dominance among young voters won’t loosen the former secretary of state’s grip on the
Democratic nomination. Sanders hasn’t had much luck in pointing out that he’s not the one
who ran against Dear Leader in 2008. But if anyone was looking for proof that the independent socialist rather than the former Obama cabinet member in the race is the true heir of the 44th president, they got it this week when the two candidates gave dueling speeches on the
Middle East.
refused an invitation from AIPAC (the only one of the five major party presidential candidates
peace process in a speech he delivered while campaigning in Utah. Considering the views he
expressed, it’s probably understandable that the only Jewish candidate in the race would have
stayed away from AIPAC. But if Sanders wanted to highlight an issue on which he was the one
being faithful to the Obama legacy rather than Clinton, perhaps he should have shown up and
braved the hostility he might have generated.
In his speech, Sanders proclaimed himself a friend of Israel and accurately noted that he was
the only man to run for president on a major party ticket that had spent time as a kibbutz
volunteer. That’s a piece of trivia for Jewish history buffs to savor, but the real distinction he
has earned on the subject is by clearly aligning himself with Obama’s dedication to creating
more daylight between the U.S. and Israel.
The key points of the speech rested on Sanders’ support for a two-state solution and the Iran
nuclear deal. In that respect, he was no different from Clinton although there was a strong
contrast with the three Republican candidates that appeared at AIPAC on both those points.
Clinton also spoke of her belief in the two-state solution and even referenced differences with
the Israeli government about settlements. But the distinction stems from Sanders embrace of Obama’s unwillingness to accept the truth about the Palestinians and willingness to brand
Israeli self-defense as disproportionate.
As I noted yesterday, Clinton was at pains to try and distance herself from Obama on the
question of more daylight between the two allies. She correctly stated that given the crises in
the region, it was necessary for relations to be closer than ever — a signal that a Clinton
presidency would discard Obama’s faith that distance was the key to peace. But his speech,
Sanders seemed to be reading from the Obama playbook. He spent a considerable amount of
time battering Israel for building settlements -- ignoring the fact that these aren’t new
communities in which land is being taken from Palestinians but merely new buildings in places where Jews have lived for decades. Nor does he take into account that almost all of this building is going on in places that even peace process advocates envision remaining in Israel if an
agreement is ever signed. But Sanders makes no mention of that fact in his speech and, thus,
appears to regard a complete withdrawal to the untenable 1967 lines as an acceptable outcome
even if it means dislocating several hundred thousands Jews including those in Jerusalem.
But Sanders’ real problem was his inability to think clearly about what is the cause of the
conflict. He completely ignored the Palestinian political culture that not only glorifies
terrorism but also regards a Jewish state as illegitimate no matter where its borders are drawn.
He wants Hamas and Hezbollah to give up terror but clings to the pretense that the Fatah Party that controls the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is moderate rather than just as ideologically committed to the war against Israel as its Islamist rivals as well as unwilling to condemn terror.
Worse than that, he takes an “even-handed” approach that regards Israeli self-defense as
somehow as morally problematic as Hamas terrorism. Though he condemned Hamas rocket
attacks on Israel, he thinks Israel’s attempts to knock out those rockets and the terror tunnels
dug under its border to be just as morally reprehensible. By labeling the Israel Defense Forces
actions as “disproportionate,” he puts himself in the same category as the Jewish state’s
hypocritical United Nations critics who don’t mention the fact that Hamas uses the population
of Gaza as human shields. Hamas not only positions its terrorists in and around homes and
schools (including storing munitions in UN facilities), it uses the tunnels underneath Gaza to
shelter its rockets and fighters, not the civilians that have been put in harm’s way by their
actions. But to Sanders, both sides are to blame.
This is, of course, reminiscent of much of what President Obama’s White House said during the 2014 Gaza war when the administration not only criticized Israeli self-defense against terror as disproportionate but also even halted the resupply of ammunition to its defense force.
Like Obama, Sanders thinks tilting the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the
Palestinians and pressuring Israel to make concessions that will enable more terrorism is
“pro-Israel.” He fails to understand that until a sea change in Palestinian political culture
occurs, a two-state solution is impossible. Even Israel’s left-wing opposition parties
acknowledge that, but apparently American left-wingers like Obama and Sanders prefer to
hold onto illusions about the Palestinians. Worse than that, Western pressure merely
encourages the Palestinians to think they can continue to refuse to make peace and ratchet up
terror without paying a price. It also allows a BDS movement that is steeped in anti-Semitism
to gain traction and support because of the implicit belief that “occupation” rather than Palestinian hate is what is prolonging the conflict.
