Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel, Part II

Senate Majority Leader Schumer apparently felt the need to emphasize the importance of Israel having elections, with an eye towards replacing Netanyahu.  In case the Israelis did not get the message, he added that the U.S. may "have no choice but to play a more active role in shaping Israeli policy by using our leverage to change the present course."  That's nice.  What did you have in mind, Chucky?  Cut off military aid in the middle of a war?  

Here was the Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris:  "Any major military operation in Gaza (presumably referring to Rafah) would be a huge mistake."  Why is that?  Don't we want Hamas to be defeated?  Why does the left seem to have a problem with winning wars?  Harris:  "I have studied the maps, there's nowhere for these folks to go, and we're looking at about a million and a half people in Rafah who are there because they were told to go there."

Oh, she studied the maps.  What a condescending tone and attitude.  If you studied the maps, Madam VP, you would see an area known as the Sinai peninsula, which is part of Egypt, bordering Gaza.  If Egypt let them all go through their border with Gaza, the Sinai is more than large enough to accommodate all those people.  But Egypt does not want them.  Jordan does not want them.  I know the rationale - maybe Israel will not them back into Gaza after the war.  Except, Egypt and Jordan never wanted them.

Harris:  "...we have been very clear far too many innocent Palestinians have been killed."  That is a sad fact of any war - innocent civilians being killed.  What I do not understand is why isn't the United States putting the pressure on Hamas and their supporters?  Hamas started this war.  Hamas could at least get a ceasefire by releasing the hostages.  Or, they could simply surrender.   

A confession.  My wife and I watched the Oscars.  I saw a Ukrainian film maker speak proudly in the defense of his people in their war with Russia.  I saw actor Ramy Youssef, a proud Muslim, joining others in wearing a pin that read "Artists 4 Ceasefire."  What about the Jews?  Steven Spielberg, perhaps the most well known Jew in attendance, also spoke.  Anything about the hostages?  Nope.  Did I see anyone wearing yellow ribbons for the hostages?  Nope.  

But I did see Jonathan Glazer speak, following his acceptance of an award for "The Zone of Interest."  Glazer:  "Right now, we stand here as men who refute their Jewishness and the Holocaust being hijacked by an occupation which has led to conflict for so many innocent people.  Whether the victims of October 7 in Israel or the ongoing attack on Gaza - all the victims of this dehumanization, how do we resist?"  Did he just refute his Jewishness? 

One left-wing site, Vox, said he was misunderstand.  Rather, Glazer was saying that Jewishness and the Holocaust should not be used justify the attack on Gaza,  Maybe.  It is a plausible interpretation of Glazer's remarks.  But even so, why wasn't the attack on Hamas in Gaza justified?  And why did Glazer suggest that the conflict resulted from the "occupation?'  No, the conflict results from 100 years of Jew hatred by Arabs in the historic land of Palestine.  (And for those not familiar with the history, Palestine was never a country.  It was also understand as the homeland of the Jewish people.)

On the good news front, over 450 other Jews in Hollywood, including actors and producers, wrote a rebuttal to Glazer.  "We refute our Jewishness being hijacked for the purpose of drawing a moral equivalence between a Nazi regime (Hamas) that sought to exterminate a race of people (Jews), and an Israeli nation that seeks to avert its own extermination."   

A final note.  Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed writer for the New York Times.  In her Sunday, March 17, 2024 column she said, among other things, this:  "I'm a secular Jew with no particular attachment to Israel."  Uh-huh.  What?  Actually, I get the secular Jew part.  There are quite a few secular Jews here and even in Israel.  I do not get the "no particular attachment to Israel."  It is sad that she has no attachment to her fellow Jews in Israel.  It is sad that has no attachment to the land of Israel.  I don't follow her enough to now how much she may have been affected by the events of October 7.  

But she knows enough to say in her column that "rituals for the two most important Jewish holidays, Passover and Yom Kippur, culminate with the words 'next year in Jerusalem.'"  To which I would add:  "Am Yisrael Chai!"  The People of Israel Live!"  I hope that Ms. Goldberg will come to understand that Jews everywhere are the people of Israel.    

