After being branded a traitor by the White House, why isn't Schumer coming out fighting?
All sarcasm aside, this could be a great moment in Chuck Schumer's history. The real question is, why isn't he pushing to make it one.
Branded a traitor by the Hussein Obama White House (
along with other Jewish legislators who have come out against the Iran sellout), Schumer has remained
curiously silent since announcing his
principled opposition to the Iran nuclear sellout. He wasn't on any Sunday news shows (hard to believe he wasn't invited), and there have been no reports of him trying to influence other Senators to oppose the deal. Why? This is from the second link, by Seth Lipsky in Haaretz.
So why, in the light of all the burning bridges, hasn’t Schumer launched a full campaign to block this deal? Why hasn’t he hit the talk shows and done what the Senate leadership is supposed to do to, well, lead the Senate? That would normally mean twisting arms, bargaining, and trying to get wayward or undecided senators to vote their way. Or even attempting to change the minds of those who have come out on the other side.
The way this is being retailed in New York is that the Senator is prepared to talk to anybody who asks. He himself has characterized it as a vote of “conscience” (unlike the other votes he casts), a situation in which one can’t twist arms in the normal political way. There are those I’ve heard from who find that line unconvincing, to say the least. After all, if it were a matter of conscience and even a life-and-death situation for America and Israel, wouldn’t one feel impelled to spare nothing?
...
Experience suggests, at least to me, that the big danger is a last-minute dodge, like the waiver Congress gave the president to avoid moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv. Schumer was in the thick of that default. Could there be a waiver or some maneuver now to defuse the constitutional crisis between the Senate and the president over Iran? Maybe there’s a good reason for Mr. Schumer’s silence — he’s on vacation, he’s under the weather, he’s plotting. But if he’s really committed on this, the logic would be to re-engage. This just isn’t a time to stand on ceremony.
Or perhaps, Schumer still wants to lead his party in the Senate and has silently cut a deal with the White House that he will not lead opposition to this sellout, and in return the White House will call off its minions when the time comes for the vote on a Minority Leader?
Of course, that vote won't be taken until Obama's last two weeks in office, so Schumer has no way to enforce a deal like that....
And about those other Jewish Democrats who stand accused of treason by the White House, this is from the first link - Adam Kredo at the Washington Free Beacon.
These allegations of dual loyalty to Israel, which many have
identified as anti-Semitic, began almost immediately with the White
House, which accused its critics of worrying more about Israel’s
interests than the United States’.
The use of this rhetoric by the Obama administration and its allies
is attracting concern among Jewish leaders, who worry the White House
will pin the potential failure of the Iran deal on the American Jewish
community.
In a July 21 interview, Obama said that shady “lobbyists” and people with “money” were working to kill the deal.
...
The rhetoric also has extended to what many view as implicit threats against Israel.
Obama reportedly told a group of Jewish leaders last week that rejection of the Iran deal will result in rockets falling on Tel Aviv.
Secretary of State John Kerry also said that Israel will be blamed if Congress rejects the deal.
Organizations close to the White House quickly latched onto this
rhetoric and have taken aim at Democratic Jewish lawmakers who have come
out against the deal.
NIAC, which has been accused of lobbying on behalf of Tehran and the
regime, explicitly accused Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) of being more
loyal to Israel than America.
Reza Marashi, a NIAC flack, took to Twitter to accuse Schumer of “putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s interests.”
In addition to Schumer, Democratic Jewish Reps. Brad Sherman (Calif.)
and Eliot Engel (N.Y.) also have come out against the deal.
J Street, an anti-Israel group that has described itself as the Obama
administration’s “blocking back,” also questioned the motives of those
Jewish lawmakers opposing the accord.
“Opposing the #IranDeal
against recs of top scientists, Israeli & US security experts, 100+
ex-diplomats can’t plausibly be a policy decision,” J Street official
Dylan Williams pontificated on Twitter over the weekend.
The Daily Kos published a cartoon over the weekend that accused Schumer of being a “traitor” who is more loyal to Israel than the U.S.
On Sunday, the White House aligned dark money group CREDO Action, the political arm of CREDO Mobile, teamed with the Democrats.com to accuse Schumer of being a traitorous “warmonger” who is betraying his country.
In mid-July, when the deal was first announced, White House ally MoveOn blasted an email to its members headlined “47 traitors.”
