David Goldman on: Why Don't Americans Trust Republicans on Foreign Policy?

The following by David P. Goldman is reposted here with permission of The Middle East Forum:

Why Don't Americans Trust Republicans on Foreign Policy?

by David P. Goldman
PJ Media
April 11, 2015

http://www.meforum.org/5172/republicans-foreign-policy-voters

Riddle me this, fellow Republicans. An NBC survey April 9 reports that a huge majority (70%) of Americans doubt that Iran will abide by any agreement to limit its nuclear arms–but a majority (54%) still think Obama will do a better job than the Republicans in dealing with Iran!

A majority of Americans – 54 percent – trust Barack Obama to do a better job handling an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, compared to 42 percent who say they trust the Republicans in Congress. But nearly 7 in 10 Americans say that Iran is not likely to abide by the agreement that has been reached.

Fifty-three percent think Iranian nukes are a "major threat," and only 37% think they are a "minor threat." Most Americans, in short, think Iran is a major threat to American security and think that Obama's nuclear deal is a joke–but they still want Obama in charge of the negotiations, not us.

Both The Republican Party And Israel Face Similar Problems

It occurred to me after reading various analyses about the Republican Party in the aftermath of the presidential election, that there seem to be some obvious similarities between the way the Republican Party and Israel are viewed.

See what you think.

• Both Israel (vs Palestinian terrorists) and Republicans (vs Democrats) are painted as villains by their opponents and enemies.
  
  
• Attacks on the Republicans are way over the top -- like Israel, they too are called Nazis.
  
  
• Both Republicans and Israel face an antagonistic media that focuses on -- or creates -- negative stories about them, while glossing over negative stories about the Democrats and Palestinian Arabs.

Did You Know McCain Is Visiting Israel This Week?

I read that he was visiting Iraq, but the fact that he is spending a day in Israel was news to me--but Allison Kaplan Sommer has the leadup to the visit covered for Pajamas Media.

She quotes Professor Reuven Hazan, a political scientist at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who makes an interesting point:

“McCain is relatively unknown in Israel and abroad despite he’s had a long and distinguished career in Senate – little is known about him other than being a war hero, which of course, will help the Israeli public relate to him… What this guy went through is probably similar to what Gilad Shalit is going through. McCain came back, and you can see that his imprisonment affected him every day. He is a changed person – but yet it didn’t break him. That is something Israelis will admire.”

Of course, the fact that Israelis may identify with McCain because of his experience in Vietnam does not mean that McCain will identify more with Israel--McCain has made statements that indicate that he may not be such a good friend of Israel. It also does not mean that Jews in America will leave the Democratic fold to vote for him.

Israelis view Obama very differently:

Israelis look skeptically at Obama, and not only because of the problematic pastor and the unrelenting rumors of his family’s Muslim background, but because he is a neophyte, and Israel has had negative experience with untested leaders.

Clinton on the other hand is known--and known positively--and has the strongest backing among Israelis.

With November approaching, the usual talk of Republicans making inroads into the Jewish vote will begin to surface, but there is no reason to think that the percentage of Jews voting for the Democratic candidate will be any less than in past years.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: Israel and John McCain and Election 2008.

The Presidential Candidates And The Threat Of Jihad

Robert Spencer of Jihad Watch gave a talk last week (page includes audio of presentation). Seems there actually is a topic almost all of the candidates are avoiding:

Speaking on Tuesday at a Center City luncheon sponsored by the Middle East Forum, a Philadelphia-based think tank headed by Middle East scholar Daniel Pipes, Mr. Spencer lamented that the majority of candidates in both parties go to great lengths to avoid naming America's enemies, lest by stating that a link exists between terrorism and Islam they find themselves pummeled for their frankness.

The dilemma, said Mr. Spencer, is that while any candidate would want to avoid being called a racist, anyone speaking the truth on this matter will most certainly find himself tarred with that term. When Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney used the word "jihad" in a television campaign commercial, Saturday Night Live parodied it simply by inserting a laugh track into the otherwise unaltered tape, as if using the term "jihad" was self-evidently absurd. The Wall Street Journal attacked Romney in a news article for speaking the unspeakable.

Moreover, CAIR's media guide warns that some unnamed non-Muslim writers suggest the Quran teaches violence. Yet, said Mr. Spencer, none other than Osama bin Laden quoted Quranic verses that call for violence against non-Muslims in his latest video, as did on many occasions the late Ayatollah Khomeini of Iran. "There are hundreds of passages in the Quran and the Hadiths [commentaries on the Quran] that call for violence," Mr. Spencer said, and refusing to speak of this historical fact puts the West "at a disadvantage in understanding the enemy in order to defeat them."

How about at the next debate the moderator asks for a show of hands of which candidates consider Jihad a threat. Maybe even Thompson would go along with that one.

