RJC to Obama: Stop Trying to Isolate Israel
Republican Jewish Coalition Executive Director Matt Brooks issued
the following statement today concerning Obama's most recent defense of his
proposed nuclear pact with Iran:
"It's a sad day when an
American President sees 'almost the whole world' standing in opposition
to the Jewish state and he sides against Israel. And his claim that
almost the whole world supports his Iran deal is not accurate, given the
serious concerns about the deal expressed by leaders of other Middle
Eastern countries.
"After his troubling, demonizing references to American Jews last
week, it's nice that President Obama now says he's willing to tolerate a
certain amount of criticism from our community. But the main thrust of
his speech today sent an overwhelmingly negative and divisive message.
His heavy-handed evocation of the Iraq war and his attribution of
narrow, partisan motives to Americans who reject his risky diplomatic
scheme are further evidence that he is unwilling or unable to endure the
vigorous, substantive debate on this important issue that he claimed to
welcome.
"At a historical moment that calls for a high caliber of
statesmanship to unify the nation, it's sad that this President resorts
to raw partisanship to divide us."
Indeed.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Iran Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, partisanship, Republican Jewish Coalition, Republicans
US poll: 'Deal with Iran won't stop the bomb anyway'
An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows that 71% of Americans don't believe that an agreement with Iran will stop the Mullahcracy from
developing a nuclear weapon anyway.
Seventy-one percent of Americans say
that the nuclear negotiations, which are backed by the Obama
administration and strongly opposed by most Republicans, will not make a
real difference in affecting Iran's potential production of a nuclear
weapon. About a quarter of respondents - 24 percent - disagree.
Democrats are more
optimistic about the deal, with about a third believing that it would be
effective in preventing the production of an Iranian bomb, compared to
just 11 percent of Republicans who say the same. But majorities of
Americans from all political parties - 58 percent of Democrats, 72
percent of independents and 86 percent of Republicans - think that the
deal would not make a major difference.
Perhaps that explains why Republicans are worried that Democrats, whose votes are needed to override an expected Obama veto of any bill that would hinder him from letting Iran go nuclear, may be seeing this in
partisan terms (Hat Tip:
Memeorandum).
Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker said he was
approached to sign the letter by Cotton, a Republican from Arkansas, but
he concluded it might set back his ultimate goal: veto-proof support
for a bill he has sponsored requiring a congressional vote to approve or
reject an Iran deal.
“I knew it was going to be only Republicans on [the letter]. I just
don’t view that as where I need to be today,” Corker said in an
interview. “My goal is to get 67 or more people on something that will
affect the outcome.”
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) expressed doubt
about her colleagues’ tactic of skirting the White House and trying to
affect foreign policy by going directly to Tehran.
“It’s more
appropriate for members of the Senate to give advice to the president,
to Secretary Kerry and to the negotiators,” Collins said. “I don’t think
that the ayatollah is going to be particularly convinced by a letter
from members of the Senate, even one signed by a number of my
distinguished and high ranking colleagues.”
Indeed, the response
from Tehran was the equivalent of an eye roll, with Foreign Minister
Mohammad Javad Zarif concluding the letter “has no legal value and is
mostly a propaganda ploy.”
Meanwhile some Democrats warned that
Republicans risked alienating some of the dozen or so Democrats who have
pledged support for two GOP measures that could blow up the fragile
talks.
...
Corker’s bill would require an up-or-down vote by Congress on any
deal that Obama strikes with Iran — and although a “no” vote would not
bind Obama and bring down a nuclear deal, it would restrict Obama’s
ability to waive economic sanctions on Iran.
The other measure, sponsored by Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and
Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), would require new sanctions on Iran should
Tehran leave the negotiations or violate its current agreements with the
U.S. and its five negotiating partners: Russia, China, France, Germany
and Britain.
Both measures are close to the 67 Senate votes
needed to override the vetoes President Obama has threatened. The White
House has warned that congressional interference could blow up the talks
and lead to a possible military confrontation with Iran.
