by Marsha B. Cohen
Barak Ravid of Haaretz has been asking who attended Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer’s seder (the festive meal eaten by Jews on the first two nights of Passover) at his Washington residence. (The last time I wrote about Dermer, he was breaking with diplomatic tradition by speaking at this year’s Republican Jewish Coalition’s [...]]]>
by Marsha B. Cohen
Barak Ravid of Haaretz has been asking who attended Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer’s seder (the festive meal eaten by Jews on the first two nights of Passover) at his Washington residence. (The last time I wrote about Dermer, he was breaking with diplomatic tradition by speaking at this year’s Republican Jewish Coalition’s (RJC) Spring Leadership Meeting in Las Vegas.) Neither Dermer nor the spokesman for Israel’s Foreign Ministry have been willing to give Ravid any answers, but I can. Indeed, we now know at least one important guest who was in attendance despite Dermer’s attempts to keep his list secret, but before revealing that information, let’s back up a bit.
Ravid, the foremost diplomatic correspondent of Israel’s most literary (and some even claim “leftist”) newspaper, takes issue with Dermer’s contention that it is none of anyone’s business who attends private events hosted at his home:
The home of an Israeli ambassador is not a private home, it is funded and maintained by the taxes of Israeli citizens. The flag waving outside, the security guards everywhere and the state seal on the china all underline that everything that goes on there is an official function. Or, as one veteran ambassador told me, “Even when it’s your in-laws coming to visit, it’s not a private event at the ambassador’s house.”
It’s no secret that Secretary of State John Kerry was in attendance. Ravid writes, “On the day of the first seder, Kerry issued a Pesach greeting, which was sent to hundreds of journalists and posted on the State Department. In it, Kerry noted that the following evening he would be attending the second seder at Dermer’s home.”
But when Ravid contacted the Israeli Embassy in Washington for more details about Dermer’s seder and who else was on the guest list, the embassy’s spokesperson, Aaron Sagui, declined to respond. This piqued Ravid’s curiosity further: “If Dermer doesn’t want to divulge who came to the seder, then maybe he has something to hide. Maybe there’s a story here.”
When Sagui remained silent in spite of Ravid’s repeated requests, Ravid said he would file a formal Freedom of Information application. The embassy’s spokesman then claimed that Ravid wasn’t getting the information he wanted because of his “negative attitude.” Ravid, who is usually the first reporter to break news — and occasional leaks – emanating from the Israeli prime minister’s office, turned to his contacts at Israel’s Foreign Ministry to discover why such a minor matter was being treated as though it were a secret:
The Foreign Ministry officials said Dermer was refusing on the grounds that his seder was a private event, not an official state function, and as such he owes no one an account. It seems Dermer is confused. Perhaps it’s a side effect of too many years in the orbit of Sara and Benjamin Netanyahu at the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem.
I’m willing to take a chance and guess that the cost of the holiday meal was billed to the ambassador’s official budget, or to the embassy’s hospitality budget, and not to Dermer’s private account. There’s nothing wrong with that. That’s how it should be. But it means the seder was not a private event.
Ravid has gone ahead and done what he said he would. He has filed a request with the Foreign Ministry under the Freedom of Information Law and paid the Israeli equivalent of $6 as a filing fee. His request is being processed, and the official responsible for the law’s implementation now has 30 days to get back to Ravid with the information he’s requesting or a better explanation of why he’s not getting it.
While he is waiting, this LobeLog blogger has uncovered at least part of the answer for Ravid, thanks to the self-promotional bluster of Gary Bauer, a Christian Zionist, social conservative and one-time presidential hopeful who lost the GOP nomination to George W. Bush in 1999. Bauer is the director of two far-right advocacy groups, American Values, and the Campaign for Working Families. Bauer is also on the boards of two ultra-hawkish pressure groups, Christians United for Israel (CUFI), and the Emergency Committee for Israel (ECI), both of which are harsh critics of the Obama administration. On April 16, Bauer let it be known that he and his wife were among Dermer’s seder guests, while taking a swipe at Kerry.
Carol and I were deeply honored to participate last night in the Passover Seder at the home of Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer and his lovely wife, Rhoda, and their five children. Also attending the small, private gathering were members of their extended family and a number of Washington insiders, including journalist Andrea Mitchell. Secretary of State John Kerry represented the Obama Administration. I was gratified to be there representing the millions of pro-Israel Christians who stand with Israel…Carol and I were honored to be part of this important night with Ambassador Dermer and his family. I pray that Secretary Kerry was as deeply moved as we were by the message of the Seder and God’s promises to the Jewish people that they would be rescued from slavery and given their own nation. That covenant cannot be broken by Secretary Kerry, the president or any other man.
So Dermer’s seder was not just an intimate family gathering to celebrate a Jewish holiday. Israelis have a right to know what other “Washington insiders” were at Dermer’s seder. Go for it, Barak!
