Consequently, I have to conclude how disingenuous Obama's protestations are when it comes to clean air because, in my opinion, he remains full of hot air.
===
This from a very close and dear friend and fellow memo reader. (See 1 below.)
===
Another Obama screw up which highlights his abject incompetence, lack of diplomatic skills, impatience, need for a perceived political victory.
Whatever the reason, he continues to make the world a more dangerous place. The next war may come on another president's watch but its genesis will have Obama's finger prints all over it.
Unlike the thinking of the learned professor, whose comments I posted yesterday, Gerson does not believe Obama would ever call for the military option against Iran and thus, by default, Khamenei and Putin, are placed in a win win position. (See 2 below.)
===
al-Sisi knows time is running out both on himself and his desire to save Egypt! Another potential victory for the JV Team? (See 3 below.)
===
Will liberal Jews shoot themselves in the foot while putting Israel in an existential position and ultimately the West?
I am reminded of the classic movie: " Ship of Fools."
Ship of Fools is a 1965 drama directed by Stanley Kramer, which recounts the overlapping stories of several passengers aboard an ocean liner bound to Germany from Mexico in 1933. It stars Vivien Leigh, Simone Signoret, José Ferrer, Lee Marvin, Oskar Werner, Michael Dunn, Elizabeth Ashley, George Segal, José Greco and Heinz Rühmann. It was to be Vivien Leigh's last film and Christiane Schmidtmer's first U.S. production.
Time will tell. Are we about to see a replay? (See 4 and 4a below.)
===
Dick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)Vladimir Putin’s decision to lift the ban on supplying the S300 missile system to Iran occurred just before Holocaust commemoration day. I'm sure the timing of the Russian press release had nothing to do with the Holocaust commemoration. However, Iran's repeated threat to wipe Israel off the map arouses a sense of déjà vu. Some Middle East observers consider the threats to annihilate Israel as no more than empty rhetoric, however most people I know believe that the present Iranian regime poses an existential threat to Israel.
The S300 is a surface to air defence missile system, however its acquisition affords a good measure of defence for Iranian offensive facilities including its nuclear sites.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The operation was the first time in history that a Western air force successfully destroyed a Soviet-built surface-to-air missile (SAM) network. It also became one of the biggest air battles since World War II, and the biggest since the Korean War. The battle lasted about two hours, and involved innovative tactics and technology. By the end of the day, the IAF had destroyed seventeen of the nineteen SAM batteries deployed in the Bekaa Valley and shot down 90 enemy aircraft without incurring any losses. The critical element in the operation was the jamming of the SAM batteries' radar.Last week during the fine weather days of the Passover/Pesach holiday, Israelis flocked en masse to parks, nature reserves and beaches to picnic, camp out or stopover at a hotel/motel. This spontaneous joie de vivre stands in sharp juxtaposition to the utter misery and suffering experienced in places not far from our borders. I'm not trying to present a moral argument, merely describing the seemingly inexplicable contrasts in this region.David Schenker wrote about the situation in Lebanon in the Washington Institute journal - “Policy Watch”. “ At the end of March Lebanese Prime Minister Tammam Salam was in Kuwait attending a UN humanitarian relief conference for Syria, seeking a billion dollars in assistance to defray Beirut's costs for hosting more than a million Syrian refugees. A week earlier, Interior Minister Nohad Machnouk visited Washington in search of additional U.S. funding to help the Internal Security Forces (ISF) better contend with the threat posed by the "Islamic State"/ISIS and other Sunni militant groups. Taken together, these tin-cup missions highlight the ongoing challenge to Lebanon's stability as the war in Syria enters its fifth year…. To be sure, ongoing US security assistance -- along with $3 billion in Saudi defence-related funding -- will help the Lebanese security apparatus better contend with the terrorist threat. With no end in sight to the war next door, however, it is just a matter of time until ISIS and the al- Nusra front strike again.”According to a recent report in The Wall Street Journal Hezbollah is smuggling advanced guided missile systems into Lebanon in preparation for a future conflict with Israel. Hezbollah’s armament efforts have been hampered by at least five IDF air strikes against its smuggling routes and depots in Syria in 2013 alone. In response, the Shiite terrorist group is attempting to smuggle easy to assemble weapons components into Lebanon, believing