Archive | October, 2012
Aside

Neither Obama Nor Romney Will Go To War For Netanyahu

23 Oct

For me, it was the most significant moment of the third debate.

Moderator Schieffer: to Governor Romney: What if — what if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said, “Our bombers are on the way. We’re going to bomb Iran.”
What do you –

Romney:: Bob, let’s not go into hypotheticals of that nature. Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way, or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of –

Schieffer: So you’d say it just wouldn’t happen?

Romney nodded.

And there the exchange ended. President Obama chose to ignore the question.

It was a critical moment.

In a night of full-court pandering to Binyamin Netanyahu, Mitt Romney would not give Netanyahu what he most wants: permission to bomb Iran knowing that we would automatically come in too.

Instead, Romney said that a surprise strike by Israel could not happen because any Israeli attack would first be “discussed and thoroughly evaluated….” In other words, Romney would have the opportunity to do the same thing George W. Bush did and Barack Obama almost surely would too: just say NO. And Israel would have to stand down.

Romney’s response took Obama off the hook. After all, if Romney had said that a surprise Israeli strike was acceptable, Obama would either have to agree or look less faithful to Netanyahu than Romney. And that is something he seems desperate to avoid.

But Romney is already seeing himself as a possible president and he therefore cannot give any country carte blanche to drag us into war. In that sense, he and Obama are in the exact same place. They are Americans and are not ready to risk our forces and even American lives at home in a conflict that would not be in the U.S. interest.

The rest of the debate was, of course, heavy on the pandering. But both managed to profess undying love for Israel without saying, when asked, than an attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the United States.

Both said they would ” stand with Israel” but neither said that Israel is in the NATO category (an attack on one is an attack on all). Like President Nixon in the Yom Kippur war, they would supply Israel with aid to repel an attack but, again like Nixon, neither would commit the U.S. to war.

Bottom line. They both pandered (Obama’s pandering was even more over-the-top than Romney’s) but neither indicated a readiness to go to war for Israel. Obama supporters can be somewhat reassured. Romney’s neocon backers must be ready to dive out a window.

Of course, if pandering to a foreign country for purely cynical reasons offends you (it sure offends me), you too might be ready to dive out that window.

Don’t. The pandering was bad but, in the end, it amounted to nothing. U.S. policy will remain as unbalanced as ever but, and this is some consolation, not to the point of being railroaded into war by a foreign leader and the donors who champion him.

Tags: , ,

Jewish Organizations Call Churches Who Want Aid To Israel Treated Like Other US Programs “Anti-Judaism”

17 Oct

I never thought I’d ever have anything good to say about AIPAC. But today I do.

I want to praise AIPAC for its lack of hypocrisy. AIPAC is the Israel lobby. It makes no pretense of caring about anything except Israel. It has no position on any matter that does not relate to Israel.

It is like every other single-interest group (with the difference being that its single interest is a foreign country). It does not pretend to be anything it is not. For AIPAC,  politics begins at the water’s edge — although it directs campaign contribution and strong arms Congress from this side of the water.

This is not the case with other Jewish organizations like the American Jewish Committee, the Union of Reform Judaism, the Anti-Defamation League, and the Jewish Council For Public Affairs (the “action” arm of the Jewish federations). These are dedicated, or so they say, to the interests of Americans, Jewish Americans in particular but, they would argue, all Americans. They are interested in Israel (although the American Jewish Committee was traditionally anti-Zionist, it is now well to the right of AIPAC) but Israel is not what they are about.

They are about defending the rights of Jews in America. Here is the mission of the Anti-Defamation League as spelled out in its charter:

The immediate object of the League is to stop, by appeals to reason and conscience and, if necessary, by appeals to law, the defamation of the Jewish people. Its ultimate purpose is to secure justice and fair treatment to all citizens alike and to put an end forever to unjust and unfair discrimination against and ridicule of any sect or body of citizens.

But that is changing big time. The non-AIPAC organizations have become as Israel crazy as AIPAC, so much so that they are now abandoning their traditional partners in the general community who do not share their right-wing view of Israel. They are saying: if you are not with us on Israel, we are not with you on…America.

It is no surprise that this is happening now. As  younger generations of Jews lose interest in Netanyahu’s Israel, and as 50% of Jews marry non-Jews, the organizations are terrified. Where is their next generation of leaders?

More important, who is  their next generation of donors? Who is going to tell candidates that attitudes toward Israel is all that matter to them?  The organizational leaders know that they can’t even count on their own kids. Does anyone under 40 ever join the American Jewish Committee? The decline of anti-Semitism in this country has made young people less interested, in fact not interested at all, in Jewish “defense organizations.”

It is no wonder that they are paranoid, so paranoid that they are telling church groups that they will no longer engage in dialogue with them over matters of mutual concern. (Hello, Jewish organizations, we are 2% of the population. We need to engage in dialogue more than Christians do.)

