J Street's Empty Boast and the Changing View Of Israel In The Democratic Party

The following from Steven J. Rosen is reposted here with permission

Is J Street Winning?

by Steven J. Rosen
Foreign Policy
November 9, 2012

http://www.meforum.org/3374/is-j-street-winning

Will there be a tectonic shift in attitudes toward the Middle East among Democrats in the next Congress?

Gone will be many Democratic heavyweights who could be counted as loyal supporters of the pro-Israel cause. Howard Berman, ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, was defeated by Brad Sherman in an intraparty race; Shelley Berkley resigned from the House to pursue a failed Senate campaign; Rep. Steve Rothman was defeated by Rep. Bill Pascrell in the Democratic primary; Sen. Joe Lieberman declined to run again; Gary Ackerman, ranking Democrat on the House Mideast subcommittee, retired rather than face a bitter primary fight; and Rep. Barney Frank retired. Entering Congress, meanwhile, is a new class of Democrats with weaker ties to Israel, such as Tammy Baldwin (previously a member of the House), Ann McLane Kuster, and Tammy Duckworth.

J Street, an organization highly critical of Israeli policies, is hailing the election results as "an incredible victory" and "part of transforming the political atmosphere around Israel in the U.S."

The Middle East Media Sampler 11/1/2012: Why Do Jewish Critics of Obama Support Obama?

From DG:

1) Jews, Democrats and Israel

In The Alan Dershowitz Syndrome Lee Smith answers "Prominent Jews like the Harvard lawyer have spent years criticizing Obama. So, why are they endorsing him?":

Like many pro-Israel Democrats, Koch is still reeling from the chaos that broke out at the Democratic National Convention when Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa had to call for a floor vote three times to include recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel in the party’s platform. “Nobody,” said Koch, “has adequately explained to me how the boos for God and Israel at the Democratic convention were louder than the cheers. How can that be?”

RJC Ad On Rift In Democratic Party On Support For Israel

The episode exposed tensions on Israsel within the [Democratic] Party, put Democrats on the defensive and created a public relations spectacle as Obama arrived in the convention city to claim his Party's nomination for a second term
AP

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) came out on Friday with an ad addressing the rift in the Democratic party in its support for Israel:

RJC Executive Director Matt Brooks said, “Important pro-Israel language was stripped from the Democrats’ platform this year, including lines recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and calling Israel America’s ‘strongest ally’. When they tried to reinstate the language on Jerusalem, the convention chairman couldn’t get a clear two-thirds vote and just declared the language added – receiving loud boos from the convention floor.

He continued, “This is a sad display by the Democratic Party and is an indication of how much the Democratic Party has changed in recent years. It was chilling to watch; who could have imagined the day when supporting Jerusalem would be resoundingly booed at a Democratic convention?”

Here is the ad:

Where The GOP Stands On Annapolis

They don't stand with President Bush--nor with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. And they seem pretty unanimous about it:

But with the president embracing the mediation effort he largely rejected in his first term, the Republicans who hope to replace him sound like Mr. Bush did in 2002 when he made changes in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority a prerequisite for the final status talks he hopes the Annapolis meeting will spur.

Mayor Giuliani's chief foreign affairs adviser, Charles Hill, yesterday told the New York Sun, "Israel, as a sovereign ally, can decide with whom it wants to negotiate. But it would be very risky to push toward Palestinian political goals when the institutional foundations of statehood do not exist."

Another Republican presidential candidate, a former senator from Tennessee, Fred Thompson, told a group of about 100 people in Sioux City, Iowa that he saw no reason for optimism with regards to Annapolis. "There's not reason for great optimism there to tell you the truth," he said, according to footage captured from the NBC affiliate in Sioux City "This has been a longstanding thing. …These are tough, tough problems, and a part anyway, of the Palestinian Authorities are committed, apparently still, to the destruction of Israel."

Mr. Thompson is only the latest major Republican candidate to throw cold water on the pending Annapolis summit. On October 16, the former governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney, told the Republican Jewish Coalition, "There's just not anyone to talk to right now who has those institutions in place." Senator McCain of Arizona on October 30 warned against going for a permanent solution all at once. "An encompassing, all encompassing, one-step solution was tried by former President Clinton and I think that's probably a very, very difficult accomplishment," he said.