that the weapons parts shipments, supervised by Iran’s Al Quds force, are more difficult to spot and intercept. The Journal claims parts of an advanced anti-ship missile system are already in Lebanon. Additional surface to air systems as well as anti-tank missiles are already en route in Syrian depots controlled by Hezbollah. The Wall Street Journal believes these additional weapons supplies mark a significant upgrade in Hezbollah’s capabilities. It is hard to estimate Hezbollah's armed strength reliably. Nevertheless, it is often claimed that Hezbollah is the single most militarily powerful non-state organisation in the world with an arsenal of more than 100,000 missiles and rockets. Hezbollah is a major political force in Lebanon, therefore the national debt should be its major concern. Furthermore, ISIS and the al-Nusra front are the real threat to Lebanon’s security, not Israel.Professor Efraim Inbar , Director of Bar-Ilan University’s Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies claims the implications of the Middle East's ongoing turmoil for Israel's security are mixed. Like Iran and Turkey, a democratic and politically stable Israel is also a rising non-Arab power and a player in the regional balance of power. The power differential between Israel's national might and its neighbours has further increased due to its relatively robust economy and its ability to develop a high-tech powerful army.In addition, the strong armies of Iraq and Syria have disappeared, decreasing the chances for a large-scale conventional encounter with Israel. Moreover, the pro-Western Sunni states such as Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia, though reluctant to admit it, see Israel as an ally against a rising Iran, as well as against radical Islamist movements. This also comes at a time when the United States is viewed in many quarters as a less dependable ally.On a day to day basis we are barely aware of the Middle East’s ongoing turmoil Efraim Inbar mentioned. Obviously we can’t afford to be inattentive regarding national security. So while we work and play our defence and security services are ever watchful and alert to possible threats.Have a good weekend.
2)
“I have never seen anything like it.”
So I was told by a former U.S. official, who had seen much as a senior diplomat. It has become hard to deny that the rollout of the Lausanne framework is a first-rate debacle — a dazzling display of self-destructive incompetence.
Who proposed that the State Department issue an interpretive fact sheet before the deal was actually sealed? The Iranian negotiators were bound to feel ambushed. Iran’s foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, had political work to do in selling an agreement at home. The Obama administration’s interpretive victory dance made his job considerably harder. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei quickly denounced the fact sheet as “incorrect and contrary to the substance of the negotiations.” Do the elements outlined in that document now constitute a set of Obama administration “red lines”?
This dispute highlights the fact that at least three parts of the deal are not settled: an Iranian accounting for past research and development, the timing of sanctions relief and the agreement’s verification mechanisms. So everything is settled — except everything that matters most. “ The sanctions must all be completely removed on the day of the agreement,” Khamenei demands. “One must absolutely not,” he continues, “ allow infiltration of the security and defense realm of the state on the pretext of inspection.” Which is the meaning of inspection.
The administration’s high-profile announcement of an embryonic nuclear deal has already had the practical effect of undermining the isolation of Iran. Russia used the occasion to announce its own agreement: an $800 million deal to provide Iran with an advanced air-defense system. Russia claims this does not violate the spirit of sanctions because it is a defensive technology. But it is a defensive technology that may be used to shield the development of the ultimate offensive technology. There are also reports that French and Chinese oil companies are exploring deals with Iran. Sanctions have already begun to fall apart, which will eventually free up billions of dollars for the Iranians to further destabilize the Middle East.
Why would the Obama administration claim victory in the middle of a sensitive negotiation, in a manner that prods the other side to harden its demands and encourages the unraveling of sanctions? Maybe for the same reason that the swap of five Taliban commanders for Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl was declared a national triumph and Bergdahl himself, now charged by the Army with desertion, was praised for serving with “ honor and distinction.” On occasion, the administration seems so anxious to score political points that it is incapable of acting with restraint.