This is an issue where partisanship should not even be showing its face. Unfortunately, with the United States' 'post-partisan' President, there is no issue that is bipartisan anymore.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, bipartisan, Bob Corker, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Mark Kirk, P 5+1, partisanship, Robert Menendez, Tom Cotton
Report: 'Post-partisan' Obama makes Dermer price of detente
There may be nothing in the US-Israel relationship that has gotten Barack Hussein
Obama more upset than Prime Minister Netanyahu's appointment of
Ron Dermer as Ambassador to the United States. Dermer, an American immigrant, is the scion of a Republican family from Florida. Obama doesn't like Republicans. Now, Haaretz's Barak Ravid is reporting that
Dermer's replacement is to the price of 'mending' Prime Minister Netanyahu's ties with Washington.
Senior administration officials said the White House is not planning
any retaliation against Netanyahu, nor is it considering ways to punish
him if he wins the election. Nevertheless, the wounds caused by the
premier’s address to Congress are far from being healed, and Netanyahu
will have to make great efforts to restore good relations with the Obama
administration.
“We are not the ones who created this crisis,” said
a senior administration official. “President Obama has another two
years in office and we wish to go back to a reality where you can work
together despite the differences. The prime minister of Israel is the
one who needs to find a way to fix this.”
...
Although White House officials don’t say so explicitly, they seem to
imply that one way to repair the relations between Netanyahu and Obama
would be to replace Israel’s ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer. The
latter is seen as an instigator who concocted Netanyahu’s Congress
speech behind Obama’s back with John Boehner, the Republican speaker of
the House of Representatives.
In his speech to AIPAC, Netanyahu praised Dermer
for standing firm and taking the heat in Washington. If Netanyahu wins
the election and continues to back Dermer, the ambassador will find
himself isolated in the American capital. As long as Obama is in the
White House, nobody in the administration will work with him.
...
Former U.S. ambassador to Israel Dan Kurtzer, who is close to the Obama administration, wrote
in an article on Politico Magazine on Tuesday that “Dermer’s ability to
function as the Israeli ambassador is now severely weakened, perhaps
even fatally so.”
In acting more as Netanyahu’s personal envoy than
Israel’s ambassador, Dermer “has lost touch with a large segment of
Americans – including a majority of the Jewish community that votes for
the Democrats. Ambassadors are an expendable lot – I know from
experience – and Dermer has now outlived his usefulness as Israel’s
envoy to the United States,” Kurtzer wrote.
Petty. Vindictive. Describes Obama and his crew perfectly.
Labels: AIPAC, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear threat, John Boehner, joint session of Congress, partisanship, Ron Dermer
As US embassy staff meets with group trying to influence Israeli elections, Obama speaks about avoiding partisanship
Yes, Obama really said that. Unfortunately, the actions of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv (not Jerusalem - another sore point)
don't reflect it.
Top officials at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv met in late January
with one of the main progressive groups working to tip the upcoming
Israeli elections against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and helped
facilitate the organization’s visit to the United States this week to
learn political organizing techniques.
The State Department helped the nonprofit group Givat Haviva secure
last-minute visas for a delegation of Arab-Israeli mayors, which is in
the United States this week meeting with civic leaders and attending
discussions on voter outreach and community organizing. The delegation
arrived on Feb. 4 and is in Washington, D.C., through Wednesday.
Givat Haviva is part of a coalition of U.S.-funded progressive groups working to influence the Israeli elections, the Washington Free Beacon
reported last week. The organization, which has chapters in both the
United States and Israel, is leading an effort to increase voter turnout
among Arab Israelis, who traditionally oppose right-leaning parties
such as Netanyahu’s Likud.
Top American diplomats met with Givat Haviva and the Arab-Israeli
mayors at the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv on Jan. 29, where they discussed
the plans for this week’s visit. U.S. officials at the meeting included
the deputy mission chief, the CIA station chief, and the cultural
attaché, according to an attendee.
The Givat Haviva Institute’s co-executive director Mohammad Darawshe, the main organizer of the delegation, told the Free Beacon that the meeting was just a “farewell greeting from the embassy staff after they helped with getting the visas.”
The State Department said it would provide a summary of the meeting to the Free Beacon last Wednesday, but as of Monday afternoon had not provided one.
