Tag Archives: Obama

How Obama Beat The Lobby

6 Mar

I am not one for admitting I am wrong but sometimes the evidence is so overwhelming that I have to say it. I was wrong.

I have been repeatedly wrong when I said that the Israel lobby could not be defeated unless and until the President of the United States confronted it directly. In that situation, I always knew the United States would prevail. But I did not understand that a deft president could beat the lobby through indirect means – by quietly using his authority to prevail.

That is what happened when the Obama administration first nominated and then achieved the confirmation of Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense.

There, of course, are those who accept the line put out by the lobby, most notably its main component AIPAC, that it was neutral on Hagel.

That is just silly. If AIPAC was neutral, it could have ended the whole battle against him by issuing a statement that it recognized a president’s right to choose his own cabinet. That might not have stopped Republican groups like Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee For Israel or Sheldon Adelson’s Republican Jewish Coalition from pursuing its smear campaign against Hagel but it would have stopped the very mainstream American Jewish Committee and the Anti-Defamation League from joining the attack. AIPAC’s public silence on a campaign waged by its closest allies demonstrated what it wanted: Hagel’s defeat. So did the fact that it supplied the anti-Hagel senators with the “information” it used to bludgeon him with at his kangaroo court of a confirmation hearing.

President Obama outsmarted the lobby by ignoring it. He knew that if he could get Sen. Chuck Schumer to endorse Hagel, then the game would be over. That is because he, as a Jew and New York’s senior senator, is the de facto head of the lobby’s forces in Congress.

A reflexive lobby man, Schumer might have been expected to oppose Hagel and thereby give a signal to his fellow Democrats that doing so was the only safe position. Had he done that some Democrats would have feared not opposing Hagel. With most Republicans already on record as opposing his nomination, just a shift of a few Democrats would have killed the nomination. Schumer’s announcement in support of Hagel guaranteed that not a single Democrat would oppose him.

So what convinced Schumer to stand with Obama on Hagel? My friends on Capitol Hill, who without exception correctly predicted Schumer’s position, tell me that it was made clear to him that he could not oppose Obama on Hagel and still expect to become leader of Senate Democrats when Harry Reid retires. No threats were made because none needed to be made. Schumer was simply led to understand that he was not getting a pass on this one. Add to that the unprecedented public campaign supporting Hagel. This time the lobby did not have the field to itself. With veterans’ organizations, former Secretaries of State and Defense, and retired generals speaking out in support of the former Nebraska senator, the lobby was out-flanked.

And so Hagel was confirmed. The lobby was defeated. And its friends are devastated.

In a Jewish Tablet piece called, “How AIPAC is Losing” the militant lobby supporter Lee Smith asks “just how powerful is AIPAC if a man who refers to it as the ‘Jewish lobby’ and has defiantly claimed that he is not an “Israeli senator” is slated to be our next secretary of Defense?”

And, most significantly, how much influence does the lobbying organization actually exercise if it can’t carry the day on the single issue that’s been at the very top of its agenda for over a decade: stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons.

Despite an operating budget of more than $60 million, on the most crucial issue facing Israel’s security, AIPAC has lost the policy debate. The winners include those who believe you can’t stop a nation from getting the bomb if it’s determined to do so, those who think the Iranians have a right to nuclear weapons, and those who argue the Iranians can be contained—among them, our new Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel.

In other words, the lobby is not all-powerful. A determined president can defeat it, a lesson Obama will bear in mind in the future, particularly in reference to the lobby’s singular focus on war with Iran.

But will Hagel’s presence make a difference? Who knows? But we do know this: a win is a win. And so is a defeat.

I was wrong. The lobby can be beaten. Obama scared it into public silence and then defeated it. Nice work, work that will only become easier as younger Jews, and the non-Orthodox 90%, continue to abandon a lobby that is at variance with their liberal worldview. Ethnic chauvinism is on the rise in Israel (along with its twin, racism) but not here. Israel’s “demographic problem” can be solved by withdrawing from the occupied areas. The same can’t be said of AIPAC’s problem. Like the Republican Party, its base is growing smaller and narrower every day.

