Carlone Glick wrote: "
What message are Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin and Robert Menendez, who endangered their standing in their party by opposing Obama’s Iran deal to take from AIPAC’s fundraiser for Coons? The obvious message to them is that they were stupid to stick their necks out. If AIPAC is no longer willing to limit its support to Democrats who actually support Israel then it is no longer a pro-Israel organization in any real sense. Rather, it is a partisan organization that will support Democrats regardless of their position on Israel.
And what message does AIPAC’s fundraiser for Coons send to Republicans? Had Republican Senator Rand Paul supported Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, he would have been vilified as an anti-Semite by his political opponents. AIPAC no doubt would have lavished support on his Democratic opponent if he or she were willing to utter a few pro-Israel platitudes.
In other words, AIPAC is saying that it exercises double standards. Whereas the pro-Israel lobby expects Republican lawmakers to support Israel, it supports and fundraises for Democratic lawmakers who oppose Israel.
And, if AIPAC abandons its expectations of Republicans, as its fundraiser for Coons indicates it has for Democrats, and supports anti-Israel politicians regardless of their partisan pedigree, then AIPAC will cease to function as a pro-Israel organization at all.
Clearly AIPAC is struggling to get its arms around its loss. The $20 million its Super Pac Citizens for a Nuclear- Free Iran spent to scuttle the deal managed to secure the votes of just four Democratic senators. Today it faces the dismal reality in which Democratic lawmakers believe the upside of voting with their convictions, the will of their voters and America’s national security interests is smaller than the downside of voting against Obama and his Democratic Party.
But surrendering to Obama is not the answer. If AIPAC wants to remain relevant, (or reinstate its relevance) in Washington, it needs to follow a simple rule. It must support those who support Israel and oppose those who oppose Israel.
Chris Coons voted for a deal that constitutes a mortal threat to Israel and to the US-Israel alliance. He is not a supporter of Israel. And neither are his 41 Democratic Senate colleagues who supported the deal.
But lots of other Democrats do support Israel. It is AIPAC’s job to find them, support them and stand by them. This it must do first and foremost by exacting a price from those who failed to stand up and be counted last summer when the chips were down."
Joe420k • 9 hours ago
What message are Democratic Senators Chuck Schumer, Ben Cardin, Joe Manchin and Robert Menendez, who endangered their standing in their party by opposing Obama’s Iran deal to take from AIPAC’s fundraiser for Coons? The obvious message to them is that they were stupid to stick their necks out. If AIPAC is no longer willing to limit its support to Democrats who actually support Israel then it is no longer a pro-Israel organization in any real sense. Rather, it is a partisan organization that will support Democrats regardless of their position on Israel.
And what message does AIPAC’s fundraiser for Coons send to Republicans? Had Republican Senator Rand Paul supported Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, he would have been vilified as an anti-Semite by his political opponents. AIPAC no doubt would have lavished support on his Democratic opponent if he or she were willing to utter a few pro-Israel platitudes.
In other words, AIPAC is saying that it exercises double standards. Whereas the pro-Israel lobby expects Republican lawmakers to support Israel, it supports and fundraises for Democratic lawmakers who oppose Israel.
And, if AIPAC abandons its expectations of Republicans, as its fundraiser for Coons indicates it has for Democrats, and supports anti-Israel politicians regardless of their partisan pedigree, then AIPAC will cease to function as a pro-Israel organization at all.
Clearly AIPAC is struggling to get its arms around its loss. The $20 million its Super Pac Citizens for a Nuclear- Free Iran spent to scuttle the deal managed to secure the votes of just four Democratic senators. Today it faces the dismal reality in which Democratic lawmakers believe the upside of voting with their convictions, the will of their voters and America’s national security interests is smaller than the downside of voting against Obama and his Democratic Party.
But surrendering to Obama is not the answer. If AIPAC wants to remain relevant, (or reinstate its relevance) in Washington, it needs to follow a simple rule. It must support those who support Israel and oppose those who oppose Israel.
Chris Coons voted for a deal that constitutes a mortal threat to Israel and to the US-Israel alliance. He is not a supporter of Israel. And neither are his 41 Democratic Senate colleagues who supported the deal.
