Obama's Jews call on Israel to stop the operation and keep absorbing the rockets
This is simply beyond belief. Well, actually, it's not. What's beyond belief is that anyone still dares to refer to these people as 'pro-Israel' and that there are Jewish Federations in the US that are actually willing to include them. Here's a statement issued by 'Jewish Voice for Peace' on Operation Pillar of Defense (Hat Tip: Wrath of God).
As Israel launches operation “Pillar of Defense” in Gaza,
Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) calls for an immediate cessation of the air
strikes and naval bombardment into Gaza and an end to the ongoing siege
of Gaza. JVP urges Israel not to exploit its asymmetric power to
exacerbate the instability in the region. We urge President Obama to
take a stand against these attacks and to use the power of the United
States to insist that Israel pursue all diplomatic measures possible for
the sake of life, safety and security on all sides. JVP
also urges the end of rocket attacks from Gaza into civilian
communities in Israel, which we believe is never justifiable, and which
only serve to derail efforts for a just resolution to the conflict.
This operation is named in reference to a biblical passage in
which a pillar of cloud protects the Israelites as they wandered in the
desert after leaving bondage in Egypt.
And the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of cloud,
to lead them the way; and by night in a pillar of fire, to give them
light; that they might go by day and by night.
Exodus 13:21
It is unseemly to invoke the protection afforded the
Israelites wandering in the desert when Israel is the dominant military
power in the region. JVP rejects the possibility that such a military
operation and escalation of violence will be of any protection for
Israelis or Palestinians. As Israel continues to control Gaza by air,
land and sea, Israel holds responsibility for the well-being and safety
of Palestinian civilians in Gaza who will be traumatized, injured and
killed through this escalation of violence.
JVP calls on our chapters, members, and supporters to join us in
redoubling our efforts to advocate for an end to the U.S.’s
unconditional military aid to Israel and to intensify our calls for
divestment from all companies that profit from this escalation of
violence and Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza.
These are Obama's 'Jews.' But don't worry too much about them. At the rate they're going, they're likely to breed themselves out of existence in a generation or two via intermarriage and childlessness.
It should be obvious to anyone who watched the video of the Democratic party's platform session on Wednesday that it's not that Israel is a 'wedge issue' for the United States. It's that Israel is a wedge issue within the Democratic party. They are a party divided on Israel, but one that is rapidly - thanks to Obama and friends - moving away from Israel. This is from Rick Richman:
Initially approving a platform that omitted the prior provisions, and then demonstrating in the process of restoring one of them that the omissions were not inadvertent, is the culmination of a longer process: (1) administration spokespersons who repeatedly refused to identify the capital of Israel; (2) a formal warning to the Supreme Court against even symbolically recognizing Jerusalem as being in Israel on the passports of Americans born there; (c) doctoring pictures on the White House website regarding Vice President Biden’s 2010 visit to “Jerusalem, Israel” (and similar references in State Department documents); and (4) failing to visit Jerusalem despite requests by liberal Israeli columnists, every Jewish Democrat in Congress, friendly rabbis, and the Israeli prime minister.
Back in 2008, Barack Obama had four different positions on Jerusalem, disingenuously denying the changes as he made them. Ironically, yesterday he found it necessary to intervene to restore a portion of the 2008 platform that had been omitted this year because of a process he had initiated himself.
So what does it mean when multiple party officials, liberal pundits, and even television “reporters” start making that accusation all at once? Panic. That’s what set in last night after the Democratic Party’s convention delegates angrily voted down adding pro-Israel language back into the party’s platform yesterday—though the language was added anyway over their objections—after party officials were left trying to explain why they and President Obama wanted such language deleted in the first place. Politico notes that Obama approved the deletion, though there wasn’t much doubt of that, and then adds this delightful anecdote:
The division over Israel also flies in the face of a prediction Obama strategist David Axelrod made days earlier on “Fox News Sunday,” when he crowed that Obama’s convention would be free of the sideshows that plagued the Republican National Convention last week in Tampa.
“We don’t have the problems that the other party has,” Axelrod said then. “We’re not divided. We don’t have to worry about, you know, what people are saying on the side or about their affection for the president or — we don’t have those problems.”
In fact, not only is the Democratic Party divided on Israel, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out on CNN right after the debacle, the Democrats are practically split down the middle on this. He cited a Gallup poll from earlier this year showing that only 53 percent of Democrats—versus 78 percent of Republicans—side with Israel in the Middle East conflict.
Which leads to a larger point about the issue and the reason the Democrats went into damage control last night: the Democratic Party’s base is pulling it away from Israel. It’s disturbing that only half of Democrats sympathize with Israel, but as yesterday’s events showed, among the base sympathy for Israel is not nearly that high.
I look at what happened at the convention as a good thing. For several years now, we lone wolves have been crying out that Israel has lost the Democratic party, but despite that, the Democratic party has maintained most of the Jewish, pro-Israel vote. Maybe now that will change. If the Jewish vote cannot be taken for granted by either party, support for Jewish causes can only increase.
Democrats lie about AIPAC being in room when platform drafted; Dershowitz 'deeply troubled'; Dems say platform reflects Obama policy on Israel
These are times that try a man's sleep.
I went to sleep for a few hours last night. While I was asleep, the Democrats made the claim that the significant changes made to their platform regarding Israel were made with AIPAC representatives in the room, and with AIPAC's approval. In fact, Democratic party sources went so far as to say that AIPAC loved the platform.
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that once again, the Democrats are lying. AIPAC was not consulted.