There is another, related explanation. President Obama oversold the Iran nuclear agreement in an obvious attempt to back congressional opponents into a corner. It is, the administration has repeatedly argued, a simple choice: concessions or war. But this strategy actually backs the United States into a corner. Does Obama not think the Iranians are listening when he sets out these alternatives? No one — not enemies, not allies, not bystanders in the street — believes that Obama would use force against Iran. And this means there is no theoretical limit to the concessions that could be justified to avoid conflict. The argument of “concessions or war” is another way of saying that any deal is better than no deal. And this is a terribly weak negotiating position for the United States to occupy.
The administration’s botched announcement was accompanied by typically sensitive congressional outreach. At first, members of Congress were declared irrelevant and told to butt out of an executive agreement. Then Obama accused his opponents of being irrational, militant and atavistic — the functional equivalent of the Iranian mullahs. This campaign resulted in a remarkable,bipartisan congressional consensus — to assert oversight over an administration that is not inspiring confidence.
With all this, a deal with Iran is still likely — and likely to be bad — unless Khamenei is incapable of getting to “yes.” Obama’s grand strategy, meanwhile, remains a cipher. He could believe that a nuclear agreement and the lifting of sanctions will help transform Iran into a more benevolent regional power — which is naive. He could be making the move of an uber-realist — trying to extricate the United States from involvement in the Middle East by recognizing Iranian hegemony and developing a working relationship with the worst of the worst. This would fulfill the nightmares of Israel, Jordan and Saudi Arabia.
Or Obama could have no strategy at all — in need of a political win, desperately hoping for a legacy and too invested to walk away.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Arab world: Egypt’s dangerous stalemate
| By ZVI MAZEL |
| Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is fighting for his country’s survival – and his own. Islamic terrorism is not abating, hampering vital efforts to bring a better life to the people through a revitalized economy and political stability. Sisi knows he has to show results soon to prevent Egypt from slipping back into anarchy and chaos. Despite the army’s all-out effort to defeat Islamist insurgency in Sinai, there is no end in sight. F-16 fighter planes and Apache helicopters have joined the campaign, security forces have killed or wounded hundreds of terrorists, destroying their haunts and their training groups – but more keep coming. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis gunmen, who have pledged allegiance to Islamic State, continue making daring raids against police stations and other security targets, leading to loss of life and heavy damage. In one instance on April 14, the commander of the central police station of El-Arish was wounded in a raid; the assailants were able to escape. For all intents and purposes the situation has reached a stalemate, though the army has managed to contain the terrorists in the northern part of the Sinai Peninsula, preventing them from extending their activities to the south and to the Suez Canal – where they could have inflicted untold damage to economic and security infrastructure, and severely undermined public morale. However, there are still sporadic terrorist attacks in Cairo and other parts of the country. Bombs explode, killing and maiming; power lines are blasted. A number of terrorist groups are involved, from Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis and the so-called Soldiers of Egypt to the ever-present Muslim Brotherhood; many of their members have been arrested, their leaders sentenced to death – though no one has been executed yet – but they keep on demonstrating against the regime (though in diminishing numbers). In Yemen, Iranian-backed Houthi tribes are poised to take over the strategic Red Sea straits, threatening free passage to the Suez Canal – a reminder, if one was needed, of the fact that Islamic terrorism knows no border. Vainly did the Egyptian president try to convince the US-led coalition against Islamic State to extend its activities to the whole Middle East. But US President Barack Obama is unwilling to acknowledge that there is a regional and international dimension to the movement. The fact remains that Islamic State dispatches terrorists and weapons to Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis in the Sinai Peninsula from Libya, where there is an unlimited supply of both. No matter how many guerrillas are intercepted or killed by the Egyptian army, more are coming through the vast mountainous and desert region, along the 1,200-km. border between the two countries. Then there is Gaza, where terrorists can find refuge, regroup and train, and where new weapons can be tested. Cairo is desperately trying to cut off the peninsula from the Strip. The Rafah crossing is closed most of the time, and when it opens it is under the strict supervision of Egyptian authorities. More than 2,000 contraband tunnels have been destroyed and a 1-km.