In the note, MoveOn wrote: “We have just 60 days to stop the
so-called ‘47 traitors’ and hawkish Democrats from killing this deal.”
Jewish leaders said the rhetoric from the Obama administration and its allies has crossed a line into anti-Semitic territory.
And if the vote looks like it's going to be close, it's only going to get worse....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Brad Sherman, Charles Schumer, dual loyalty, Eliot Engel, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, John Kerry
Obama raises specter of dual loyalty
President Obama spoke at a Washington DC synagogue last week and tried to convince his audience that he, rather than Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, represents Jewish values. Michael Doran,
a former deputy assistant secretary of defense and a former senior director of the National Security Council, found a disturbing undertone to President Obama's speech: Doran argues that Obama was raising the specter of dual loyalty of Jews - a classic indication of anti-Semitism. In this open letter to liberal Jews, he urges them to think about what Obama meant.
Here’s my question. As Obama donned his yarmulke and embraced your
community, did you also catch the hint of a warning? If you did, it was
because the president was raising, very subtly, the specter of dual
loyalty: the hoary allegation that Jews pursue their tribal interests to
the detriment of the wider community or nation. Obama was certainly not
engaging in anything so crude as that; nor is he an enemy of the Jewish
people. But he did imply that many Jews—that is, Jews who support
Benjamin Netanyahu—have indeed placed their narrow, ethnic interests
above their commitment to universal humanistic values. In his view, they
have betrayed those values. And so the warning was faint, but
unmistakable: if Jews wish to avoid being branded as bigots, then
they—you—must line up with him against Netanyahu.
“But the president is right,” many of you would no doubt reply. “Netanyahu’s values are not
my values.” That may well be the case. Yet this is also why it is a
trap for you to accept Obama’s claim that his fight with Netanyahu is a
struggle over “values.” The struggle is not over values.
Rather, at the core of the Netanyahu-Obama grudge match is one issue and
one issue only: the president’s long-sought détente with the Islamic
Republic of Iran.
To be sure, there are other sources of tension between the two men,
both personal and political. Among them is the Israel-Palestinian issue,
which the president dwelt upon at length in his remarks to you—but in
the service of a goal that has nothing whatsoever to do with
Israeli-Palestinian relations. If this sounds too calculating by half,
consider three key points.
But the real issue, says Doran, is Iran.
The president’s sophistry demonstrates a simple but profound truth: his commitment to the progressive values of tikkun olam
is governed by its own “red lines,” and is entirely utilitarian. Which
again raises the question: what was his purpose in stressing this shared
progressive commitment in his address to you, and what was his purpose
in subtly reminding you of the costs of failing to abide by its terms?
The answer, I hope, is obvious. On June 30, Obama will likely
conclude a nuclear deal with Iran. This will spark a faceoff with
Congress, which has already declared its opposition to the deal.
Congress will inevitably pass a vote of disapproval, which Obama will
inevitably veto. In order to defend that veto from a congressional
override, however, he must line up 34 Senators—all Democrats. This calls
in turn for a preemptive ideological campaign to foster liberal
solidarity—for which your support is key. If the president can convince
the liberal Jewish community, on the basis of “shared values,” to shun
any suspicion of alignment with congressional Republicans or Benjamin
Netanyahu, he will have an easier time batting down Congress’s
opposition to the deal with Iran.
Progressive values have nothing to do with what is truly at stake in
this moment of decision. Only one final question really matters: in your
considered view, should the Islamic Republic of Iran be the dominant
power in the Middle East, and should we be helping it to become that
power? If your answer is yes, then, by all means, continue to applaud
the president—loudly and enthusiastically—as he purports to repair the
world.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, dual loyalty, Iranian nuclear threat, liberal Jews, tikkun olam
American Jewish leadership recognizing Pollard injustice?
Is the mainstream American Jewish leadership finally recognizing that an injustice has been and is being done to Jonathan Pollard and that the cause is plain old anti-Semitism? Consider
this from Tablet Magazine.
Abraham Foxman of the
Anti-Defamation League said he had come to conclude—after years of
thinking otherwise—that Pollard’s continued imprisonment does imply
prejudice at work:
When the Jonathan Pollard affair surfaced 28 years ago, there were
claims by some that the sentencing of Pollard, life imprisonment, was
tinged with anti-Semitism. We at the Anti-Defamation League took that
charge seriously, made our own investigation, and concluded there was no
basis for such an accusation.