Just Where Do The Democrats Stand On Israel? Part I

Last week, Senate Majority Chuck Schumer, the highest ranking Jewish official in the US government, gave a speech about the current conflict between Hamas and Israel.  After discussing his long term support for Israel, and after discussing the atrocities committed by Hamas, he turned to the "two-state solution."  This is a topic that greatly concerns Democrats, and seems to do so to an extent that it overrides discussion of the hostages.  Because the hostages, along with the defeat of Hamas, should be the only focus currently.  We need a return of the hostages; and either the surrender or defeat of Hamas.

Here are some of Schumer's comments.  "Right now, there are four major obstacles standing in the way of two states...(1) Hamas, and the Palestinians who support and tolerate their evil ways, (2) radical right-wing Israelis in government and society, (3) Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and (4) Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu."  How nice.  Schumer equates Netanyahu, the duly elected Prime Minister in the only democratic country in the area, with the terrorists in Hamas and with the PA, another terror supporting group.  

I will not repeat here the numerous times that the Palestinians have been offered a state.  I will say that the first offer came in 1947 - the same time when the Jews were offered a state, when the UN General Assembly voted what came to be known as "partition" of  the land formerly under British control since WWI (aka the British Mandate, also called Mandatory Palestine).  The Arabs refused and immediately declared war on the Jewish state.  The Democrats will not acknowledge reality - for 75 years the Arabs have had one goal - the destruction of Israel and killing all the Jews.  That's the holdup to peace!  

Schumer tells us that Hamas and "the minority of Palestinians who support Hamas," should have no role in a future Palestinian state.  But is it a minority of the Palestinians that support Hamas?  An Op-Ed in the 3/14/24 Wall Street Journal (by Amit Segal) quotes poll results from "Arab World for Research and Development, affiliated with Ramallah-based Birzeit University."  According to that poll, 59% of Palestinians say they "extremely support" Hamas, with an additional 16% saying they "somewhat support" Hamas.  Segal:  "It's time the (Biden) administration recognizes reality:  the Palestinians overwhelmingly support the murder of Jews, and the Israelis don't think the Palestinians deserve a state."

Segal is perhaps unaware of my oft stated truism in the blog:  "liberals let their beliefs dictate their reality, conservatives let reality dictate their beliefs."  Schumer then says there must be "reform" of the PA.  Finally, he says there must be new elections in Israel, believing that Netanyahu would be replaced.  Abbas was elected as president of the PA in 2005, for a four year term.  We are now 20 years down the road and there has been no further election.  Why didn't Schumer call for new elections in the West Bank?  Is it because he fears that the people would continue to elect leaders who want to destroy Israel?  

What is up with calling for new elections in Israel, and saying that Netanyahu needs to go.  I thought that the Democrats opposed election interference from foreign countries.  Isn't that what the whole Russian collusion story was all about?  But now Democrats favor the US interfering with the election in a democratic, sovereign nation, that happens to be our strongest and best ally in the Middle East.  Nice.  President Biden, when asked to comment on Schumer's speech, said it was "good."  Ask me if I think there was coordination between the White House and Schumer with regards to Schumer's speech, and I will tell you: "100%."  

Netanyahu said this in reply:  "...no international pressure will stop us from realizing all of the goals of the war:  eliminating Hamas, freeing all of our hostages and ensuring that Gaza never again constitutes a threat to Israel."  In order to prevent that threat, Israel will need to maintain security control in Gaza for the foreseeable future.  

There is no doubt that President Biden has been very supportive of Israel in their war with Hamas.  But that support has softened, with various people in the Biden Administration now warning Israel against going into Rafah, the last stronghold of Hamas in Gaza.  Netanyahu:  "You cannot say you support Israel's goal of destroying Hamas and then oppose Israel when it takes the actions necessary to achieve that goal.  To leave Hamas in power in Rafah is to lose the war, and to replace Hamas with Fatah is to lose the peace."  

In a March 19, 2024 editorial in the WSJ, we are told that "The joke around Jerusalem is that while Mr. Biden once worked to help Israel after Oct. 7, he's now working on the "two-state solution":  Michigan and Nevada."  Indeed.  (See my two part post titled "Why You Should Care About Dearborn, Michigan," from 2/17 and 2/18, 2024.)  It is impossible to ignore the effect US politics has on U.S. support for Israel in the current battle in the Middle East, especially in a presidential election year.