The campaign site of Marco Rubio, who officially announced himself as a candidate for President on Monday, has a Stand with Israel page on his campaign site (Hat Tip: Sunlight).
He knows who his friends are.
It's kind of funny reading the Leftist media's critiques of Rubio. This is the New York Times (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
He enters the fray
with surprisingly low support. Despite four years of national
prominence, he has averaged 6 percent of the vote in primary polls over
the last few months. That’s the same or worse than five candidates who
are thought to have a much smaller chance of winning the nomination: Ted
Cruz, Rand Paul, Ben Carson, Mike Huckabee and Chris Christie. Mr.
Rubio is acceptable to many but, so far, the first choice of few.
Mr.
Rubio’s struggle to break through is a powerful reminder that winning a
presidential primary is not just about skill as a politician. It’s
about positioning, and Mr. Rubio, at the moment, is in a much worse
position than many assessments of his political talent would suggest. In
basketball terms, he’s boxed out.
His central problem is that Jeb Bush
has found considerable support from the party’s mainstream conservative
and moderate donors in the so-called invisible primary — the
behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that often decides the
nomination.
I don't think the country wants another Bush v. another Clinton. And ultimately, as the field thins, if Rubio ends up being the only conservative in the race, I think he will gain support. Then again, I would say the same thing about Ted Cruz. (You all should know by now that I am a big fan of both of them).
If Rubio were both serious and talented enough to move his party away
from its most inhibiting orthodoxy, in defiance of those donors, his
candidacy would represent a watershed. His appeal to constituencies
outside of the GOP base would be both sincere and persuasive.
But
Rubio is not that politician. He is no likelier to succeed at persuading
Republican supply-siders to reimagine their fiscal priorities than he
was at persuading nativists to support a citizenship guarantee for
unauthorized immigrants. In fact, nobody understands the obstacles
facing Marco Rubio better than Marco Rubio. But rather than abandon his
reformist pretensions, or advance them knowing he will ultimately lose,
Rubio has chosen to claim the mantle of reform and surrender to the
right simultaneously—to make promises to nontraditional voters he knows
he can’t keep. My colleague Danny Vinik proposes that
Rubio wants to "improve the lives of poor Americans" but he must
"tailor [his] solutions to gain substantial support in the GOP, and
those compromises would cause more harm to the poor." I think this makes
Rubio the most disingenuous candidate in the field.
Florida Sen. Marco Rubio’s campaign, which officially kicks off
Monday, has so far attracted paltry support from Republican voters,
according to polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, as well as nationally. He’s down near Chris Christie! Yet, when we talk about him in the FiveThirtyEight office,
we usually put Rubio in the top tier, in front of everyone except Jeb
Bush and Scott Walker, the two candidates at the top of the polls.
Why? Rubio is both electable and conservative, and in optimal proportions. He’s in a position
to satisfy the GOP establishment, tea party-aligned voters and social
conservatives. In fact, Rubio’s argument for the GOP nomination looks a
lot like Walker’s, and Rubio is more of a direct threat to the Wisconsin
governor than he is to fellow Floridian Bush.
To win a presidential nomination, you need to make it past the party
actors (i.e., elected officials and highly dedicated partisans). You can
have all the strong early poll numbers in the world (hello, Rudy Giuliani),
and your candidacy can still fail if party bigwigs come out against
you. Rubio has a real chance of surviving — or even winning — the
invisible (or endorsement) primary.
Rubio doesn’t have the flaws the other two official GOP candidates
have. He’s a hawk on foreign policy (with an 89 percent conservative
foreign policy score in National Journal’s vote ratings), so he’ll be able to avoid the pitfalls of Rand Paul’s candidacy. And Rubio isn’t anywhere near as extreme
as Ted Cruz and has not alienated his fellow senators, so we shouldn’t
expect mainstream party members coming out of the woodwork to stop
Rubio. But he’s a solid conservative; statistical ideological ratings
put him right in line with the average Republican in the 113th Congress.