Mr. Giuliani kicked off the Annapolis skepticism among his party's presidential nominees in August with his essay in Foreign Affairs. He wrote, "It is not in the interest of the United States, at a time when it is being threatened by Islamist terrorists, to assist the creation of another state that will support terrorism."

At a time that President Bush is at least as open to criticism for his policy and actions with Israel and the Palestinians, Democrats have consistently limited themselves to criticism to Iraq. Now their criticism of Iraq is somewhat muted as even the liberal press has been forced to recognize that the surge is being successful--yet they have yet to criticize a conference with 2 weak leaders, pressuring Israel, with limited advanced preparation to ensure success...

Let's face it, the Democrats could easily condemn many specific elements of Bush's policy and handling of the Israel-Palestinian issue. Instead they talk about the need to do more than what Bush is doing and have had a hands off position on the Annapolis conference. Instead, they offer vague assurances of friendship and concern for Israel.

Some friends.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Annapolis and Democrats and Republicans.

Don't Ask The Democrats If Israel Has The Right To Defend Herself

...because you will not get a straight answer.

Tim Russert seems to ask an easy enough question at the Democratic Presidential Debate:

RUSSERT: OK, all right—all right, we’ve had that discussion.

Senator Clinton, in 1981, the Israelis took out a nuclear reactor in Iraq. On September 6th, to the best of our information, Israel attacked Syria because there was suspicion that perhaps North Korea had put some nuclear materials in Syria. If Israel concluded that Iran’s nuclear capability threatened Israel’s security, would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?

Clinton starts off...

CLINTON: Tim, I think that’s one of those hypotheticals, that is...

RUSSERT: It’s not a hypothetical, Senator.

CLINTON: ... better not addressed at this time.

...and keeps on dodging until finally:

CLINTON: Well, what I have said is that I will do everything I can to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, including the use of diplomacy, the use of economic sanctions, opening up direct talks. We haven’t even tried. That’s what is so discouraging about this.

Clinton apparently spent so much time and effort dodging the question that she completely forgot what the question was: "would Israel be justified in launching an attack on Iran?"

Obama also avoids the question and instead does his best John Kerry imitation:

Until we have gathered the international community to put the squeeze on Iran economically, then we shouldn’t be having conversations about attacks on Iran.

John Edwards follows a similar line:

And if we work with our friends in Europe in the European banking system, we can put a clear proposal on the table for the Iranian people; sticks and carrots. Carrots being, we will help you with your economy if, in fact, you give up your nuclear ambitions. The flip side being, there will be severe economic sanctions if you don’t.

And Bill Richardson

A fundamental goal of our foreign policy should be not to permit Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Another cornerstone of our foreign policy should be the strength and the security of Israel. So you cannot deny a nation the right to legitimately defend itself.

... A fundamental tenet of American foreign policy is to support Israel. But Tim, you’ve got to bring diplomacy.

At least he says 'a nation' has a right to defend itself--but we are left to hope that he agrees that Israel is included, and in the current circumstances.

This is how Democratic candidates want to deal with a country that has killed American soldiers and is behind terrorist groups that fire rockets on Israeli citizens.

Neither Clinton, Obama, Edwards had the guts to give a direct answer about Israel's right to defend herself.

[Hat tip: Contentions]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Democrats and Democratic Debate and Clinton and Obama and John Edwards and Bill Richardson.

3 POLLS SHOW: REPUBLICANS MORE SUPPORTIVE OF ISRAEL. From Rosner's Blog:

...One thing, however, is clear from the past: Democrats, in general, tend to be less supportive of Israel. In the poll released last week by The Israel Project [Word document], the gap between the parties was also evident: 82 percent of GOP voters opposed a resumption of financial aid to the Palestinian government compared to 48 percent of Democrats. 87 percent of Republicans believe Israel is one of America's strongest allies compared to 80 percent Democrats.