But lots of other Democrats do support Israel. It is AIPAC’s job to find them, support them and stand by them. This it must do first and foremost by exacting a price from those who failed to stand up and be counted last summer when the chips were down."
It is a healthy development that exposes AIPAC as being out of touch with the majority of Jewish voters. The majority of Jews supported the Obama Iran deal and support Obama. AIPAC is a right wing organization that follows the dictates of Likud. It is also healthy that the Obama administration listens to J Street. Jews have always expressed resentment towards being stereotyped as monolithic but yet that is what the right wingers demand of Jews. Right wingers on this site go bananas when Jewish voices other than theirs are being heard. Why? J Street is not Jewish enough? Not pro-Israel enough? The truth is J Street is not pro-settlement enough. Not pro-occupation enough! That position irks the right wingers to no end. Then they turn around to accuse J Street of being anti-Israel. It would be hilarious if not for the tragic consequences.
Judy Joe420k • 7 hours ago As all Americans (not just Jews) learned the truth about the deal as opposed to the lies that were being spoon to the public, people reversed course and were increasingly against the the deal.
Jim S. Joe420k • 8 hours ago see moreOne early poll suggested us American Jews supported Obama's Iran deal. Some later polls suggested we did not.J-Street is anti-Israel for the simple reason that it has NEVER taken a pro-Israel position. Show me proof to the contrary."Settlements" as you call them are nothing more than communities of Jews living in their ancestral homeland on land which was NOT taken from Arabs. To deny them the right to do so is pure and simple anti-Jew discrimination. And there is no "occupation"-Hamas controls all of Gaza and the PA much of the "territories" with a large area they do not control Area C, having a small portion of Arabs.As to Obama, here is one American Jew who strongly opposes him for what he has done to Israel and to America.Obama sold out Israel- and America for that matter- to the mullahs. And the record clearly shows he is anti-Israel-and yes, anti-Jew. Here are
just some of the facts that show Obama has been anti-Israel from the start of his Presidency:1) He insisted on a settlement freeze as a condition for Israel-PA talks in his first term even though the Palestinians had never before insisted on such a condition;2) Obama effectively tore up Bush's letter/memorandum
of understanding that Israel would retain some settlements;3) He went to Cairo to speak to the Muslim world early in his first term. For years he refused to goto Israel and when he finally went he refused to speak before the Knesset;4) He held secret talks with Iran behind Israel's back;5) During the latest round of PA-Israel talks the Administration insisted Israel release Palestinian terrorists and murderers for the "privilege" of
talks;6) During the latest set of talks the Administration warned Israel-and only Israel- of consequences if there was no deal, such as isolation and violence. And as reported in the New York Post “[d]uring a talk with [journalist Jeffrey] Goldberg while Netanyahu was en route to Washington, Obama “warned Israel of its growing isolation in the world and vulnerability to boycotts.” Discussing this on
Charlie Rose’s program, Goldberg said, “I took it to be a little bit of a
veiled threat,” and said he interpreted it as Obama’s way of saying, “nice
little Jewish state you got there, I’d hate to see something happen to it.””;7) The Administration publically backed the PA’s refusal to recognize Israel as the Jewish state-which meant it backed Arafat’s two stage plan for the elimination of Israel-the state the Palestinians can get now and to try for the rest of Israel later, with no peace in between;8) The Administration attacked the settlements as the cause for the breakdown of the last peace talks even though Israel did not agree to a settlement freeze as a condition for the talks and Israel only announced plans for the future;9) Supported and funded the unity PA-Hamas government in violation of US law;10) Has refused to call for the disarming of Hamas- an anti-Semetic, terrorist organization which committed war crimes against both Israeli and Gazan civilians during the last Gaza conflict;11) Acted as Hamas’ protector by insisting Israel allow Turkey and Qatar negotiate on its behalf during the last Gaza conflict;12) Held up certain arms shipments to Israel during the Gaza conflict;13) The FAA held up flights to Israel during the Gaza conflict;14) After General Dempsey, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, stated that; “I actually do think that Israel went to extraordinary lengths to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties” in last year's Gaza conflict, State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki indicated that the Administration believed that Dempsey was wrong;15) Refused to condemn PA calls for the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Jews in the territories and PA laws making it illegal to sell land to the “enemy” ie, the Jews;16) Excoriated Israel for plans to BUY land from Arabs in Jerusalem;17) Has threatened to take action against Israel at the UN and makes NO demands on the Palestinians;18) after cutting ties to anti-Israel Robert Malley when