Rubio also vowed to reverse course on Obama's recent diplomatic endeavors with Iran,
with which the United States is working to finalize a nuclear pact, and
Cuba, with which Obama has opened diplomatic relations.
"I think from a national-security perspective, this deal with Iran is an
extremely dangerous one," Rubio said when asked what he would do on his
first day as president. "I think the next president of the United
States is going to have to deal with that on day number one."
Of the diplomatic opening with Cuba, Rubio said, "I would reverse every single one of the decisions that [Obama] made."
More Americans want a more engaged foreign policy, but...
In the run-up to the US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton has been arguing for a more engaged foreign policy while Rand Paul has been arguing for isolationism. The American people would like a more engaged foreign policy. That would seem to favor Clinton, but in fact it may ensure that neither candidate is his or her party's nominee.
The percentage of the public saying the country does too little has
almost doubled since November, from 17 to 31 percent. Thirty-nine
percent say the U.S. does too much.
Democratic former Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton has been arguing for a more engaged in U.S.
presence in the world ahead of a possible presidential run, in contrast
to possible opponent Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), and, to some extent,
President Obama.
Despite the overall increase in those saying
they want the U.S. to do more, however only 24 percent of Clinton's own
party say the U.S. does too little, compared to 36 percent who say too
much. For Republicans, the numbers are reversed, with 46 percent saying
too much and 37 percent too little.
Okay, that last sentence doesn't sound right, does it? So I went to the source:
Republicans, Democrats and independents all are more likely to say the
U.S. does too little to solve world problems, but the shift among
Republicans has been striking. Last fall, 52% of Republicans said the
U.S. does too much to help solve global problems, while just 18% said it
does too little. Today, 46% of Republicans think the U.S. does too
little to solve global problems, while 37% say it does too much.
Oh yeah, and then there's this:
Obama gets his best rating for handling race relations; nearly half
approve of how he is handling race relations (48%) compared with 42% who
disapprove. His ratings for handling other issues – including policy
toward Israel (37% approve), the situation involving Russia and Ukraine
(35%) and the situation in Iraq (35%) – are more negative than positive.
But The Hill doesn't mention that.
Oh, and by the way, Pew says that a majority of Americans thinks Obama isn't tough enough on foreign policy. What a surprise....
Obama’s approach to foreign policy continues to be viewed as not tough
enough: 54% say Obama is not tough enough in his approach on foreign
policy and national security issues, while 36% say his approach is about
right and just 3% say he is too tough.
Are Americans waking up to the disaster Obama has wrought? We can only hope.
In the Wall Street Journal, Bret Stephens has it right.
Releasing deposed President Mohammed Morsi and other detained
Brotherhood leaders may be realistic, but it is not desirable—unless you
think Aleksandr Kerensky was smart to release the imprisoned Bolsheviks
after their abortive July 1917 uprising.
Restoring the dictatorship-in-the-making that was Mr. Morsi's elected
government is neither desirable nor realistic—at least if the millions
of Egyptians who took to the streets in June and July to demand his
ouster have anything to do with it.
Bringing the Brotherhood into some kind of inclusive coalition
government in which it accepts a reduced political role in exchange for
calling off its sit-ins and demonstrations may be desirable, but it is
about as realistic as getting a mongoose and a cobra to work together
for the good of the mice.
What's realistic and desirable is for the military to succeed in its
confrontation with the Brotherhood as quickly and convincingly as
possible. Victory permits magnanimity. It gives ordinary Egyptians the
opportunity to return to normal life. It deters potential political and
military challenges. It allows the appointed civilian government to
assume a prominent political role. It settles the diplomatic landscape.
It lets the neighbors know what's what.