What provoked the Jewish organizations (including J Street, by the way) is that 15 church groups asked Congress to examine U.S. aid programs to Israel to make sure that they are compliance with US law and policy.  This is no more than what domestic programs like farm subsidies or funds for cancer research are subjected to. In Congress, this is called “oversight.”

But the organizations don’t want Congress looking at aid to Israel at all. After all, aid to Israel is the only US program never subjected to budget cuts because AIPAC gets its exempted. Yes, the IDF is not subject to the budget sledgehammer scheduled to fall early next year but the US military is! Why should Israel aid have to comply with US law?

Take a look at the statement the Jewish Council On Public Affairs has just issued. 

Cancelling an interfaith dialogue meeting, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs and other Jewish groups have called for a summit with the heads of Jewish organizations that have been engaged in the roundtable and the heads of the Christian denominations that penned a letter to Congress calling for an investigation into Israel’s use of the U.S. military aid.

“The letter signed by 15 church leaders is a step too far,” said JCPA President Rabbi Steve Gutow.  “The participation of these leaders in yet another one-sided anti-Israel campaign cannot be viewed apart from the vicious anti-Zionism that has gone virtually unchecked in several of these denominations. We remain committed to the enterprise of interfaith relations because it is central to the development of a just and righteous society.  But these churches have squandered our trust.  They either refuse to pay attention to our plea for a fair appraisal of the situation or they simply do not care.  Their stony silence to the use of anti-Judaism and relentless attacks on the Jewish state, often from within their own ranks, speaks loudly to their failure to stand up and speak the whole truth about what is occurring in the Middle East.”

“It is the right of these Christian leaders to say what they want to Congress or anyone else,” added JCPA Chair Larry Gold.  “And it is our right to say ‘enough is enough.’  We will continue to be vigilant against anti-Christian, anti-Muslim, and anti-Palestinian activities wherever and whenever we see them because it is the right thing to do.  If only the leaders of these churches cared a fraction as much about the anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activities that have found comfortable homes in their denominations. How tragic that some of our counterparts in the churches are not only silent to this invective, they are responsible for it. ”

Crazy, no, especially when you read what these guys are flipping out over. Here is what the Christians wrote:

As Christian leaders in the United States, it is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel. Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel — offered without conditions or accountability — will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories….We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.

So, according to the Jewish groups, the churches have to support unconditional aid to Israel when nothing else in our budget is unconditional. Talk about chutzpah.

What if a Muslim organization told its Jewish partners on, say, immigration reform, that it would not work with Jews unless they support its position on Palestine or the war in Syria? No, it wouldn’t happen because it’s self-defeating and downright stupid, in addition to being ridiculously arrogant.

The organizations should shut up and let the Christians speak the truth that the Jewish organizations are determined to ignore: unconditional aid to Israel preserves the status quo. Conditioning aid on, say, an end to settlements would advance peace.

And supposed liberal leaders like Rabbis David Saperstein and Steven Gutow (long time AIPAC apparatchik) need to be exposed for what they are: moral leaders on the cheap. When it comes to Israel, Palestine or Muslims in general, they line up with the other AIPAC puppets. This is nothing: they were silent about the Gaza slaughter too. And, despite their support for the two-state solution (yeah, right), they urged President Obama to veto establishment of a Palestinian state when it was slated to come before the United Nations. Talk about my country right or wrong!

No wonder they have lost most American Jews.

Christians: Do not be intimidated. These organizational hacks represent no one but themselves. They do not speak for Jews.

They don’t even speak for Jews who care deeply about Israel and who want to see Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and security. It’s all about not offending donors. After all, once you have gotten used to a $500,000 a year salary, it’s hard getting accustomed to anything less.

Why Do Candidates Keep Insulting American Jews?

15 Oct

I think it is the very last thing Barack Obama, Mitt Romney, Joe Biden or Paul Ryan intend. When they do their formulaic shout outs to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and to the State of Israel, I have no doubt that they believe both that it is good politics and that, if anything, they are flattering Jews.

After all, no other foreign country or foreign leader gets anything like this kind of attention during the American election season. Jewish voters must be pleased.And, no doubt, some of them are, especially the organizational leaders who promote the idea that American Jews care about Israel above all other issues. But, as the candidates surely know, Israel is far from the top of Jewish concerns.

According to the American Jewish Committee poll (the annual survey of Jewish attitudes that is respected as the most authoritative survey), just six percent of Jews choose Israel as their number one issue. Twenty-nine percent choose the economy. Twenty percent choose health care. Nine percent National Security. And eight percent choose Social Security. When asked for their top three issues — so that first, second and third choices are put together — 80 percent had the economy in their first three. Fifty-seven percent chose health care. Twenty-six percent choose national security. Twenty-six percent choose taxes and another twenty-six percent choose social security. Twenty-two percent choose U.S.-Israel relations.