running for office in 2008, Obama has brought him in during his second term to serve as a senior director at the National Security Council regarding Persian Gulf allies;19) Declassified nuclear information about Israel, and as reported in an article in the J Post online on April 29, 2015 “although the Obama administration was willing to declassify and publish the specific sections on Israel’s nuclear program, it simultaneously redacted all sensitive sections dealing with NATO countries;”20) Removed Iran and Hezbollah from a US terror list;21) In June, 2015, condemned terror attack in Tunisia but failed to condemn a terror attack against a Jew in the “territories”;22) by now claiming anti-BDS language in a law signed by Obama does not apply to the “territories,” the Administration implicitly
backs BDS as to the “territories;”23) Responded to additional threats by Iranian officials of Israel’s elimination by making MORE concessions to the Iranian mullahs in the nuclear talks.Obama lso has shown himself to be anti-Jew. He intentionally LIED in an interview bout the anti-Semetic nature of the attack on the kosher market in Paris by aying it was a “RANDOM” attack on a “bunch of folks” at a deli-even after one f the Islamic terrorists had ADMITTED Jews had been specifically targeted.Both a White House and State Department spokesman then initially backed the lie ntil the firestorm of protest got to be too great. And to my knowledge, Obama
never apologized for the remark.Just recently Obamna refused to condemn or even acknowledge the current Arab terror ave against Jews- condemning only “violence” against “innocent people.” And Kerry and the State Department both LIED Kerry falsely blaming “massive settlement building” in the last years when here has been no such thing and the State Department saying the status quo has been changed on the Temple Mount (when it has not been changed by Israel) to justify the Arab terror.Obama also resorted to thinly-veiled Jew baiting to
push his Iran deal by identifying "lobbyists and others" as being
behind the opposition to his deal-we all know exactly who he had in mind-and needlessly saying only the Israeli government publicly opposes his deal.Joe420k Jim S. • 7 hours ago You are delusional to think Obama or America is anything but a blind strong supporter of Israel to the ends of earth even against it's own interest. What Obama has not done is bend over at the alter of Zion war gods and deliver a war with Iran and Syria. For that he is being crucified by the wacko fringe, of which this site is a proud member. You can't always get what you want but if you try sometimes, you get what you need. Be happy, Israel's foreign aid will likely get a nice boost to satisfy this wacko political fringe. Not too shabby to get a billion dollars hush money from this scam.Jim S. Joe420k • 7 hours ago I cite facts showing Obama is anti-Israel and anti-Jew. You respond with hate filled rhetoric.Joe420k Jim S. • 6 hours ago You provide opinions that these facts you cited are anti-Israel. I don't dispute these facts but I would characterize them as anti-Likud positions. That doesn't make them anti-Israel. Nothing hate filled in my rhetoric. Again, that is your opinion and I know it's hard to convince a right winger to distinguish between the two.
vicki fairman Joe420k • 3 hours ago "Right winger, right winger, bwaah!" You do no thinking of your own -- merely parrot what you're told. If the Arabs wanted peace, all they have to do is LAY DOWN THEIR WEAPONS, FOOL! There would have been peace long ago, if it were up to the Israelis, even your nemesis, the Likud. It's not about "occupation" or "settlements" or "Al Aksa Mosque" -- the Arabs want ALL of Israel, period -- everything else is just pretext for their bloody rampages. Israel will never go back to the '67 lines, because they were indefensible. Seven miles wide at certain points. We were attacked repeatedly, and finally, we said, "enough!" I don't expect you to agree, or even understand, because you are obviously totally indoctrinated, but others on the board do understand, so I write for them.