And it beats the alternatives. Alternative No. 1: A continued slide
into outright civil war resembling Algeria's in the 1990s. Alternative
No. 2: Victory by a vengeful Muslim Brotherhood, which will repay its
political enemies richly for the injuries that were done to it. That
goes not just for military supremo Abdel Fattah Al Sisi and his
lieutenants, but for every editor, parliamentarian, religious leader,
businessman or policeman who made himself known as an opponent of the
Brotherhood.
Question for Messrs. Graham, Leahy and Paul: Just how would American,
Egyptian, regional or humanitarian interests be advanced in either of
those scenarios? The other day Sen. Paul stopped by the Journal's
offices in New York and stressed his opposition to any U.S. policy in
Syria that runs contrary to the interests of that country's Christians.
What does he suppose would happen to Egypt's Copts, who have been in
open sympathy with Gen. Sisi, if the Brotherhood wins?
...
It would be nice to live in a world in which we could conduct a foreign
policy that aims at the realization of our dreams—peace in the Holy
Land, a world without nuclear weapons, liberal democracy in the Arab
world. A better foreign policy would be conducted to keep our nightmares
at bay: stopping Iran's nuclear bid, preventing Syria's chemical
weapons from falling into terrorist hands, and keeping the Brotherhood
out of power in Egypt. But that would require an administration that
knew the difference between an attitude and a policy.
The Senate confirmed John 'al-Quds' Brennan as director of the CIA on Thursday afternoon. The vote was 63-34.
The Senate voted
63-34 in favor of Brennan, overcoming Republican Senator Rand Paul's
attempt to slow the White House counter-terrorism advisor from becoming
the next head of the CIA.
Paul, who spent nearly 13 hours
speaking on the Senate floor on Wednesday, was irate about the
reluctance of President Barack Obama's administration to declare that
"targeted killings" of American citizens on US soil were
unconstitutional.
Attorney General Eric Holder then clarified the
administration's policy on Thursday and said that Obama would not use
his authority to order a drone to kill an American on US soil who was
"not engaged in combat."
With the man in charge of removing references to Islamic terrorism from all government manuals in charge of the CIA, what could go wrong?
Senator Rand Paul filibustering John 'al-Quds' Brennan
John 'al-Quds' Brennan's nomination to be director of the CIA quietly passed the Senate Intelligence Committee the day before yesterday. But to actually get the job, he's going to have to stop Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) from talking. Paul is doing a filibuster the old-fashioned way: He's speaking. And he says he won't stop until Brennan's nomination is defeated or withdrawn (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
This one actually has nothing to do with Israel.
At first the filibuster, staged by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), was greeted
with skepticism. For the first three hours, he railed alone against
Obama’s refusal to rule out drone strikes on American soil.
“I’m here to filibuster John Brennan’s nomination to be director of
CIA,” Paul announced, later vowing: “I will speak for as long as it
takes.”
But as the day went on, one Republican senator after
another pledged support to Paul’s cause and made their way down to the
Senate floor.
“Americans have every reason to be concerned any
time the government wants to intrude on life, liberty or prosperity,”
said Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who was the first Republican to join Paul’s
filibuster. “We’re talking here about the sanctity of human life.”
Maybe they don't trust Obama to only go after terrorists? Hmmm.
UPDATE 10:15 AM
Paul ended his filibuster at 12:40 am on Thursday - when the Senate adjourned. The nomination did not come to a vote of the full Senate.
Voting 79 for and 19 against, the Senate on Jan. 31 tabled (killed)
an attempt to end U.S. military assistance to Egypt in response to
instability there under a Muslim Brotherhood-led government. Offered to
HR 325 (above), the amendment sought, in part, to stop deliveries of
military vehicles such as Abrams tanks and aircraft such as the F-16
fighter jet. Backers said the U.S. should not be propping up a
government openly hostile to America, while opponents said the amendment
would upend U.S.-Egypt relations, harm Israel and worsen chaos in the
Middle East.
But the Republicans have not given up. On Thursday, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-Ok), the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, introduced a bill conditionally suspending military sales to Egypt.
"For months, I have been calling on the President and his Administration to delay F-16 deliveries to Egypt," said Inhofe.
