Jewish lobby, Jewish hypocrisy
If a Jewish person argued in print that
the United States should support the government of Israel,
even when that is evidently contrary to the interests of the United States per se,
does that not constitute lobbying?
Since Israel is, by its own assertions, the "Jewish state",
is it not reasonable to consider that lobbying by a Jew for Jewish interests,
and thus quite reasonably "Jewish lobbying"?
How then can that very same person say that
even to mention the term "Jewish lobby"
is "the worst expression of anti-Semitism"?
Is it not reasonable to describe such a situation as hypocrisy?
As to the specifics of what I am talking about,
see the two articles by Jennifer Rubin below.
I have added some emphasis, primarily in red,
and some comments, in this font and color.
By Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post Right-Turn Blog, 2012-12-05
Last week’s vote to extend non-member observer status to the Palestinians at the United Nations
was a virtual primer on what is wrong with the U.N., the European Union, the Palestinian Authority and the United States
when it comes to the Middle East.
One hardly needs to note that the U.N.’s Israel obsession,
which takes up more of its time and elicits more Human Rights council resolutions than any issue or country on the planet,
comes at a time the body can’t bring itself to move against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, religious oppression of Christians in the Middle East or, goodness gracious, anything regarding the authoritarian revanchism in Georgia.
Nothing to see there. Keep moving on.
(This, by the way, is the “international community” in all its glory
that President Obama so diligently courts.)
Next, let’s look at
the ineptitude of the Obama administration
(and our ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice)
in failing to convince European allies
to vote against
the Palestinian Authority’s phony statehood resolution
and abrogation of its treaty resolutions.
Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, “There was never much doubt that the U.N. General Assembly would overwhelmingly vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to the status of nonmember state on Nov. 29. The big surprise of the event was that a number of key Western European countries did not join the United States and vote against the resolution. The Czech Republic was the only European country to vote against the upgrade, and shockingly, the normally staunchly pro-Israeli governments of Germany and Britain decided to abstain.”
You can attribute this sorry state of affairs in large part to the pusillanimous governments of Europe. For example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is wary of her potential coalition partner and pro-Palestinian Social Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Schanzer notes, “According to one European diplomat well versed in Spain’s foreign policy, [French president Fran ois] Hollande capitalized on the weak Spanish economy to push Madrid to vote for the PLO’s upgrade. . . . In short, the diplomat noted that Spain had joined France as part of a bloc of countries -- including Italy and Portugal -- in exchange for France’s protection in upcoming rounds of austerity talks. The diplomat also noted that Spain is attempting to obtain a seat on the U.N. Security Council and that the vote may have been a way to court favor from Arab countries.”
Which brings us to the U.S. and Ambassador Rice.
She could only persuade the Czech Republic, some Pacific island countries, Canada and Panama?
That’s the extent of her diplomatic prowess?
(I am certain that the Canadian government needed no convincing on this score, having frequently and courageously defended the Jewish State.)
It is unclear if the Obama administration, and Rice specifically, made any effort whatsoever to round up some “no” votes.
It is quite likely the United States never communicated to Europeans and other allies (e.g. Australia) that
the United States would look unfavorably on their abstentions.
Apparently our “improved” relations with allies under Obama
don’t allow us to ask for anything or get anything of any consequence.
Should she still get the nomination for secretary of state,
Rice should be grilled on why the results were so abysmal.
[Consequence to whom?
Consequence to Israel and the Zionists.
Look, the United States does not have unlimited power to get its allies to do its will.
It must pick and choose the issues it chooses to try to strong-arm its allies into supporting, against their will.
What about other issues that are of interest to people other than Zionists
(and possibly even to some Zionists)
such as issues important to America's economic position,
trade relations and economic policies.
If we spend all our diplomatic capital on issues important to Zionists,
what will the Europeans, say, say when it comes to arguing trade issues?
How many issues can they be importuned over?
In other words, there is a real opportunity cost in supporting Israel every time
the whole rest of the world sees that they are in the wrong.]
