I don’t know how many times I read at the NJDC website that support for Israel is bipartisan. But that’s been the mantra there. If anyone had temerity to criticize Democrats for their lack of commitment on Israel, that’s the cliche that NJDC would trot out in defense. Never mind that a lot more Democrats than Republicans are skeptical of Israel’s rights or are overly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, that’s the claim NJDC would make.
Now the mask is off:
Yesterday, NJDC said that Monday’s protest against Ahmadinejad was too important to be tainted by partisanship. Today, NJDC commends the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for making the right decision by withdrawing their invitation to Governor Sarah Palin. This decision shows that bi-partisan solidarity against President Ahmadinejad has won out over partisanship – even in this highly charged election year.
NJDC had no problem with partisanship when Sen. Clinton was the scheduled speaker, so the issue isn’t partisanship. And contrary to NJDC’s claim this shows non-partisan support for the anti-Ahmadinejad rally, not bi-partisan support.
Similarly the anti-Israel group that calls itself pro-Israel, J-Street, protested Gov. Palin’s scheduled speech to the rally:
Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline Monday’s rally in New York of Americans Jews concerned about the threat Iran poses to the United States and Israel.
Sarah Palin at a rally to unify American Jews on Iran? Really?
Palin stands diametrically opposed to the majority of American Jews on nearly all issues – including on Iran. With just a few days left before the rally, we have no time to lose.
Now parse that statement. In what way is Palin’s stand on Iran contrary the views of American Jews? Because she stated that Israel had a right to defend itself?
More generally, the implication is that no one has the right to be pro-Israel (in J-Street’s anti-Israel way) unless they believe all the right things. Noah Pollak had it right.
This is appalling. When did abortion and the environment become issues of unique concern to Jews? They of course are not, any more than taxes and social security have any special relevance to Christians. J Street is attempting to bludgeon Palin with disapproval from the Jewish community when in fact it is the liberal community that detests her.
What does J Street want its few acolytes to do? Harass the organizers of the Iran rally until they disinvite Palin — you know, in the spirit of inclusiveness and democracy.
She was willing to go but the Democrats didn’t want to share a spotlight with her. So rather than let her attend and use her presence to drum up attention for the cause they’re ostensibly there to advance, the left muscled the organizers into canceling all politicians’ invites.
Going back to the NJDC, shouldn’t the priority be the opposite? Shouldn’t the priority have been that the issue of standing up to Iran is so important that even Democrats would be willing to appear with a Republican to show American resolve. Messianic times might be marked by a lamb lying down with a lion, but apparently it will not include Democratic tolerance for Republicans.
At a time when Democrats fear that Jews might not vote for Barach Obama in the same proportions that they usually do, the Obama campaign takes a gimme and absolutely fumbles it.
But that’s all right. This is the candidate that the Democrats wanted, this is the candidate that the Democrats deserve, and this is the candidate that the Democrats got; and I offer the pious hope that they fully experience every aspect of their choice, down to the very molecular level.
I hope the Republicans play this up. I listened to Ben Cardin the other night claiming how strong Obama would be against Iran. Now I see that Obama won’t even ensure that one of his proxies would speak at a rally to register his symbolic opposition to Iran. Do I really think he’ll do anything substantive as President?
The McCain campaign sees an opportunity and takes full advantage:
This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. Instead of pressuring Senator Clinton to withdraw and pressuring the event’s organizers to disinvite Governor Palin, we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the folllowing day. After all, the last time Senator Obama took the stage to address a nonpartisan, pro-Israel audience, his call for Jerusalem to remain the “undivided” capital of a Jewish state was easily clarified the next day.
Still it’s puzzling as to exactly what’s going on. Shmuel Rosner offers some explanations.
The first question now is whether it was Sen. Clinton’s idea to withdraw or whether she did so on orders from the Obama campaign. I can understand that she was miffed that she wasn’t told about Palin’s invitation by the organizers, but Rosner didn’t think that was a reason for her to withdraw.
So did Hillary – looking to 2012 – see this as a way to make Obama look bad in the eyes of Jewish voters and the Obama campaign stupidly followed along with her faux outrage? Or was the Obama campaign so intent on preventing Gov. Palin from establishing pro-Israel credentials they wanted to force her out whatever the cost?
Regardless the campaign got its Jewish allies NJDC and J-Street – who are vastly more liberal than the Jewish community as a whole – to claim that the event ought to be “non-partisan” – figuring that those groups would inoculate the campaign against charges of playing politics by the wider Jewish community.
Jennifer Rubin has more tawdry details.
More discussion at memeorandum.
Was this a really good time to show that the Democratic commitment to stopping Iran was less than 100%? Uh, no.
Crossposted at Soccer Dad.
Which one is more important — a rah-rah rally or a bill with teeth that has garnered no mentions here?
The rally flap grabbed the headlines, but the bigger policy setback for Jewish groups came in the Senate.
For months, Democrats have been trying to push through two bills passed overwhelmingly last year in the U.S. House of Representatives. One would lock up loopholes that allow foreign subsidiaries of U.S. companies to deal with Iran, shut down dealings with any company that conducted substantial business with Iran’s energy sector and cut off Iran’s banking system from any U.S.-controlled markets. The other, authored by Obama, would enable pension plans to disinvest from Iran by protecting them from investor lawsuits and publishing a list of companies that deal with Iran.
Republicans had pushed back against the bills for a variety of reasons. The Bush White House jealously guards its foreign policy prerogatives and saw both bills as undercutting delicate negotiations with European nations, Russia and China to coordinate Iran’s isolation; U.S. business interests see the sanctions as a gift to overseas companies; and, according to pro-Israel insiders, Republicans did not want to hand Obama an election-year legislative victory, especially as they try to depict him as lacking experience.