Tags: , ,

Obama 2, Netanyahu 0

24 Jan

Obama 2. Netanyahu 0

The final returns  are in from the Israeli election and it appears that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will stay on. The big surprise of the election was that centrist Yair Lapid’s new party ran so strongly.

But Lapid’s showing was only that: a surprise. The only thing new about Lapid is that he represents the first time Israeli voters chose a media personality for a top position. At 49, he’s young (by Israeli standards), handsome and a good talker in both Hebrew and English. In terms of substance, he is nothing new. Most significantly, he is utterly conventional when it comes to issues of war and peace, specifically the Palestinians and Iran.

Does that mean the Israeli election changed nothing?

Absolutely not.  It changed a great deal because Netanyahu did so poorly. Yes, he will likely remain as prime minister but in a far weaker position than he was before the election. Prior to this week’s election, Netanyahu’s Likud-Beiteinu party held 42 seats. It is now down to 31, a dramatic decline and a personal repudiation of the prime minister who leads the party.

Just prior to the election Netanyahu, clearly expecting a landslide victory, said that he would run for another term after his upcoming term ended. That seems considerably less likely now. Suddenly he seems to be a man of the past, with Israeli commentators already scouting out the next prime minister from among the various parties (like Lapid’s) that did better than expected.

The new weaker Netanyahu is good news for President Obama. A half-year ago, Obama was struggling to win re-election while Netanyahu was riding high, so high that he defied tradition and sent a signal to his American friends that he would like to see Obama replaced by a Republican.

In March 2011, Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress where he was repeatedly interrupted with standing ovations as he enunciated hard line policies that were at variance with Obama’s. Obama had to play catch up, lest Netanyahu weaken the president’s own standing here at home by rallying Israel’s supporters against  the president. As late as the fall campaign, a worried Obama kept enunciating his solidarity with Netanyahu’s policies while Netanyahu’s friends like Sheldon Adelson, made clear that the right choice for Israel was Romney.

And then came the one-two punches. First Obama won re-election easily, earning a strong new mandate and carrying 70% of the Jewish vote in the process. For all the publicity it received, the Adelson push in the Jewish community accomplished nothing. And now Netanyahu, having called elections to achieve a strong mandate, barely won at all.

In short, the results of the two elections could be summed up as Obama 2, Netanyahu 0.

 

Obama is now in a position to squeeze Netanyahu hard. Does Obama want to push for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement?  If so, he is in a strong position to achieve it. The same applies to negotiating a deal with Iran without worrying that Netanyahu will successfully marshal his forces against him.

After all, even before this week’s election, Obama nominated Chuck Hagel for Secretary of Defense despite the opposition of many of Netanyahu’s friends here. Hagel seems headed for confirmation while the lobby has seemingly given up the fight. It says it can live with Hagel.

The bottom line is that while the Israeli election did not change anything in terms of Israeli policy, it did severely weaken Prime Minister Netanyahu vis a vis President Obama. This change in the respective standing of the two leaders will particularly be noticed by Israelis who, in contrast to the truculent prime minister, do not like to be at loggerheads with a strong, popular American president. From now on, Netanyahu’s confrontational rhetoric directed at Washington will sound tinny.  It is Obama who holds the winning cards.

The question is whether he will play them.

A few months ago, I would have said that he wouldn’t. But since his re-election, and particularly following that splendidly aggressive inaugural address, I’m beginning to think he might.

He has no reason to fear Netanyahu now. Not only is he a second term president who is thinking in terms of legacy and not re-election, Netanyahu is on the ropes. If Obama acts strategically, he may be able to win over the Israeli people too. No, the election was not about foreign policy. It was about achieving some sort of domestic normalcy. Obama can demonstrate (at least to the half of the population that voted for centrist parties) that the only way to achieve that, once and for all, is through achieving peace with the Palestinians and ending the politics of bluster.