Judy Joe420k • 7 hours ago I am glad you are such a humanitarian as you have watched 300,000 syrians slaughtered while you scream bloody murder that we will homes.
brakha.blogspot.com Jim S. • 8 hours ago Hillary Clinton is also part of this Antijewish hostility by the Democratic Party administration.Jackie brakha.blogspot.com • 7 hours ago I consider her the flag=waver for this hostility. based on her embracing Yasser Arafat and his wife while ignoring the Israeli delegation when her husband was president.
Ardee Joe420k • 8 hours ago J Street is anti Israel for the following reason:J Street supports a return to the 1967 cease fire line (give or take, but take more than give).
Look at Gaza, after the Israeli withdrawal and the hamas coupe de tat and exterpulate that on Judea and Samaria, and pre 1967 Israel is on the verge of being bisected, battered, cut off from the world and reduced to the Greater Tel Aviv Area equaling current Sderot, with the entire world humming and hawing and making excuses for the "poor Palestinians" and lambasting Israel for retaliating to protect itself.Not quite what I would call pro Israel - more like pro the demise of Israel.
Does that clear things up for you?Jim S. Joe420k • 8 hours ago J-Street is anti-Jew- it opposes the right of Jews to live in their ancestral homeland on land which was NOT taken from Arabs.Joe420k Jim S. • 8 hours ago That means you don't accept the fact 100% of all the countries in the world view those territories as occupied land. Name one country that recognizes the West Bank as part of Israel?Judy Joe420k • 7 hours ago So you think blindly raising your hand in favor of what ever the majority says is wise. No wonder you have no credibility. May I remind you that you and your scum ilk watched or contributed to the slaughter of 6 million jews. Everyone was doing it, so you said me too.
I repeat myself until the scum of the world gets it through their sick and thick skulls. We will never submit to your scumbag morality.Ardee Joe420k • 8 hours ago Screw what all the countries of the world think. Their c**ks are not on the block.
If all of the leaders of these countries, who feel we should accommodate the national aspirations of the Judea and Samaria Arabs, would sign a guarantee that, after calling for and implementing a Palestinian State alongside Israel, should the so called "Palestinians" not spend their time doing what normal people do, but rather take to attacking Israel and endangering the country, they will all commit suicide in public as a sign of their failure to recognize the mess they got us into, I would consider a return to the 1967 cease fire lines.
But I am certain that there are no such righteous people in Sodom.
Can you find me even one world leader who would be prepared to go out on such a limb?
I will personally be prepared to travel to meet him and shake his hand, should he sign such a guarantee.Jim S. Joe420k • 8 hours ago The world could vote tomorrow that the earth is flat-that does not make it so.Israel was accused of the so-called "Jenin Massacre" of Arabs, which turned out to be just another false blood libel against the Jews. Kofi Annan, then the UNSC, asked if the whole world could be wrong and Israel right that there was no massacre.Israel was right and the whole world wrong then. Just like the "whole world" is wrong to demand the ethnic cleansing of the Jews living in their ancestral homeland on land which was NOT taken from Arabs.
Joe420k Ardee • 8 hours ago I'm sure you believe that. So you are convinced the demise of Israel would not happen by keeping 2.4 million under military rule?Ardee Joe420k • 8 hours ago No, the demise of Israel would possibly occur if these 2.4 million people, basically indoctrinated by savage political and religious leaders, were given the freedom to do what hamas has done in Gaza.
No one in the world can or will guarantee that hamas (or ISIL, or Al Queida, or any one of a dozen other terrorist organizations) will not take over Judea and Samaria, that hamas will not attack Israel's main population area, airport and financial center with rockets and mortars, and that the so called "Palestinians" will live in peace alongside Israel.
Show me that person who can guarantee this and I will show you a raving, delusional left wing dreamer whose feet are planted firmly in the air, and who is certainly unwilling to take personal responsibility for the consequences of his fluffy, oxygen starved dreams.Joe420k Ardee • 8 hours ago And how hard would it be for Israel to reoccupy the territory if such a scenario does unfold? Let us say it is put in writing that if a rocket is launched it's back to military rule - or worse? I'm talking about a SINGLE rocket or any attack on Israel is justification to reoccupy and whatever Israel desires to do with it? It would take Israel 5 minutes. That was the problem with the Gaza pull out, it didn't come as a result of a peace deal. The truth is right wingers don't want to give up any land to the "savages".Ardee Joe420k • 7 hours ago As hard as it currently is to keep hamas in gaza from making a concerted effort to eradicate the State of Israel.
