Year End Reflections, Part I

Impeachment. It was nice having a week break from impeachment talk, at least from the House of Representatives, which was on its Thanksgiving recess. The mainstream media took no such break, as on any given day in any given paper, one could find about 5 anti-Trump, pro-impeachment articles. So allow me to present some opposing views. Former diplomat Dave Seminara had an Op-Ed in the 11/22/19 Wall Street Journal. Commenting on the criticism of Trump for going outside state department channels and using Rudy Giuliani to promote the Trump agenda, Seminara reminds us that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton exchanged over 150 emails about Libya with Sidney Blumenthal, who was not in the government, and not one email exchange with our Ambassador to Libya, Christopher Stevens. Seminara emphasizes how the various diplomats who testified had no real "insight into the president's decision-making," which is "not uncommon for officers of their rank."

Seminara went on to discuss how the diplomats spoke of the importance of fighting corruption in Ukraine, yet could not bring themselves to truly criticize Joe Biden. With Biden's son, Hunter, being paid $50,000 per month by the Ukranian energy company Burisma, which was under investigation for corruption, then VP Biden was put in charge of White House policy on Ukraine. Seminara explained that the diplomats who testified should have "at least argue(d) that Joe Biden should have recused himself from Ukraine policy, but they didn't seize" (the opportunity). Their failure to do so supported my argument in the last post that these diplomats had an anti-Trump bias. Finally, Seminara told us that the diplomats saying they worked under both Democratic and Republican presidents was not terribly meaningful, as "it's currently true of every career diplomat with three years on the job."

The truth about the Democrats' and media's view of Trump. In her 11/26/19 Op-Ed in the New York Times, Michelle Goldberg undoubtedly speaks for millions when she dismisses the legitimacy of the Trump presidency, based upon two "big lies." "The first big lie is that "the people" elected Trump, and that the constitutional provision of impeachment would invalidate their choice. In fact, Trump is president only because a constitutional provision invalidated the choice of the American people." Here is a little history lesson for Ms. Goldberg - the US Constitution was ratified on June 21, 1788. "The people" do indeed elect the president, but they do so through the electoral college, which is part of our Constitution. That is the way it has been done for 230 years. Goldberg: "The second big lie is that Russia didn't help elect Trump, and that the president has been absolved of collusion." Of course, she presents no hard evidence of how the Russians helped Trump win. But that is not the point. The point is the Dems and the media have never and will never accept Trump as President, which is why we have been hearing about impeachment for the last three years and counting, and why we will continue to hear about it for four more years.

Israel. President Trump has been the most pro-Israel president in our history. On 11/18/19, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said this: "the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not per se inconsistent with international law." Pompeo also added that the ultimate status of the West Bank will have to be decided by the two sides. That comment is generally left out of the criticisms flowing from left-wing groups. Demonstrating how Trump and Pompeo let reality dictate their beliefs, Pompeo also said: "...calling the establishment of civilian settlements inconsistent with international law hasn't worked. It hasn't advanced the cause of peace." No surprise, but the EU and many Dems opposed Pompeo's assertion. Elizabeth Warren would reverse that policy if elected. Trump moved the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, Israel's capital. Trump recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Trump withheld aid from the Palestinian Authority because of their funding of terrorists. I suspect most (all?) of the current Democratic candidates for president would reverse most (all?) of Trump's pro-Israel policies. In fact, 107 Democratic members of the House (that is 46%, nearly half, of the 233 House Democrats) sent a letter to Pompeo asking him to reverse this latest policy pronouncement.

US organizations were split in their support for Pompeo's declaration. Caroline Glick reports that the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) was, as expected, strongly supportive. As was the Orthodox Union. So was Christians United for Israel (CUFI). But the Union of Reform Judaism, and, of course, J Street (which deceptively bills itself as pro-Israel) were opposed. Sadly, the Jewish Federations of North America had no comment. Most disappointing to this writer was the reaction of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), which is the largest pro-Israel Jewish lobbying group in Washington, and has many Democrats among its leaders. AIPAC: "AIPAC does not take a position on settlements..." As Glick argues, every anti-Semitic, anti-Israel group uses the alleged "illegality" of the settlements to support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement, and their anti-Israel attitudes. As Herb Keinon opined in his 11/24/19 piece in The Jerusalem Post: "The Democrats are lowering the standard for what is considered pro-Israel, while the Republicans are raising it."

Pompeo's declaration was a direct repudiation of Obama's policy. Recall that at the end of his term in December, 2016, President Obama refused to have our UN Ambassador veto a Security Council resolution that said: "...the establishment by Israel of settlements in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem, has no legal validity and constitutes a flagrant violation under international law..." (For a complete discussion and understanding of the significance of that UN resolution, see the 12/24/16 post "The United States Abandons Israel at the United Nations.") In brief, Obama supported a resolution essentially establishing a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders - borders which have no legal significance, and ceded control of "East" Jerusalem, the location of the most holy sites in Judaism, to the Palestinians. Contrary to the assertions in that UN resolution, no Palestinian state has ever existed on that land.

Both major parties in Israel were highly supportive and appreciative of Pompeo's statement, reflecting the Trump Administration's ongoing support for Israel. I would like to be able to say that Jews on both sides of the political divide in the US are also supportive, but that is not the case. I would not be surprised to see the same 70%-80% of American Jews vote for the Democratic candidate next year, even if that candidate pledges to undo each and every one of Trump's pro-Israel policies. Given the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic attitudes and actions in the US and throughout the world, it is difficult to understand.