What does it mean?

It does not mean American Jews don’t care about Israel. They do and poll after poll shows it (although they disagree as to what the best course for Israel is). But they are Americans before they are anything else. And their top concerns are issues that affect their fellow Americans.

They also believe that both candidates, in fact all the candidates for president since the State of Israel was established, support Israel’s security. There is, then, no reason to vote on the basis of that issue despite the partisan efforts to portray one or another of the candidates as anti-Israel. If, perhaps, there was an anti-Israel candidate, Israel would loom larger as a voting issue. But there isn’t one now and no major candidate has ever nominated one or is likely to do so.

But, listening to the candidates, one would think that Jewish voters (and donors) only care about Israel. I doubt very much that the candidates talk about Israel to please so-called Christian Zionists who are safely in the Republican camp due to issues like marriage equality and abortion. No, the candidates are talking to Jews. And it is insulting.

No other group is appealed to with reference to a foreign country. The candidates don’t fall over themselves praising Ireland, Italy or Poland, to name just three of the countries many voters identify with. They don’t talk about Africa to appeal to African Americans. No, only Jews are addressed as if we are some sort of foreign enclave that happens to live here.

That is wrong and it’s offensive. America is the most secure haven Jews have ever had. It has allowed us something no other diaspora country allowed us: the right to be identified as loyal citizens of the country, not on the basis of our faith or ethnicity. To treat us as something else is deeply offensive to almost all of us. It is certainly no compliment.

So candidates, enough with the shout outs to Bibi. He is not our leader. Today our leader is Barack Obama and, in just four weeks, we will discover if he will continue in that position or be replaced by Mitt Romney.

In any case, it won’t be Netanyahu.

Tags: ,

Best Cartoon History Of Israel/Palestine In History By Nina Paley

14 Oct

Here is, Nina Paley, the cartoonist’s guide to who is killing who. 

Tags:

J Street Sells Its Soul, Completes Evolution To AIPAC Lite (Updated)

13 Oct

It was inevitable. Constantly under pressure from the Jewish center-right (Reform rabbis, for instance), J Street has thrown in the towel. Read its document of surrender. 

In response to the letter from Christian denominations urging that aid to Israel be compliant with U.S. policy and law,  J Street has joined Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation league and the half-million dollar a year hacks that run the other Jewish organizations to blast the Christians.  (See Foxman letter).  J Street’s endorsement of the right-wing position is interestingly framed.  It asserts that the Jewish community brouhaha about the letter is much ado about little. It says that Jews should be more concerned about achieving peace than attacking every call for it. It puts forth its own tired support for Mahmoud Abbas and the PA (without mentioning that it urged the US to veto the Palestinian statehood resolution which represented Abbas’s one big effort to avoid irrelevancy).

And then it covers its bases by asserting that it agrees with ADL and the others that aid to Israel is an entitlement. It must never be questioned unless you also add “criticism of Israel’s behavior with appropriate criticism of, for instance, rocket fire from Gaza into Israeli civilian areas.”  You must also  ”put the present situation into a historical or political context that might provide a fuller appreciation for the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over many decades. “

Blah, blah, AIPAC, blah. The church letter is about the $2.5 billion aid package to Israel. As far as I know, the U.S. does  not provide the rockets fired from Gaza. As for putting the current situation in a context that “might provide a fuller appreciation for the complexity of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over many decades,” I say tell that to the people of Gaza, including the 1400 Palestinians killed  during the 2009 Israeli onslaught (including 700 civilians and 250 kids under 16). What’s that context again?

I have no doubt that the people who run J Street fought the rabbis and donors to avoid having to put out this statement. They always fight. (The fought against having to oppose Palestinian statehood at the UN). They always give in.

I hear that Rabbi David Saperstein of the Reform movement threatens to pull “my rabbis” out if J Street strays too far from AIPAC. He’s the lobby’s enforcer, a great progressive on all matters NOT related to Israel and the Palestinians because he too is intimidated by his donors.

So I feel sorry for J Street. But I do not see any reason to support it. It is, at the end of the day — in fact, long before the end of the day — just another Jewish organization that lacks the courage of its supposed convictions.

If Israel attacks Iran, I am sure Saperstein will demand that J Street go along with that too.  And J Street will.  It is terrified not to be part of the organizational consensus, terrified that the Israeli ambassador will be angry with them, terrified at being outsiders like, you know, the Biblical Jewish prophets. It wants to be part of an amoral and immoral consensus and, guess what, it is.

J Street: Epic Fail.