Two more examples (one can find many more): Last summer, a study by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press found that 68 percent of Republicans surveyed said they sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians, compared to 45 percent of Democrats. Similarly, a Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll found that Republicans favored alignment with Israel over neutrality - 64 percent to 29 percent. By contrast, 39 percent of Democrats supported alignment with Israel, while 54 percent favored neutrality. "Among political groups, Israel evokes the most sympathy among self-identified conservatives and Republicans," the Pew study reported.

If only this would play out in the Bush Administration.
[Hat tip: Soccer Dad]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Democrats and Reppublicans.

DEMOCRATS AND ISRAEL: Besides examining the latest defense offered of Pelosi's trip to Syria, Soccer Dad also looks at the signs of stress between the Democratic Party and Israe/Olmertl.

Technorati Tag: Israel and Olmert and Democrats.

IF DEMOCRATS WON'T USE MILITARY FORCE, HOW WILL THEY DEFEND ISRAEL'S RIGHT TO? About yesterday's democratic debate:

In that debate, moderator Brian Williams of NBC News asked: "If, God forbid, a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities had been hit simultaneously by terrorists, and we further learned beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of al Qaeda, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?" Two of the three frontrunners in the Democratic race couldn't bring themselves to mention any military action at all. [emphasis added]

Seriously--it's one thing for a candidate to talk in the abstract about supporting Israel's right to defend herself, but as president with allies and other considerations to take into account: how solidly will a Democrat as president defend Israel's military action while actively pursuing 'all diplomatic options' with Al Qaeda?

Technorati Tag: Democrats and Israel and Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton and John Edwards.

OBAMA: CATCH ME LATER WHEN I CAN TELL THE TRUTH: On The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is none too happy with Barack Obama's stand on Israel:

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!" [emphasis added]

On the other hand

But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as 2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the national scene.

So who is Obama going to be true to?

Technorati Tag: Barack Obama.

THE DEMOCRAT-ISRAEL DISAGREEMENT: Gateway Pundit has a post on the friction developing between the two since the flap over Pelosi's trip to Syria and Olmert's statement contradicting her statement about representing Israel.

He quotes Rosner's Blog at Haaretz:

However, this source said, "even as our leadership is working to calm things down, the rank and file Democrats are getting tired of these Israeli maneuvers." If Israel doesn't "get its act together" and doesn't reciprocate these pacifying moves - "if Olmert keeps doing such irresponsible things" - it will get more "difficult for Democrats who do care about Israel" to defend their position.

It almost sounded like a threat.

[Hat tip: Larwyn]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Democrats.

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD GOES TO WASHINGTON: Apparently the Democrats have invited the Muslim Brotherhood to Washington to address Congress--after all, dialogue is key.

Allahpundit posts a bit of the transcript of the discussion between the Muslim Brotherhood and Steny Hoyer:

the chair [Hoyer] of the American delegation responded that the return of refugees means the disappearance of “Israel” from existence, so I said to him that is their problem. So he asked me, what is the solution? So I said to him: The solution is that the Jews should return to their original countries, return to the countries from which they came after the occupation of Palestine.

No doubt there is all kinds of room for fruitful discussion there.
See Boker Tov, Boulder for information on the Muslim Brotherhood and their Nazi connection.

Update: The Muslim Brotherhood is now denying they were invited.
[Hat tip: LGF]

Technorati Tag: Muslim Brotherhood and Democrats.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND ANTI-SEMITISM: From Democracy Project:

Democrats learned during the late 1940’s and early 1950’s that the survival of their liberal agenda, not to mention of America, depended upon taking matters into their own hands and vigorously excluding communists and fellow-travelers from their ranks or tolerance.

If Democrats don’t similarly act responsibly today, that IS anti-Semitism.

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism and Democrats.

HOYER AND THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD: Not to be outdone by Pelosi's meetings with Muslim despots, Democratic House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer met with the head of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. Elder of Ziyon posts an article from the Palestine Post on October 19, 1948 about Hoyer's new terrorist friends.

Update: Boker Tov, Boulder has more.

Technorati Tag: Steny Hoyer and Muslim Brotherhood.

DAILY KOS: ZIONISM AS RACIST IDEOLOGY: They took down the text but left the pictures--after all, which is going to make the bigger impact...
[Hat Tip: Gateway Pundit]

Update: A search on Little Green Footballs for "Protocols of The Daily Kos", a ongoing 'feature' tracking anti-Semitic posts on The Daily Kos, turns up 27 posts--since June 15, 2006.