I bring that up now because as the years pass and the world has
changed many times over, and with more and more prominent Americans,
including individuals from the intelligence community, saying “enough
already,” Pollard remains in prison.
Pleas for his parole are raised on a regular basis, but go unheeded.
The whole thing at this late date makes no sense. There surely is no
information that Pollard possesses after all these years that can be
harmful to American interests. The fact that Pollard shared information
with an ally—Israel—was no reason for him not to be punished. But after
this long imprisonment, the fact that it was such a close ally who
received his information should have influenced a positive response when
the subject of parole arose.
I am not one to equate what Pollard did, to betray his country, to
the recent revelations that the United States has been spying on top
Israeli leaders. Here too, however, these revelations add further
context to the absurdity of the ongoing vendetta against this one man.
Yes, I use that word because that’s what it seems like at this point.
If it were only a vendetta against one individual it would be bad
enough. But it has now become one against the American Jewish community.
In effect, the continuing imprisonment of this person long after he
should have been paroled on humanitarian grounds can only be read as an
effort to intimidate American Jews. And, it is an intimidation that can
only be based on an anti-Semitic stereotype about the Jewish community,
one that we have seen confirmed in our public opinion polls over the
years, the belief that American Jews are more loyal to Israel than to
their own country, the United States.
In other words, the underlying concept which fuels the ongoing
Pollard incarceration is the notion that he is only the tip of the
iceberg in the community. So Pollard stays in prison as a message to
American Jews: don’t even think about doing what he did.
I come to this conclusion with much sorrow and, as noted, as someone
who resisted efforts early on to connect the Pollard affair to
anti-Semitism. It is harder and harder to do so any longer.
I don't think Foxman could have written that even a year ago. And I don't think he has ever written anything truer. If only his fellow mainstream leaders - who were invited to but did not respond to Tablet's editorial calling for Pollard's release - would follow his lead.
Labels: Abe Foxman, American Jewish leadership, anti-Semitism, dual loyalty, Jonathan Pollard
Hagel: State Department controlled by Israel
In a 2007 speech at Rutgers University, Secretary of Defense designate Chuck Hagel claimed that
the State Department is controlled by Israel, according to a report in the Washington Free Beacon based on contemporaneous accounts
(Hat Tip:
Noah P).
Meanwhile, a 2007 speech then-Sen. Hagel delivered at Rutgers
University in New Jersey as he tested the waters for a presidential run
is drawing fresh scrutiny.
Hagel said the U.S. Department of State was an adjunct of the Israeli foreign minister’s office, according to a contemporaneous report of the event.
Republican political consultant and Hagel supporter George Ajjan wrote about the March 2, 2007, speech on his website the following day, writing a description “point by point through some of the more important elements of his speech.”
“Point six“:
The State Department has become adjunct to the Israeli Foreign Minister’s office…
Wow. A very bold statement by Hagel bound to further raise the ire of
the “Jewish Lobby” (yawn…), but it does express his strong belief in a
comprehensive solution to problems in the Middle East. Hagel mentioned
this theme several times – comprehensive, he said, in the sense that all
tools should be used to achieve American foreign policy objectives
(diplomatic, political, economic, and military), but also comprehensive
in the James Baker sense of addressing the Arab-Israeli conflict
holistically as both Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have proved too
lazy and too incompetent to do.
Reached by phone, Ajjan confirmed his 2007 account of the event, saying he was “taking notes as [Hagel] was speaking.”
“If I wrote it, then that’s what happened at the time,” Ajjan told the Free Beacon.
He added that the event, which was cosponsored by the Rutgers
University Center for Middle Eastern Studies and the American Iranian
Council, was closed to the press.
“When [Hagel] said the State Department was becoming an adjunct of
the Israeli ministry, I think that was during the Q&A,” said Ajjan.
“Even in the blog, I was surprised that he said that. It was a very bold
statement.”
Chuckie Schumer, how can you vote for this anti-Semite?
Labels: Chuck Hagel, dual loyalty, US State Department
White House refuses to condemn Hagel's 'Jewish lobby' comments
I hope that the 70% of the '
Jewish lobby' that voted to reelect President Hussein Obama, and to have insinuations made about its lack of loyalty to the United States for the next four years, is pleased with itself.