Sanders also seems to differ from Clinton in his approach to the Iran nuclear deal. Like her, he supports a bad bargain that allows Iran to get a bomb in a decade when the pact expires. But
unlike her, he seems to place no emphasis on enforcement of its already weak terms or in
restraining its subsidization of international terror at a time when the West has immeasurably enriched the regime.
To its credit, the Obama administration has continued the security alliance with Israel over the
past seven years but it seems to regard military aid — the need for which has been exacerbated
by Obama’s Syria policy and futile quest for détente — more as leverage to prevent Israel from
taking action to defend itself than anything else.
But by embracing daylight, pressure and failing to correctly assess Palestinian intentions, the administration has defined the term “pro-Israel” to embrace actions that are not only
unfriendly but worsen the Jewish state’s security situation. We don’t know whether a President Clinton would really seek to revive the alliance, but we do know that Sanders would follow in Obama’s footsteps and makes things far worse. That is why
Israel-haters on the far left cheered
Middle East.
Even-handed doesn't help Israel or the Palestinians. It merely lends a dubious legitimacy to
pressure on Israel that only makes peace even less likely.
Of course, Bernie Sanders will never be the Democratic presidential nominee, let alone be
not its present. Which means he may not be the last serious Democratic candidate to boycott
AIPAC or to pose as a friend of Israel while embracing unfriendly policies toward it. Clinton
may be Obama’s successor as leader of the party, but, as far as the Middle East and Israel are concerned, Sanders and his left-wing fans are the president’s heirs.
1a)
| Candidly speaking: The fallout of the Obama doctrine |
|
|
By supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and allying with terrorist and rogue states like Iran,
the US has alienated Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which consider themselves abandoned. |
|
|
US President Barack Obama’s determination to downgrade US international power has generated massive global instability
and chaos with especially ominous implications for Israel.
The Obama policies have undermined longstanding alliances within the Western bloc. By supporting the Muslim Brotherhood
and allying with terrorist and rogue states like Iran, the US has alienated Arab states such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, which
consider themselves abandoned and betrayed.
The wooing and groveling toward Iran has empowered the world’s leading Islamic terrorist state, enabled it to become a
threshold nuclear power and exacerbated the conflict between the Shi’ites and Sunnis, which has led to the emergence of
new Islamic barbarian groups like Islamic State (ISIS). The Islamic fundamentalists have reintroduced the Dark Ages to the
region, in which mass murder, rape and beheadings of civilians have become rampant.
Obama’s vacillating policies have resulted in the weakening of Arab states like Syria and Libya with consequent horrendous
casualties and the displacement of millions. When controlled by the despotic Muammar Gaddafi, Libya had voluntarily
abrogated its nuclear ambitions and undertaken to eschew terrorism.
Obama’s enthusiasm to “democratize” the country led to the overthrow of the dictatorship, the assassination of the American ambassador and the transformation of Libya into a major terrorist launching pad which may ultimately necessitate military
intervention.
The mayhem and terrorism in the region has created a severe refugee crisis which could accelerate the demise of the
European Union and permanently alter the demographic base of Europe even leading to the erosion of European civilization.
The downgraded US influence enabled Russian President Vladimir Putin to reassert Russia as a major global power and
achieve greater influence in the Middle East than the Soviets ever attained. Most Arab states today regard Russia as a more
reliable ally than the US.
On top of all this, Obama’s domestic political legacy has led to widespread alienation against the entire political establishment
and the emergence of populist candidates, such as Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump, who are supported merely because
they challenge the existing order. At the same time, it is extraordinary that according to surveys, the leading candidates of
both the Republican and Democratic parties, Trump and Hillary Clinton, respectively, are detested by half of their own party constituencies.
The Obama policies have led to uniquely Jewish negative repercussions: The hostility to the Israeli government from its
principal ally has provided enormous impetus to its adversaries. The double standards employed by the administration and classification of Israel as morally equivalent to the terrorists and the failure to directly reprimand Palestinian leaders engaged in incitement to murder Jews and sanctification of the killers as national “martyrs” – reflect morally outrageous behavior.
At a time when almost half a million Syrians have been butchered and millions displaced from their homes, the focus of US ire
was Israeli construction of homes even in the Jewish neighborhoods of east Jerusalem.
