In a debate on CNN, Obama lackey Bob Wexler tries once again to make the case that the Obama administration "has ushered in the most serious comprehensive set of sanctions against Iran that any nation has faced in the history of the world." Mitt Romney's senior foreign policy adviser, Dan Senor, points out that the Obama administration fought those sanctions every step of the way.
Let's go to the videotape.
The Washington Free Beacon cites five examples of Democrats criticizing the Obama administration for trying to water down sanctions against Iran. They are:
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) Representative Howard Berman (D-Ca) Senator Robert Casey (D-Pa) Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md) Senator Chris Coons (D-De)
Read the whole thing. The Romney campaign ought to do an ad about the Obama administration's weak approach to Iran, using video of some or all of these (WFB embedded the Menendez video - it's the same one I showed here).
Yes, Israel would really like to see the UN defunded
I heard the name Zvi Krieger for the first time on Wednesday. Now, he's back again, claiming that 'Israel's diplomats' (you know the Leftist holdovers from the Peres-Ben Ami-Livni days) don't really want the United States to defund the UN. I'll tell you a secret: There is nothing a whole lot of Israelis would like better (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).
According to multiple sources in the State Department and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, as well as Israeli officials, Israel continually asks the U.S. to remain engaged at the UN -- and often to ramp up its engagement. "Every time an Israeli diplomat comes to meet with us, they thank us for being so involved on their behalf at the UN -- particularly places like the Human Rights Council," one high-level State department official told me. As to the recent anti-UN campaign by self-described "pro-Israel" groups and individuals, he said, "Israel is not thrilled this is happening."
What do you expect the State Department - which orchestrated the ridiculous policy of joining the 'Human Rights Council' - to say as an election campaign gets underway? That they made a mistake?
U.S. involvement in the UN, and particularly its significant financial contributions, gives it leverage with other member states. That leverage can be especially crucial at times such as last month, when the U.S. furiously lobbied other UN member states to vote against the unilateral Palestinian statehood declaration at the General Assembly. "If we don't pay our UN dues, not only will we face penalties and potentially losing our vote in the General Assembly, but we also lose our leverage," the State Department official said.
You've got to be kidding. The UN would take away the US's vote? They might not have a place to camp all their expensive bureaucrats if they did that. And the US has withheld dues before and nothing of the sort happened.
U.S. engagement at the UN brings other tangible benefits to Israel, allowing the U.S. to fight against the Arab League-sponsored Israeli Nuclear Capabilities resolution at last year's IAEA general conference, which would have called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. [Is he referring to this? CiJ] (The resolution did not even make it onto the agenda for this year's conference.) UN engagement also enabled the U.S. to muster broad support for United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929, which created the most comprehensive and biting international sanctions regime ever faced by Iran.
You've got to be kidding. The UN sanctions were completely watered down and Obama sought to avoid imposing additional sanctions by the United States until he was forced to do so by Congress. Talk about rewriting history....
And then he starts quoting unnamed Israeli diplomats - unnamed because both Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon would be pleased to see the UN defunded but would not interject themselves into an American domestic debate by saying so.
Defunding the UN would not only decrease U.S. leverage there, it could also harm Israel. "If the result [of Ros-Lehtinen's bill] is that UNWRA [United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East] has less funds, and that leads to a situation where schools and health clinics close down, that plays into the hands of Hamas, that is bad for Israel," the Israeli diplomat said. "If funds for UNIFIL [United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon] get cut, that would be very bad for Israel. ... There is a lot we don't like about the UN, but they do a lot that is critical for us."
Like I said at the top of this post, the 'Israeli diplomats' making these kinds of statements are holdovers from the period when the Foreign Ministry was controlled by the Left. I don't know who said these things, but this guy (also here) could be one of them. So could this one or this one.
But leaving the best for last, Ben Smith points out Krieger's rather lame excuse for why Prime Minister Netanyahu doesn't say that Israel loves the UN.