White House Press Secretary Jay Carney refused to criticize comments
about “the Jewish lobby” made former Sen. Chuck Hagel, an adviser to
President Obama and candidate for Defense Secretary.
“We’ve been through this before with Ambassador Rice where there
is an effort to go after somebody,” Carney said. “Senator Hagel fought
and bled for his country, he served his country well, and he was an
excellent senator.”
Carney was being asked about a couple of statements by Hagel,
such as the remark that “the Jewish lobby intimidates a lot of people
up here” and the declaration “I’m a United States Senator, not an
Israeli Senator.” Carney refused to comment on those remarks, even
though the reporter suggested he might want to given Hagel’s role as an
adviser to Obama, quite apart from his potential nomination to lead the
Defense Department.
I hope all you card-carrying members of the 'Jewish lobby' are ready for four more years like this.
What could go wrong?
Labels: anti-Semitic stereotypes, anti-Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, dual loyalty, Israel Lobby
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 to
tar 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?
UPDATE 8:54 PM
Abe Foxman of the ADL has now
come out against Hagel.
“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.”
Still waiting to hear from Forman.
Labels: anti-Semitism, Barack Hussein Obama, Chuck Hagel, dual loyalty, Ira Forman, National Jewish Democratic Council
Pascrell won't disavow dual loyalty slur
Representative Bill Pascrell (D-NJ),
a signer of the infamous Hamas 54 letter, is
refusing to disavow an Arab supporter who labeled Pascrell's primary opponent, Representative Steve Rothman, '
Israel's man in the 9th district.' This is from the second link.
New Jersey Democrat Bill Pascrell has no intention of distancing himself from a prominent Arab-American supporter who accused the state’s Jewish community—as well as his Democratic primary challenger, Rep. Steve Rothman—of being more loyal to Israel than America.
Earlier today, Pascrell surrogate Herb Klein, a former member of Congress, called the controversy a non-issue.
“The ongoing ‘controversy’ being laid at Bill Pascrell’s door as a result of an op-ed authored by someone not affiliated with the Pascrell campaign has proven to be a distraction from the issues confronting the 9th Congressional District’s Democratic voters,” Klein said.
...
“We are disappointed that Congressman Pascrell refuses to disavow his donor’s ridiculous and unfounded attack,” Rothman spokesperson Aaron Keyak said in a statement provided to the Free Beacon this afternoon.
“Mr. Assaf is a supporter of and donor to Congressman Pascrell,” Keyak said. “We stand by our request that Congressman Pascrell disavow these attacks and ask his supporters to stop this harmful, dishonest, and bigoted rhetoric. Questioning Congressman Rothman’s loyalty to America is a serious charge.”
Maybe I should register as a Democrat so
I can vote for Rothman. Hmmmm.
Labels: anti-Semitism, Campaign 2012, dual loyalty, Israel firsters
In the US, calling someone an 'Israel firster' is anti-Semitic
In recent years, certain anti-Israel elements in the US have been referring to American supporters of Israel as 'Israel firsters.' In particular, the term is commonly used by the despicable MJ Rosenberg of Media Matters, and by certain bloggers at the Center for American Progress. Obviously, the term implies dual loyalty of American citizens at best and no loyalty to the United States at worst -
an old anti-Semitic canard. Now, the bloggers are being called for using the term and for other anti-Semitic entries in their blogs.
“Israel Firsters fighting each other over whose position on the Middle East conflict is more unreasonable,” and, “... Obama is still beloved by Israel-firsters and getting lots of their $$,” CAP blogger Zaid Jilani tweeted.
In an e-mail to The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday, Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, wrote, “Invoking the term ‘Israel firsters’ and claiming that Jews are war-mongers is precisely the embodiment of new anti-Semitism. The Center for American Progress (CAP) ignored vitriolic and highly offensive rhetoric of the ThinkProgress reporter and bloggers. As we see in Israel, individuals on the far Left that consider themselves ‘enlightened progressives’ resort to personal attacks and misinformation when criticized. ThinkProgress should have stopped the offensive rhetoric rather than distorting Josh Block’s statements.”
Another CAP blogger, Eli Clifton, cast doubt on the accuracy of a Quinnipiac University poll that referred to the existence of Iran’s “nuclear program.” Clifton also wrote that AIPAC “is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq.”