Technorati Tag: Jihad and Presidential Election.

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.

The Jewish Street

"But down these mean streets a man must go who is not himself mean, who is neither tarnished nor afraid."
Raymond Chandler

Over at The Corner, Jonah Goldberg wonders

Wouldn't It Be Grand

If the Iranian Holocaust-deniers' rally elicited anywhere near the outrage and concern that the Pope's reference to an obscure centuries-old text did? Or those Danish cartoons? Alas, there is no Jewish street (at least none that people care about) and dangerous bigotry of low expectations says those whacky Muslims just do this sort of thing.

In his post, Goldberg links to an article he wrote earlier this year that pretty much sizes up what amounts to The Jewish Street these days:

The 'Jewish Street' Erupts

In response to a series of offensive cartoons published in an Iranian newspaper and subsequently printed in every newspaper around the globe, including many which had refused to publish the now-forgotten Danish "anti-Muslim" cartoons last winter, the "Jewish street" erupted.

At Brandeis University, a course on Lesbian motifs in Yiddish literature was briefly interrupted as students asked their professor what he thought about the controversy. In Washington, D.C., a flurry of letters to the editor and press releases poured out of Jewish organizations. In New York, Commentary magazine -- a leading organ of the "neoconservative" Jewish Right -- announced it would run three articles on Iran in its next issue as well as an extensive letters section.

"This is outrageous but expected," thundered a furious Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League on a longer-than-normal appearance on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Elsewhere, Jewish tempers weren't running so hot. At Artie's Delicatessen on the Upper West Side of New York, Josh Greenberg ate a pastrami sandwich with a friend, Abe Kolman, hoping to avoid all the furor in the Jewish street. "Zabar's is a mad house today," Greenberg observed. When asked about the Iranian newspaper controversy, Greenberg said "What are you going to do?"

Kolman, an orthodontist, added "I'd stop eating Iranian pistachios, I guess."

The White House continued to plead with Jews across America to stay calm.

Now that's the 'Jewish street' we know--a far cry from the infamous "Muslim street." It's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much.

Of course, on occasion the Jewish street has been known to rouse itself--remember the rally in Washington, DC a few years ago?

But for the most part, there is a lack of passion. We write letters, and editorials, rather than show up for a protest. And given the opportunity, we would prefer to email rather than write that letter. We tend more towards civilized outrage than passion--and pride ourselves on the distinction.

At a time when the West fears offending Muslims, we cannot afford not to take offense at the politicians who--for all of Jimmy Carter's whining--will always put Israel's interest second...or third.

Nor can we worry about offending the politicians who constantly remind us that they are our friends. If the Democrats are the friends of Israel they claim to be, then let them prove it. No resting on laurels; no more platitudes and promises. If the Republicans are the friends of Israel that their election-time ads claim, let's see Bush recognize Israel's right to deal with their terrorist threat with at least as much determination--and when necessary, ruthlessness--that the US has used when needed; no more double standard.

The 'Jewish street' has to be more than 5th Avenue during the Israeli Day Parade once a year.

Technorati Tag: Israel.

The GOP Ad That Won't Be Shown

Hat Tip: Little Green Footballs

Here is an ad developed by David Zucker for GOP strategists for the 2006 election campaign. According to Drudge:

the advertisement was deemed "too hot" by GOP strategists all across Washington, DC who have refused to use it!

Maybe Zucker could develop something about Israel's appeasement instead...

Technorati Tag: Republicans and Democrats and North Korea.

Is The Democratic Party Part of The Israel Lobby?

You might think so, to hear Howard Dean in a speech to the American Jewish Committee claim:

"I was recently asked about the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties," Dean said. "When it comes right down to it, the essential difference is that the Democrats fundamentally believe it is important to make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews."

Actually, Dean's statement reveals nothing so much as his poor memory. It was just last year that Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and other Democrats staged a mock impeachment inquiry over the Iraq war:

The session took an awkward turn when witness Ray McGovern, a former intelligence analyst, declared that the United States went to war in Iraq for oil, Israel and military bases craved by administration "neocons" so "the United States and Israel could dominate that part of the world." He said that Israel should not be considered an ally and that Bush was doing the bidding of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon.

"Israel is not allowed to be brought up in polite conversation," McGovern said. "The last time I did this, the previous director of Central Intelligence called me anti-Semitic."

Rep. James P. Moran Jr. (D-Va.), who prompted the question by wondering whether the true war motive was Iraq's threat to Israel, thanked McGovern for his "candid answer."

At Democratic headquarters, where an overflow crowd watched the hearing on television, activists handed out documents repeating two accusations -- that an Israeli company had warning of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and that there was an "insider trading scam" on 9/11 -- that previously has been used to suggest Israel was behind the attacks.