Tags:

ADL’s Foxman Goes Ballistic Because Some Christians Question Unconditional Aid To Israel

11 Oct

Yesterday I reported on the Jewish organizations crashing down on 15 Christian denominations because they had the temerity to call on the United States Congress to ascertain that all US aid programs to Israel are in compliance with US law. (Nice try, Christians, but it will never happen. In fact, not 10 Members of Congress would dare defy AIPAC like that).

Anyway,  the organizations led by the liberal-on-everything-not-related-to-Israel Jewish Council on Public Affairs went nuts. How dare anyone suggest that aid to Israel be subject to any scrutiny, even though all monies provided here at home are? They flipped out, suggesting strongly that the 15 denominations are a bunch of Jew-haters. Yes, it’s overkill and they know it but it’s designed to make the Christians not only abandon this effort BUT NEVER EVER DO ANYTHING LIKE THIS AGAIN, YOU HEAR ME.

Today the Anti-Defamation League weighed in. Abe Foxman says ADL is ending a planned dialogue with Christian groups because:

It is outrageous that mere days after the Iranian president repeated his call for Israel’s elimination, these American Protestant leaders would launch a biased attack against the Jewish state by calling on Congress to investigate Israel’s use of foreign aid.  In its clear bias against Israel, it is striking that their letter fails to also call for an investigation of Palestinian use of U.S. foreign aid, thus once again placing the blame entirely on Israel.

Of course, Iran!!! And the $12 dollars in aid we give to the Palestinians.

Anyway, read the ADL statement. These organizations which represent no one but their zillionaire donors (certainly not most Jews) have lost their minds. I mean, now they are literally saying that aid to Israel unlike aid to school kids or farmers or seniors or vets here at home should not have to comply with US law. Who the hell do these overpaid organizational hacks think they are?

ADL Pulls Out of Jewish-Christian Dialogue to Protest Anti-Israel Letter Signed by Mainline Protestant LeadersNew York, NY, October 10, 2012 … The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has withdrawn from participating in a national Jewish-Christian interfaith dialogue scheduled for October 22 in response to a serious breach of trust by mainline Protestant Church leaders who are participants in the annual interfaith meeting.

Some of the Protestant leaders who were scheduled to be dialogue participants sent an outrageous and biased letter to members of Congress on October 5, accusing Israel of human rights violations against Palestinians and calling for a re-evaluation of U.S. foreign aid to Israel.  By failing to alert Jewish dialogue participants beforehand, ADL said the mainline Protestant leaders who signed on to the letter had shown a “blatant lack of sensitivity” and “seriously damaged the foundation for mutual respect.”

The letter was signed by the current head of the National Council of Churches, as well as leaders of the Presbyterian, Methodist, Lutheran, Disciples of Christ and United Church of Christ churches and was issued without notifying any of the churches’ longtime Jewish dialogue partners, including ADL.

“In light of the failure of any of the church leaders to reach out to us, we have decided not to attend this interfaith meeting,” said Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director.  “The blatant lack of sensitivity by the Protestant dialogue partners we had been planning to meet with has seriously damaged the foundation for mutual respect, which is essential for meaningful interfaith dialogue.”

The letter to Congress from Protestant leaders called for an investigation into possible violations by Israel of the U.S. Foreign Assistance Act and the U.S. Arms Export Control Act, which would make Israel ineligible for U.S. military aid.

“As Christian leaders in the United States, it is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel,” the letter said.  “Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel — offered without conditions or accountability — will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories.

“We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.”

Mr. Foxman responded: “It is outrageous that mere days after the Iranian president repeated his call for Israel’s elimination, these American Protestant leaders would launch a biased attack against the Jewish state by calling on Congress to investigate Israel’s use of foreign aid.  In its clear bias against Israel, it is striking that their letter fails to also call for an investigation of Palestinian use of U.S. foreign aid, thus once again placing the blame entirely on Israel.

“We hope that other Jewish organizations will understand the level of disrespect the American Jewish community is being shown here a

Neocons: Romney’s Foreign Policy Masters

11 Oct

 

I learned recently that many people do not really know who the neocons are or what they stand for. They know that Commentary, the Weekly Standard, Charles Krauthammer, and the editorial page of the Washington Post are neocon.  But beyond knowing that neocons are hawkish Likudniks, few know what that means.

Here is the basic document of neoconservatism that was incorporated into a letter to President Bush in 2002. As you can see, it is pretty much all about Israel. In fact, neoconservatism is all about Israel (although it is a movement that is far from exclusively Jewish and few Jews support the movement.)

It is also not really conservative. Commentary, which is the leading voice of the movement, is not conservative. It only mouths support for conservative causes to ingratiate neocons with real conservatives and therefore achieve dominance over conservative foreign policy. It only feigns interest in US domestic issues; its eye is always and only set on Israel. (Even the writing deteriorates when the Commentariat tries to discuss US issues.)

