Where have you been for the last two years?
Shavua tov, a good week to everyone.
Yes, I've been totally crazy between work and traveling....
Former Republican Presidential nominee Mitt Romney was in Washington on Friday to attend the first ever Israeli-American Council National Conference. He
attacked President Obama's Middle East policies (indeed, Obama's foreign policies in general) with a vigor that's been lacking in the US for the last two years.
Mr. Romney’s
first order of business was to reveal that he was both “stunned” and
“surprised” that President Obama sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei - suggesting he both sign a nuclear agreement
and join a U.S.-led military effort against the Islamic State.
The former presidential candidate did not hold back before the
enthusiastic audience. He went after Mr. Obama’s foreign policy, and for
weakening the military and “apologizing for America” during overseas
visits. Mr. Romney even criticized Democratic candidates for distancing themselves from the president during the run-up to the midterm elections.
“The White House may view the inaugural Israeli-American convention as an anti-Obama victory party,” says Chemi Shalev, a columnist for Haaretz. “It would be inhuman to expect Mitt Romney to refrain from some gloating and schadenfreude at a groundbreaking meeting of expat Israelis.”
Indeed, Mr. Romney discussed the election, Israel’s close relationship with the U.S. and founding values on stage with Dan Senor, a former policy adviser for the George W. Bush
administration. The pair are among 100 speakers at the three-day
gathering, which frames the Israeli-American community as a particularly
strategic asset on the global landscape. Also on hand: Sens. Lindsey Graham and Bob Menendez, Rep. Ted Deutch, former Sen. Joe Lieberman, Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Ron Dermer, former Israeli Ambassador Dan Gillerman — as well as uber-business leaders and philanthropists Sheldon Adelson and Haim Saban, who will lead a session titled “The Israeli-American Dream” on Sunday.
Now, someone tell me where Romney has been for the last two years.
And there's also some good news from a Pew poll.
A new Pew Research Center survey found that while 66 percent of Jewish
voters backed Democratic candidates during the midterms, “Democrats
appear to have lost some ground with Jews.” The analysis notes: “In
2006, Jewish voters favored Democratic candidates over Republicans by a
75-point margin — 87 percent to 12 percent. In 2014, by contrast, the
margin of victory for Democratic House candidates among Jewish voters
nationwide was 33 points — 66 percent to 33 percent.”
Still waiting for Jewish support for Democrats to decline below 50%.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: American Jews, Barack Hussein Obama, Campaign 2012, Jewish vote, midterm elections, Mitt Romney
Obama threatened to stop vetoing anti-Israel moves at the UN
Good morning once again from Austin, Texas, where I actually made it to synagogue this morning.
Members of the Israeli cabinet have reported to the media that President Hussein Obama has threatened that he will
stop vetoing anti-Israel resolutions at the United Nations Security Council unless Prime Minister Netanyahu falls in line with Obama's anti-Israel policies.
In a dramatic development, Israeli cabinet members are warning that
US President Barack Obama threatened Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
that the US may opt not to oppose future hostile UN Security Council
votes, unless Israel accedes to American policy demands, Israel’s NRG
News reported on Sunday.
“The prime minister told colleagues in recent days … that his
office’s understanding of the issue and the government’s take on it is
that the Americans will not cast a veto against a resolution that
reaches the Security Council,” Ariel Kahana, diplomatic correspondent
for the Makor Rishon and NRG dailies, told The Algemeiner on Monday, quoting ministerial-level sources.
The information was shared at a session of the Bayit Yehudi (Jewish
Home) Party, led by Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, and at which party
members Uri Ariel and Ze’ev Hever were present, according to Kahana.
...
Kahana... pointed to a recent article in The Atlantic
by Jeffery Goldberg – who is commonly seen as reflecting the US
administration’s views towards Israel – referencing the US pressure, but
from the American point of view:
Citing what he called “red-hot” anger by the Obama administration
“over Israel’s settlement policies,” and his view that “the Netanyahu
government openly expresses contempt for Obama’s understanding of the
Middle East,” Goldberg warned that “Profound changes in the relationship
may be coming.”
“This is a precedent and a very dangerous step,” Kahana cautioned
about the American threat, and said it was the most chilling thing he’d
heard uttered in decades of Israel-US relations.