“AIPAC officials were not in the room when the platform was drafted,” the source told the Free Beacon Tuesday evening. “AIPAC was never provided with a full draft of the Middle East section of the platform.”
...
The AIPAC source went on to explain that pro-Israel organization had advocated in favor of preserving the language regarding Jerusalem.
“Jerusalem as the capital is Israel was part of the AIPAC submission to the platform committee,” the AIPAC source said.
An official in the Jewish community who requested anonymity said the DNC process was “very surreptitious and very secretive.”
“The idea that the pro-Israel community’s leadership signed off on this is just not true,” the official said.
I was curious how Alan Dershowitz, who has stood by President Obama for most of the last four years, would react to these significant changes to the platform. The Daily Caller reports that he is 'deeply troubled' by them.
“I think one shouldn’t give too much weight to platform pronouncements, but in this case, I think the omissions are troubling — particularly the omission about the Palestinian refugee issue and Hamas are, I think, deeply troubling,” he told The Daily Caller, responding to a report in the Washington Free Beacon demonstrating how this year’s Democratic Party platform is not as pro-Israel as in years past.
...
Dershowitz said he is concerned that this year’s Democratic Party platform will make Israel a partisan issue, something he thinks is not good for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
“My goal is always to keep support for Israel a bi-partisan issue and never make a national election any kind of referendum on Israel,” he said. “I don’t think it is a good thing that the Republican platform seems to be more pro-Israel than the Democratic platform.”
Dershowtiz said that this is not the last the Democratic Party has heard about the platform as he is personally going to get to the bottom of what happened.
“As soon as I hang up with you, I will call people I know in the White House and in the Democratic Party and find out what’s going on,” he said. ”But believe me this is not the last the Democrats will have heard about this issue. They will hear from me on this one.”
Dershowitz says while the platform debate could potentially just be chocked up to “carelessness,” he is afraid that anti-Israel extremists within the Democratic Party are having undue influence.
“It’s not the Democratic base. It’s extremists within the Democratic base who may have more influence than they should on platform,” he said. “I think extremists within the base may very well move the Democratic party away from its pro-Israel position.”
Well, no Professor. It's been about six years now since the Democratic party was taken over by the anti-Israel extremists. Perhaps you missed it.
Now that Senator Lieberman (I-Ct) is retiring rather than face another campaign as an independent, maybe he can take a trip up to Boston and explain to Professor Dershowitz who controls the Democratic party these days.
And for anyone who thinks that the new Democratic party platform doesn't reflect Obama policy, let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: The Right Scoop via Bad Blue).
Anyone still want to argue that the Obama administration is pro-Israel?
OMG: J Street field director admits that their 'job' is to 'move' American Jews to the Left on Israel
If you still believe that J Street is 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' this video might change your mind.
J Street claims to represent the views of American Jews in Washington. In this video (posted online, for some reason) J Street Field Director Carinne Luck suggests the opposite. J Street's real job, she says, is to "move American Jews" to the left on Israel to support J Streets Washington allies.
Let's go to the videotape (note - J Street got the video removed from YouTube - it's been posted to LiveLeak and I have re-embedded it here).
See the whole video online at http://vimeo.com/27581799 (unfortunately, the full video at Vimeo seems to have gone private. I could not access it).
Still think they're pro-Israel? I didn't think so.
Benjamin Kerstein writes about what's wrong with J Street's concept of being 'pro-Israel,' but much of what he writes is equally applicable to my argument earlier about what's wrong with the big tent. This is from the first link.
Put simply, J Street’s version of pro-Israel can essentially mean anything at all. Under the J Street definition, someone who believes that everyone in Israel would be better off if the country were dissolved in favor of a binational state could quite easily call themselves pro-Israel while at the same time advocating what amounts to Israel’s destruction. Indeed, practically anything short of outright genocide could be called pro-Israel under such a definition.
Such fuzzy thinking does lend itself to a certain freedom of action that is often appealing to people of an idealistic bent, but it is massively impractical in political reality. No Israeli government, for example, can possibly consider a political lobby to be a supporter or an ally if it does things like oppose an American veto of anti-Israel resolutions at the UN, as J Street very recently did. Nor can the Israeli people be expected to look upon a group that seeks to impose on them a policy they rejected at the ballot box as anything like a friend. At best, they can only see such a group as an irritating and bizarre anomaly — at worst, as an outright enemy.
What is most disappointing about all of this, however, is that Israel could probably use a pro-Israel lobbying group on the left. Nor is there any real reason for such a group to be problematic or hostile. The right of peoples to self-determination and sovereignty is a principle that has been historically embraced by the left, as is the right of small nations (especially if they are democratic) to defend themselves. A group that made the case for Israel from the left would be a welcome one, but it would have to do so in a manner that does not involve so diluting the idea of supporting Israel that it becomes nearly meaningless.
This, unfortunately, would be a very difficult thing to do. Such a group would not only have to struggle with its position vis-à-vis right-wing Israeli governments, but also vis-à-vis its compatriots on the left, who are becoming increasingly and often disturbingly hostile to Israel and to Zionism in general. It would, in short, be a group that would have to dissent at times not only from Israeli policy but also from the position of the left-wing establishment. It would have to be intellectually and politically capable of making the case that it is not Zionism that is abandoning the left, but the left that is abandoning Zionism. This would require a type of courage that is far more demanding that taking easy pot shots at the “pro-Israel establishment” — a type of courage that J Street, unfortunately, apparently neither has nor wants.
In that last paragraph, it sounded like Kerstein was describing Alan Dershowitz. There's a lot about which I don't agree with Dershowitz, but I also don't recall hearing him calling for boycotting the 'settlements.'
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