Every time we retaliate to a certified war crime perpetrated by Hamas or one of their surrogates - a random rocket attack on a civilian population, the whole world is up in arms at our "lack of proportionality" or that we are "perpetuating the cycle of violence" or that we "are occupying Gaza" because we won't let the savages into Israel freely. And If we enter Gaza, we are forced to accept cease fires that benefit our enemies and we never hear a word from any world leader in support of our right to protect ourselves.
Why would it be any different in Judea and Samaria?Joe420k Ardee • 7 hours ago A peace deal with UN backing. You guys can write good contracts? Make it clear, any violations of A, B, and C will result in X,Y and Z. You will have a get out of jail card to do as you please.Judy Joe420k • 7 hours ago Some one who is so well versed about the world surely knows that abbas rejected a proposed French resolution recognizing 2 states, one Jewish and one pal. He shrieked that no one could force the arabs to be civilized.Ardee Joe420k • 7 hours ago We had the UN along the Sinai border in 1967. They folded like a cheap umbrella.
We had them in Jericho in 2005 guarding the prison until they were threatened by the palis, and melted away like snow on a hot sunny day.
I wouldn't trust the UN, in its current format, to walk my dog.
And I understand that you are insinuating that because we pulled out of Gaza without a peace deal, we, and the rest of world, sanctioned Hamas rocket fire on the civilian population?
What ever happened to live and let live?Joe420k Ardee • 7 hours ago You don't let live. The sanctions imposed against Gaza is what started the rocket attacks. Israel imposed them after Hamas won elections. Then Israel rounded up elected leaders in the West Bank and arrested them. Then rockets came. In any case, not going to debate historical facts. Your point about the UN, I didn't mean there would be any UN presence. I simply meant the peace deal is codified and be accepted by the UN giving it's stamp of approval. The peace with Egypt and Jordan is proof positive it can be done if Israel was serious.Jackie Joe420k • 7 hours ago You are wrong, the rocket attacks came first, then the embargo. Meanwhile, Israel is still supplying Gaza with water, electricity, food etc.Ardee Joe420k • 7 hours ago Egypt and Jordan don't want the Land of Israel for themselves.
The hamas charter indicates that hamas does seek a palestinian state on ALL of palestine (ie present day Israel) and the fatah run palestinian authority gives no indication that a palestinian state, established under terms that are vital and crucial to Israel (ie, - no right of return for pali refugees to Israel and Jerusalem remaining unified), would mean the end of the conflict.
As to Gaza, you might want to check and see that, after we pulled out, and after hamas violently took over gaza and expelled the PA, the rockets and attacks against Israel came first, fast and furiously, followed by the so called "sanctions".
Lee Rigby Joe420k • 8 hours ago Here, you see the rotten fruit of a perverted educational system. A mindless propaganda tool, with nary a thought of his own. Forever spitting in the wind, perfectly convinced that he's showering the world with wisdom.How dumb does one have to be to spout such drivel where it can't possibly reach receptive ears? Dumb enough to believe that he can keep his head, while all about are losing theirs.“EUROPE IS THE CANCER! ISLAM IS THE ANSWER!”“DEATH TO AMERICA!”Joe420k elle909 • 8 hours ago Show me where it says gentiles are not allowed? I will gladly find my rightful place.
elle909 Joe420k • 6 hours ago Sir ,you are so wrong ,i could not even start explaining
the main point is the survival of the state of IsraelJoe420k elle909 • 6 hours ago Believe it or not, the survival of Israel is something I want as well. The question is which policies will insure that. I argue not maintaining the occupation or living by the "sword" over the natives. You can't point to a historical precedent where living by the sword over a restless population ever was sustained in the long term.
No comments:
Post a Comment