“Beyond the abandonment of Israel, it also flies in the face of
previous agreements with the Americans, including vis a vis the Egyptian
peace deal in which the US would hold the line against such maneuvers,”
Kahana noted.
“The point is that one can’t trust anything the US says anymore, if the information is accurate,” according to Kahana.
“If the US is able to betray Israel like this – what do other allies and foes think?” Kahana wondered aloud.
We haven't been able to trust the United States since Obama took office in 2009, and we can only hope and pray that Tuesday's election results will force a halt to Obama's betrayals.... Unfortunately, it's likely that Obama will be willing to take the Democratic party and the United States down with him in his arrogant, stubborn pursuit of his agenda.
But it's more than that. Daniel Greenfield argues that
it's personal between Obama and Netanyahu.
Netanyahu wasn’t just the leader of a country that the left hated. He had become an honorary Republican.
When Obama met with him, Netanyahu firmly but politely challenged him on
policy. He has kept on doing so ever since, including during his most
recent visit. At a time when most leaders had gotten the message about
shunning Romney, Netanyahu was happy to give him a favorable reception.
Netanyahu clearly wanted Romney to win and Obama clearly wished he
could pull a Clinton and replace Netanyahu. But Netanyahu’s economic
policies were working in exactly the same way that Obama’s weren’t.
The two men hate each other not only on a personal level, but also on a political level.
Netanyahu had successfully pushed through a modernization and
privatization agenda that on this side of the ocean is associated with
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper or Wisconsin governor Scott
Walker. It’s likely what Romney would have done which is one more reason
the two men got along so well. Obama’s visible loathing for Romney is
of a piece with his hatred for Netanyahu.
He doesn’t just hate them. He hates what they stand for. That’s why
Harper and Netanyahu get along so well. It’s part of why Obama and
Netanyahu get along so badly.
Read the whole thing. It's no wonder most of Israel was rooting for the Republicans on Tuesday.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, midterm elections, Republicans, United Nations Security Council, US veto
Haaretz already munching on sour grapes
Haaretz has decided that it knows whom Prime Minister Netanyahu wants to win in Tuesday's US midterm elections, and it's already
munching sour grapes over the prospect.
White House staffers don’t need the National Security Agency to
guess what results Netanyahu would like to wake up to on Wednesday
morning. They believe Netanyahu could integrate well in Congress as a
Republican senator from Texas or North Carolina. They know that his
envoy, Dermer, is investing most of his time lately meeting with
Republican lawmakers, and they also remember that casino mogul Sheldon
Adelson, Netanyahu’s patron and the publisher of his mouthpiece, Israel
Hayom, shelled out $100 million to try to defeat Obama.
Speaking of Dermer and Adelson, a few months ago U.S. National Security
Adviser Susan Rice met with the leader of one of the major American
Jewish organizations. When the latter asked Rice why she hadn’t met with
Dermer. Rice responded, with her characteristic sarcasm, “He never
asked to meet me.”
“Besides, I understood that he’s too busy traveling to Sheldon Adelson’s events in Las Vegas.”
Rice was referring to Dermer’s exceptional attendance as guest of honor
at a gathering of the Republican Jewish Coalition in March. That event
served to prove to Obama’s aides that despite the “new leaf” Dermer had
promised when he arrived in Washington only a few months earlier, he
continued to dabble in American domestic politics as a sympathizer with
the red, Republican side.
Netanyahu is either convinced, or trying to convince himself, that
Obama will have limited room to maneuver following a Republican victory.
He believes that a Republican victory could help him thwart what Obama
and his people have declared is the most important issue foreign policy
issue during his second term as president – a historic agreement with
Iran on its nuclear program.
...
But it’s possible that Netanyahu, who considers himself an expert on
America, is again analyzing the situation incorrectly. He is forgetting
that when it comes to foreign policy, the ability of Congress to
restrict the president is nearly zero. It is equally possible that,
particularly after a Republican election victory, that Obama will feel
he has nothing to lose.
Netanyahu is no fool, and he knows well that Congress (unfortunately) has very little power in foreign policy. But if there's a Republican Congress and Israel takes action against Iran, President Hussein Obama's options may well be limited. What Netanyahu won't be able to do is to force the US to act.