The “fake conservative”  strategy worked to get the neocons top jobs  in the Bush administration and appears even more successful with the Romney campaign.  Romney’s  foreign policy apparatus has been taken over by neocons like top adviser Dan Senor.  (Also, op Romney fundraiser Sheldon Adelson would be a neocon if he knew the word). Romney himself is now openly neocon, saying that he favors letting Prime Minister Netanyahu decide our Middle East policy for us.

In any case, this is the original document that spells it all out. As unbelievable as it sounds, no neoconservative has ever repudiated it. If Romney wins, this is the foreign policy blueprint he will rely on. An Israeli foreign policy for….America.

The Honorable George W. Bush
President of the United States
Washington, DC 

Dear Mr. President:

We write to thank you for your courageous leadership in the war on terrorism and to offer our full support as you continue to protect the security and well-being of Americans and all freedom-loving peoples around the world.

In particular, we want to commend you for your strong stance in support of the Israeli government as it engages in the present campaign to fight terrorism. As a liberal democracy under repeated attack by murderers who target civilians, Israel now needs and deserves steadfast support. This support, moreover, is essential to Israel’s continued survival as a free and democratic nation, for only the United States has the power and influence to provide meaningful assistance to our besieged ally. And with the memory of the terrorist attack of September 11 still seared in our minds and hearts, we Americans ought to be especially eager to show our solidarity in word and deed with a fellow victim of terrorist violence.

No one should doubt that the United States and Israel share a common enemy. We are both targets of what you have correctly called an “Axis of Evil.” Israel is targeted in part because it is our friend, and in part because it is an island of liberal, democratic principles — American principles — in a sea of tyranny, intolerance, and hatred. As Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld has pointed out, Iran, Iraq, and Syria are all engaged in “inspiring and financing a culture of political murder and suicide bombing” against Israel, just as they have aided campaigns of terrorism against the United States over the past two decades. You have declared war on international terrorism, Mr. President. Israel is fighting the same war.

This central truth has important implications for any Middle East peace process. For one spoke of the terrorist network consists of Yasser Arafat and the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. Although your critics in the United States, Europe and the Arab world suggest that you and your administration bear some responsibility for the lack of political progress between Israel and the Palestinians, they are mistaken. As Secretary of State Powell recently stated, the present crisis stems not from “the absence of a political way forward” but from “terrorism…, terrorism in its rawest form.” That terrorism has been aided, abetted, harbored, and in many instances directed by Mr. Arafat and his top lieutenants. Mr. Arafat has demonstrated time and again that he cannot be part of the peaceful solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He demonstrated it in July 2000, when he rejected the most generous Israeli peace offer in history; he demonstrated it in September 2000, when he launched the new intifada against Israel; and he demonstrated it again these past two weeks when, despite the hand you offered him through Vice President Cheney, he gave sanction to some of the worst terrorist violence against Israeli citizens.

It is true that the United States has a leading role to play in the Middle East and, potentially, in resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. But it is critical that negotiations not be the product of terrorism or conducted under the threat of terrorist attack. This would send a most dangerous signal to our adversaries that civilized states do not have the necessary courage to fight terrorism in all its forms. 

Mr. President, it can no longer be the policy of the United States to urge, much less to pressure, Israel to continue negotiating with Arafat, any more than we would be willing to be pressured to negotiate with Osama Bin Laden or Mullah Omar. Nor should the United States provide financial support to a Palestinian Authority that acts as a cog in the machine of Middle East terrorism, any more than we would approve of others providing assistance to Al Qaeda.

Instead, the United States should lend its full support to Israel as it seeks to root out the terrorist network that daily threatens the lives of Israeli citizens. Like our own efforts in Afghanistan and elsewhere, Israel’s task will not be easy. It will not be accomplished quickly or painlessly. But with fortitude, on our part as well on the part of the Israeli people, it can succeed in significantly reducing the risk of future terrorist attacks against Israel and against us. And, in so doing, we will give the Palestinian people a chance they have so far not had under Arafat’s rule — an opportunity to construct a political culture and government that do not marry their national and religious aspirations with suicide bombers.

Furthermore, Mr. President, we urge you to accelerate plans for removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. As you have said, every day that Saddam Hussein remains in power brings closer the day when terrorists will have not just airplanes with which to attack us, but chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons, as well. It is now common knowledge that Saddam, along with Iran, is a funder and supporter of terrorism against Israel. Iraq has harbored terrorists such as Abu Nidal in the past, and it maintains links to the Al Qaeda network. If we do not move against Saddam Hussein and his regime, the damage our Israeli friends and we have suffered until now may someday appear but a prelude to much greater horrors. Moreover, we believe that the surest path to peace in the Middle East lies not through the appeasement of Saddam and other local tyrants, but through a renewed commitment on our part, as you suggested in your State of the Union address, to the birth of freedom and democratic government in the Islamic world.