-deep sanitized zone has been installed; thousands of families have been uprooted. They have been compensated but resentment is high, and the move has prompted widespread condemnation by human rights associations. Against this backdrop, the regime is weighing extending the zone to 5 km. and making the digging of contraband tunnels punishable by life imprisonment. A court in Cairo has forbidden Hamas activities in Egypt, and another has declared Hamas a terrorist organization; however, the central government is appealing that decision for the sake of its ongoing dialogue with Gaza’s leaders on the Palestinian issue. The Iranian-Houthi threat has led Sisi to call for the creation of a rapid-response Arab unit, as Saudi Arabia has rallied neighboring states to form a coalition against the rebels in Yemen – who are threatening its border in the south, and were about to take control of the strategic port of Aden. Though the creation of a united Arab unit was decided at a summit in Sharm e-Sheikh last month, implementation will not be easy. A number of states such as Lebanon and Iraq have warned they would not allow any infringement to their sovereignty; some Gulf states and Jordan have been more forthcoming, and meetings between army commanders are scheduled. The problem is that these countries are not keen to risk their troops in a ground operation in neighboring states. Armies are the traditional bulwark of Arab regimes; a failed intervention outside their borders could cause their downfall. Nevertheless, since the West is largely indifferent to what is happening, Sisi and his Gulf allies have no choice but to unite against the common threat of Islamic terrorism, be it Sunni or Shi’ite. On the home front, Sisi has launched a series of impressive projects – a new canal parallel to the old one to enable simultaneous crossing in both directions, thereby doubling receipts; an industrial, commercial and tourist zone between the two canals; 3,000 km. of modern roads. Perhaps his most ambitious project is the creation of a new administrative capital city east of Cairo, at an estimated cost of $45 billion. Arab states have rallied to his side, pledging billions of dollars at a special economic summit last month; international groups have indicated their interest in some of the projects – a significant victory for the embattled president. But Egypt’s endemic problems – population explosion, illiteracy leading to widespread unemployment and enduring poverty, as well as corruption on an epic scale – are not making Sisi’s task easier. He is also calling to reform Islam by purging it of its extremist discourse, and has already instructed the Education Ministry to eliminate extremist content such as the call to jihad and attacks on other religions. Meanwhile, the political situation is still unclear and elections are repeatedly postponed, allegedly because of ambiguities in the election law. The fact is that the president has not been able to secure a large enough block to ensure his electoral victory, while the Muslim Brotherhood – though banned – and other Islamic parties can still muster a sizable vote. Can Sisi win all his battles? How long will the Egyptian people wait for some much-needed economic results? Egypt is going it alone, still waiting for the West to understand that Cairo remains its best ally against the rising tide of terrorism now lapping at its shores. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) American Jewry's moment of decision By Caroline B. GlickThis week in two meetings with prominent American Jews, President Barack Obama threw down the gauntlet. Either the Jews of America will rise to the challenge or they will allow Obama to marginalize them. It is their choice, and now is the time for them to decide. In the first meeting, Obama met with centrist Jewish leaders from major Jewish organizations like the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC. Major donors to these groups, like to almost every other major Jewish organization in America, are largely Democrats.
According to The Washington Post, the purpose of the meeting was “to defuse antagonism toward [Obama] and to convince [Jewish leaders] that he shares their concerns about the safety of Israel and the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran.”