"I still am insisting the Administration suspend this transaction to
Egypt. Today there was an effort on the Senate floor to cut off all
sales of military equipment, including future F-16s, to Egypt.
While the intent is understood, the prohibition would cost taxpayers $2.2
billion and would rob the U.S. of leverage to put Egypt on the path
toward true democracy.
"For decades, the U.S. has had a good relationship with Egypt, training
their troops and working together to maintain peace and stability in the
region. Under Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi, this relationship
has come to a halt. We need to continue to support the Egyptian
military, which Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood have currently
distanced themselves from. Egypt’s military is our friend – Morsi is our
enemy.
"Today I have introduced a bill to delay any further deliveries of F-16s until
the President certifies to Congress that the Government of Egypt agrees
(1) to continue to uphold its commitments under the Camp David Peace
Accords, (2) to provide proper security at United States embassies and
consulates, (3) to bring stability to its nation by ending its
systematic exclusion and silencing of all official minority political
opposition, and (4) to take concrete steps to engage in dialogue with
such opposition parties and consider a coalition, power-sharing
government with such opposition parties. I believe that won’t happen
until Morsi is gone, and we’ve got to keep this leverage to make this
happen."
Earlier in the week, Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) said that he would propose similar legislation.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairwoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) has introduced legislation in the House that goes even further than Inhofe's bill, and last week sought co-sponsors via a Dear Colleague letter.
On Thursday, Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) circulated a Dear Colleague letter seeking co-sponsors for H.R.416, a
bill she introduced on January 25. The “Egypt Accountability and
Democracy Promotion Act” would “condition security assistance and
economic assistance to the Government of Egypt.” The letter expressed
concern over Egypt’s turmoil, President Morsi’s “continued civil rights
violations” and anti-Semetic comments, and that “aid could possibly be
used for nefarious intentions.” The act would require “certification
that Egypt is: Not controlled by a foreign terrorist organization,
Transitioning to a free-market democratic government, Adopting and
implementing legal reforms that protect the rights of all citizens,
Fully implementing the Israel-Egypt peace treaty, [and] Destroying the
smuggling network between Egypt and Gaza.”
Representative Ed Whitfield (R-Ky) announced on Thursday that he and several colleagues would send a letter to President Obama and Secretary of State John FN Kerry urging them not to send the F-16's to Egypt.
“In the three years it has taken for the procurement of these aircraft,
Egypt has undergone significant changes in their government, including a
revolution and the installment of a new leader, Mohamed Morsi, a former
leader of the Muslim Brotherhood. Given this substantial change in
circumstances, we strongly believe reconsideration of
previously-allocated military assistance to this nation is critical.
Recent
and previous statements by President Morsi indicate a clear hostility
towards non-Muslims in Egypt as well as towards the United States and
her allies—particularly Israel. Specifically, multiple recent reports of
President Morsi’s anti-Semitic and anti-American comments, and of
increased religious persecution and civil rights violations perpetrated
by his government, are cause for great concern. The instability of the
region is also evident from this weekend’s anti-government protests that
resulted in at least 50 deaths and hundreds of injuries. We are also
concerned with news of President Morsi granting emergency powers to the
Egyptian military to arrest Egyptian civilians and serve as a police
force in the country. Thus, the United States should be extremely
cautious in providing any financial support to Egypt—to say nothing of
military weaponry.”
Unfortunately, President Hussein Obama is likely to fight this at least as hard as he fought the Iran sanctions last term....
There is no point in recounting the twists and turns of the editorial
process that led to a poorly expressed and unfair post appearing on the
site. As the editor of the site and the Mead in Via Meadia, the
responsibility for what happened is mine and mine alone. I want to
apologize to David Remnick for a mean spirited jab that was unfair to
him, to our readers and fell short of the standards of fairness,
courtesy and accuracy we try to uphold on the site. This was not a
borderline case; it was wrong and in failing to establish a process that
would prevent this kind of error, I have made a grievous mistake. It’s
particularly galling that this mistake was at the expense of a man
whose brilliant editorial leadership at the New Yorker has set the
standard for American journalism for many years.
I'm not sure what Mead was apologizing for. Mead's main point was that
the MSM misunderstands Israel and sees the Palestinian Israeli conflict
as central to defining Israel. This is central to Remnick's article.
Nothing in his article discusses Abbas's statement implying that it
would be better to die than to give up the right of return. Or Morsi's "apes and pigs"
comment. In addition Remnick throws in a gratuitous reference to
"fascism." Towards the end of the article, he quotes Mkhaimar Abusada, a
political science professor from Al Azhar University in Gaza.
“We are going to witness more settlements, a greater encirclement of
East Jerusalem, and more frustration and despair. Which means we’ll have
one of two scenarios: either meaningless negotiations or, if the
stalemate continues, a new round of violence. And, in the end, violence
is not a possibility—it’s almost a certainty.”
It isn't clear that Abusada is affiliated with Hamas, but his past writings
show that he is an apologist for the terror group. Specifically he
writes that there can't be any peace until Hamas is taken into account.
I don't think that the adjective "shameful" was inappropriate at all.
Bottom line: the underlying strength and maturity of Israel’s
democracy was demonstrated this week. With a region in flames all around
them, Israelis pulled off an election with a high turnout (66.6%),
conducted efficiently and transparently, focusing on a substantive
discussion of the key issues facing the country, but largely devoid of
deep division and rancor. The results indicate that a large, sane,
pragmatic center is the core presence in Israeli political life. It is
to be hoped that the government that emerges from the coalition
negotiations will reflect this reality.
The White House called for Mr. Morsi to make clear that he respects
members of all faiths and said the videotaped remarks run counter to the
goal of peace. President Obama should also deliver that message to
President Morsi directly.
The State Department was indignant:
State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland would not say if
Washington is demanding that Morsi personally repudiate the remarks, but
she made clear the U.S. needs to see more than the statement from his
office to be convinced he no longer holds to the earlier views.
An attempt to explain himself to a group of visiting U.S. senators made matters worse.
Then Morsy crossed a line and made a comment that made the senators physically recoil in their chairs in shock, Coons said.
"He was attempting to explain himself ... then he said, ‘Well, I think
we all know that the media in the United States has made a big deal of
this and we know the media of the United States is controlled by certain
forces and they don't view me favorably,'" Coons said.
The Cable asked Coons if Morsy specifically named the Jews as the forces
that control the American media. Coons said all the senators believed
the implication was obvious.
But one of those Senators, John McCain, though he was offended, still thinks that unconditional aid to Egypt is a good idea.
McCain said the delegation voiced its disapproval and had a “constructive discussion” with Morsi.
“We leave it to the president to make any further comments on this matter that he may wish,” the Arizona Republican said.
The delegation clearly sought to move beyond the unexpected diplomatic
flap to focus on Egypt’s economy. McCain told reporters the
congressional delegation will push for an additional $480 million in
budget assistance to Egypt.
Rand Paul: “Do you think it’s wise to send [Egypt] F-16s and Abrams tanks?”
Kerry: “I think those [antisemitic] comments are reprehensible, and
those comments set back the possibilities of working toward issues of
mutual interest. They are degrading comments, unacceptable by anybody’s
standard, and I think they have to appropriately be apologized for….””
Kerry, of course, isn’t answering the question. He is detaching the
remarks from Muslim Brotherhood ideology and from U.S. policy. This is
meaningless rhetoric on his part. It does, however, raise the intriguing
problem of what Kerry would do since President Mursi isn’t going to
apologize. That would have been a good question. Of course, he would do
nothing.
Rand Paul [cutting Kerry off]: “If we keep sending them weapons, it’s not gonna change their behavior.”