And PS - I'm happy that Netanyahu is smarter than American Jews and isn't willing to cast a knee-jerk vote for 'the Democrat.'
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, midterm elections
Likud MK: After the elections, we'll call him President Chickensh*t
Here in Israel, our politicians are really paranoid about interfering in other countries' elections (something the
Democratic party in the US has
never hesitated to do). So
this statement from Likud MK Miri Regev is probably about as big a blast against President Obama's chickensh*t comments as you're likely to get before next Tuesday.
"With all due respect for Obama, who is he to hand out grades to the
prime minister?” – Regev asked rhetorically in an interview with Arutz Sheva. “The utterances exhibit chutzpah, are unacceptable and constitute intervention in Israel's affairs by President Obama.
She added: "With all due respect to Obama, and I recognize the
importance of our relationship with the Americans, but to say that
Netanyahu has no courage and to compare him to other leaders? We do not
want to say what we think of Obama out of respect and because of the
elections.”
"Jews will build homes everywhere in the Land of Israel, including
eastern Jerusalem, and the Arabs can also live anywhere in the state of
Israel,” she said, regarding a major point of contention between the US
and Israel.
Next Wednesday morning, we may see more politicians referring to Chickensh*t Obama.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, midterm elections, Miri Regev
This ad is brilliant
This ad - for Republican Senatorial candidate Allen Weh (New Mexico) is brilliant, says what has to be said, is entirely about foreign policy and the fallout of the United States' lost stature in the world under Obama.
Let's go to the videotape.
We should be seeing a lot more like this over the next two months. By the way, did you note that only 17% of Americans are satisfied with Obama's handling of 'Israel-Hamas'? Can I interpret that as saying that Main Street USA still loves us? Or are they upset that Obama hasn't put a stop to the war yet? Comments invited....
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, midterm elections, Republican party
What if there's no deal on Iran by July 20?
JPost reports that the P 5+1 negotiations are not going well, and with two months remaining to the self-imposed July 20 deadline for reaching a deal,
there is not one word on paper.
“The goal wasn’t to agree on draft language per se,” a State
Department official told the Post.
“It was to begin the drafting
process.”
“As we know, this is the hardest part and will take time,” the official added.
At
the beginning of negotiations in January, members of the US delegation
acknowledged that the legal process of drafting, independent of the
diplomacy required to reach agreement on core issues, could take months
to complete.
The parties are attempting to forge a comprehensive
agreement to a decades-long impasse with Iran over its nuclear work.
Western governments, their allies and the United Nations’ nuclear
watchdog detect possible military elements to the program.
One of
Iran’s chief nuclear negotiators acknowledged the development. “We have
not reached the point to start drafting the final agreement,” Abbas
Araghchi said, after the fourth round of talks in Austria ended on a
blue note on Friday.
An interim nuclear agreement reached last
year in Geneva grants negotiators the ability to extend the talks up to
six months from July 20.
Over the weekend, Iranian officials
suggested missing the July deadline would not be a “tragedy;” but US
officials fear an extension would politically complicate the talks.
Negotiations are scheduled to resume on June 16 in Vienna.
For those who haven't figured it out yet, the real time pressure on these negotiations is the US mid-term elections in November. Standing to lose both houses of Congress, the Obama administration is desperately in need of a foreign policy 'achievement.'
The two primary issues appear to be the number and quality of
centrifuges Iran will be allowed to maintain and operate under a deal,
and Iran’s retention of a high-powered, heavy-water plutonium reactor
in Arak, which could provide the regime with a second path to a nuclear
warhead.
“It is ridiculous that the power of the [Arak] reactor
would be cut from 40 megawatts to 10 megawatts”, Araghchi said,
according to IRNA news agency – an official Iranian outlet.
If
operating optimally, Arak could produce about nine kg. of plutonium
annually, enough for about two atom bombs, the US Institute for Science
and International Security said.
Iran’s atomic energy
organization chief said in February that Tehran was prepared to modify
Arak, while insisting that Western concerns over Arak were a ploy to
apply pressure o n Tehran .
Speaking anonymously, in order to
keep the focus of talks on the diplomatic process, one US official
warned against politicizing the moment when so few might be left.