That is, the main goal of the meeting was to silence Jewish criticism of Obama’s deal with Iran. So far, Obama seems to have accomplished that goal. Although, according to a source who spoke to The Algemeiner, the atmosphere at the meeting was “ungiving, very stern and tense.” Since the meeting took place, none of the leaders who participated has openly criticized Obama’s policies regarding Iran. Their silence comes despite the fact that, according to the participants who spoke with The Algemeiner, Obama did not allay the concerns they expressed regarding the dangers his nuclear deal with Iran constitute for Israel. The second meeting of the day was a far friendlier affair. According to The Algemeiner, participants included supporters of the anti-Israel organization J Street, including Alexandra Stanton, Lou Susman, and Victor Kovner. Other outspoken leftist Jews, including Haim Saban and former AIPAC presidents Amy Friedkin and Howard Friedman, also attended. As The Algemeiner reported, participants in this meeting were much less concerned about Obama’s deal with Iran. At least one participant, described as more “centrist” than other participants gushed at the president, saying, “You are doing the right thing [with Iran]. We are behind you 100 percent.” Participants in the second meeting also were excited at the prospect of Obama making good on his threat to act against Israel at the UN Security Council. Indeed, they lobbied him to abandon Israel at the international forum. A participant told The Algemeiner that one of his colleagues told Obama, “If you decide to go against Israel at the UN, let us know first and we’ll do the legwork for you, in the [Jewish] community…so you’re not going to come in cold.” The purpose then of Obama’s second meeting with American Jews was not to silence dissent, but to mobilize his supporters to weaken community opposition to his hostile policies toward Israel, both in regard to Iran and in regard to the Palestinians. And here, too, the meeting was largely successful. An indication of the success of Obama’s efforts to rally his Jewish supporters in favor of his anti-Israel policies came on Wednesday, when the Jewish arm of the Democratic Party, the National Jewish Democratic Council, issued a stunning press release. In it, the NJDC condemned Sen. Marco Rubio for supporting Israel. On Monday, Rubio announced that he is running for president. Rubio’s pro-Israel crime involved his plan get the Senate to condition approval of Obama’s nuclear deal with the ayatollahs on Iran’s recognizing Israel’s right to exist. According to the NJDC, Rubio’s plan, “has no purpose other than to politicize the US-Israel relationship at a time when the Jewish state needs our steadfast support. It is shameful that Sen. Rubio would further politicize this issue to advance his own political goals.” If the NJDC is truly steadfast in its support for Israel, it is hard to understand what its members are so upset about. As far as Israelis are concerned, Rubio’s plan is aligned with the widest political consensus imaginable. The Israeli Left, led by Labor Party leader Yitzhak Herzog, supports Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s demand that sanctions against Iran should be dropped only after Iran recognizes Israel’s right to exist. As to America, it is hard to understand how anyone in the American mainstream could oppose conditioning Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons on its abandonment of its aim to destroy Israel. Obama himself has always insisted that protecting Israel’s security is a paramount goal of his presidency. Both in his meetings with Jewish leaders and in his interview earlier this month with The New York Times’s Tom Friedman, Obama claims to have been deeply hurt by accusations that he doesn’t care about Israel’s security and said that he would consider it a personal failure if Israel were weaker when he leaves office. Yet, by refusing to condition a nuclear deal that as Obama himself acknowledges will reduce Iran’s breakout time for military nuclear capabilities to zero on Iran’s eschewal of the goal of Israel’s destruction, the NJDC, like Obama himself, is not protecting Israel or supporting it. Like Obama, the NJDC is indirectly legitimizing Iran’s goal of destroying Israel. By attacking Rubio for promoting a position that is intuitively reasonable, and in line with a very low common-denominator of support for Israel, the NJDC revealed that, from its perspective, the only way for Republicans not to “politicize” support for Israel is by joining Democrats in opposing Israel. A new poll released this week by Bloomberg reinforces the growing sense that Israel has become a partisan issue. Today more and more Democrats view support for Israel as a Republican position. Whereas two thirds of Republicans support Israel even if its positions are at odds with those of the administration, three quarters of Democrats support the administration against Israel. Polls in recent years indicate that Republican support for Israel is nearly unanimous, while less than half of Democrats support the Jewish state. It appears that Obama’s charm offensive among American Jews over the past two weeks on the one hand, and the NJDC’s statement that empties the term “pro-Israel” of all meaning on the other, are aimed at removing the issue of Israel from the political debate at least until Obama achieves his goal of signing a nuclear deal with Iran by June 30. This makes sense, because as Obama apparently sees things, there are two forces that can scuttle his deal, and they are intimately linked – major Jewish donors, and Hillary Clinton. On Wednesday the White House reversed its previous position and announced that it would support a Senate bill to require Obama to bring his deal with Iran before the Senate for approval. Obama’s reversal was not a major concession. The Senate bill ignored the constitutional provision requiring two thirds of senators to approve international treaties. Under the current Senate bill, two thirds of senators will have to oppose Obama’s radical deal with Iran in order to scuttle it. All that Obama now requires to secure his deal is to maintain the support of 34 Democratic senators. And the only one who can endanger that support is Clinton.