Last and least is the Palestinian Authority. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams writes that “the political failure of the Palestinian Authority which is to say of the Fatah Party and of the PLO against Hamas is significant. Since Arafat’s death in 2004, the leadership group has generally failed to win the 2006 elections, to prevent Hamas from taking Gaza, to develop a new generation of uncorrupted and popular candidates, and to produce the underpinnings of a state. Such institutional and economic progress as has been made has largely been the work of Salam Fayyad, the PA prime minister, who is not even a member of Fatah and is deeply unpopular within its ranks.” All the PA can muster is a relatively meaningless declaration that changes nothing, although it neatly sums up the endemic cynicism of the Arab countries, which would rather sponsor empty resolutions than help improve the lives of Palestinians or promote a true peace between Arabs and Jews in the region.
To recap, Europeans’ animosity toward Israel is rising, unchecked by the inept Obama administration. The PA is a corrupt, undemocratic relic that neither wants peace nor has the ability to make necessary compromises. And naturally, the current status of the Middle East, in the eyes of the U.N. General Assembly, is Israel’s fault. Israel’s building announcement is deemed to be a “risk to peace.” With a straight face the White House intones that such a step “makes it harder to resume direct talks, achieve a 2-state solution.” We’re beyond farce now when it comes to the sanctimonious tut-tutting of Israel.
Oh, and the centrifuges are spinning in Iran, where the mullahs understandably are unimpressed by the United States and the “international community.”
By Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post Right-Turn Blog, 2013-01-06
[The on-line article continues at some length,
analyzing how the Hagel nomination will affect various interest groups,
in Rubin's view.
But the print version, which appeared on the Op-Ed page of the Monday, 2013-01-07 Washington Post,
contains only what is below.]
If Republicans had nervy firebrands like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy,
someone would rise up to declare,
“Chuck Hagel’s America is a land in which gays would be forced back in the closet and Jews would be accused of dual loyalty.
Chuck Hagel’s world is one in which
devastating defense cuts become a goal, not a problem;
we enter direct talks with the terrorist organization Hamas;
and sanctions on Iran wither.”
The Hagel nomination expected to come on Monday is so outrageous and the rationale for his nomination so weak that it becomes an easy no vote for all Republicans.
Phillip Terzian aptly sums up the problems with Hagel
that go beyond his extreme views:
“Simply stated, there is no evidence
that Chuck Hagel has the experience or temperament
to master the gigantic defense establishment,
or deal effectively with Congress on delicate issues.
On the contrary, there is every indication that
he would quickly suffocate in the details of running the Pentagon,
and run afoul of his political masters in the White House.”
Unlike the Democratic Party, support for the U.S.-Israel relationship
has become a positive litmus test for national office in the GOP,
in large part due to the intensely pro-Israel Christian conservatives.
The opposition to Hagel will be fierce.
At the very least the battle will potentially
suck up much of the oxygen in the Senate,
put other issues like gun control on hold
and threaten to become the blockbuster hearing of the Obama presidency
as the Judge Robert Bork hearing was in the Reagan administration.
But this is not merely about Israel or Iran policy or defense spending.
It is about the acceptability of the worst expression of anti-Semitism,
the accusation of disloyalty.
There is no other meaning to Hagel’s phrase “Jewish lobby.”
The declaration from Hagel that
he is not “the senator from Israel”
(Who said he should be?)
is again a direct attack on Jews’ fidelity to the United States.
For decades this kind of venomous language has been gaining acceptance in Europe.
But never in America.
In elevating Hagel the president in a real and troubling way
moves us closer to Western Europe.
Indeed the most disturbing aspect of Hagel’s nomination
is not his impact on policy
(President Obama has and will continue to make one blunder after another),
but what it says about the U.S. president’s willingness to embrace
a man espousing the world’s oldest hatred.
...
[What hyperbole!]
the United States should support the government of Israel,
even when that is evidently contrary to the interests of the United States per se,
does that not constitute lobbying?
Since Israel is, by its own assertions, the "Jewish state",
is it not reasonable to consider that lobbying by a Jew for Jewish interests,
and thus quite reasonably "Jewish lobbying"?