“We believe there needs to be some additional realism,” the official said. “Time is not unlimited here.”
What could go wrong?
By the way, Monday is a travel day for me.... Heading back to Israel.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iranian nuclear threat, midterm elections
The best political ad evah....
Joni Ernst is a Republican candidate for Senate in Iowa. This ad is called
Squeal.
Let's go to the videotape.
And lest you think that I'm leaning toward supporting her based on a cute ad... her position paper on Israel is
here.
Labels: midterm elections, Republican party, Republicans, US-Israel relationship
The silent Dems
15 Democratic Senators are
co-sponsoring the Kirk-Menendez Iran Sanctions Act, which would automatically strengthen sanctions against Iran if the Iranians don't behave. 10 Democratic Senators who chair committees have
come out against the bill. And while I reported early Monday morning that the bill could ultimately win a
veto-proof 77 votes, Lefty blogger Greg Sargent argues that we really don't know how any of the remaining 30 Democratic Senators will vote.
He finds their silence on the issue odd.
The basic storyline in recent days has been that the
pro-sanctions-bill side is gaining in numbers, while the
anti-sanctions-bill side hasn’t — even though the White House has been
lobbying Dems very aggressively to back off on this bill, on the grounds
that it could imperil the chances for a historic long-term breakthrough
with Iran. As Josh Rogin puts it, “the White House’s warnings have had little effect.”
We’re very close now to the 60 votes it needs to pass. The Dem
leadership has no plans to bring it to the floor, but there are other
procedural ways proponents could try to force a vote. And if
the numbers in favor of the bill continue to mount, it could increase
pressure on Harry Reid to move it forward. Yes, the president could veto
it if it did pass. But we’re actually not all that far away from a
veto-proof majority. And in any case, having such a bill pass and get
vetoed by the president is presumably not what most Democrats want to
see happen.
So it’s a bit puzzling that we’ve heard so little from Senate Dems
who might be inclined to support the White House in holding the line
against the sanctions bill right now.
Curiously, Sargent ignores one factor that might have a lot to do with the silence: A fear of antagonizing the White House, on the one hand, balanced against a fear of losing a reelection bid on the other hand. How many of those 30 Democrats are up for reelection this year? Anyone care to check?
It's also curious to see Sargent seemingly adopting Peter Beinart's view of
Elizabeth Warren (D-Ma - pictured above) as being "the party’s hottest star, ... an anti-Wall Street crusader with no distinct foreign policy views whatsoever." Really? If
this can be believed, her positions on Israel and Iran aren't as horrendous as a lot of other Democrats. In any event, I'm sure she has views and if the rumors of her running in 2016 turn out to be true, we will find out a lot more about them (I'm not expressing an opinion one way or the other on that). You might recall that in 2008, a certain Senator from Illinois was described as not being very interested in foreign policy.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Elizabeth Warren, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, midterm elections, Peter Beinart, Robert Menendez
Heh....
Democratic staffers on Capitol Hill are being supplied with
grief counseling after last Tuesday's losses.
A staffer for a congressional Democrat who came up short on Tuesday reports that a team of about five people stopped by their offices this morning to talk about payroll, benefits, writing a résumé, and so forth, with staffers who are now job hunting.
But one of the staffers was described as a "counselor" to help with the emotional aspect of the loss — and a section in the packet each staffer was given dealt with the stages of grief (for instance, Stage One being anger, and so on).
"It was like it was about death," the staffer said. "It was bizarre." The staffer did say the portions about the benefits and résumé writing were instructive.
The teams weren't sent by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office. Two people have suggested it may have been the Clerk's Office or Human Resources.
While Tuesday was definitely a major loss for the Democrats, I hadn't heard it cast in a stages-of-grief way before.
I know, that has nothing to do with Israel. But it feels so good to tell you all about it....
Labels: Campaign 2012, grief counseling, midterm elections
Liveblog of US election results
No, I am not staying up to liveblog the US election results. The polls close starting at Midnight Israel time, and I'm okay with getting the results in the morning here. I'll get to watch the close races live anyway :-)
But for those of you who want a liveblog of the US midterm election results, you probably won't do much better than Professor Jacobson who is liveblogging
here.
Labels: Legal Insurrection, Liveblog, midterm elections, Professor William Jacobson