Contrary to Dean's speech, you could just as easily argue that the Democratic Party is fertile ground for the musings of Mearsheimer and Walt (though it is refreshing to see the word 'activist' used in its traditional sense and not as a euphemism for 'terrorist'), though a number of Democrats did condemn what was said--including Conyers--afterwards.

Richard Baehr at The American Thinker has written a number of articles on the question of Republican vs. Democrat support for Israel. In The Growing Threat to Israel, he notes the solid support of Republicans for Israel as opposed to Democrats--all the more remarkable for the fact the majority of American Jews live in Democratic "blue states," while some of Israel's strongest supporters in Congress are Republicans in states with few Jews--such as Representatives Mike Pence of Indiana and Roy Blunt of Missouri and Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Richard Shelby of Alabama.

In another article, Why Does the Left Hate Israel, Baehr proposes 7 reasons, which he then goes on to explain in detail:

1. It is an easy way to express one’s hatred for America.


2. Israel is viewed as an outpost of colonialism , and an active practitioner of it.


3. Israel is a western nation, and hence can be judged by the left. Israel is not protected by cultural relativism, as the Arabs are.


4. Leftist Christian churches can escape any lingering guilt about the Holocaust, by turning Israel into a villain. Some leftist churches hate Israel because they think this will help protect their members in the holy land- in other words they feel threatened.


5. Ferocious Muslim hatred of Israel and the Jews reinforces the natural cowardice of many on the left who go along with the Muslims to stay out of their line of fire.


6. Jewish leftists are prominent in the anti-Israel movement. This opens the floodgates for everybody else.


7. Israel is attacked because the secular left is appalled by the influence of religious settlers and their biblical connections to the land of Israel, and by the support for Israel by evangelical Christians, and Christian Zionists.

With the Democrats' increasingly catering to the left wing--with its opposition and even outright hatred for President Bush and his policies--it is not difficult to see how the Democratic Party as a whole would be less favorable to Israel that the Republicans.

Of course, there are opponents to Israel on the Right as well, such as Patrick Buchanan, and you no longer hear people trumpeting the claim that Bush is the best friend Israel ever had, but as a group, the anti-Israel rhetoric is currently more concentrated on the Left.

Soccer Dad directed me to a post in Daniel Pipes' weblog back in March, Republicans and Democrats Look at the Arab-Israeli Conflict, which provides numbers on support for Israel between Republicans and Democrats:

Gallup Poll: Sympathies With The Israelis or The Palestinians Results By Party Affiliation and Ideology 2002-2006 Aggregate
	Israelis	Palestinians	Both/Neither/Don't Know
Conservative Republicans	78%	7%	14%
Moderate/Liberal Republicans	62%	16%	21%
Liberal Democrats	43%	23%	33%
Moderate Democrats	50%	17%	32%
Conservative Democrats	46%	23%	30%

By the same token, it is not enough just to have solid support from Republicans. As Baehr points out, it is not in Israel's best interests to have solid support on only one side of the Congressional aisle--thereby leaving support for Israel dependent on which party is in power.

If American Jews want their interests in Israel supported by both Republicans and Democrats, by the Left as well as the Right, we had better figure out just what our priorities are and how we define support for Israel. Platitudes such as Dean's ambiguously expressed desire to "make sure that American Jews feel comfortable being American Jews"--which, depending on how you understand it, can actual sound scary--are not enough. It is not enough accept to John Kerry's claim during the last election about his 100% voting record over a 20 year period, when, as reported by Rich Richman in John Kerry On Israel: Second To Several:

The JVL [Jewish Virtual Library] list notes that, in connection with the FY 2000 Foreign Aid Conference Report, Kerry opposed the pro-Israel position. In 2000, he failed to join 60 co-sponsors of the "Middle East Peace Process Support Act" — a bill calling on the president not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. He also failed to co-sponsor the pro-Israel "Peace Through Negotiations Act," which attracted 60 co-sponsors.

In 1993, Kerry failed to join 55 senators signing the Grassley/Lautenberg letter to the State Department, which demanded that it include Hamas in its annual report on terrorism.

It is not enough to judge by the numbers. While Kerry voted for pro-Israel measures, he did not propose them himself; he just followed along. True allies and friends of Israel need to be judged by the quality of their support--and their support needs to be judged outside of Congress as well. One example is Republican Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who is working to slash US funding for the PA and the UN and ensure that America moves to isolate the new regime and whose Middle East Subcommittee of the House International Relations Committee, heard the findings about the exaggerated claims for Palestinian Arab population.

Bottom line, despite the FBI investigation of AIPAC and the Mearsheimer and Walt paper, Jews need to unite behind Israel's best interests and find and create friends in Congress and elsewhere who truly feel the same way.

Crossposted at Israpundit

Technorati Tag: Israel and Democrats and Republicans and Howard Dean and Ray McGovern and James Moran.