This blatant hostility from the Obama administration provided global encouragement to anti-Israeli forces and gave the green
light to the Europeans to pressure Israel to make further unilateral concessions and recognize the indefensible 1949 armistice
lines as the basis for permanent borders. In Europe, it is widely believed that Israelis behave like Nazis, have genocidal
intentions toward the Arabs and represent a greater threat to peace than rogue states like North Korea or Iran.
Only a few decades ago, many considered anti-Semites an extinct species. Today, a coalition of Islamists, a substantial
proportion of the Left, the radical Right and dormant indigenous anti-Semites have coalesced into a witches’ brew, making
anti-Semitism into one of the greatest global political growth industries. Obama’s anti-Israelism and diplomatic onslaughts over
the past eight years have been a major contributing factor in creating the climate for this incredible upsurge of anti-Semitism.
The Obama administration has virtually succeeded in undermining the broad bipartisan support for Israel which both
Democrats and Republicans had hitherto maintained. In the Democratic Party, there is now a substantial and growing leftist
bloc which has adopted the anti-Israeli approach prevalent in most of the European leftist political parties. Obama’s loathing of
the Israeli leadership has strengthened and emboldened this bloc, whose influence will expand if the incoming president
continues to pander to them.
Obama has directly impacted Jewish community attitudes toward Israel. Over the past decade, assimilation and intermarriage
have made massive inroads and dramatically weakened the Jewish community.
Most Jews, other than the Orthodox, receive no Jewish education and the young generation are increasingly classifying
themselves as “secular,” which implies nominal Jewish affiliation.
On top of this, memories of the Holocaust and the heroic struggle for Jewish nationhood after a 2,000- year interregnum are
fading. The centrality of Israel in Jewish life was downgraded and a growing number of Reform and Conservative rabbis now
identify their Judaism with universal concepts beyond “nationalism,” such as liberalism and “tikkun olam” – repairing the world.
These trends received an enormous boost from Obama, who, with the support of anti-Zionists (for example George Soros), systematically promoted far-left Jewish organizations like J Street, whose principal objective was to undermine AIPAC and the
pro-Israeli Jewish establishment. As an African-American president, Obama mesmerized American Jews, for whom liberalism
and affiliation with the Democratic Party had become a critical element of their DNA, often surpassing their Jewish loyalties.
Many, bombarded by an increasingly anti-Israeli press, joined the anti-Zionist chic, distancing themselves from Israel.
This was especially notable on university campuses.
Regrettably, when Obama made outrageous remarks concerning Israeli policies, the traditionally robust Jewish leadership was intimidated and responded with deafening silence. Beyond small Jewish groups like the Zionist Organization of America, the
principal voices defending Israel were not Jews but Republicans and Evangelical Christians. This impacted negatively on Jews throughout the entire Diaspora.
Yet, without disputing the disastrous impact of Obama’s policies on Israel and the Jewish people, we should not pander to
gloom and doom but turn our focus to positive developments.
Despite the tensions, the bonds between Israel and America based on shared values and popular public support have never
been greater. Notwithstanding Obama’s loathing of the present Israeli leadership, he has felt obliged to strengthen rather than
reduce American military aid, although that is now under threat as the latest security package is conditional on Israel forgoing
the right to lobby Congress for additional aid in times of need. Yet there are grounds for hope that the newly elected president
will seek to repair the relationship with Israel.
Israel has had extraordinary success in developing relations with powerful emerging countries such as India and China, and in
re-engaging with the African nations.
The understandings achieved with the Russians, despite their involvement in Syria, are nothing short of amazing. Alongside
his tactical intervention ensuring the survival of Assad in Syria, Putin has simultaneously developed an unprecedented positive relationship with Israel. His Bolshevik antecedents would turn in their graves if they were aware of the almost surreal scenario
in which this former KGB officer expresses philo-Semitic sentiments and even praises former Soviet citizens now resident in
Israel.
Although it is still premature, Israel’s relationship with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states, much of which is currently
clandestine, has the potential of ultimately obliging the Palestinians to reach an accommodation with us.
Israel has never been as powerful as it is today. Without dismissing the Iranian threat, the Israel Defense Forces are today
able to defeat the combined forces of all our adversaries.
Despite the fact that anti-Semitism, assimilation and intermarriage will continue to erode the vitality of Diaspora Jewish
communities, increasing numbers of committed Jews will make aliya, either by choice or to enable their children to grow up in
a society in which they wear their Jewishness as a badge of honor.
Despite the trials and tribulations of the Jewish people, we can rejoice in the knowledge that our future remains assured with
Israel. Over the past half century, the Jewish state has made extraordinary progress, is self-sufficient and is proud of our achievements as the startup nation. |
=============================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment