The Party Line on Israel
[Guest post by DRJ]
Via the Instapundit, Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin recounts California Democratic Congressman Brad Sherman’s recent town hall meeting with Jewish constituents, including his response to their questions about President Obama’s questionable support for Israel:
“Nearly all the questions dealt with the controversy. The meeting hall of this large congregation was packed, and the temple’s parking lot was entirely full, forcing people to park on the street nearby. Nearly all questions and audience feedback were negative, with virtually no applause for Sherman’s answers. There was lots of clapping for hostile questions, lots of hostile rumblings as he tried to answer charges, and some answers were booed. Even the moderator at the end basically accused Sherman of not actually answering a lot of the questions. The audience was not sold on Obama being pro-Israel, nor on Sherman’s excuses for the current situation.
Sherman portrayed himself [sic] as more pro-Israel and more concerned about Iran than any U.S. president during his Congressional service. He shrugged off the current controversy as something we will have forgotten in a few years, arguing that the U.S. relationship with Israel is fine because the foreign aid package remains and we haven’t yet stopped vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions. While he promised action on his part concerning sanctions on Iran, he expressed skepticism that anything would really be done (at one point “joking” that the rabbi would be more useful than he, as if divine intervention would be required), and kept emphasizing that any military option would spike gas prices. These statements did not go over well.”
Sometimes it stands out when politicians are very careful with their rhetoric, and Sherman’s response is a good example. Notice how he says “we haven’t yet stopped vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions” as evidence of the Obama Administration’s continuing support for Israel. Now compare that with this BBC report dated March 28, 2010:
“The US is considering abstaining from a possible UN Security Council resolution against Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem, sources suggest to the BBC. The possibility surfaced at talks in Paris last week between a senior US official and Qatar’s foreign minister. The official said the US would “seriously consider abstaining” if the issue of Israeli settlements was put to the vote, a diplomat told the BBC.
US officials in Washington have not confirmed the report. There are no concrete plans at present to table such a resolution at the UN by any state. But it is likely that the US is considering how to maintain pressure says BBC state department correspondent Kim Ghattas.
The US usually blocks Security Council resolutions criticising Israel. But relations between the allies have been severely strained by the announcement of plans to build 1,600 homes in an East Jerusalem settlement during a recent visit to Israel by US Vice-President Joe Biden.”
So the Obama Administration may abstain on UN votes regarding Israel … or as Senator Obama might say, the U.S. may vote “Present” on Israel. Thus, for now, it’s true “we haven’t yet stopped vetoing anti-Israel UN resolutions.” But it appears Congressman Sherman’s constituents know that’s just spin. It also appears Congressman Sherman has been briefed on the Party line.
— DRJ
Israel’s timing on that announcement was a direct slap in the face of the US. We’ve always maintained that the occupied territories should not be settled by Israelis—this is against the Geneva Conventions. For way too long, the US has given a blank check to Israel, letting it do as it pleased with the huge amounts of aid we give it, and shielding it from everything we could.
The only country I want to have Barack Obama supporting is the United States of America. If the Israelis are 1/10 the bigger-than-life heroes that many people paint them as, they shouldn’t need our help any more. I’d also prefer to have some distance between us and them, if only so we don’t get caught in the blowback when they do something stupid.
And before anybody starts yowling about terrorism, I will point out that for a country founded on terrorism to be denouncing it so loudly is hypocrisy—nearly as huge as the US denunciation of Rhodesia’s Unilateral Declaration of Independence, back in 1965. The founders of Israel were terrorists if the word has any meaning.
Technomad (e2c0f2) — 4/11/2010 @ 10:45 pmJerusalem was the capital of Israel before anyone ever coined the term “arab”, so how can it be “occupied territory”?
the only good thing about anti-Semitic behavior is that the stench comes through, no matter how you try to disguise it.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/11/2010 @ 11:14 pmThe idea that a majority of Jewish Americans will vote Republican one day is as laughably naive as the idea that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of Israel.
snips (a50e0b) — 4/11/2010 @ 11:20 pmJerusalem is the capital of Israel.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 4/11/2010 @ 11:29 pmsnips erects and mows down his own strawman. No assists on the play.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/11/2010 @ 11:29 pmsnips?
parsnips? aka alphie?
Stash? Can you check into this?
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/11/2010 @ 11:49 pmsnips is alphie and is banned.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/11/2010 @ 11:57 pmApparently, snips himself is laughable, on several levels. Honestly, I don’t understand why these banned trolls keep returning. I know Patterico via e-mails and such. He has a political philosophy, but he is interested in other voices. Even voices I personally think of as being trollish.
So if someone was banned, and wrote to Patterico with a good reason to come back, I am certain that Patterico would be fair minded about it.
Thus, I don’t get nasty little trolls. Why waste the energy?
Unless it has very little to do with politics, and a whole lot to do with something more personal.
Eric Blair (5cf38e) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:12 amOh, heck, snips is the troll who kept crowing about Obama’s “rock solid support” in the polls. Amazing!
Troll, delusional, cheerleader, astroturfer. You decide!
Eric Blair (5cf38e) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:14 amas of now, i’m voting “toast”. 😀
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:17 amTypical Obama. In the interest of “equality” he will gladly sell short our best (did someone say “our only true . . .”?) ally in the region.
Icy Texan (ca2c5a) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:46 amwell, Muslims do tend to stick together……
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:51 amCluster bombs do have that effect
Icy Texan (ca2c5a) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:58 amYou may be baffled by the idea that we are ‘anti’ the country we send billions to. But if we take a more long run look at this, we can see that the folks that care won’t settle for the ‘pro’ israelness from a crowd that sees the destruction of israel not just as prophecy, but as a necessary step in their ascension to heaven — and of course, the relegation to hell of the people who remain pro Israel.
imdw (256b23) — 4/12/2010 @ 6:31 amHe’s destroying the bridge before swimming the river? Except that he’s doing this before evacuating the troops? And he’s on the wrong end of the bridge!
htom (412a17) — 4/12/2010 @ 7:04 amNow we’ll sit back and wait for our own little Eichmann* to come in and start defending his Messiah’s always perfectly – correct actions concerning those evil Jooooos.
*reference to imadouchebag
Dmac (21311c) — 4/12/2010 @ 7:21 amIsrael is violating international law and UN sanctions already in place by building settlements on lands – LANDS NOT PART OF IT, BUT WHICH WERE CONQUERED IN 1967.
In the case of Jerusalem, the Israelis are kicking Palestinians out of neighborhoods they’ve lived in for decades by eminent domain (a little detail conservatives always conveniently overlook when talking about settlements in Jerusalem), something else conservatives allegedly don’t like.
Didn’t conservatives argue that Saddam Hussein violating UN sanctions was one of the reasons for invading Iraq?
Which is it, is international law worth anything or not, or does it just apply when it’s a country we LIKE?
JEA (1eb0e1) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:05 amCite please, JEA ? The ALLCAPS seems a bit excitable, no?
JD (982401) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:18 amIf memory serves, aren’t there more UN sanctions against Israel than any other country? Evil little Zionists, they are.
JD (982401) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:22 amI am still laughing about this one. Remember, the leftists like to claim to be your intellectual and moral betters.
JD (982401) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:24 amToday is Holocaust Remembrance Day. Never Forget.
ropelight (527f6d) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:27 amObama hasn’t sold the citizens of the US into intergalactic slavery to the Moon People – for now.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:35 amOn a more serious note, we can still support and defend Israel without being down with every single one of their policies. They’re adults. They can handle it.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:36 amThere is no evidence that he would be inclined to do so, Leviticus. There is ample evidence that they would not be inclined to stand up with Israel.
JD (982401) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:37 amAs we all know, building apartments is a threat to our national security, and will place our men and women in uniform in harm’s way.