]]>by Jim Lobe
Just four days before 14,000 members arrive for AIPAC’s annual policy conference and a keynote by none other than Bibi Netanyahu himself, the group appears at sea, tossed between Republicans eager to do the Likud leader’s bidding and embarrass President Barack Obama on the one hand and the [...]]]>
by Jim Lobe
Just four days before 14,000 members arrive for AIPAC’s annual policy conference and a keynote by none other than Bibi Netanyahu himself, the group appears at sea, tossed between Republicans eager to do the Likud leader’s bidding and embarrass President Barack Obama on the one hand and the administration and leading Democratic lawmakers who believe that any new sanctions legislation will likely sabotage the ongoing negotiations with Iran and bring the country closer to another Mideast war.
The latest move is predictably coming from the Republican side, which seems determined to find a new legislative vehicle for the stalled Kirk-Menendez (“Wag the Dog”) sanctions bill. They apparently intend to propose — and try to force a vote on — an alternative to a military veterans’ bill (S. 1982) put forward by Sen. Bernie Sanders. The alternative, sponsored by North Carolina Sen. Richard Burr, reportedly includes most of the Kirk-Menendez provisions. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell made clear Wednesday that the Republican stratagem was very much linked to the AIPAC conference when he made yet another appeal to Majority Leader Harry Reid to permit a vote on sanctions legislation. Here’s what he said on the floor:
Now I know many active Members of AIPAC — the Majority Leader mentioned AIPAC — they want to have this vote. They’ll be coming to Washington next week from all over the country. I’ll bet you, Mr. President, this is a vote they want to have.
So far, however, it appears that Reid and the Democrats are standing firm against the move, as the caucus tweeted in response to McConnell:
Please do not inject the Iran sanctions issue into a debate on how we can improve the lives of veterans. #Veterans pic.twitter.com/8ZBCmmXp3M
— Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) February 26, 2014
They quickly marshalled strong support from key veterans groups, including the American Legion, whose National Commander, Daniel Dellinger, put out the following statement:
Iran is a serious issue that Congress needs to address, but it cannot be tied to S. 1982, which is extremely important as our nation prepares to welcome millions of U.S. military servicemen and women home from war. This comprehensive bill aims to help veterans find good jobs, get the health care they need and make in-state tuition rates applicable to all who are using their GI Bill benefits. This legislation is about supporting veterans, pure and simple. The Senate can debate various aspects of it, and that’s understandable, but it cannot lose focus on the matter at hand: helping military personnel make the transition to veteran life and ensuring that those who served their nation in uniform receive the benefits they earned and deserve. We can deal with Iran – or any other issue unrelated specifically to veterans – with separate legislation.
The Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America (IAVA) quickly followed suit with its director, Paul Rieckhoff tweeting that Iran sanctions were “not relevant” to the bill and suggesting that the Republican maneuver was another example of “gridlock” in Washington. Later in the day, Reid himself tweeted:
The @iava and @AmericanLegion are right: We should keep vets bill focused on vets. Republicans are trying to divert attention from this.
— Senator Harry Reid (@SenatorReid) February 26, 2014
The question, of course, is where is AIPAC in all this? I sent an email query to the group’s spokesman, Marshall Wittman, around noon but had received no reply as of late Wednesday night, suggesting either that the organization had not yet formed an opinion or simply preferred not to comment, a rather striking possibility given the proximity of its policy conference which will end with all of the attendees fanning out across Capitol Hill to lobby their lawmakers on a range of priorities, no doubt beginning with Iran. As the delegates will have just heard a no-doubt hawkish exhortation from Netanyahu himself Tuesday morning and the Burr alternative may be the only pending Iran-related measure that reflects his views, what marching orders will AIPAC offer its legions? Moreover, given the strong Democratic opposition to date, lobbying in favor of Burr will make AIPAC’s claim to bipartisanship appear ever more hollow. And while that may be the direction in which some of the group’s biggest donors would like to take it, such a move would risk further alienating its largely Democratic base.
AIPAC’s two top leaders sought last weekend to clarify its position in an op-ed in the New York Times entitled “Don’t Let Up on Iran,” which, in addition to misstating a number of facts, succeeded only in muddying the waters by noting, “Earlier this month, we agreed with Mr. Menendez on delaying a vote in the Senate, but we remain committed to the bill’s passage.” What that means at this point, however, is anybody’s guess. Do they think that what they agreed to delay just two weeks ago should now be voted on despite the stronger opposition among Democrats? Not clear, not clear at all. It would seem that the flailing I referred to a couple of weeks ago continues.
Meanwhile, two likely Republican president candidates, Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz, made clear Wednesday they have no reservations about supporting new sanctions or, for that matter, war if it comes to that. Both senators suggested that if Iran obtained a bomb, it might very well transfer it to Venezuela. (Shades of pre-Iraq war hype.) “They both hate us,” declared Cruz. Meanwhile, Cruz’s fellow-Texan, Pastor John Hagee has scheduled his big annual Christians United for Israel (CUFI) conference in Washington for July 21-22; that is, two days after the expiration of the six-month Joint Plan of Action (JPA) negotiated between Iran and the P5+1 (the U.S., Britain, France, China and Russia plus Germany), which, however, can be extended by another six months by agreement of the parties. If, as anticipated, such an extension will be agreed, AIPAC will be joined by its Christian Zionist brothers and sisters in a major new push for sanctions.