So why aren't we hearing more about this from Israel? "The Israeli politicians with a public profile, they'll demagogue the issue to whip up support from their base," a State Department official told me. "But if you talk to Israeli diplomats, the ones who are out in the field, defending Israel every day in the international community, they'll tell you how important U.S. engagement at the UN is to Israel's interests."
If you believe that one, I have a bridge across the East River to sell you.
Bottom line: Krieger is an Obama shill (what do expect from someone who works as Bob Wexler's assistant at the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace?) and his column was likely ghost written by someone in the White House or State Department. There's an election campaign on!
Omri Ceren has some tough questions for the S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace, the 'non-partisan' think tank headed by former Florida Democratic Congressman Bob Wexler.
The “Jewish Americans for Obama” site offers readers three PDF documents, all of which show signs of hasty drafting and printing. The longest one – a gratingly titled “Myths vs. Facts” page – is riddled with typos, including a misspelling of Netanyahu’s name. All three documents have weird font and layout issues. The campaign didn’t even have time to rename the files properly, leaving one as “c69ef042a126db6b32_xcm6ibhka.pdf.”
The lack of simple copy-editing is in tension with the campaign’s insistence the launch was “planned long in advance” and the timing had nothing to do with panic over Obama’s cratering support in the Jewish community.
Perhaps it was the hurried pace of the launch, or perhaps they’re just careless, but the campaign neglected to wipe the metadata from the PDFs. It turns out two of the campaign documents were produced by Zvika Krieger – again, the VP of Wexler’s ostensibly non-partisan S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace – and they were finally printed out a few hours before the launch. The PDFs can be downloaded from here and here. Because the documents are all stamped “Paid For By Obama For America,” and because Wexler is doing surrogate work for the campaign while president of the S. Daniel Abraham Center, and because the Center’s VP is doing the documents for the campaign, that raises some questions:
(1) What is the financial relationship between the Obama campaign and Wexler’s “non-partisan” think tank? (2) Did that financial relationship exist last May when Wexler and Krieger wrote their op-ed for the WSJ, and if so, did they disclose the conflict to the WSJ? (3) Did that financial relationship exist last week when Krieger fed Laura Rozen a quote about how hard the Obama administration was working to avoid a Palestinian UDI resolution, and if so, did he disclose the conflict to her? (4) Does that financial relationship extend to Wexler’s defenses of Obama and attacks on Perry yesterday – in other words, his work as an expert surrogate – or is that separate? (5) The campaign team aren’t going to keep trotting out Wexler and Krieger as independent analysts are they?
Answers to these questions would be helpful, because right now, it seems like Wexler and Krieger are being paid to deny the extent to which Obama has eroded the U.S./Israeli relationship, and instead of disclosing as much, they’re giving interviews as non-partisan analysts
Hmmm. I would add to that a question whether the Abraham Center is being used to skirt any limits on campaign contributions by individuals.
Liveblog: Israel and America: Has the love cooled?
Here's the session I'm at now. My battery is running out and I'm having trouble charging it.
Elliott Abrams says that Obama does not have the view of Israel that Clinton and Bush had. No great love for Israel, but deeper question is relationship between the two societies where there has been remarkably little change.
America has Christians and Europe has former Christians and that's the difference between them. That's who supports Israel. Jewish community keeps getting smaller. Fewer young Jews are Jewish in any meaningful sense.
Democrats much less enthusiastic about Israel but that pre-dates Obama and Netanyahu. Not personal. The left around the world hates Israel.
Ethan Bronner asked Abrams if he's offended by the term 1967 lines. Abrams said that it's only offensive if it's not Israel's policy and it's being imposed on it. That drew some applause.
Martin Indyk says that tension has existed in US-Israel relationship since time immemorial.
By the way, I am now on the other side of the room and I am plugged in.