Mr. President, in that address, you put forth a most compelling vision of a world at peace, free from the threat of terrorism, where freedom flourishes. The strength of that vision lies in its moral clarity and consistency. In the war on terrorism, we cannot condemn some terrorists while claiming that other terrorists are potential partners for peace. We cannot help some allies under siege, while urging others to compromise their fundamental security. As you eloquently stated: “Our enemies send other people’s children on missions of suicide and murder. They embrace tyranny and death as a cause and a creed. We stand for a different choice, made long ago, on the day of our founding. We affirm it again today.”

Israel’s fight against terrorism is our fight. Israel’s victory is an important part of our victory. For reasons both moral and strategic, we need to stand with Israel in its fight against terrorism.

Sincerely,

William Kristol

Ken Adelman    Gary Bauer    Jeffrey Bell    William J. Bennett

Ellen Bork    Linda Chavez    Eliot Cohen    Midge Decter

Thomas Donnelly    Nicholas Eberstadt    Hillel Fradkin    Frank Gaffney   

Jeffrey Gedmin    Reuel Marc Gerecht    Charles Hill    Bruce P. Jackson   

Donald Kagan    Robert Kagan    John Lehman    Tod Lindberg   

Rich Lowry    Clifford May    Joshua Muravchik    Martin Peretz   

Richard Perle    Daniel Pipes    Norman Podhoretz    Stephen P. Rosen   

Randy Scheunemann    Gary Schmitt    William Schneider, Jr.    Marshall Wittmann   

 

Tags: ,

YOU CAN Prevent Media Yakkers From Giving Debate To Paul Ryan

11 Oct

To be honest, I didn’t know how bad Obama did in the first debate until I looked at twitter an hour into it. I thought he was weak, but not terrible. I thought Romney was energized but bordering on overly aggressive. I didn’t think the debate would change anything.

But then I looked at twitter and understood that Obama’s performance was the debate equivalent of the Titanic’s maiden voyage. When Andrew Sullivan (who has 25 points of IQ on me) started screaming “lower the lifeboats,” I new that Obama’s debate was a catastrophe.

Then after the debate, Obama’s performance deteriorated hour by hour. And so did Obama’s poll numbers as people learned from the media (and the blogosphere) that the debate was no more debate. It was a game changer, that Romney demonstrated his stuff while Obama showed that he is an empty suit (or chair as the New Yorker cover has it).

And so the game changed.

The right is determined that they achieve a repeat tonight. Did you notice how they are going after Martha Raddatz because her husband is Obama’s law school pal. That is designed to intimidate Raddatz and ABC. The right does this all the time because the media, composed mostly of nominal Democrats, feel they have to “bend over backwards” to suck up to Republican to show that their personal affiliation doesn’t affect them. (See Tapper, Jake)

That is why if Biden so much as stumble on a word tonight, they are all ready to call him old and tired. A joke. If he attacks Ryan’s positions too strenuously they will say he seemed mean  and that Americans don’t like mean. They have no problem attacking Obama and Biden for being too full of passion or too empty of it depending on circumstances.  

They are just waiting to declare Biden dead and the race over. That will prove that they are not liberals. They will then vote for Obama because, in fact, they know how bad Romney and Ryan are. But their careers come first. And that means not playing it fair but demonstrating a unique kind of fairness by tilting big to the GOP.

This will be avoided if Biden destroys Ryan. And that may happen. But, if not, the whole first debate mechanism comes into play.

Here’s how we can help. Bloggers and tweeters should avoid hysteria no matter what happens tonight. The MSM does not need us to help them put out the story line they are eager for. Just like GOP yakkers do not trash their guys publicly, we can exercise a little reserve. Powerhouse bloggers  Andrew Sullivan, Matt Yglesias  and Josh Marshall: I am especially talking about you.

I’m not suggesting anyone lie. I am just suggesting we avoid public grief, hysteria, hari-kari, etc. We don’t need to feed the MSM beast. They are quite good at destroying Democrats on their own.  

 

Mainstream Jewish Organizations Earn “Israel First” Designation Again

9 Oct

Have you noticed that none of the mainstream Jewish organizations have expressed much anger about Pam Geller’s anti-Muslim hate signs going up on trains, buses and subway stations in the Bay Area, New York and now Washington.  A couple have issued mild statements of tepid disapproval  (most have said nothing) but without any of the vehemence they employ when say, a pro-Palestinian student group organizes at some college somewhere.

The organizations seem not to get that (1) these ugly placards insult Muslims and incite violence against them (after all, how else to respond to “savages”) and (2) these ugly placards endanger Jews who could be turned on  by those set off by the signs. Personally, I think Pam Geller would like to see the shedding of blood by either side as a tool for her fundraising efforts and to help spread her message of hate.