This is the moment to apply pressure. And the likely foreign policy team of Secretary of State John Kerry and Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel (along with Vice President Joe Biden who took a strong stand against Netanyahu early in the first term) are the people to do it. This is a moment that may not be repeated. Obama should go for it: an end to the occupation, two states, and peace and security for both peoples.

Just do it.

Tags: , ,

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: , ,

My Rosh Hashana Greeting To Netanyahu: Butt The Hell Out Of Our Election

14 Sep

I don’t know what Bibi Netanyahu plans to do on Meet The Press on Sunday. But, based on his recent history, I suspect he will attack President Obama as soft on Iran. He hates Obama, of that there is no doubt. His biggest supporter inside Israel is Sheldon Adelson who, in addition to bankrolling Mitt Romney’s campaign, started up a newspaper in Israel for the sole purpose of touting Netanyahu. It is now the newspaper with the highest circulation in the country.

Netanyahu wants Obama to lose and, probably even more, he wants Obama to know that he, Binyamin Netanyahu, helped bring about his demise in conjunction with his biggest backer Adelson.

Netanyahu probably knows that he cannot deliver Jewish votes to Romney.

According to today’s Gallup poll, Obama is favored by 70% of Jews, in contrast to 25% who favor Romney. Netanyahu knows American Jews are, from his point of view, hopelessly liberal. And, adding insult to injury, only 3% consider Israel when they vote. 

He is going on Meet The Press (with the ever friendly David Gregory) to give voice to the GOP claim that Obama is weak on security issues. He will exploit the national grief over the killing of four Americans in Benghazi to drive home Romney’s original point — it was all Obama’s fault. And he will be persuasive in that arrogant faux-tough style of his which is buttressed by his contempt for Americans. “I know what America is. America is a thing you can move very easily. Move it in the right direction.”

His goal is not turning the Jews. It is turning out Obama.

Remember, Netanyahu is barely Israeli at all. He grew up in the United States and then went into business here (he even Americanized his name which he changed back when he moved to Israel). He is even more of a Republican than he is a Likudnik. And he hates Obama for all the reasons American rightwing conservatives do.

Except he is not an American. He is the prime minister of a country that is entirely dependent on the United States. Not only does Israel receive more aid from the United States than any other country,Israel aid  is the only program in the U.S. budget that is exempt from all cuts. On top of that, the United States does everything Israel wants us to do in the international arena, even using our veto in the United Nations Security Council to block resolutions which embody U.S. policy.

The fact is that the United States is a pariah in the Muslim world largely because the lobby dictates U.S. Middle East policy onIsrael’s behalf. And, yes, a large part of what drives those mobs in Arab capitals is America’s constant support for Israel’s abusive treatment of Palestinians. Ironically, Obama is as one-sided on Israel’s behalf and indifferent to the Palestinians as any of his predecessors. (The difference is what is in his heart, which does Palestinians no good at all, unfortunately).

Nonetheless, Israel’s prime minister is interfering in our election, blatantly trying to choose our president.

I think Obama will win and I also think, when he does, Israelis will understand that they need to dump Netanyahu;  they will not tolerate a prime minister despised by the leader of their only ally. They did that once before: rightwing prime minister Yitzhak Shamir took on  the first George Bush and was quickly deposed in favor of Yitzhak Rabin, strongly favored by Bush.

So I’m not worried about Israel. It will take care of itself. It always does. Besides, Netanyahu is likely to go down anyway over his Iran recklessness. (Most Israelis oppose attacking Iran).

No, my concern is for my own country and the position of Jews in it. The United States has been the most secure home Jews have ever had. Jewish Americans love this country and are utterly loyal to it. (Yes, there is the lobby and the Israel Firsters but they constitute a tiny albeit powerful minority, a power derived almost exclusively from campaign donations and intimidation).