Indyk describes Obama's speech as James Baker done over - claims it's nothing new. He says that whether the two sides can find a way to get back to the table is going to be tested now. He refers to September as a train wreck. Israelis have never considered UN cause for concern so why are they panicking now? (Because no one is sure Obama will actually veto). Indyk claims that Obama doesn't want negotiations either because he doesn't believe anything will come of them. Obama afraid he will have to veto, putting him on the wrong side in the Middle East. Indyk thinks that US and Israel will find partnership to relaunch negotiations but not likely they will produce anything.
Itamar Rabinovich is next. He thinks there is a personality conflict between Obama and Netanyahu, which he calls a train wreck. He says that change in the Middle East may not be worse for Israel but it is more difficult. Depends what Israel does with it.
Rabinovich raises linkage issue and infamous Petraeus speech. Does Petraeus believe it or is it what the White House wanted him to say? Obama himself said linkage to Tom Brokaw during campaign and that is a negative in and of itself.
Rabinovich talks about base of support for Israel. He doesn't like what he sees on US campuses - specifically mentions Jewish faculty and students. He says it's a function of where and when Obama went to school.
Robert Wexler is next - you know how much I like him.... Wexler says love is still present in US-Israel relationship. He says it's a passionate love affair. He takes issue with Abrams claim that President Obama does not have in his heart the requisite love for Israel. Wexler says he doesn't know what love any President had for Israel, but can judge them on statement, deeds and actions.
Wexler touts security relationship with US-Israel and says that can't happen despite the President of the US.
Wexler says that Obama got Israel into OECD - called every country voting to make sure they would vote for Israel. He thinks that's a fair amount of love.
Regarding last 3-4 weeks - Obama spent his time trying to convince Germany, France and UK not to support unilateral resolution of 'statehood.' As a result, French Foreign Minister wanted peace conference. Abu Mazen said yes, Netanyahu said give me a week, Israel asked US to throw cold water on idea and US did.
Wexler says African-Americans over age 45 have warm feeling for Israel but younger African Americans don't because of different set of formative events. Same with Latino community. Says we have to work on that.
Says young Americans (including Jews) aren't liberal - they're progressive. Gay rights, abortion, etc. are givens. There's a degree of liberal thought that's a given among American Jews that has not necessarily been reflected in Israeli society.
Ruth Yaron is next. She says that Israel wants to feel the love. Says that it's not enough to tell me that you're giving me more aid. We want the rest of the world to know. If we don't feel secure with US support we won't take risks. We need to feel we have support (we being Israeli public). That's a huge difference on what we do with the 'Palestinians.'
Where was Obama's love during the Cairo speech? Where was sign of affection? Living in an era where the whole Middle East is changing (and not the way Peres envisioned 15-20 years ago), if there is a gap between Israel and US radical forces could sneak in and this will undermine Israeli public's willingness to make compromises necessary for peace.
This seems to have eluded Barack Obama. He has to make sure that the love is seen (I think it's too late for that). Any gap is dangerous for the State of Israel. She draws lots of applause.
Ethan Bronner to ask questions and then let audience ask questions. Bronner said Gazans were concerned that Netanyahu got so much applause. So why doesn't Israel feel the love (he asks Yaron)? Gazans said that US run by Netanyahu and not just leaders - average 'Palestinian' said that. Yaron responds by saying that Obama has to speak to Israeli public and come here. Gets lots of applause. I doubt Obama will take that chance before the elections.
Bronner asks Wexler about Petraeus idea. Wexler says he's uncomfortable with notion that American blood being spilled because of Israel. Bronner says that was a misquote. Wexler says it's unwise. Bronner asks if it's untrue. Wexler says that you can't says that there is no effect. Wexler says that Yaron asks them to show us some love, while Prince Turki says that America is an unabashed Israel lover. How can Turki say what he said and Ruth said what she said and both feel as they do?
Rabinovich picks up point and says Turki was angry at passage in Obama speech that criticized Bahrain. Rabinovich says take out love and introduce intimacy. Rabinovich says there's a way to say yes, US a close friend to Israel, let's see how we can make it to the Palestinians advantage. Rabinovich says that Israelis are nervous because they see how the US treated Egypt.