Arutz Sheva has an article about this, and notes that The Daily Kos

is often used by politicians – including Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama and many others – for dissemination of their materials.

Check out Wikipedia for a far larger list of Democrats who post there, including John Conyers, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Jim Moran, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, John Edwards, Wes Clark, and Jimmy Carter.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Anti-Semitism and Daily Kos.

THE PROOF IS IN THE PELOSI: From World Net Daily:

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the willingness by some lawmakers to talk with Syria "is proof of the importance of the resistance against the U.S."

She may not get Israel's messages straight, but Palestinian terrorists sure do get hers.
[Hat tip: Powerline]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Palestinians and Nancy Pelosi.

PELOSI PRAISES SAUDI PEACE PLAN: Unfortunately, if this time she says that Olmert told her he was in favor of it, he probably did.

Technorati Tag: Nancy Pelosi and Saudi Arabia.

TOM LANTOS IS A FRIEND OF ISRAEL, BUT...: Tom Lantos, who received the Friend of Israel Award in 2003, has made comments in the wake of Pelosi's Mideast tour such as "we have an alternative Democratic foreign policy. I view my job as beginning with restoring overseas credibility and respect for the United States" and "this is only the beginning of our constructive dialogue with Syria, and we hope to build on it."

The latter comment is troubling, not only in view of how Pelosi so badly botched the alleged message she claims to have been told to give to Assad on Israel's behalf, but also in her obvious lack of credentials for the job.

It is especially troubling to see Lantos enthusiastically advocating a policy espoused by James Baker with one of Israel's intractable enemies.

The Washington Post notes that Pelosi's performance in Syria

offered an excellent demonstration yesterday of why members of Congress should not attempt to supplant the secretary of state when traveling abroad.

While Pelosi doesn't know any better, it is disturbing that Tom Lantos doesn't either.

Update: Claudia Rosett writes in "Pelosi was nuts to visit with Assad" for those who may have forgotten:

The long litany of Syrian depredations includes the long and brutal occupation of Lebanon, Syrian involvement in the brazen car-bombing assassination two years ago of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik al- Hariri, and likely Syrian involvement in the continuing series of murders of Lebanese reformers. Syria has been a highway for Hezbollah terrorists trucking weapons from Iran into Lebanon, leading to the war launched by Hezbollah last summer against Israel. Syria provides safety and support for the terrorists of Hamas. Since the fall of Saddam Hussein, Syria has become a conduit of terrorists inflicting mayhem and murder in Iraq. [Hat tip: Instapundit]

Technorati Tag: Israel and Syria and Nancy Pelosi and Tom Lantos.

WHAT'S SCARIER? RICE IN THE MIDEAST...OR PELOSI? I'm not sure, but Macsmind thinks Pelosi's decision to tour the Middle East is a mistake.

Gateway Pundit covers Pelosi's first stop: Jerusalem, accompanied with Keith Ellison.

[Hat tip: Larwyn]

Update: Republicans are also visiting--Syria, Pelosi's next stop.

Here's a question: is the reason Pelosi refused to allow consideration of a resolution condemning Iran's kidnapping of British soldiers because she didn't want to upset Syria and friends during her Mideast tour?

Technorati Tag: Israel and Nancy Pelosi and Keith Ellison.

SOROS AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. Eli Lake writes about the reaction of the Democratic Party to George Soros' essay about AIPAC.

There seems to be a drift towards CAIR by major Democrat players like Conyers and Pelosi, countered by a perceived need felt by Democrats to publicly reiterate their support for Israel and rejection of the "Israel Lobby" accusation--wiggle room for the Democrats may be shrinking.

Technorati Tag: Soros and AIPAC and Democrats.

REPUBLICANS PUSH DEMOCRATS FOR SECOND CAIR DISINVITE. Earlier today, it seemed CAIR was going to be the welcome guest of the Democrats at the Capitol. Now Republicans are calling on Pelosi to cancel the invitation to "terrorist apologists" to hold a seminar there.

Technorati Tag: CAIR and Democrats.