But the Jewish organizations are quiet. My guess is that one reason why is that many of them share donors with Pam Geller (AIPAC, in particular) and never, ever want to anger a donor.  Another reason is that these organizations never express concern about Muslims, other than to denigrate them. Every major Jewish organization supported the Gaza war, opposed the Goldstone report condemning it, and demanded that the U.S. veto Palestinian statehood at the United Nations (even though the resolution they forced us to oppose embodied U.S. policy). And, third, they are all busy demanding more sanctions on or war with Iran to be too concerned about hate here at home.

But then today the organizations demonstrated yet again where their hearts are.

They are responding with a mighty roar to word that fifteen church organizations are demanding that Congress evaluate the $3.5 billion U.S. aid package to Israel  The churches ask that before aid is disbursed Congress should determine that the recipient is in compliance with U.S. law. In response, the Jewish organizations went ballistic, coming this close to calling the letter anti-Semitic (what a surprise!).  Here is an excerpt from a letter sent by the church groups as reported by JTA.

As Christian leaders in the United States, it is our moral responsibility to question the continuation of unconditional U.S. financial assistance to the government of Israel. Realizing a just and lasting peace will require this accountability, as continued U.S. military assistance to Israel — offered without conditions or accountability — will only serve to sustain the status quo and Israel’s military occupation of the Palestinian territories….We request, therefore, that Congress hold Israel accountable to these standards by making the disbursement of U.S. military assistance to Israel contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.

Think about it. The church groups are asking only that the disbursement of U.S. aid be “contingent on the Israeli government’s compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.”

Now, the organizations may not know this but the disbursement of all domestic assistance (Social Security, food stamps, subsidies to farmers and everyone else) is contingent on “compliance with applicable U.S. laws and policies.” Moreover, the current economic situation has put all those programs under scrutiny, and most have sustained cuts which have cost many Americans (including cops and teachers) their jobs. The one program exempt from scrutiny and from cuts is the aid to Israel program. In fact, every budget slashing proposal passed or pending in Congress exempts Israel and only Israel (no, the U.S. military is not exempt while the Israeli military is).

And now AIPAC’s satellite organizations are screaming at church groups for simply asking that we subject Israel to the same process that we subject Americans too.

Take a look at the statement  from the Jewish Council On Public Affairs. It is the policy arm of the Jewish federations, the largest Jewish domestic charity in the country. Once its focus was almost entirely on Jewish needs here. Now, like the others, it is just AIPAC lite, agitating over Israel, Palestine and Iran (Iran, Iran).

Here is what its head Rabbi Steve Gutow (former AIPAC official) and his nominal boss Larry Gold said about the church letter.

“We reject the call to reevaluate foreign aid to Israel – and we continue to support targeted aid to Palestinians.  Foreign aid remains a vital instrument,” said JCPA President Rabbi Steve Gutow. “U.S. aid to Israel is not ‘unconditional,’ as the letter claims. It reflects the shared values of America and Israel and furthers our shared goals for peace and security and is vital to advance the security of both peoples.”

“The singling out of Israel by the signatories is disappointing but not surprising,” said JCPA Chair Larry Gold. “Although the letter acknowledges that Palestinians share some responsibility for the conflict, there is no call for investigation of Palestinian intransigence. It is telling that the call for action regarding human rights in other parts of the world is reduced to a mere footnote.

“The letter could also have highlighted the relentless attacks on Christians throughout the Middle East, including the brutal oppression of Coptic Christians or just as easily have called for a suspension of aid to Palestinians until the Palestinian Authority take steps such as returning to the negotiating table.  That would have been equally unhelpful but might have mitigated the obvious conclusion that the signatories bear a deep and singular antipathy for Israel.”

“Most Americans, including most Christians support a strong U.S. Israel relationship and recognize that foreign aid is a wise American investment. This is also the view of the leaders of both parties in both houses of Congress and both candidates for president,” said Gutow. “Those signatories to this letter are out of sync with these mainstream values.”

“We eagerly await the day when these church leaders step away from their troubling fixation on hurting Israel and adopt an approach to peacemaking that fosters reconciliation rather than conflict,” said Gutow.

Crazy?  My favorite part is where the letter specifically supports “targeted” aid to Palestinians (both measly and with so many conditions USAID barely knows how to legally deliver it) while demanding that the massive Israel program be unconditional.  And naturally Gutow talks about how “most Americans” support unconditional aid while, of course, knowing that it is inconceivable that any American would accept that a foreign aid program be exempt from the requirements we put on domestic programs. And then it goes off about the Copts in Egypt!

What a ridiculous letter and, as JTA reports, this is the positions not just of JCPA but of the other organizations too.

The worst thing about Israel First organizations like JCPA and the others (see this typically stupid statement from the American Jewish Committee)  is that although they intend to put Israel first, they really just support the deadly status quo that could ultimately destroy Israel. Putting conditions on aid, like demanding a settlement freeze or negotiations with the goal of peace and security for Israelis and Palestinians, is the best thing we could do for Israel. It needs peace. Time is not its friend.