But now, along comes Netanyahu. Three weeks ago his lobby made the Democratic Convention go back and overturn a plank on Jerusalem that reflected long-standing U.S. policy because he didn’t like it. He and his lobby intentionally set up the Democrats. First AIPAC approved the plank and encouraged the Democrats to go with it. Then they had Romney  and AIPAC Democrats denounce it as anti-Israel.  Badly embarrassed, Obama had to tell the convention to rewrite the plank and then, when the delegates refused to pass it the way AIPAC wanted it, the Democrats had to declare it passed anyway.

Far worse,  for the last three weeks, Netanyahu has been openly attacking our president and has made clear his determination to defeat him. He is demanding that the president draw a red line in the sand, one dictated by Netanyahu, and tell the Iranians that if they cross it, we, the United States, will go to war. In short, he is demanding that the United States allow a foreign country to make our decision to commit our forces on his behalf.  (Not even Winston Churchill demanded that and his country was fighting for its life against Nazi Germany not some imagined threat).

Obama is not going to risk American lives because Bibi wants him to. And I don’t think Romney would either. There are limits, not even Adelson’s campaign contributions are likely to buy a war that would destroy Romney’s  presidency.  He is, after all, an American politician  – just like Obama. American.

Who does Netanyahu think he is?

I’ll tell him. He is the leader of a foreign country that is a dependency of the United States. The lobby says we are allies. I suppose, but it’s like the alliance between  the captain of the football team and the little guy who was his pal in kindergarten. The big guy protects the little guy. And the little guy appreciates his big buddy. Or should.

Bibi has it backasswards. We don’t need him. He needs us.

Additionally, not that he cares, he is jeopardizing the position of Jews in this country. Every time he opens his mouth, we start looking a little alien. Why are these Jews so different from all other people?

The answer is that we are not. Netanyahu is not our leader. Israel is not our country. And we choose not to be enemies with the entire Muslim world, and especially our fellow Americans who are Muslims.

So, Bibi, butt the hell out. We’ll be here, long after you are gone, making the big bucks with Dan Senor in Tel Aviv or Los Angeles.

Don’t you dare jeopardize the future of our kids and grand kids in our country. Because Bibi, you won’t get away with it. Yes, many, if not most, American Jews care about Israel, but as a distant relative, a cousin who lives abroad. But this is home. And when you set out to make our homes insecure — and that is what you are doing — you are playing with fire.

If you succeed, Israel will lose not just America, but Jewish Americans as well. After all, that has already happened with our kids. Do you really want to lose us all?

TO MY JEWISH READERS (and everyone else too!)  Shana Tova, Happy New Year. May The Coming Year Be Better Than The Last

Tags: , ,

My Summation of 3000 Word Washington Post Article On How Obama Blew Israeli-Palestinian Peace

15 Jul

Here is the article.

Here is my summation:

Obama was naive. Too insensitive to Israel, Netanyahu and the Holocaust. Plus, he ignored sage advice of Dennis Ross, Abe Foxman & other Jewish organizational wise men. And he used word “occupation.” 

Tags: ,

Surprising Even Myself: I’ve Become Enthusiastic About Obama

11 Jul

What a difference a Supreme Court decision makes!

Before President Obama’s health care law was upheld by the Court, I had absolutely no enthusiasm about his re-election campaign. My main objection was to his approach to economic stimulus. I figured that if I knew that $800 billion was not enough, Obama should have known it too. (I assume he reads Paul Krugman).

Because I thought the Supreme Court would declare the entire health care law unconstitutional I was angry. Instead of a serious stimulus package, he went for an initiative that could easily have been delayed until the economy improved. On top of that, it was going to be thrown out.

But then came the decision and Obama suddenly looked very different to me. He has successfully achieved the most significant domestic advance since LBJ.

And now he is going to war over the Bush tax cuts. No doubt, it’s a campaign tactic but so what.  At last, he is making the case against the super rich that I have wanted to hear since his inauguration.