How then can that very same person say that
even to mention the term "Jewish lobby"
is "the worst expression of anti-Semitism"?
Is it not reasonable to describe such a situation as hypocrisy?
As to the specifics of what I am talking about,
see the two articles by Jennifer Rubin below.
I have added some emphasis, primarily in red,
and some comments, in this font and color.
2012-12-02-WP-Jennifer-Rubin-the-un-vote-on-palestine-profiles-in-cowardice
The U.N. vote on Palestine: Profiles in cowardiceBy Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post Right-Turn Blog, 2012-12-05
Last week’s vote to extend non-member observer status to the Palestinians at the United Nations
was a virtual primer on what is wrong with the U.N., the European Union, the Palestinian Authority and the United States
when it comes to the Middle East.
One hardly needs to note that the U.N.’s Israel obsession,
which takes up more of its time and elicits more Human Rights council resolutions than any issue or country on the planet,
comes at a time the body can’t bring itself to move against Bashar al-Assad in Syria, religious oppression of Christians in the Middle East or, goodness gracious, anything regarding the authoritarian revanchism in Georgia.
Nothing to see there. Keep moving on.
(This, by the way, is the “international community” in all its glory
that President Obama so diligently courts.)
Next, let’s look at
the ineptitude of the Obama administration
(and our ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice)
in failing to convince European allies
to vote against
the Palestinian Authority’s phony statehood resolution
and abrogation of its treaty resolutions.
Jonathan Schanzer of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies points out, “There was never much doubt that the U.N. General Assembly would overwhelmingly vote to upgrade the Palestinian Authority to the status of nonmember state on Nov. 29. The big surprise of the event was that a number of key Western European countries did not join the United States and vote against the resolution. The Czech Republic was the only European country to vote against the upgrade, and shockingly, the normally staunchly pro-Israeli governments of Germany and Britain decided to abstain.”
You can attribute this sorry state of affairs in large part to the pusillanimous governments of Europe. For example, German Chancellor Angela Merkel is wary of her potential coalition partner and pro-Palestinian Social Democratic Party. Meanwhile, Schanzer notes, “According to one European diplomat well versed in Spain’s foreign policy, [French president Fran ois] Hollande capitalized on the weak Spanish economy to push Madrid to vote for the PLO’s upgrade. . . . In short, the diplomat noted that Spain had joined France as part of a bloc of countries -- including Italy and Portugal -- in exchange for France’s protection in upcoming rounds of austerity talks. The diplomat also noted that Spain is attempting to obtain a seat on the U.N. Security Council and that the vote may have been a way to court favor from Arab countries.”
Which brings us to the U.S. and Ambassador Rice.
She could only persuade the Czech Republic, some Pacific island countries, Canada and Panama?
That’s the extent of her diplomatic prowess?
(I am certain that the Canadian government needed no convincing on this score, having frequently and courageously defended the Jewish State.)
It is unclear if the Obama administration, and Rice specifically, made any effort whatsoever to round up some “no” votes.
It is quite likely the United States never communicated to Europeans and other allies (e.g. Australia) that
the United States would look unfavorably on their abstentions.
Apparently our “improved” relations with allies under Obama
don’t allow us to ask for anything or get anything of any consequence.
Should she still get the nomination for secretary of state,
Rice should be grilled on why the results were so abysmal.
[Consequence to whom?
Consequence to Israel and the Zionists.
Look, the United States does not have unlimited power to get its allies to do its will.
It must pick and choose the issues it chooses to try to strong-arm its allies into supporting, against their will.
What about other issues that are of interest to people other than Zionists
(and possibly even to some Zionists)
such as issues important to America's economic position,
trade relations and economic policies.
If we spend all our diplomatic capital on issues important to Zionists,
what will the Europeans, say, say when it comes to arguing trade issues?
How many issues can they be importuned over?
In other words, there is a real opportunity cost in supporting Israel every time
the whole rest of the world sees that they are in the wrong.]