JD (982401) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:39 am“There is ample evidence that they would not be inclined to stand up with Israel.”
– JD
What does that mean, though – to “stand up with Israel”? Again: we can support Israel and be Israel’s ally without agreeing with them on every single one of their policies. The building of settlements is not something Israel needs; it’s something Israel wants. That’s fine – but we don’t have to be involved in it.
Leviticus (b987b0) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:45 amThe Devil is in the details and that part of the world has always been his favorite hangout.
The new Jerusalem settlements started, and continue to be accompanied, with the eviction of Palestinians. Top that with both Jews and Muslims claiming Jerusalem as their very own holy city. And part of Netanyahu’s coalition is just as cookie as any Muslim theocrat you can find.
It’s an unholy mess.
nk (db4a41) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:50 am*kooky*
nk (db4a41) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:52 amLeviticus – That was likely an overly broad statement by me, based on the laughable words uttered by Biden in Israel, and the intentional snubbing (at best) that Barcky gave Netanyahu in DC.
JD (5e5cad) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:54 amThe idea that a majority of Jewish Americans will vote Republican one day is as laughably naive as the idea that Jerusalem will one day be the capital of Israel.
Comment by snips — 4/11/2010 @ 11:20 pm
See Giuliani, Rudolph; Dinkins, David, and New York City Mayoral Election, 1989, 1993 to understand that, yes, you can push Jewish voters too far, and yes, they will vote Republican.
They may not stay there after the perceived anti-Semitic threat has passed, but yes, enough liberal Jews will vote a Democrat out of office if that Democrat does so many things that denial is no longer a workable defense mechanism. The only question is where that line is for Barack Obama, and what has to happen in order to get Jewish American voters to cross it.
John (8de657) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:58 amNot so, nk. Prior to the establishment of Israel, Jews constituted a majority of Jerusalem’s population. During Israel’s War of Independence (1948) Jordan conquered east Jerusalem evicted or murdered the Jewish occupants and destroyed millenia old gravestones and synagogues. In the 1967 war Israel reconquered the old city.
The Ramat Shlomo (Solomon’s Heights) area where the new apartments were authorized is in an area that is overwhelmingly Jewish.
Stu707 (0981d5) — 4/12/2010 @ 10:52 amAwhile back I posted about a Persian colleague, and his shocking views on U.S./Israel relationships and how the U.S. was perceived as weak by the rest of the Middle East. He seemed to feel that the U.S. had too much invested in Israel, and (like the banker and the borrower) the U.S. was now subservient.
Not that anyone is keeping score on my infrequent posting, but…I WAS WRONG!
The truth came out on a subsequent conversation with this ‘secular’ man of science, an engineer by training but raised in the Muslim faith. He offhandedly commented that “Israel doesn’t belong there, anyway.” Wow. Well, I took him at his word earlier when he said Israel had a right to safety in the Middle East, but his true feelings can’t be denied.
This is going to get really ugly, and I don’t see Obama stepping up to defend a friendly western nation. We shall see, probably sooner than later.
TimesDisliker (c255b5) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:00 amNot one more dollar, not one more bullet, not one more veto for Israel.
Grumpy Old Man (3657ed) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:16 amI know Stu707. That’s part of the Devil’s work, I’m talking about. A war of three generations. Injustice 60 years after to revenge injustice.
nk (db4a41) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:19 am[…] & VP Joe Biden’s “Slap in the Face” (video) Patterico’s Pontifications: The Party Line on Israel and Netanyahu Will Skip Obama Nuclear Summit and Israeli Nuclear Scientists Denied U.S. Visas and […]
Disturbing Pattern Emerging Against Israel & Jews from Pres. Obama — Visas Now Denied to Israeli Nuclear Scientists « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:23 am[…] Telegraph: Barack Obama’s humiliation of Israel is a disgrace Patterico’s Pontifications: The Party Line on Israel and Obama’s New Nuclear Policy and More Obama “Civility” and The Back Story: Obama and Israel […]
10,000 Yellow Roses of Friendship… and Israel’s PM Netanyahu’s Reluctance to Accept Them from American Christians for Fear of Angering Obama « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:24 amI’ll add that the Geneva Conventions and other such basic UN treaties only outlaw the taking of land in an offensive war. They do not outlaw the taking of land in a defensive war.
So it is perfectly possible for a bad guy to attack you, for you to beat him back, and for you to claim his land and settle it.
In fact, this is exactly what Russia was trying recently against Georgia, claiming that they had been attacked and that this was a ‘defensive’ war in some fakey manner.
So, for example, the often comments that Israel should move the borders a foot further for every terrorist attack/falling rocket/etc are perfectly legal by UN treaty.
luagha (5cbe06) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:27 amThere is an agreement between the U.S. and Israel and the Pali’s re “settlements” in the West Bank, and construction within the City of Jerusalem is specifically exempted.
AD - RtR/OS! (f215c6) — 4/12/2010 @ 11:53 amIsrael is violating international law and UN sanctions already in place by building settlements on lands – LANDS NOT PART OF IT, BUT WHICH WERE CONQUERED IN 1967.
So ?
Do you know why the Polish president and his party were trying to land in Russia to visit the Katyn Forest massacre site ?
Because that area was Poland until 1945. Poland was pushed hundreds of miles to the west and absorbed the city of Danzig, that had been a German city. East Prussia disappeared.
Now what do you suppose the Germans did ? They left and resettled in the remainder of Germany.
There was a part of Czechoslovakia that contained many germans. It was called the Sudetenland. At the end of the war, the Germans were all told to leave.
After the end of World War II, the Potsdam Conference in 1945 determined that Sudeten Germans would have to leave Czechoslovakia (see Expulsion of Germans after World War II). As a consequence of the immense hostility against all Germans that had grown within Czechoslovakia due to Nazi behavior, the overwhelming majority of Germans were expelled (while the relevant Czechoslovak legislation provided for the remaining Germans who were able to prove their anti-Nazi affiliation). The number of expelled Germans in the early phase (spring-summer 1945) is estimated to be around 500,000 people. About 244,000[citation needed] Germans were allowed to remain in Czechoslovakia. Some German refugees from Czechoslovakia are represented by the Sudetendeutsche Landsmannschaft.
Many of the Germans who stayed in Czechoslovakia later emigrated to West Germany (more than 100,000). As the German population was transferred out of the country, the former Sudetenland was resettled, mostly by Czechs but also by other nationalities of Czechoslovakia: Slovaks, Volhynian Czechs, Gypsies and Hungarians (though the Hungarians were forced into this and later returned home – see Hungarians in Slovakia#Population exchanges). Some areas[which?] remained depopulated for several strategic reasons (extensive mining, military interests etc.) or simply for their lack of attractions. There remained areas with noticeable German minorities only in the westernmost borderland around Cheb; in the Egerland German minority organizations continue to exist.
In the 2001 census, approximately 40,000 people in the Czech Republic claimed German ethnicity.
When you start a war and lose it, as Germany did in 1939 and as the Arabs did in 1967, you have to live with the consequences. The Israelis would have been within their rights to expel all the Palestinians from the West Bank. They didn’t. All they wanted were traditional Jewish sites and peace.
When the Israeli Army entered east Jerusalem, they found ancient Jewish tombstones set up as urinals. The Arabs have no more right to east Jerusalem than Germany has to East Prussia and the Sudetenland.
They lost the fucking war !!!!!
[note: released from moderation. –Stashiu]
Mike K (2cf494) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:12 pmIs Obama so foolish as to think painting Israel into a corner where practical solutions don’t exist is going to have peaceful outcomes? We maybe getting to a point where we will see how effective Israeli homegrown technology and resources are. When push comes to shove the Israelis have a good track record against long odds. They’ve gone all in before when their survival was at stake. They might not win but they might light that whole damn place up trying.
Amused Observer (7fb53d) — 4/12/2010 @ 12:49 pmOn a more serious note, we can still support and defend Israel without being down with every single one of their policies. They’re adults. They can handle it.
This POTUS is making it abundantly clear that when it comes to Iran, they’re on their own, period. Unless I’m missing some kind of nuance regarding his outrageous conduct towards them over the past year, they have no other choice but to conclude that it’s either take out the nuke facilities (highly doubtful), or else face annihilation. Either way, they’re screwed.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/12/2010 @ 2:00 pmDon’t bother, Mike K., people like JEA don’t even understand the actual text of the supposed UN resolutions that they claim Israel is violating.
That’s why they feel so comfortable to post their opinions based on falsehoods in all caps.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/12/2010 @ 2:15 pmlet’s face it, Obama doesn’t like Israel. I just wish my Jewish brothers and sisters had realized that before they voted for him.
btw, if you do ban people here, you’ll probably end up banning grumpy old man. he was one of the regular trolls on townhall who post just to get a rise out of people, not because they want to have a discussion.
I’m new to this site so I sure hope he’s not a good example of the kind of people who post here.
back to topic: people make a lot of all the “foreign aid” we give Israel. but did you know that the vast majority of it is given for military aid? and that the deal is we give them the money and they spend it on our military equipment? it’s not like we’re showering money on some random country for no reason.
but you know what: anti-Semites do not need a reason to hate. they just…do.
michiganruth (039f55) — 4/12/2010 @ 3:07 pmsorry for no paragraphs–I thought I’d put them in. do you need to do or what?
michiganruth (039f55) — 4/12/2010 @ 3:08 pmmichiganruth: You just need to refresh your page.
And no, the turkey you mentioned doesn’t roost here often.
EW1(SG) (edc268) — 4/12/2010 @ 3:37 pm“This POTUS is making it abundantly clear that when it comes to Iran, they’re on their own, period.”
– Dmac
Actually, there’s plenty of evidence to indicate that Obama’s got Israel’s back when it comes to Iran, just like there’s plenty of evidence that Obama’s got Israel’s back in general.
And please, no Wikipedia complaining. I’m citing holdings, not dicta. All the stuff is cited right there – just follow it to the primary sources if Wikipedia isn’t enough.
Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/12/2010 @ 4:12 pmLeviticus, nothing you linked to there post-dated Obama’s inauguration save the Durban conference boycott. And in several cases, there was contradictory spin on the speeches during the campaign, as you know.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/12/2010 @ 5:36 pmThanks for wasting ten minutes of my life going through all that crap, which was wholly without substance. Nothing but boilerplate campaign idiocy in order to get votes, nothing more. This guy’s statements have an expiration date of about one week after he took office, and you know it.
Try harder next time, that was really lame.
Dmac (21311c) — 4/12/2010 @ 6:45 pmComment by SPQR — 4/12/2010 @ 5:36 pm
Comment by Dmac — 4/12/2010 @ 6:45 pm
Leviticus reminds me of Myron.
Gerald A (a66d02) — 4/12/2010 @ 7:23 pmGerald, I would strongly disagree. You know my opinion of Myron. Leviticus normally gives us a higher quality of argument than the above cited comment. And orders of magnitude better than Myron.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/12/2010 @ 7:25 pm[…] this link: The Party Line on Israel […]
The Party Line on Israel | Liberal Whoppers (d16888) — 4/12/2010 @ 7:33 pm“Leviticus normally gives us a higher quality of argument than the above cited comment. And orders of magnitude better than Myron.”
– SPQR
SPQR: There was nothing wrong with my comment. I pointed to statements Obama made in support of Israel, against Iran or anyone else. If you don’t believe him, that’s fine, but it’s also another question. It comes down to an interpretation of his conduct which disregards his words… and that’s fine, but I haven’t seen it. Also, while I appreciate your defense, I really don’t care if people like Gerald A compare me to Myron – it says more about him than it does about me, for anyone who knows what the hell they’re talking about.
Dmac: just because you have it stuck in your head that Obama hates Israel because because because doesn’t make it so. You want to cite something that substantiates your claim of the ‘abundant clarity’ of Obama’s imminent betrayal of our closest ally to some stumpy Arab crackpot? Be my guest. For my part, I don’t think snubbing Netanyahu after he snubs us falls into that category. Again: disagreement with Israel is not the same as selling Israel down the river. Do you agree with this?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/12/2010 @ 8:09 pmLeviticus, putting aside the reliability of Wikipedia, consider the proven un-reliability of Obama’s own campaign statements.
I don’t think snubbing Netanyahu after he snubs us falls into that category.
Leviticus, you know that Netanyahu snubbed no one. The whole controversy was blown out of proportion by Clinton’s State and Obama’s White House.
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/12/2010 @ 8:20 pm“Leviticus, putting aside the reliability of Wikipedia, consider the proven un-reliability of Obama’s own campaign statements.”
– SPQR
Accepting your premise (and Dmac’s) – that Obama’s statements are uniformly unreliable – I have to ask: what makes you think Obama doesn’t support Israel?
Leviticus (30ac20) — 4/12/2010 @ 8:27 pmWhat makes one think that? How about his intentional snubbing of Netanyahu? How about Biden and State claiming apartment building threatens our national security and puts our troops in harms way? How about how he stood on the sidelines while Iran ran roughshod over its own citizens? A better question would be what makes you think he supports Israel, other than campaign slogans?
JD (18e145) — 4/12/2010 @ 8:57 pmimdw:
You may be baffled by the idea that we are ‘anti’ the country we send billions to. But if we take a more long run look at this, we can see that the folks that care won’t settle for the ‘pro’ israelness from a crowd that sees the destruction of israel not just as prophecy, but as a necessary step in their ascension to heaven — and of course, the relegation to hell of the people who remain pro Israel.
Stereotype much?
There are indeed many people who believe what you posit, but probably not as many as you fear. Maybe you should read up on your Will Rogers.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:28 pmSo…
https://patterico.com/2010/04/11/the-party-line-on-israel/#comment-648555
Does this mean that imdw officially apologized to Patterico?
Eric Blair (5cf38e) — 4/12/2010 @ 9:59 pm“we can see that the folks that care won’t settle for the ‘pro’ israelness from a crowd that sees the destruction of israel not just as prophecy, but as a necessary step in their ascension to heaven — and of course, the relegation to hell of the people who remain pro Israel.”
Other folks “who care” don’t care to see that happen and it is not limited only to the destruction of the state of Israel if I understand correctly. That’s a nice long run moral relativism you’ve got there.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/12/2010 @ 10:40 pmI’m not sure about an imdw apology but his comments are being moderated.
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/12/2010 @ 10:43 pmHe apologized but didn’t promise not to do it again.
Until he makes that promise, his comments remain moderated.
Patterico (c218bd) — 4/13/2010 @ 12:17 amMy, oh my Patterico. I guess it all depends on why the character posts. Time will tell.
Eric Blair (332142) — 4/13/2010 @ 6:54 amLook at it this way, Leviticus, Syria thinks the Obama does not support Israel.
And just what do you think Netanyahu thinks about Obama now that Syria sees an opportunity with the US distancing itself from Israel to violate with impunity UN resolutions on the arming of Hezbollah?
SPQR (26be8b) — 4/13/2010 @ 11:24 pmFrom SPQR’s link:
How odd, especially since Obama’s new nuclear policy suggests he doesn’t believe deterrence is a valid reason for America to arm itself.
DRJ (daa62a) — 4/13/2010 @ 11:33 pmThose Scuds are probably just for defensive purposes.
daleyrocks (1feed5) — 4/13/2010 @ 11:39 pmone reason to doubt Ear Leader’s support for Israel is that NO requests for military purchases have been approved since his regime seized power.
the most recent request was to purchase C-130J’s…..
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 4/14/2010 @ 12:07 am