But these organizations are, in fact, as indifferent to Israel’s real needs as they are to Pam Geller’s incitement. They exist to please donors and to pay their top executives those half million dollar salaries. I guess I shouldn’t call them Israel Firsters (although I always will). They are ME FIRSTERS and to hell with everyone else.

HERE IS THE FULL TEXT OF THE JCPA LETTER. 

Tags: , , ,

Iran: No To Sanctions, No To War

5 Oct
The latest news from Iran is heartening to those who support sanctions as a means to prevent the Islamic Republic from developing nuclear weapons.The economy is in shambles with the Iranian rial losing value at an unprecedented rate. The people are feeling the pain and there are anti-government demonstrations for the first time since the 2009 election. A nervous regime is blaming “agitators” for the crisis and is arresting supposed troublemakers.

It appears that sanctions are having an effect — even if they are only part of the reason Iran’s economy is in trouble (economic mismanagement is also a factor). The Obama administration says that  are “working.”

But are they really? The answer is “yes” if their purpose is to inflict pain on the Iranian people. It is “no” if sanctions are intended to cause Iran to abandon or scale down its nuclear program.

Yes, it is possible that the hardship and misery produced by sanctions might fuel a revolution that would topple the current regime much as the Shah was toppled. That could happen and few developments would be more welcome.

However, there is no evidence that any Iranian government would comply with Western demands related to uranium enrichment. Support for Iran’s nuclear program is as strong among the anti-government forces as within the regime. A democratic and/or  secular Iran would still refuse to yield to the West’s demands.

This is from TIME magazine:

The price paid by ordinary Iranians for their country’s nuclear program is rising as sanctions bite at their standard of living. The past year has seen rents soar; electricity bills have doubled; meat and fresh fruit, even vital medicines, have become luxury items; and the national airline has become unsafe and inconvenient, with sanctions blocking refueling access at Western airports and the sale of replacement parts for its fleet of aging American planes. The choking effects of economic sanctions are being felt, in different ways, from the low-slung apartment blocks of south Tehran all the way to the gauche penthouse towers of the capital’s north. But despite the decline in living standards accelerated by economic isolation, Iranians remain remarkably united behind the country’s nuclear program.

In theory, the current regime could be replaced by one that, like that of the Shah, would be a Western puppet and would dismantle the nuclear program.

Of course, that kind of regime would have to be imposed from the outside, following an invasion like the one that took down Saddam Hussein in Iraq. That is what the neoconservatives dream about but it is not going to happen. Besides another regime like that of the Shah, beloved by Americans and Israelis, would last only as long as we could occupy the country.

In short, it is impossible to imagine any contingency in which sanctions “work.” The Iran hawks know that too, which is why just beneath their praise for sanctions is the strong hint that only war would do the trick.

Here is a typical statement, coming from the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the AIPAC think-tank, which appeared in Foreign Policy on Thursday:

On their own, sanctions are unlikely to work. Instead, for the United States to succeed in its aims, sanctions must be just one part of a broad, coordinated, and disciplined policy which brings all policy tools to bear on the goal of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

You don’t need a magnifying glass to read between the lines in that paragraph.

No, the Iran hawks remain determined to achieve war, preferably one launched by the United States but, failing that, launched by Israel (backed by the United States).

Of course, that won’t end the Iranian nuclear program either. In fact, according to former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates (who served in that post in the Bush and Obama administrations) attacking Iran would accelerate its weapon program and be “catastrophic” overall. Here is what Gates said in a speech in Norfolk this week as reported by the Virginian-Pilot. 

Neither the United States nor Israel is capable of wiping out Iran’s nuclear capability, he said, and “such an attack would make a nuclear-armed Iran inevitable. They would just bury the program deeper and make it more covert.” Iran could respond by disrupting world oil traffic and launching a wave of terrorism across the region, Gates said.

“The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.”

The bottom line then is that neither sanctions nor war can succeed. That leaves one option that is never considered: unconditional diplomacy.

The Iranians want sanctions lifted. We want assurances that they will not produce a bomb. Thus far, we have gone into negotiations demanding that the Iranians freeze reprocessing while, at the same time, saying sanctions will not be lifted. That is not diplomacy; it’s an ultimatum, what the Germans call a diktat.

And then we are surprised that the Iranians say no.

Enough already. We can either negotiate fairly or we can simply acknowledge that Iran, a sovereign state, will do what it chooses to do. Neither sanctions nor war can change that. Only honest diplomacy can.

But the Obama administration still says no to real diplomacy, as the New York Times has just reported. Perhaps that will change if President Obama wins re-election, but not if he continues to allow Binyamin Netanyahu to make our policy for us.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,331 other followers