Photo: Senator and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky speaking at CPAC 2011 in Washington, D.C. Credit: Gage Skidmore
]]>Now, Paul is not a foaming-at-the-mouth neocon. But neither do his views on the Middle East seem likely fulfill the hopes that the Leveretts have for the Tea Party — namely, providing “the most outspoken congressional opponents of potential moves by the Obama Administration toward military confrontation with Iran.”
For a more fleshed out account of the direction of the Tea Party’s foreign policy, check out Scott McConnell’s piece at Right Web. McConnell, a founding editor of the American Conservative, described the different approaches of neoconseravtives and Tea Partiers who tend toward fiscally-conservative restraint and writes:
Thus far, the neoconservatives appear to be parrying the challenge effectively. The question is, can the neocons, as they have with other political factions in the past, successfully co-opt this new political force in such a way as to make it amenable to their goals?
McConnell notes that Palin was discovered by neoconservative don Bill Kristol. Those Tea Partiers who have actually been successful (winning or garnering great followings and attention) have been courted by — and often seemed to please — Israel lobby forces and some neoconservative influences.
Take Tea Party favorite Marco Rubio, who will represent Florida in the Senate as of early January. The day after winning his seat, Rubio announced a visit to Israel. During the campaign, Rubio, much to the excitement of neoconservatives, said that the U.S. should attack Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. Likewise, Utah’s Senator-elect Mike Lee, another Tea Partier, met with Israeli PM Bibi Netanyahu and ran on a platform that “military action [against Iran] would be justified.” Both Senators-elect said the U.S. should allow Israel to strike Iran.
The picture with Rand Paul is significantly more complicated than what the Leveretts present. Comments Paul made during the campaign in May sparked a minor blog squabble between various elements of the “old right” — the American Conservative‘s Daniel Larison and Antiwar.com‘s Justin Raimondo. (Both could claim the “old right” mantle before the Tea Party was even a glimmer in the eye of Rick Santelli or the Koch brothers.)
Just a week after the mid-term elections that elevated Rubio, Lee and Paul to the Senate, McConnell gave an updated breakdown of Paul’s views in his Right Web piece:
On the other hand, Rand Paul, the son of the isolationist icon and early Tea Party favorite Ron Paul, has studiously avoided discussion of foreign policy issues in his campaign. In October, a GQ article reported that after Paul’s primary win he met with prominent neoconservatives Bill Kristol, Tom Donnelly of AEI, and Dan Senor (cofounder of the Foreign Policy Initiative) in Washington to talk foreign policy. While he once criticized the Republicans’ “military adventurism,” opposed the war in Iraq, and “scoffed at the threat of Iranian nukes,” he may have begun changing his positions. Senor categorized Paul as “in absorption mode” and not “cemented in his views.” Paul later met with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where he reportedly “told them what they wanted to hear” and distanced himself from his father, who has been critical of the extent of U.S. support for Israel.
McConnell concludes by noting that the Tea Party has a strong “religious” right element as well as a “libertarian” one.
The “religious” element is likely aligned with Christian Zionists such as John Hagee and his Christians United for Israel (CUFI), whose views on the Middle East profess a Greater Israel Zionism even more fervent and violent than one finds in most public neoconservative quarters (the two groups are already strong allies). As with the neocons, Christian Zionists tend to take a moralistic worldview that finds any and all enemies of Israel (particularly Muslims) to be “evil” — unredeemable to the point of requiring extermination by force (otherwise known as Armageddon, or the final battle between good and evil, a central piece of Christian Zionist eschatology.)
Furthermore, the “libertarian” elements of the Tea Party might indeed include those who, confronted by the wider consequences of an attack on Iran, would recoil at the idea of a broad and unpredictable Middle East war. But neoconservatives — in attempting to build a diverse coalition for their aggressive policies — will constantly downplay these negative wider consequences of an assault. (As they did during much of the panel on the “kinetic option” at the big Foundation for Defense of Democracies Iran confab earlier this month.)
And as for fiscally minded small-government ideologues from either branch of the Tea Party, they will come to learn that the cost of a bombing run will only be the price of a warehouse full of ordinance, smart bombs, drones with Hellfire missiles, and the fuel to get it all into Iranian territory. That just ain’t that much dough.
If the Leveretts so choose, they can take heart that there might indeed be some Tea Partiers who, as they put it, “are stalwart in their criticism of the Iraq war and their determination that the United States not launch another ‘war of choice’ in the Middle East that will end up doing even greater damage to America’s interests and international standing.” But I’m not going to hold out hope on this score.
Tea Partiers who make it into the halls of power will likely have their principles watered down by that power. The opinions of Tea Party activists in the field won’t concern neoconservatives, who are known for focusing their efforts on elites — what journalist Sidney Blumenthal called the “Counter Establishment” in his 1986 book. Irving Kristol once said that with a magazine that has “a circulation of a few hundred, you could change the world.” (Some recent populist outreach on YouTube and other mediums notwithstanding.)
The Tea Party — or even a significant portion of it — seems to me to be an unlikely part of any coalition in Washington that will work to stop the United States from starting a war with Iran.
]]>