CAP’s director of Middle East Progress, Matt Duss, has compared Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza to racial discrimination. “Like segregation in the American South, the siege of Gaza (and the entire Israeli occupation, for that matter) is a moral abomination that should be intolerable to anyone claiming progressive values,” Duss wrote.
Steinberg said, “It follows from classical anti-Semitism, with inferences of dual loyalty and foreign policy control, and should have no place in American political discourse. This is part of a continuing pattern at ThinkProgress. Two of its reporters, Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib, have blogged for the Electronic Intifada, a highly influential anti-peace and anti-Israel organization. Clifton’s doubts about an Iranian nuclear program are further evidence of his fringe ideological views.”
Rabbi Abraham Cooper, associate dean of the Wiesenthal Center, wrote that the “bloggers are guilty of dangerous political libels resonating with historic and toxic anti-Jewish prejudices.”
Jennifer Rubin, a prominent Washington Post blogger, termed the ThinkProgress bloggers’ language “not merely anti-Israel, they are anti-Semitic.”
CAP spokeswoman Andrea Purse wrote the Jerusalem Post by e-mail on Tuesday, “The allegations against CAP of ‘vitriolic and highly offensive rhetoric’ are based on blatant misinformation. Eli Clifton and Ali Gharib have never written for the website ‘The Electronic Intifada.’ They wrote for a global newswire called IPS and some of their writings were republished by The Electronic Intifada website without permission. The term ‘Israel First’ has never been used on CAP’s blogs, other than to criticize it. Nor have CAP bloggers ever asserted that ‘Jews are war-mongers’ or anything similar.”
Purse continued, “The Center for American Progress favors a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict [that] is the consensus view of administrations of both parties dating back to president Clinton. Our position is based on our strong belief that it is in the national security interests of the United States to achieve a resolution to this conflict. We categorically reject and are offended by the idea that any of our work is anti-Semitic, unless one believes the Middle East peace plan itself and ensuring Israel’s long-term security by securing its neighborhood is anti- Semitic. We welcome a discussion of these ideas on the merits."
Steinberg told the Jerusalem Post on Wednesday, “If CAP wants to disassociate itself from Electronic Intifada, it should demand that Clifton and Gharib’s blogs be removed.”
Read the whole thing.
The Democratic party has to decide whose side it's on.
Labels: Democrats, dual loyalty, liberal media bias
Dual loyalty accusations in the UK
A Labor party MP has accused British Ambassador to Israel Matthew Gould (pictured) of having
divided loyalties because Gould has declared himself to be a Zionist.
Challenged by the JC to clarify his comments about Matthew Gould, who took up the post last year, Paul Flynn, the Labour MP for Newport West, said ambassadors to Israel had not previously been Jewish "to avoid the accusation that they have gone native".
Britain needed, he said, "someone with roots in the UK [who] can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty".
The Foreign Office and MPs from across the political spectrum sprang to Mr Gould's defence and condemned the remarks.
And who is influencing Mr. Flynn? I'm so glad you asked.
He said doubts had been raised about Mr Gould's loyalty by two of his constituents, Pippa Bartolotti and Joyce Giblin, who had been held in prison in Israel after taking part in the "flytilla" demonstration against the Gaza blockade in July.
"When they were briefly imprisoned in Israel, they met the ambassador, and they strongly believe… that he was serving the interest of the Israeli government, and not the interests of two British citizens," he told the committee.
Ms Bartolotti is the deputy leader of the Green Party in Wales and stood against Mr Flynn at the last election.
Flynn's response was
some of my best friends are Jewish to claim to be a 'lifelong friend of Israel and Jewish causes.' Right....
I wonder if Mr. Flynn would be willing to serve as ambassador to Ireland. Just sayin'....
Labels: British anti-Semitism, dual loyalty, Matthew Gould
Eric Erickson charges Jennifer Rubin with dual loyalty, then backtracks
On Wednesday, Red State's Erick Erickson made a not-so-veiled charge of
dual loyalty against Washington Post blogger Jennifer Rubin (Hat Tip:
American Power).
