Monday, July 12, 2010
From the right. An anti-J Street (that would describe most of the actually "pro-Israel" groups as a matter of fact)... Politico reports: Group to oppose Obama Mideast policy
Leading conservatives will launch a new pro-Israel group this week with a scathing attack on Rep. Joe Sestak, the Democratic Senate candidate in Pennsylvania, the first shot in what they say will be a confrontational campaign against the Obama administration's Mideast policy and the Democrats who support it.
The Emergency Committee for Israel's leadership unites two major strands of support for the Jewish state: The hawkish, neoconservative wing of the Republican Party, many of whom are Jewish, and conservative Evangelical Christians who have become increasingly outspoken in their support for Israel. The new group's board includes Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol and Gary Bauer, the former Republican presidential candidate who leads the group American Values, as well as Rachel Abrams, a conservative writer and activist.
"We're the pro-Israel wing of the pro-Israel community," said Kristol...
Indeed. They are a 501c(4), so no funding disclosure is required. There is a concern:
...One official at an American Jewish organization welcomed the group to the degree that it would make criticism of Democrats "mainstream," but also expressed concern that a group with such Republican origins would contribute to a deepening partisan cast to the debate over Israel, with Republicans lining up behind the Israeli government while some Democrats align themselves with Netanyahu's American critics.
Bauer dismissed that notion.
"I encourage our Democratic friends to have a competition with us on who can be more pro-Israel, because I think it's in the interests of the United States and not a political party," he said. "I'm really hoping that people like Sen. [Chuck] Schumer and others will aggressively speak out for Israel at a time like this."...
It's a reasonable concern. It's troubling that support for Israel is becoming increasingly a partisan issue. It's dangerous, but not being helped by groups like J Street, whoever decided that Sarah Palin was more dangerous at the UN than Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (remember?), and the fact that the administration is putting unapologetic Zionists on the left in a very difficult position -- a choice between The One and Israel.
Yet that can't and shouldn't stop others from speaking their minds from their perspectives. Left Israel supporters have their work cut out for them.
Jennifer Rubin comments at Contentions: It Is Certainly an Emergency
...To say that the ECI fills a niche would be a gross understatement. There is a gaping hole in the Jewish community's response to the Obama administration and in its defense of Israel. In the past, these groups' close relationship with incumbent administrations has served them well. But as I have written for nearly a year, that tactic is not suited to the current challenges and has proven counterproductive in the Obama era. The need is great to expose, confront, and challenge the administration when it, for example, eggs on an international flotilla investigation or excepts Russia and China from sanctions on Iran or mindlessly pursues engagement with Syria...
Here's their first ad:
h/t: Daniel Halper
I'm extremely concerned about this - the partisan divide is already a huge problem without its being extended to a vulnerable country (Israel) and an obviously vulnerable American minority (Jews.)
I think this will result in greater, not less alienation of people on the Left from the support of Israel for the simple kneejerk reason that if a conservative or a Republican says the sky is blue then his opposite number feels compelled to say it's brown (and vice versa.)
This is a big problem and will problem cause more harm than good.
Obviously, I meant "probably."
Overall, I'd sure like to see less, not more animosity in politics generally.
Making Israel a political football in this wickedly divided climate is bad, period.
Agreed. These individuals have shown in the past that power politics is more important than principles.
That makes them poor messengers to create a bridge between people.
This will create a wider gulf and entrench extreme views, rather than the opposite.
It's a shame that this was made necessary by a combination of partisanship, cowardice, political correctness and (to a much lesser degree) anti-Semitism among various elements of the Democratic Party, including party leadership and the National Jewish Democratic Council. To the extent that the ECI can embarrass Democrats into doing the right thing, it may be productive. But to the extent that it makes it easier for deliberate or unwitting tools and enablers for Israel's enemies to make support for Israel a partisan issue -- something that apparently spurred the development of the ECI to begin with -- there is a risk of ECI aggravating the problem it was intended to address.
This is a big problem and will problem cause more harm than good.
So what does one suggest? That those who wish to support Israel just keep quiet, let Obama carry on with his policy and sing kumbaya with those who oppose Israel to avoid partisan politics?
This:
and this:
as well as this:
seem incontrovertible. The proof will be in the pudding, certainly, but beyond that preliminary and reasonable caution (and what "proofs" has J-street's "pudding" evidenced?), what is there to be concerned with? And if there is some type of concern, where is the contrasting concern with Obama's relations with the PM, with Israel, with certain nations and states in the M.E.???
Politics is, ever and always in the classical liberal mode, the arena wherein conflict occurs; and politics, at its best, is ever and always the arena wherein conflict has the potential to be resolved via transparency and fruitful exchanges - between minds given to consolidating their perplexities, and eschewing their truncated and myopic ideological assumptions.
Absolutely right. AIPAC has always said that support for Israel is not a partisan issue, but that's also meant that they have to pull some punches, for example, going along with the charade of Obama's charm offensive and his and Bibi's pretense of an unbreakable alliance and American support for Israel and solidarity with her. The IEC offers full-throated support and advocacy for Israel in a way that AIPAC cannot.
The emergency is not an issue of partisan politics. Nappy don't see the IEC going after Chuck Schumer or other Democrats whose support for Israel is solid. (Nor does Nappy see the IEC going after Barney Frank's new friend Ron Paul. However, that's not because Paul a Republican of sorts but because his isolationist approach to foreign policy is so fringy.)
The Obama administration's ill-considered offensives against Israel in conjunction with the George Soros and Saudi-funded J Street have created the emergency the IEC was formed to combat. That the criticism and demonization of Israel comes mostly from Democrats today simply follows from allegiance to Dear Leader—just look at how Joe Bite Me and Hillary played their scripted roles over the Ramat Shlomo announcement. (As part of the administration, they were more directly obligated than other Democrats to do BHO's bidding.)
If there's anything to what Obama has said about unbreakable bonds, the proof will be in things like how the US and Israeli militaries cooperate in planning action against Iran, in whether the US starts throwing its weight around in the Human Rights Council or in whether he stops making demands for further Jewicidal concessions by Israel and starts putting pressure on Abu Mazen (and his Arab League handlers) and demanding accountability, not just nice words in English, for the PA's unfulfilled committments.
Despite the smiles all around on July 6, the administration's hostility to Israel is palpable. Steve Green notes BHO's body language over the handshake with Bibi in this week's Hair of the Dog segment. We already know adept Barry is at this stuff. (Remember how Barry flipped the bird to Hillary and McCain during the campaign?) Here his recoil from Bibi after the handshake ceremony (starting about 3:50) clearly tells the ummah that he was only playing a role, that the handshake and feigned warmth were called for in this political circumstance. The farce was less about relations with Israel than it was about saving Democrat ass in November.
The good news is that BHO will probably cut a low profile on Israel until after the elections. When they met last week He didn't do a good job of concealing his displeasure at Bibi's unexpectedly inviting him to visit him in Jerusalem. Here are Nappy's top three reasons why, much as BHO loves to ride in Air Force One, there won't be a state visit to Israel anytime soon.
The hypocrisy of the lefties here is blatant and disgusting. Sophia's attempt to frame this as a partisan issue begs the question. It's a red-herring.
Have we sold our country to the Jews just because they have the money and organisations to shake up our politicians? Why should Israel dictate what our presidents decides to do with regard to our national interests? Is Israel more important than our own interests? Is it wrong for our president to take action against ill advised Israel policies which endanger our troops in Iraq an Afghanistan? This the so called ECI is nothing but an anti-USA group. If you are anti-US President for his actions that are supported by the US Generals is clearly anti-USA.
Superb commentary, Nappy.