And then there is Romney who is perhaps even worse than a ideology-driven reactionary. He is an empty suit, a front man for big capital. Whether Obama likes it or not (I think he likes it), the 2012 campaign will be a class battle. Again, for the first time since LBJ, a Democratic nominee really does intend to run an “us against them” campaign.

In other words, the 2012 campaign is not simply going to be about “lesser evilism.” Yes, that is part of it. But even more it will be about direction. I don’t expect Obama to take any big steps toward the left but I think that even the small ones he will take will start moving us away from the Reaganism that has defined this country for decades,

That is something to be enthusiastic about. Besides, I really, really want the Right to lose to this guy. I will revel in their misery.

Tags: ,

Obama’s Iran Policy Dictated by AIPAC

27 Jun

Yesterday I published a piece in Huffington Post on why I am voting for Obama in November. My bottom line is that he is a pretty lousy president but the GOP is infinitely worse. I stand by that.

However, I will say that if my vote was based exclusively on Middle East issues, rather on domestic concerns, I would not vote for Obama because he is a wholly owned subsidiary of AIPAC and Bibi Netanyahu. Obama’s Middle East policies are about fundraising not about US security.

I know that is a terrible charge to make about any president but this shoe fits comfortably on Obama and I have no doubt he knows it.

Take this latest news about the Iran negotiations by the terrific reporters Barbara Slaven and Laura Rozen in Al Monitor. 

Briefings by diplomats whose countries took part in the talks portrayed the meetings as a “dialogue of the deaf,” with the two sides trading widely divergent proposals. However, Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator did express willingness to discuss one key step requested by the five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany (P5+1): stopping enrichment of uranium to 20% U-235, the isotope that gives uranium its explosive power.

The western members of the P5+1 insisted, however, that Iran had to meet all three conditions contained in their proposal: stop 20% enrichment, ship out a stockpile of more than 100 kilograms of 20%-enriched uranium and close Fordo, a fortified enrichment facility built into a mountain near Qom. 

That stance has led some P5+1 members to conclude that the United States hardened its position in Moscow compared to two earlier sessions in Baghdad and Istanbul, according to diplomatic briefings shared with Al-Monitor.

The new American position is precisely the same as Netanyahu’s. And it is classic Israeli “negotiating.” Rather than sit down and talk without conditions, Israel invariably sets the results it wants to achieve as preconditions for negotiations.

Take its position on negotiating with Hamas. First Hamas must swear off violence including in the occupied areas, accept all previous agreements negotiated by its adversary Fatah and recognize Israel. Then maybe Israel will talk or, more likely, add new conditions like recognizing Israel  ”as a Jewish state.”

Hamas has to agree to Israel’s demands in advance of negotiations, begging the question of why negotiate at all. Israel doesn’t negotiate. It offers a diktat.

And now, under Netanyahu’s tutelage, that is what we are doing with the Iranians. We issue ultimata.

The only reason Obama is doing this is because he believes that the key to keeping the money flowing from the “pro-Israel” community is by simply doing what AIPAC tells him to do.

Someone needs to explain to Obama that it is one thing for Members of Congress to develop their stands on the Middle East to please a few dozen donors. Congressmen are not entrusted with the security of the United States. Yes, they are hacks. Yes, they are bought by the lobby. But they cannot get us into a war.

Obama’s endless sucking up to Israel and AIPAC can get us into a war. At this rate, it will.

Has there ever before been an American president who has made foreign policy a subset of political fundraising the way this one has?  Bush did not go to war in Iraq to please AIPAC or Israel. Bush is a guy who believes that war is the answer to any international differences. It is who he is.

It is not who Obama is. His Iran policies are entirely dictated by his desire to please a foreign country, its lobby, and most of all some very wealthy people who give his campaign money based exclusively on their view of that foreign country’s interests.

Obama should be ashamed. I bet he is.

But he’ll keep doing it. He has since he became president. It’s sickening. And it is so damn insulting to American Jews including Jewish donors who support Obama not because he is in Bibi’s pocket but because he is the more liberal candidate. Obama acts as if we are Israeli hardliners, not Americans.

Tags: , , ,

At This Point, I’d Say Romney Wins in November

30 May

 

Yesterday I had lunch with the smartest guy I know. At half my age he knows twice as much about politics as I do.

I asked him if he was confident that Obama would be re-elected. He surprised me by saying, “No, I just don’t feel good about it. Something just doesn’t feel right.”

That confirmed my own feelings. It is not that Obama has done anything recently to doom his chances. It’s more that the vicious, racist greed-driven hate being spewed by the right and paid for by the unlimited Justice John Roberts cash  makes 2012 different than any previous election.

The other factor is that Romney does not appear likely to implode. He is not a crazy old coot like John McCain who picked a nitwit for vice president. He appears to be a regular Republican who panders to the right enough to totally win it over but in a way that makes the undecided believe he is just pandering and that after the election he’ll revert to centrism.

Don’t get me wrong. I think the election of Romney would be a disaster for America and the world. But let’s not believe that just because something seems patently obvious to us, it will seem that way to most of the country. And, let’s face it, Obama blew every opportunity he had to “bully pulpit” Americans into understanding what selfish, unpatriotic tools today’s Republicans are.  Excoriating the piggish right this late in the game is probably too little, too late.

I hope I am wrong.  And the polls and electoral vote maps say I am. But, as my friend said, “Something just doesn’t feel right.” If I had to predict now, I’d say Romney wins with 30 electoral votes to spare.

Tags: , ,

My Letter From Obama: Dear Jewish Person

25 May

Here is the email my fellow Jews and I received today from the White House. Please forward similar emails to other similar communities particularly those sent to Arab-Americans.

Of course, other groups don’t receive these special ethnic missives either because  the White House is not worried about their campaign donations. Or, perhaps the White House considers them to be AMERICANS and not as something else. In any case, this letter is just plain offensive and this is worse. 

The problem is that this administration’s entire view of our community comes from its AIPAC donor’s — and not from the Jews Barack and Michelle Obama knew so well in Chicago (all progressives, none Israel Firsters). And it is the AIPAC crowd this is really addressed to.

I get it.

But it is damn insulting. Jewish Americans are no less American than Catholics, Protestants or any others. Yes, we have particular concerns but as far as the White House should be concerned, we are Americans — not foreigners living amongst Americans. So, Mr. President, talk to us as if we were as American as our neighbors. Because, despite what you hear from AIPAC and the other Jewish organizations, WE ARE. And this is our country (with no close runner ups).

One more thing. If you do want to write to us about the Middle East,  write to us along with Arab-Americans. As the two American ethnic groups with a special interest in that part of the world, perhaps you should write us jointly. You could explain your policies to both groups because both groups are Americans and you are our president.  You could help bring us together rather than treat me as your beloved godson and my Muslim friend as invisible.

I know the White House no longer acknowledges Arab-Americans so that may be hard in an election year. Maybe in 2013. Think about it. Your predecessor did.

Friends,

We have had a busy month here at the White House. On May 4th, White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew addressed the American Jewish Committee Global Forum where he reiterated the President’s commitment to Israel’s security and to building a better world both at home and abroad. Later that week, Vice President Biden addressed the Rabbinical Assembly where he shared the story of his connection to the Jewish people and the shared values between the Obama Administration and the Conservative Jewish community.

Last week, we heard from Ambassador Norm Eisen about his experiences serving as the United States’ Ambassador to the Czech Republic and his deep family ties to the country.

On Monday, Vice President Joe Biden met with leaders from the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and addressed the Administration’s support for Israel’s security and the White House’s commitment to a lasting peace between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Throughout May, U.S. and Israeli officials continued a series of meetings between senior officials. Last week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was in Washington, D.C. for meetings with Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Earlier this week, Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano visited Israel where she signed a customs agreement between the two countries.

Chag Sameach,

Jarrod Neal Bernstein

Director of Jewish Outreach | White House Office of Public Engagement

www.whitehouse.gov/americanjewishcommunity

Tags: , ,

Coincidence? The Three Black Officials Breaking With Obama Are All AIPAC

22 May

Writing in Buzzfeed (whatever that is). Rosie Gray says that the three young African-American political figures who oppose President Obama’s emphasis on economic inequality are members of the “Joshua Generation,” by which she means that they are the natural successors to Dr. Martin Luther King, the way Joshua was to Moses.

Not true. The three represent the “AIPAC Generation,” three African-Americans noted for their closeness to the lobby and the Wall Street crowd that runs it.

Unlike the other two, Booker is a true believer, involved with Israel and AIPAC since his early 20′s, in large part due to his close friendship with ultra-Orthodox Rabbi Shmuely Boteach. Boteach is a right-wing Republican who is currently running as such for Congress in New Jersey. Here is a video of the two together at an AIPAC fundraiser. Boteach’s description of Booker’s involvement with Israel is extraordinary.

Here is the story on former Rep. Artur Davis whose candidacy was created by AIPAC and who now is openly opposing Obama’s policies in favor of the interests of the 1%

Davis received substantial funding from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and its supporters during his successful 2002 campaign against incumbent Democratic Rep. Earl Hilliard. TheDecatur Daily reported in 2004 that Davis conservatively received $206,595 from individuals and PACs associated with pro-Israel organizations in 2002, more than any other House candidate. This was fairly unusual because Davis was challenging an incumbent from his own party and after he won the primary he had no Republican opponent. Davis’ contributions soared after he attended a series of April 2002 fundraisers coordinated by AIPAC members in Washington, D.C. and New York City. In 2004 AIPAC members sponsored at least one fundraiser for him in New York and another in Birmingham. [3]

Davis, who received 76 percent of his 2002 contributions from outside Alabama and largely from New York City, acknowledged that he “received a lot of money from the Jewish community,” but made a distinction between taking money from AIPAC – with which he said in 2004 he had no relationship – and its members. “I have never accepted money from AIPAC,” Davis said, “My relationship has been with donors who are members of AIPAC.” [4]

However, the leaders of AIPAC routinely use other organizations to steer contributions to candidates. Jeffrey Goldberg reported in the New Yorker in 2005 that Mayer Mitchell, a former head of AIPAC, led a 2002 effort to solicit contributions for Davis’ primary campaign to unseat Hilliard, a frequent critic of Israeli policy. [5] Shortly after the 2002 election, an AIPAC publication reported that “Davis has met with AIPAC activists and staff and has close ties to members of the local and national pro-Israel community.” [6] Although Davis’s comment is technically correct, i.e., AIPAC doesn’t disburse funds directly to candidates/elected politicians, it directs hundreds of AIPAC-directed PACs to focus funding on key campaigns.[7]

Then there is Harold Ford.

Ford is not a creature of AIPAC but of right-wing Democrats in general. See this story on how he tried to depose Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi in 2009 for being too liberal. However, his ties to the AIPAC crowd were demonstrated after he lost his bid for a senate seat and chose, as his next career move, the chairmanship of the Democratic Leadership Council — the now defunct group whose raison d’etre can be summed up in the banner: pro-Likud, pro-big business. It’s marquee figure was Joe Lieberman. And its marquee issue was supporting the Iraq war.

The bottom line is that Booker, Davis and Ford are Democrats with an asterisk. And the asterisk is AIPAC. That is why it is those three who are attacking Obama while every member of the House Black Caucus  are out there backing Obama with all they have.

So what does their defection mean? Only that these are three ambitious guys who have sized up the political landscape and decided to stick with the guys who brung em to the dance.

Their anti-Obama moves will definitely impress their pals on Wall Street but have quite the opposite effect on the African-American community and the 70-80% of the Jewish community which remains, as always, progressives and not Likudniks,

Tags: , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 15,331 other followers