4a)Explaining Jewish Liberalism
Whenever I spend time with fellow conservatives at an event, I always come away inspired and optimistic about the future. If you don't periodically take the time to mingle with like-mindeds, I suggest you give it a whirl. You will emerge invigorated, infused with a sense of validation, and feel so grounded in your principles that you will be empowered to take on the challenges that lie ahead.
But most of all, as an American Jew who is conservative politically, I’m always heartened by the enthusiasm conservatives express for Israel. Their embrace of the tiny Jewish state serves as a kind of safe zone amidst the unjust accusations, revised history, threats, and acrimony. Surrounded by this nurturing force field, stands an alliance whose long-awaited arrival is born of generations of misunderstandings and barriers that have finally crumbled. Our collective love of G-d, respect for the rule of law, and desire to be guided by our better angels has proved a powerful force that, like Dorothy’s ruby reds, was there all along. When I’m in attendance at conservative events, I’m invariably and understandably asked the proverbial question: Why are so many Jews liberal and why do they support Obama? I always try to answer as best I can, given the fact there is no simple answer. Jews are no different than any other group -- we have free will and independent thought, and do not act, think, or vote in lockstep any more than Catholics, blacks, or homosexuals do. But I think what is really lurking at the root of the question is wonderment at whether America's Jews truly love Israel the way America's conservatives do -- many of whom are Christian or had a Christian upbringing. The short answer is yes, the majority of Jews in America love and support Israel. But, at the risk of sounding Clintonian, it depends on what you mean by "Jews". Before I proceed, let me just state that this article is not a dissertation on what it is to be Jewish or even to answer the question posited above. Briefly, what makes a person Jewish is a complex question that has endured for centuries with many debatable answers. For some it’s whom you marry, for others it’s about bagels and lox; for some it’s about the extent of your piety, for others simply whether you had a Bar Mitzvah and were circumcised; for some it’s primarily a religion, for others a nation, for some a race; for some it’s about your support for Israel, for others whether you are kosher and observant. No wonder we coined the exclamation “Oy Veh!” What many people -- even Jews themselves -- don’t realize, is that far left, progressive American Jews are generally secular and have little, if any, connection to or affinity with Judaism and Israel. Their stance on Israel is consistent with the usual progressive tropes about Israel's place in the geopolitical world -- as an oppressive, apartheid-like force illegally occupying Palestine. The Land of Milk and Honey has no religious or historical significance for these deracinated Jews, most of whom are agnostics and/or atheists, or just completely secularized. Although they readily acknowledge a Jewish heritage when probed, that heritage bears little, if any relevance, to their lives or world outlook. They simply share a past -- a culture and traditions, maybe religious worship, and perhaps even a gene pool, with G-d’s Chosen People. For them, “Jewish” is merely a designation that, only through the accident of birth and name, connects them to Einstein and Rubinstein. With 58% of Jews intermarrying, close to 70% of non-religious Jews marrying non-Jewish spouses, and only 25% of their offspring self-identifying as Jewish, someone with the name Goldberg voting for and supporting Obama (or any other Democrat) might not be Jewish at all. This entire inquiry is akin to wondering why lapsed Catholics would vote for a president who supports gay marriage and abortion when such positions go against the Church -- a Church to whom they are no longer tied, espousing religious values and tenets that no longer guide their lives. Simply because one’s parents were engaged Jews or Catholics with a worldview informed by their religion, it is not a foregone conclusion that their religiosity and commitment will have translocated down to their offspring. The point is, many people we assume are Jewish and have voted for Obama (and will probably vote for Hillary), really aren’t. Not all of America’s 5.7 million “Jews” identify as Jews or are