Here is the essential question and the one that Kerry doesn’t want to
answer. What reason is there to believe that the U.S. supply of arms
would change the Brotherhood government’s policies? Rather than moderate
its policy wouldn’t these arms merely enable the regime to follow a
more radical position, and who would these arms be used against?
Kerry: “Let me finish. President Mursi has issued two statements to
clarify those comments, and we had a group of senators who met with him
just the other day who spent a good part of their conversation in a
relatively heated discussion with him about it….”
Yes, Mursi issued two statements but they were not to take back his
prior words but only to double down on them since he asserted that the
statements had been taken out of context by the Zionist-controlled
media. The man isn’t misspeaking. He’s just saying what he believes.
Kerry and Obama refuse to recognize that he believes these things.
Whatever one thinks of Naftali Bennett, at most he will be a junior
partner in the ruling coalition in Israel. Mohammed Morsi is the
President of Egypt with deeply held beliefs that inform his views that
are hostile to American interests. Yet, to the mainstream media, who
presents a greater threat to peace in the Middle East?
Monday afternoon at the fights: Rand Paul goes after John FN Kerry for Obama's F-16 gifts to Egypt
There was a lot to watch when Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) questioned Senator John FN Kerry (D-Ma) at the latter's confirmation hearing to be US Secretary of State.This might be the highlight.
In the hands of a good realpolitik statesman, this balance would be
managed well. For example, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger
would have kept the Egyptian government off-balance and made it
understand that Washington was doing it a favor by providing aid. In
other words, leverage would be used.
But in Kerry’s hands, leverage is tossed away. He is so afraid of
using power or being tough that he throws away leverage, believing there
can be no risk of problems. The recipient must not be intimidated or
pressed to change but shown that America is its friend and not the
imperialist bully that people like Kerry and President Barack Obama see
when they look back at U.S. history.
Precisely the same problem was displayed notably in two other recent cases (though readers can probably add more):
–When the Palestinian Authority (PA) approached the UN seeking
membership and recognition as a state, the Bush Administration made it
clear to the UN and allies that there would be a strong price to pay in
U.S. support and donations. The PA backed down. With Obama opposing the
same thing but not playing any trump cards, America’s “friends” almost
unanimously voted against Washington’s position and it suffered a
serious loss whose costs (including the permanent destruction of the
“peace process”) have not yet been counted.
–When it was suggested to Kerry that U.S. aid to Pakistan be held up
until it released a political prisoner, a doctor who helped America
locate Usama bin Ladin and who is now in prison and reportedly has been
tortured, Kerry refused.
America must be the one humiliated; the feelings of other countries cannot be hurt.
...
He also missed an opportunity to point out that arms were sold to some countries precisely because they had made peace with Israel and other countries because
they supported U.S. policy generally despite being very anti-Israel.
Arms were not given, however, to countries led by anti-American
revolutionary Islamist groups that also openly declared their support
for genocide of Israel and all Jews generally.
Kerry: “Better yet, until we are at that moment, where that might be achievable, maybe it’d be better to try and make peace.”
Wow, again. This is the mentality that has repeatedly crippled U.S. Middle East policy. It goes like this:
–We want peace.
–Therefore, we should not evaluate what policies are most likely to
succeed but merely those that can allow us to say that peace remains
possible. For example, even if the PA rejects talks for four years, we
shouldn’t criticize or pressure it because that might make peace less
likely, etc.
-It might work so we can’t “give up” but we must “keep trying” even
though this period is not conducive to progress and even while other
U.S. policies (especially backing toward Islamists) actually makes peace
even more impossible to achieve.
...
Kerry isn’t just wrong, he’s totally clueless. And as just about the
most openly arrogant man in American public life he will never let
reality penetrate through his ideological armor.
Rand Paul: 'Obama arrogant and presumptuous about Israel'
Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky) has another one right. President Obama is indeed arrogant and presumptuous in his dealings with Israel (Hat Tip: Memeorandum). Paul was referring to Jeffrey Goldberg's report on Wednesday that Obama claimed that he knows better than Prime Minister Netanyahu what Israel's interests are. This is from the first link.