Pro-Israel lobbyists, led by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, wore down the objections, and by this week Sen. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.), a close ally of Obama, had wrapped both bills into an amendment to be attached to the Defense Authorization Bill, which must pass this congressional term. Dodd had virtual wall-to-wall backing for the legislation, as well as a Republican co-sponsor, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.).
Bush still threatened a veto.
“The bills would also serve, if enacted, to divide the multilateral coalition that has come together to oppose Iran’s nuclear programs, by requiring the Administration to submit ‘blacklists’ of foreign companies investing in Iran’s energy sector,” said a Sept. 9 statement from the Office of Management and Budget, an arm of the executive branch.
Still, the legislation was guaranteed a veto-proof majority in the Senate and the House – a victory that would have handed Obama a significant boost just weeks before election day.
Then, Wednesday night, Republicans added several more last-minute amendments to the package, which Democrats saw as a delaying tactic and rejected. In retaliation, Republicans blocked all amendments to the bill, including the one on Iran.
Dodd, undeterred, took the Iran sanctions legislation to the Senate floor in a last-minute plea to allow his Iran amendment, if not the 100 or so others to which both sides had agreed.
“This is the one opportunity for this body to embrace an economic sanctions proposal which would give us tremendous leverage in our efforts to bring Iran to “negotiations to end its weapons program, Dodd said. “To lose that opportunity would be a serious loss of opportunity for this country.”
Sen. John Warner (R-Va.), who is retiring at year’s end and thus faces no political repercussions, rose to exercise his prerogative to block the amendment. He made sure to say he supported the amendment, leaving unanswered the question of why he killed it.
“I, personally, approved of putting in the amendment,” Warner said in a disavowal of his own action — unusual even under the Senate’s arcane traditions. “It had been my hope, I say it is now no longer my hope, my disappointment, that that could not be achieved.”
The Obama campaign cried foul.
“John McCain had a real opportunity today to stand up for Israel’s security, but he refused to stand up to his own party,” it said within hours of Warner’s block. “Instead of supporting Barack Obama’s legislation to pressure Iran by accelerating state and local divestment initiatives, John McCain ignored the very real threat to Israel and took a pass. We cannot afford four more years of this kind of failed judgment that has left Israel endangered and America less secure.”
When asked about the claim that the GOP was sinking the bill for political purposes, McCain’s campaign said it would not accept criticism on the sanctions front, noting that the GOP nominee long had advocated the strategy, if not the specific legislation in question.
Left unexplained was why McCain, whose indeed has vociferously backed sanctions, did not support Dodd’s amendment.
Dodd blamed politics.
“Clearly, the idea of giving Barack Obama credit for having authored a critical section of the amendment was on the minds of some,” he told JTA. “I guarantee that was part of it.”
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/2008091920080919iransanctionsrally.html
YOu vote for Obama at your own peril. The guy will be Jimmy Carter II (or George McGovern I).
So much for the claim that Israel and Jewish interests are more important than partisan considerations, and exhibit # 3,958 as to why I am a former Democrat. For a number of reasons I’m not likely to wind up as a Republican, but the Democrats clearly don’t want people like me–and I find that flattering.
This is really disgraceful.
Oh, by the way, someone sent me the J Street action alert. One of the reasons cited why Palin is bad for the Jews is that a Jew For Jesus recently spoke at her church.
Now, I stand next to few people in my disdain and contempt for that deceitful group, but how interesting…a speaker at Palin’s church is a reason to find her bad for Jews.
Does this mean that it is now legitimate to inquire into who speaks at a candidate’s church? I’m all for that. Let’s find out who has spoken in the last year at McCain’s church, and Biden’s, and Obama’s.
But it’s OK for Obama’s church to promote Hamas, right? Obama has been associated his entire political career with people who hate Israel like Wright and Ayres, and his list of foreign policy advisers includes numerous figures who are hostile to Israel if not downright antisemitic like Malley, Brzezinski and McPeak. He’s trying to make the right noises now but don’t believe it. If any Jews vote for Obama it will certainly give the lie to the stereotype that Jews are so much more clever than everybody else.
Absolutely right, Gary. All the candidates make the right noises during the campaign but no one really expects, for example, that anyone is going to move our embassy to Jerusalem.
So in assessing candidates, especially one like Obama who has little track record in foreign policy and doesn’t seem to know a lot about it, it’s worth asking what his instincts are and who is advising him.
His instincts are poor–of all the people who are oppressed in the world, his mind alit first on the Palestinians, for example. And the people advising him are not pro-Israel. On the other hand, I grant that Sarah Palin knows even less than Obama does, but her advisors seem to be pretty good and she has an Israeli flag in her office.
You never know, but if there were a crunch I’d rather have Palin there than Obama, and I think we can agree that McCain has a track record not only on Israel but on foreign policy generally. Not much question about his instincts.
If the fear was that Palin would have turned her appearance into a campaign event, the last paragraph of her prepared speech confirms it.
That said, I attended a pro-Israel rally on the National Mall a few years ago where several political candidates spoke, including Robert Erlich (then running for a second term as Maryland governor) and Ben Cardin (then running for the Senate seat being vacated by Paul Sarbanes). Another speaker–John Hagee, the head of CUFI. Also someone from B’nei Elim, which is pretty much a reincarnation of Meir Kahane’s Jewish Defense League.
It was an interesting rally.