Last and least is the Palestinian Authority. Former deputy national security adviser Elliott Abrams writes that “the political failure of the Palestinian Authority which is to say of the Fatah Party and of the PLO against Hamas is significant. Since Arafat’s death in 2004, the leadership group has generally failed to win the 2006 elections, to prevent Hamas from taking Gaza, to develop a new generation of uncorrupted and popular candidates, and to produce the underpinnings of a state. Such institutional and economic progress as has been made has largely been the work of Salam Fayyad, the PA prime minister, who is not even a member of Fatah and is deeply unpopular within its ranks.” All the PA can muster is a relatively meaningless declaration that changes nothing, although it neatly sums up the endemic cynicism of the Arab countries, which would rather sponsor empty resolutions than help improve the lives of Palestinians or promote a true peace between Arabs and Jews in the region.
To recap, Europeans’ animosity toward Israel is rising, unchecked by the inept Obama administration. The PA is a corrupt, undemocratic relic that neither wants peace nor has the ability to make necessary compromises. And naturally, the current status of the Middle East, in the eyes of the U.N. General Assembly, is Israel’s fault. Israel’s building announcement is deemed to be a “risk to peace.” With a straight face the White House intones that such a step “makes it harder to resume direct talks, achieve a 2-state solution.” We’re beyond farce now when it comes to the sanctimonious tut-tutting of Israel.
Oh, and the centrifuges are spinning in Iran, where the mullahs understandably are unimpressed by the United States and the “international community.”
2013-01-06-WP-Jennifer-Rubin-the-hagel-litmus-test
The Hagel litmus testBy Jennifer Rubin
Washington Post Right-Turn Blog, 2013-01-06
[The on-line article continues at some length,
analyzing how the Hagel nomination will affect various interest groups,
in Rubin's view.
But the print version, which appeared on the Op-Ed page of the Monday, 2013-01-07 Washington Post,
contains only what is below.]
If Republicans had nervy firebrands like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy,
someone would rise up to declare,
“Chuck Hagel’s America is a land in which gays would be forced back in the closet and Jews would be accused of dual loyalty.
Chuck Hagel’s world is one in which
devastating defense cuts become a goal, not a problem;
we enter direct talks with the terrorist organization Hamas;
and sanctions on Iran wither.”
The Hagel nomination expected to come on Monday is so outrageous and the rationale for his nomination so weak that it becomes an easy no vote for all Republicans.
Phillip Terzian aptly sums up the problems with Hagel
that go beyond his extreme views:
“Simply stated, there is no evidence
that Chuck Hagel has the experience or temperament
to master the gigantic defense establishment,
or deal effectively with Congress on delicate issues.
On the contrary, there is every indication that
he would quickly suffocate in the details of running the Pentagon,
and run afoul of his political masters in the White House.”
Unlike the Democratic Party, support for the U.S.-Israel relationship
has become a positive litmus test for national office in the GOP,
in large part due to the intensely pro-Israel Christian conservatives.
The opposition to Hagel will be fierce.
At the very least the battle will potentially
suck up much of the oxygen in the Senate,
put other issues like gun control on hold
and threaten to become the blockbuster hearing of the Obama presidency
as the Judge Robert Bork hearing was in the Reagan administration.
But this is not merely about Israel or Iran policy or defense spending.
It is about the acceptability of the worst expression of anti-Semitism,
the accusation of disloyalty.
There is no other meaning to Hagel’s phrase “Jewish lobby.”
The declaration from Hagel that
he is not “the senator from Israel”
(Who said he should be?)
is again a direct attack on Jews’ fidelity to the United States.
For decades this kind of venomous language has been gaining acceptance in Europe.
But never in America.
In elevating Hagel the president in a real and troubling way
moves us closer to Western Europe.
Indeed the most disturbing aspect of Hagel’s nomination
is not his impact on policy
(President Obama has and will continue to make one blunder after another),
but what it says about the U.S. president’s willingness to embrace
a man espousing the world’s oldest hatred.
...
[What hyperbole!]
Labels: hypocrisy, Israel, Jewish lobby, Jews
posted by KHarbaugh at 21:30