motivated to vote in accordance with traditional Jewish values. Not only that. It is also quite likely that the millions of religious Jews who do vote for conservatives and support conservative principles, aren’t as vocal or politically engaged as their liberal counterparts and simply haven’t crossed paths with the millions of conservatives who are politically active. As for America's run-of-the-mill liberal Jews -- Democrats who fully support Israel and self-identify as Jewish, are married to Jews, raise their children as Jews, and belong to a synagogue or participate in Jewish life -- there is undoubtedly a schism between their domestic and national security stances, and their concern for Israel. For conservatives, all three are inextricably connected but not so for the liberal who sees domestic politics through rose-colored glasses, national security issues through foggy lenses, and Israel through what appear to be crystal clear optics. These are the Chuck Schumers and Dianne Feinsteins of America. As much as conservatives disagree with them, we should not lump them together with the secular progressive Jews when it comes to Israel -- even though their views are admittedly confounding. Do they love Israel? Yes. Do they want their president to support Israel as fervently as they do? Yes. Are they concerned when he does not? Yes, for the most part. Will that change their party affiliation or voting patterns or support for Obama? Probably not -- at least not until something cataclysmic happens. Thankfully, support for Obama isn’t static among America’s Jews.As I write this, the latest Gallup Poll reports that the 77% of Jews who supported Obama in 2009 has plummeted to 54% today. Let’s hope they aren’t seduced by the false promises of Hillary. I “get” secular progressive Jews -- their brand of “liberalism” is the only religion they follow. I don’t waste my breath arguing with them about Israel, or anything else. Like many of you, though, I don’t understand the run-of-the-mill Jewish liberals. In the best of all possible worlds, they would agree with conservatives not only regarding Israel, but on domestic and national security policies, as well. Alas, they do not. Fact is, this article isn’t about them. It is about my conservative homies in the trenches who enthusiastically back the only freedom-loving country in the Middle East. These individuals mean the world to me. At times, the future for Israel looks bleak. But it would look even bleaker if it weren’t for the support of America’s conservatives, Republicans, and the bulk of the Christian community. These issues are complex and very difficult to write about. One invariably ends up generalizing and exceptions are bound to materialize. I’m sure there are secular, progressive Jews who, hands down, support Israel. And I’m sure there are conservatives, who don’t. But my intent here is not to thrust all of America’s Jews together in one voting basket or to answer the question posed above. I don’t think there is a clear-cut answer that fits all people and all scenarios at all times. And I’m not sure we need to continue to ask a question that has no real answer. If there was a cogent explanation that we could exploit to persuade liberal Jews to switch their vote -- in other words, a magic bullet -- then it might be worth our time and this would be a different article. The takeaway from this article should be this: Israel-loving Jews stand shoulder-to-shoulder with our conservative, Republican, and Christian friends. We are there for you and you for us. We do not take support for Israel for granted. We understand the courage it takes to support the Jewish homeland and we are grateful for it. Thank you. Thank you from the bottom of our cholesterol-laden hearts. Political ideology and party affiliation aside, we do this not because we find ourselves fighting common geopolitical and cultural enemies. We do this because we have mutual respect for one another, because we have a newfound camaraderie, and because we choose to walk down the same path towards a shared destiny, hand-in-hand, even though we might stop to smell different flowers along the way. And while there has been confusion, torment, death, and discrimination throughout history, those demons are behind us. They serve only to remind us how grim life can be when we don’t understand and love, and how sweet it can be when we choose otherwise. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
No comments:
Post a Comment