Jenn Rubin, when not pushing out Romney talking points is in favor of freeing traitors, claims to be a conservative covering the conservative movement, though she has nothing in common with conservatives other than hating terrorists. A conservative friend says she’s best understood as ‘Likud’ rather than Republican or conservative. There’s nothing wrong with being Likud, but one ought to be honest about it. (Please be sure to read this update regarding this reference)
The update to which he refers took 16 hours to get there, and includes
this:
I nor the friend of mine who offered that up are anti-Semitic, but it has apparently hit a nerve that I did not intend to hit and I feel I do need to apologize for that. A friend of mine explains to me that a Jewish-American might find it insulting because it suggests they put Israel ahead of the United States.
I had not thought of that when writing it and was not my intention. Where I finally had enough of Jenn Rubin was her position on Jonathan Pollard that I cannot in any way, shape, or form comprehend as being the right position. It was that position of hers and her positions on national security, terrorism, and Israel (all three of which she and I see eye to eye on) that didn’t make me think twice about using the Likud comparison. Apparently I should have. Likud as a party is tough as nails on terrorism and security issues, but is liberal to left (by American standards) on fiscal and social policy, and that’s what I intended by the comparison, not a suggestion of misplaced loyalty. And certainly not anti-semitism.
I would not call the Likud 'liberal to left' on fiscal policy - the forces arrayed against the free market in this country are far different than in the US, and there is a very different balance of power here. But that's not the point of this post.
What I want to get to is Erickson's labeling of anyone who advocates for Jonathan Pollard's release as having dual loyalties (yes, that still comes through in his apology) and of automatically not being a conservative. Over the last year,
Lawrence Korb (formerly Caspar Weinberger's number 2 at the Defense Department), former CIA Director R. James Woolsey, former Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Chairman Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former US Secretary of State
George Schultz, and Harvard Professor
Charles Ogletree have all come out in favor of releasing Pollard. Of those, to the best of my knowledge, only Mukasey is Jewish and only DeConcini and Ogletree are not Republicans.
Additionally, some
500 American Jewish and Christian leaders called for Pollard's release in a letter to President Obama in January. That letter cites all of the following (some of whom are already listed above) as favoring Pollard's release:
Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel, Senators Charles Schumer and Arlen Specter, Harvard Law Professors Charles Ogletree and Alan Dershowitz, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey, former Assistant Secretary of Defense Lawrence Korb, Rev. Theodore Hesburgh of Notre Dame, Benjamin Hooks of the NAACP, former federal Judge George Leighton, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, former U.S. Solicitor General Theodore Olsen, Pastor John Hagee, and Gary Bauer.
And 39 members of Congress.
Would Erickson accuse all of them of dual loyalty? Are none of them Republican or conservative enough for Erickson? Surely Hagee and Bauer (at least) ought to be. And if that's the case, why is Erickson going after Jennifer with a charge like this and not after any of them?
Pollard committed a crime and he's paid for that crime disproportionately. It's long past time to let him go. Unfortunately, much of the American Jewish community cannot find its voice on this issue precisely because it is intimidated by the type of dual loyalty charges made by Erickson against Jennifer Rubin. But the American Jewish community ought to find its voice.
Jonathan Pollard continues to sit in jail today precisely
because he spied for Israel and not for Russia or China or Cuba. Jonathan Pollard continues to sit in jail today because of Caspar Weinberger's antipathy for Israel and Jews. Here's what
Lawrence Korb had to say about that when he came out for releasing Pollard.
"Based on the knowledge that I have first hand, I can confidently say that the punishment was so severe because of lack of sympathy for Israel by the U.S. Secretary of Defense at the time, my boss, Caspar Weinberger," the letter stated.
According to Korb, Weinberg made great efforts to convince the judge to punish Pollard severely. "Although Pollard pleaded guilty, cooperated with the government and asked for clemency - he received disproportionate punishment," wrote Korb. "In the end Weinberg himself did not put the Pollard story in his biography. Weinberger said that the reason for this is because the affair had been exaggerated beyond minor importance - that is, he finally understood and admitted that the story had been blown beyond proportions. "
Korb emphasized that the average penalty for the offense Pollard committed is two to four years, and even today when the law changed - the average sentence is 10 years. "So if he was sentenced today he could not sit 25 years in prison. Justice will be done if the sentence is shortened to what has already been run to date," Korb's letter concluded.
Mr. Erickson should stop bullying people who disagree with him.
Labels: Conservatives, dual loyalty, Erick Erickson, Jennifer Rubin, Jonathan Pollard, Republicans