He says that Netanyahu needs to lay out to Obama what he is willing to do, which is what Sharon and Rabin and others did. Obama has to have Israeli partner who levels with him. (I think the problem is that anything that Netanyahu could give would not be enough).
Rabinovich said that what happened in Congress is good. Arabs think time is on their side. The message of the Netanyahu speech and Congress' reaction is that time is not on the Arabs' side.
Bronner asks if problem is policy gaps or if there is something at the core that is troubled. Abrams says that for some people it's both. He says to forget the Europeans but as far as the Democrats are concerned, if Israel only country criticized that has nothing to do with Netanyahu. In Europe there's a fundamental issue of anti-Semitism. But is Democrat problem existence of State of Israel? No, but it goes too far to say that the problem is just the policies.
Abrams said that when Bibi said that we would only keep the blocs - which no Likud Prime Minister has ever said - Obama didn't give him any credit. That's where we're missing the love. Obama attitude is sooner we get rid of Bibi and Likud the better - you can do no right.
Indyk addresses Abrams' point about Bibi Knesset speech about only keeping blocs. Says that Bibi's coalition makes it sound like his concessions aren't concessions. Bibi may have made important statements but they were cloaked in other language that made it sound like he wasn't making concessions at all. Bibi heads coalition that does not support two-state solution. That is not Obama's fault.
Indyk agrees that Obama should have come to Israel and addressed Knesset and said we can't get explanation from anyone who works for him why he won't come. Obama has ignored Israeli public opinion and Israelis can't stand it. Especially since he's chasing the other woman (Palestinians).
The only relationship Obama seems to have that's intimate and close is Russian President. He's not warm and cuddly. No drama. He says Israelis should get over it and that Yaron is describing a neurotic nation (lots of laughs). Israel is already 60 years old and it's time to grow up. Get over whether he loves me or he loves me not. Israel has to find solution to problem with 'Palestinians.' Not acceptable to continue 'occupation.' When Israel solves this problem, it will have the love of President Obama.
Abrams agrees that Obama doesn't have this relationship with anyone else but that doesn't matter because no one is trying to kill or eliminate anyone else. The reason Obama has not come to Israel is that he does not want to come to Israel.
Ruth Yaron says that there is a solid majority of 70% in Israel that supports two-state solution but tapping that majority is difficult because of political system. Says Israeli public is not shifting to the right and that Obama could tap into reservoir by speaking to the public.
Surprise: Wexler agrees with Indyk and not with Abrams. Says Obama agreed to Israeli military presence in Jordan Valley and don't have to leave until demonstrated that 'Palestinians' are doing what they are supposed to be doing. Where's the applause from the Knesset?
Audience question: No one has addressed the questions of Obama putting us in corner by settlement freeze and 1967 line surprises. Does anyone disagree that the President cornered Israel and therefore people believe he doesn't love them.
Rabinovich says that settlement focus was a mistake and that Netanyahu should have made Bar Ilan speech earlier. Indyk asks whether Biden was cornered with the Ramat Shlomo story (no).
Alon Ben Meir argues that former Congressman Bob Wexler (D-Fl) should be made Middle East Special Envoy .
TO BEGIN with, Wexler enjoys the confidence of President Barack Obama, as the two worked closely throughout Obama’s campaign for the presidency. Moreover, Wexler and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton respect each other and appreciate the strength that each enjoys. Together, they could form a formidable team, particularly because Wexler appreciates the importance of what Clinton brings to the table and the importance of her positive standing in the eyes of both Israelis and Palestinians, contrary to George Mitchell and Dennis Ross, who are now tainted.
