
“Jews are shifting away from their traditional allegiance to the Democratic Party and are showing a willingness to support the Republican,” said Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition. “”The Democrats continue to lose support among Jewish voters.”
Democrats pooh-poohed the study.
“Republicans have been saying for more than 30 years that ‘this will be the year’ Jews will move to the Republican Party, and it has simply never materialized,” said David A. Harris, president of the National Jewish Democratic Council. “I’m confident 2012 will be no different and Jews will continue to vote overwhelmingly Democratic.”
The report’s broader findings suggest support for the Republican Party has increased among all major religious groups.
Even with the dip, Jews remain more Democratic than any religious group but Black Protestants. But the change among Jewish voters is particularly significant, given Jews’ traditional ties to the Democrats.
Hope springs eternal.... Unfortunately, more Jews are concerned that their daughters 'don't miss out on anything' (as Obama explained his support for unrestricted abortion not too long ago) than are concerned with the future existence of a Jewish state.
The National Jewish Democratic Council's reaction to US Ambassador to Belgium Howard Gutman's blaming Israel for anti-Semitism is... no comment!?!
I called up the National Jewish Democratic Council to find out whether it would condemn Gutman’s comments. The response from NJDC spokesperson David Streeter: “We have no comment on it.”
That’s it? ....
A pro-Israel Democrat, appalled at the NJDC’s silence, emails me: “Democrats should speak out and remind Ambassador Gutman that anti-Semitism existed long before the modern State of Israel. There is no room in our party for anyone — including ambassadors — who seek to find excuses for anti-Semitism and the deep hatred among some Muslims for the Jewish people and our country. Supposedly intellectual descriptions and justifications for root causes of bigotry and anti-Semitic violence is neither intellectual nor intelligent.”
The Republican candidates have been clear on this. And yet, not a single Democratic member of Congress has spoken out against Gutman’s comments. Not only does this indicate that President Obama has no plans to recall the ambassador, it’s also a depressing testimonial about the current state of the Democratic Party. If pro-Israel Democrats can’t stand up to Obama on an issue as unambiguous as this, then one wonders what else they would be willing to stay silent on.
After telling Commentary Magazine earlier today that it had "no comment" about the U.S. Ambassador to Belgium's remarks about anti-Semitism, the National Jewish Democratic Council has decided to declare the remarks "wrong and unfortunate."
In an interview this evening, David Harris, the NJDC's top official, told me that "Ambassador Gutman's comments were wrong and unfortunate, and the White House was right to issue their immediate, tough statement on Saturday."
Harris, however, declined to say whether or not he believed Gutman should resign or be fired from his post.
Which 'immediate tough statement' would that be?
Their reaction shows that the NJDC is completely incapable of any independent thought. They just take their marching orders from Obama. And most American Jews apparently accept this? Where is the outrage?
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that President Obama has chosen one of the most divisive people possible to be his 'Jewish outreach director' for the 2012 campaign.
Double standards are routine to NJDC and Mr. Forman, who in 2007 condemned Mitt Romney for appearing at the Henry Ford Museum. "Mitt Romney's embrace of Henry Ford and association of Ford's legacy with his presidential campaign raises serious questions about either the sincerity of Romney's words or his understanding of basic American history," Forman said regarding Ford's publication of anti-Semitic material that he later retracted and repudiated. Mr. Forman and NJDC were therefore eager to call Mitt Romney out for associating with a long-dead ex-anti-Semite but they were nowhere to be seen or heard when Mr. Obama and other Democrats posed arm-in-arm with a live and unrepentant one (Al Sharpton) in 2007.
The National "Jewish" Democratic Council therefore has its own long track record of falsehoods and, to use its favorite accusation against others, "smears." It acquired most of this track record on Mr. Forman's watch. The history of Mr. Obama's new "Jewish outreach coordinator" must therefore be made very clear to Jewish voters as frequently as possible before next year's election.
As a side note, Mr. Forman just went on record as saying that Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. The Nobel Peace Prize has become a sick joke during the past years, noting that the committee passed over Irena Sendler, a Pole who risked her life to save more than 2,500 Jews from the Nazis, in favor of the self-serving and self-enriching global warming charlatan Al Gore. NJDC naturally gave this a pass as well; after all, what has Irena Sendler done for the Democrat left lately, if ever?
It gets worse: Read the whole thing. Campaign 2012 is going to be a nasty affair, unless the Republicans nominate another John McCain who decides not to take the campaign seriously.
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.
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
