American elections through the microscope of Israel advocacy
This is a Five Minutes for Israel blog post I never thought I would write. Has anybody, ever, seen U.S. presidential candidates as unsuitable for the position and as dangerous for Israel as in the present race?
If America gets the leaders it deserves what did it do to deserve Trump, Clinton and Sanders?
We know Israel advocates can be strong supporters across a broad spectrum of political parties. So usually we stay clear.
We also know that most Jews support political parties to the left of centre – American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat, even as most Israeli Jews vote right of centre. As I have mentioned before many or even most leftist Western Jews touch the ground in Israel and without changing their political positions one centimetre become rightists.
Yet I feel obliged to speak out. In the eyes of this blogger, Hillary Clinton will be very bad for Israel, Bernie Sanders worse and Donald Trump, a loose cannon, makes it up as he goes along, with unpredictable results ?????
The case against Clinton
Should Mrs. Clinton be indicted for the e-mail scandal (something I doubt) what will happen? Although perhaps mathematically possible for another, genuinely pro Israel, Democrat to step in, even at this late stage, the chances that any Democrat not named Sanders or Clinton will be nominee is close to nil.
Scandal is her middle name – actually it’s Diane. (Expect to be asked that in Trivia games). Without going through them as WND did and counted twenty-two we’ll stick to the Israel related ones.
She was Obama’s first Secretary of State and has never criticised anything about his foreign policy since leaving that office so it is reasonable to state that she is in sync with him and quite possibly influenced him. She will continue his legacy of keeping daylight between Israel and America in order to improve America’s standing with the Arabs/Muslims. That the policy has failed miserably won’t lead to a change of heart.
As First Lady she kissed Suha Arafat, the wife of Yasir Arafat, after Mrs. Arafat made scathing remarks accusing the Israeli government of poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gas during a joint appearance in November, 1999.
As her internal emails have shown, all of Clinton’s close advisers are hostile to Israel. Whether her conduct was criminal, or not, there is nothing in her correspondence showing the deep love she claims.
Among her advisors, Huma Abedin, who served as Hillary’s longtime deputy chief of staff and has worked with her for nearly 20 years, has been accused of ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic supremacists. Abedin serves as vice chairwoman of Clinton’s 2016 campaign for President.
There is an apparent money trail to the Iranian government. The Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation accepted $30,000 between April 2005 and March 2006 and another contribution of between $25,000 and $50,000 in 2008 from the New York-based Alavi Foundation, which U.S. government prosecutors have identified as an arm of the Iranian government.
The case against Sanders
Israel advocates don’t want a US President who does not favour favor Israel over the Palestinians. We don’t want one who gains their broad perspective on the Middle East from James Zogby and J Street.
What sort of person is it who thinks that Israel and the Arabs are not on a level playing field because Israel is too privileged – apart from Neo Nazis?
“I congratulate President Obama, Secretary Kerry and the leaders of other major nations for producing a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. This is a victory for diplomacy over saber-rattling and could keep the United States from being drawn into another never-ending war in the Middle East.”
Sanders seems to believe that Israeli (and for that matter Saudi Arabian) fears about a nuclear Iran are simply Netanyahu’s perspective.
The history of not supporting Israel goes back a long way. Before the Yom Kippur War he had called for denying arms to Israel. As late as 1988 he still said it was wrong for the United States to provide arms to Israel.
Bernie Sanders avoids Jewishness as much as possible. He doesn’t practice Judaism, isn’t part of a Jewish community, is married to a Catholic and avoids the “J” word. He has a long history of connections with very dubious views on Jews Remaz Abdelgader (“It would be wrong and inhuman to impose the Jews on the Arabs”), Jesse Jackson (“Hymietown”), Congressman Keith Ellison (Nation of Islam & Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and Al Sharpton (instigator of the Crown Heights riot).
According to the FeeltheBern.org website doesn’t “let his religion influence his positions regarding the conflict”.
So what use is he to an Israel advocate?
Have you heard rumours of a Sanders-Clinton unity ticket, in the works? It makes a lot of sense from a Democrat point-of-view. Both candidates appeal to different but essential groups of voters. Common wisdom has Clinton winning the black and Latino voters, the middle class and business. Sanders has the young and the socialist wings.