“That’s an arrogant and presumptuous point of view and doesn’t
further progress on anything,” the senator said, and he returned to that
view throughout the call as he discussed the location of Israel’s
capital and Israeli settlements. Paul decried U.S. politicians who
display “this flippant and arrogant” attitude about internal Israeli
affairs, saying that “no one can really know as much as people in the
region” about such matters. “It is not up to the U.S. to dictate” to
mayors and West Bank officials where housing goes, Paul added.
Paul said he considers himself more pro-Israel than some pro-Israel
audiences because “I’m for an independent, strong Israel that is not a
dependent state, not a client state.”
The conference call came on the heels of Paul’s recent trip to Israel, and he repeatedly affirmed that he considers the United States to be a good friend of Israel and vice versa.
Read the whole thing. Don't tell America's liberal Jews, but if his positions are sincere, Rand Paul sounds a lot more rational and reasonable and pro-Israel than Barack Hussein Obama.
It is “none of our business” whether Israel builds new neighborhoods
in east Jerusalem or withdraws from the Golan Heights, and the US should
not tell Israel how to defend itself, US Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky)
said Saturday night at the end of a week-long visit to the country.
Paul,
a maverick libertarian senator known for his advocacy of slashing US
foreign aid, said at a press briefing that the issue of cutting aid to
Israel -- something he advocates as part of a gradual process -- did not
come up during his meetings with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu or
President Shimon Peres.
Paul said that he was not interested in the message of his trip being
that he came here “touting and spouting “ cutting aid to Israel. “I came
here to show that I am supportive of the relationship between Israel
and America,” he said.
...
“The biggest threat to our nation right now is our debt,” said Paul,
adding that a bankrupt America would not be a good ally for Israel.
“This does mean that we have to reassess who to give aid to, and when we
do reassess that, I would begin with countries that are burning our
flag and chanting death to America. No one is accusing Israel of that.”
...
While Paul said the US should not meddle in Israel’s decision making
regarding settlement construction or the Golan Heights, he said Iran was
a different issue because it had ramifications for the entire Middle
East.
The senator, who voted for sanctions against Iran, said the
sanctions would have a better chance of success if Russia and China were
involved, and advocated using trade leverage with those countries to
get them on board. As opposed to what he termed “show votes” on
sanctions at the UN, where some countries do whatever they can to show
their strong opposition to the US, he advocated “ quiet diplomacy” with
China and Russia on the matter.
“We do a lot of trade with Russia,
and Iran does some,” he said. “But I think the trade with America is
more important to China and Russia, and I think that trade should be
used with some leverage to get them to cooperate and help talk Iran down
and get them to do the right thing.”
Paul was not the only
republican senator in the country over the weekend, and Netanyahu on
Friday met another delegation of five republican senators -- led by
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, another Kentucky senator --
where Iran was the focus of discussion.
“My priority, if I’m
elected for a next term as prime minister, will be first to stop Iran
from getting nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told the delegation."I think
that was and remains the highest priority for both our countries. I
appreciate the American support and your support for that end. “
The Tea Party is great for the US - Israel relationship
You will recall a post I did two weeks ago, in which I attacked a New York Times piece that set Rand Paul up as a boogeyman for an argument that the Tea Party was going to turn the Republican party into a bunch of anti-Israel isolationists. That article is one of several of the same genre, coming mostly from the Leftists in the media, in which they argue that the Tea Party is bad for the US - Israel relationship. Jennifer Rubin takes on the latest one.
In conversations with multiple Republican leaders and their advisors, I've detected not a whiff of neo-isolationism, nor, frankly, anything but robust support for Israel (coupled with criticism of the Obama administration's sometimes harsh public rhetoric about the Jewish state). A senior Senate aide tells me: "This is a freshmen class of Republicans whose pro-Israel credentials are beyond dispute by anyone except fierce partisan Democrats and liberal journalists with anti-GOP blinders. In fact, these new Republicans would make the Maccabees proud."