Wexler could bring new dynamism to the negotiations. He is creative, forthright and would not fall for the old political narratives that have stifled negotiations in the past – for example: how to deal with Israel’s real security concerns, or how to mitigate the Palestinians’ position on the right of return. His outspokenness and candor will serve his mission specifically because the conflict has been overshadowed by misperception and selfrighteousness. Wexler will be able to sort out the real and the misconceived, and disabuse both sides of the notion that the other side does not want to or cannot deliver peace. If he is given a clear mandate to advance ideas of his own, and with the support of and regular input by Clinton, Wexler stands a much better chance of achieving what has eluded his predecessors.
Wexler would likely welcome the opportunity not only because he wants to serve his president, but also because he believes that peace is in the best interest of both the US and Israel, and that the time is now.
There is deep mutual trust between Obama and Wexler, and although Wexler would oblige the president and gladly assume any mission he is assigned, he has a special affinity for Israel and compassion for the Palestinians, and would leave no stone unturned to achieve peace that ensures Israel’s security and dignity and independence for the Palestinians.
Unlike Mitchell, Wexler is far more in tune with the American Jewish community. For obvious reasons, American Jews generally support the policies of the Israeli government, and refrain from publicly criticizing Israel, preferring to iron out their differences quietly. As a leader who fully appreciates the importance of this relationship, Wexler will be able to use his in-depth knowledge of all sides – American Jews, Congress and Israel – to engender a cohesive approach to which they can comfortably subscribe.
I didn't like Mitchell from Day One, but this would be a disaster. Wexler has NO experience in peacemaking, is not well-liked here, and would probably spend his time bending over backward so that he is not seen as pro-Israel. Overall, a poor choice.
But if Wexler asked to be considered for this post, that's a good sign. Wexler left Congress about a year ago to head up a think tank run by J Street. If he's thinking of leaving here already, that could mean that the think tank, or maybe J Street itself, is falling apart. And that would be wonderful news.
There were a lot of eyebrows raised when Robert Wexler (D-Fl) announced his resignation from his ('safe') seat in Congress in October 2009, to head up a 'think tank' funded by Slimfast owner S. Daniel Abraham, a known 'peace activist' in the Jewish community. The 'think tank' is also connected to J Street.
Wexler was a close confidant of Barack Obama, and once got his picture on the front page of the Jerusalem Post for bragging that he would get Prime Minister Netanyahu to agree to a 'settlement freeze.' Wexler had a bright future ahead of him in Congress. So why would he resign in the middle of his term? Well, it seems that the FBI might have had something to do with it.
Months before popular Democrat Robert Wexler abruptly quit Congress last year, federal agents interviewed two South Florida businessmen about his campaign's unconventional $150,000 investment in a real estate venture.
Two sources who also spoke with those agents, including a Republican political opponent whose complaint apparently sparked the inquiry, said authorities were seeking to determine whether the Robert Wexler for Congress campaign had engaged in money laundering. No charges have been filed.
Wexler, a self-described "fire-breathing liberal," shocked the political world in October 2009 with his unexpected mid-term announcement that he was resigning his politically safe House seat in North Broward and South Palm Beach. Wexler quit to lead a Middle East think tank founded by Slim-Fast founder S. Daniel Abraham. His final day was Jan. 2.
"I'm not under any investigation, my marriage is intact, my health is good and thank God, the health of my family is good," the seven-term congressman told reporters the day he resigned.
But according to Ken Krefetz, the longtime owner of Miami-based Metropolitan Petroleum Company, agents from the FBI and the IRS came to his office in December 2008 to question him about Wexler and Wexler campaign investment manager, Roy T. Amico.
"They were looking at the real estate transaction that the congressman put campaign money into," said Krefetz, who provided Broward Bulldog with a copy of an e-mail exchange about the matter between his office and Palm Beach FBI agent Stuart A. Robinson.
He said Robinson and IRS agent Leo Briones characterized the transaction as "highly unusual."
Robinson declined comment. Briones did not return telephone messages.
Most members of Congress keep their campaign funds in a federally insured bank account. But in recent years election rules have been relaxed to allow campaign money to be placed in stocks, bonds or other investments. An election law attorney in Washington, D.C. said he was not aware of other campaigns investing in real estate.
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