I guess in Obama's book, the only partisanship that exists is partisanship that opposes the interests of Barack Hussein Obama. Sorry Mr. President. Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
There's much more.
Read the whole thing.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Israeli elections, Knesset elections 2015, partisanship, V-2015
Bipartisan?
Alana Goodman puts the lie to J Street's claims of '
bipartisan support.'
The Washington Jewish Week’s Adam Kredo published a list earlier today of 56 members of Congress who attended the J Street gala. Shortly after, Fortenberry’s office called him to make it clear he had not been at the dinner or had RSVP’d.
“Soon after posting this list, Rep. Jeff Fortenberry’s office called me up to clarify his inclusion. They say he neither RSVP’d for nor attended J Street’s conference,” wrote Kredo. “Amy Spitalnick, J Street’s spokesperson, maintains that Fortenberry’s office said he’d attend.”
I contacted Blackburn’s office and was also told by her communications director that she never showed up at the dinner. Spitalnick told me over e-mail that the list contained only the names of those who RSVP’d and that certain members were unable to make the event at the last minute.
J Street may not want to view itself as a group with partisan leanings, but when 100 percent of its dinner guests are Democratic members of Congress, what other conclusions can be drawn from that?
Maybe the Republicans were afraid of the
Emergency Committee for Israel? Heh.
Labels: Emergency Committee for Israel, J Street, partisanship, pro-Israel pro-peace
Who's meddling in American politics?
Former Israeli consul general to New York Alon Pinkas criticized Prime Minister Netanyahu this week for '
partisan activities' in calling for a real military option to be available against Iran. Jonathan Tobin
rips Pinkas to shreds.
What’s his evidence? The speech Netanyahu gave to the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations in which he called for the assertion of a threat of force to respond to the nuclear threat from Iran. Netanyahu said that while he hoped that sanctions would work to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions, a credible threat of force must be on the table. Since U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates soon responded that sanctions are working (a position that no serious person actually believes), Pinkas concludes that Netanyahu violated a tradition of non-partisanship. After that, he goes on to switch gears and then rehearse the arguments often heard from Jewish Democrats that even raising the issue of support for Israel in U.S. elections is somehow not kosher.
Such arguments are nonsense.
First, worrying about Iran has never been the sole preserve of the Republicans. For example, a certain Democratic presidential candidate named Barack Obama made a number of pledges that he would never allow Iran to go nuclear on his watch. Many Democrats as well as Republicans have sounded the alarm about Iran as Obama spent his first year in office pursuing a feckless policy of “engagement” with the ayatollahs and then watched in dismay as he spent his second year assembling a coalition that could only muster support for tepid sanctions that have made no impression on the Iranians.
But what his piece illustrates is that it is Pinkas who is playing American party politics, not Netanyahu. By decrying the claim of some Republicans that some Democrats have been unsupportive of Israel, all Pinkas is doing is demonstrating that he dislikes the GOP and sympathizes with the Democrats. There’s nothing wrong with that, but if that’s how he feels, then perhaps he should move here, become a citizen, and get a vote. (Oddly enough, a few years ago Pinkas actually made a bid to become the head of the American Jewish Congress and almost got the job, until it was learned that it was a violation of Israeli law for a diplomat to take such a position so soon after leaving his post. Eventually, even the members of that moribund organization realized that the idea of an unemployed Israeli diplomat becoming the head of an American group was ridiculous.)
Contrary to Pinkas’s assertion, accountability is the one thing all friends of Israel should welcome. If either a Democrat or a Republican takes stances that are unhelpful to Israel, he or she ought to pay a political price at the ballot box. Taking the issue of support for Israel off the table does nothing to encourage politicians of either party to make good on their campaign promises to defend the Jewish state.
By expressing the justified concerns of Israelis about the existential threat facing their country from Iran, Netanyahu was doing exactly what he should be doing. By injecting himself into party squabbles here on behalf of his friends in the Democratic Party and by attempting to undermine his prime minister’s mission with a false allegation of partisanship, Pinkas demonstrated how out of touch he is with the realities of both Israeli and American politics.
Indeed.
Labels: Alon Pinkas, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iranian nuclear program, military option, partisanship