But that hasn't stopped some reporters and some left-leaning columnists from spinning the notion that the election of Republicans is a mixed blessing, or even a bad omen, for Israel. The New York Times tried it, with little evidence.
The latest is a shoddy piece of propaganda in The New Republic by Barry Gewen. In a piece headlined, "How the Tea Party is wrecking Republican foreign policy," Gewen accuses the Tea Party of championing neo-isolationism and anti-Israel views, setting up a clash within the GOP.
...
If you look at some of the Tea Party favorites, you'll find stirring defenses of Israel. Marco Rubio (whose speech on Israelwas one of the strongest by an candidate in recent memory) and Scott Brownboth distinguished themselves on this front. This was also true in the 2010 primaries. In California, Carly Fiorina gained the support of Tea Partyers in a race against Tom Campbell in which Campbell's shaky record on Israel and association with CAIR became an issue. Likewise, in Indiana, Dan Coats, who voiced his strong support for Israel and criticism of Obama's response to the threat posed by Iran, crushed conservative John Hostettler, whose anti-Israel rhetoric has been roundly criticized. Noah Pollak, executive director of the Emergency Committee for Israel, tells me, "As the polling shows, Tea Partyers are among the most pro-Israel voters in America, and the Tea Party vote helped ensure that the incoming Congress will be even more pro-Israel than the previous one. As for Ron Paul -- on foreign policy, he is to the Tea Party what J Street is to the pro-Israel community: a pretender who speaks for a few disaffected cranks. The Tea Party is great for the U.S.-Israel relationship."
Sounds to me like the American Left and its media fan club are doing some wishful thinking in the hope of preventing a hemorrhage of Jewish votes to the Republicans in 2012. But their effort is an exercise in futility. Pro-Israel Jews recognize that there's only one thing on the American political scene that's hurting the US - Israel relationship: Barack Obama's presence in the White House.
The New York Times raises the concern that Israel is becoming a partisan issue (in fact, it has been one for at least the last two years) in the US Congress, but frets that some Republicans may not be as supportive of Israel as we would like them to be. However, the Times only has one example: Rand Paul.
Scores of Tea Party-backed candidates are entering Congress, many of whom favor isolationist policies and are determined to cut American foreign aid, regardless of its destination. Rand Paul, the newly elected Tea Party-backed senator from Kentucky, bluntly told the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, an influential pro-Israel lobbying group, that they were going to disagree about the need for foreign aid and suggested that they move on to other topics, according to a person briefed on the meeting.
...
Yet the Tea Party-backed lawmakers remain something of a mystery. One of their brightest stars, Marco Rubio, went on a personal trip to Israel days after winning his Florida Senate race. But pro-Israel analysts point out that Mr. Paul once said he did not view an Iran with one nuclear bomb as a threat, though he has subsequently been more hawkish. Mr. Paul did not reply to a request for comment.
Yes, there may be an issue with Rand Paul. But the same issues exist with some Democrats as well (Keith Ellison?).
But is the Tea Party Rand Paul or is it Marco Rubio? And didn't most of the Tea Party candidates (Christine O'Donnell) supposedly lose anyway?
I'll put up with one Rand Paul if the rest of the Republicans are more pro-Israel than their Democratic colleagues. Marco Rubio? John Boehner? Eric Cantor? Mike Pence? Do I need to go on?
I have a feeling this may just be the Times trying to head off a massive flood of Jewish votes to the Republicans in 2012. I'm inclined to wait and see how Paul behaves once the new Congress is in session.
UPDATE 2:05 PM
For a more positive view of Tea Party support for Israel, go here.
The Times also expresses concern about foreign aid to Israel, but the truth is that what Israel needs (and mostly gets) is military aid, much of which is paid for in cash or in kind, albeit generally at a discount.
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