Given that barring a meltdown or an indictment Mrs. Clinton should comfortably win the nomination and that Sanders seems more concerned with making a statement than becoming President this could be a match made in Democrat heaven.
Sanders will demand concessions and selling out Israel in the name of neutrality and an even playing field to get Sanders on side is a small cost. I can imagine Clinton explaining to those Jewish backers for whom Israel is an issue. Bernie, as-a-Jew, has Israel in his heart (despite all appearances to the contrary) and do you really want Trump?
The case against Trump
It’s true that none of the candidates is a sure thing. Still it would be a brave forecaster to predict Donald Trump won’t be the Republican nominee even if many Israel advocates would cut off their hands at the wrist rather than see him President of the United States – or see Mrs. Clinton elected by default. Apparently not an insignificant part of the Republican Party feel the same.
You have probably been flooded with oh-so-funny video clips slamming Donald Trump from SNL and John Oliver. I find them quite offensive and I am NOT a Trump supporter. I regard them with the same contempt I awarded Oliver’s old boss, Jon Stewart a red nose for his forays into Israel/Palestine.
Comedians using all the manipulative tricks of their trade to deliver what is little more than a political attack ad. Unlike PACs they are not ‘responsible’ for their product and unlike ‘serious’ political analysts and journalists they have no obligation to fairness, balance, reliable sources, cross-checking claims or giving the attacked an opportunity to defend.
If I expected something similar attacking Clinton (nervously waiting to see if she will be indicted for activities that would have anyone else before a court) or Sanders (He’s 74 years old! That’s five years older than Ronald Reagan the oldest person to take office as President. Yet no one demands a health report) I wouldn’t be so upset. Let’s face it. The entertainment media will be laughing at Trump and laughing with Bernie and Hillary if they appear at all.
Unlike Sanders and Clinton, Trump has no record to burn and hold his feet towards. He has never held any elected office – not even city council member. So worries about him really are an expression of doubt about his suitability, honesty and reliability. Is his penis size an issue or the fact it was brought up at all? What about his golf swing? Will he aim to beat Obama’s record for time on the course?
Attacks on him as a fascist are simply untrue. He has no ideology except perhaps promoting the Trump brand. Yet, how can a Presidential contender not have an opinion on David Duke and Klu Klux Klan!?!? Which is scarier?
Reports are circulating that Obama may employ the United Nations Security Council to force a Palestinian state on Israel. According to the theory UNSC resolutions are International Law and will bind future Presidents.
The Security Council may decide what measures not involving the use of armed force are to be employed to give effect to its decisions, and it may call upon the Members of the United Nations to apply such measures. These may include complete or partial interruption of economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication, and the severance of diplomatic relations.
Should the Security Council consider that measures provided for in Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take such action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such action may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations.
What will the candidates response be?
- Bernie Sanders Is Not a Jew, Daniel Greenfield, Sultan Knish, 7 March 2016
- COLUMN ONE: Clinton, Libya and Israel, Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, 3 March 2016
- Jewish Charity Paid More than Anyone Else (Including Wall Street) For Hillary Speech, Lori Lowenthal Marcus, The Jewish Press, 8 March 2016
- Analysis: Donald Trump, Israel and the Jews, Prof. Eytan Gilboa, Jerusalem Post, 28 December 2015
- From Whitewater to Benghazi: A Clinton-Scandal Primer, David A. Graham, The Atlantic, 3 March 2015
- The only way to take down Trump? A united Democratic front, Maria Cardona, Guardian, 2 March 2016
- White House Working on Renewed Mideast Peace Push, Carol Lee & Rory Jones, Wall Street Journal, 7 March 2016
- The Clintons and the Trumps Photograph from People Magazine 3 February 2016
- Morphed Clinton-Trump origin unknown.
- Then-first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton (R) and kisses Suha Arafat, wife of the late Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, November 11, 1999. (photo credit:REUTERS)
- Photograph by Boston Students for Justice in Palestine
- ‘Clinton-Sanders 500’ by R.J. Matson. editorial cartoonist with Roll Call, syndicated internationally by Cagle Cartoons. 23 February 2016
- ‘The Stop Trump Movement’ by Yaakov Kirschen (Dry Bones) 4 March 2016