Over at The New Republic, Marc Tracy asks the question “Is it possible to write critically about Sheldon Adelson without being anti-Semitic?” He answers in the affirmative, noting that Adelson’s enormous financial influence on this year’s presidential election cycle — combined with various credible allegations of misconduct, most notably [...]]]>
Over at The New Republic, Marc Tracy asks the question “Is it possible to write critically about Sheldon Adelson without being anti-Semitic?” He answers in the affirmative, noting that Adelson’s enormous financial influence on this year’s presidential election cycle — combined with various credible allegations of misconduct, most notably relating to his business dealings in China — make him a legitimate target of scrutiny. Others, like Commentary‘s Jonathan Tobin, predictably argue that criticism of Adelson’s role is inherently anti-Semitic. Tracy notes, aptly, that “in mainstream discourse, Adelson is spoken of as an anti-Semitic caricature less frequently by his critics than by his defenders, who use the stereotype as a shield to protect him from legitimate inquiries.”
While I agree with Tracy’s general point, the way he argues for it is somewhat more problematic. His first line of defense seems to be that critics of Adelson are on safe ground as long as (perhaps only as long as?) they refrain from mentioning his pro-Israel advocacy:
I pointedly did not mention Adelson’s Israel beliefs—not to avoid offending, but because it is plain that a President Romney would not pardon Jonathan Pollard, not completely abandon the peace process, and—I will bet you any sum—not move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. The [New York] Times, too, specifically opted not to go there…
The reference is to a Daily Beast piece from earlier this month reporting that Mitt Romney had so far rebuffed Adelson’s request to publicly call for the release of convicted Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard. As far as justifications for neglecting Adelson’s influence on the Israel issue go, this is pretty weak. The fact that Romney is willing to rebuff Adelson’s most extreme requests on Israel — and a pardon for Pollard is such an extreme measure that even some neocons oppose it, since it would be likely to trigger widespread outrage in the US military and intelligence communities — hardly shows that Adelson is failing to pull Romney to the right on Israel-related issues in more mundane and pervasive ways.
More broadly, Adelson has made it clear that Israel is by far his most important preoccupation. The New York Times, asking “what Sheldon Adelson wants,” rightly suggested that the primary driving him to open his checkbook “is clearly his disgust for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” After expressing regret for having served in the US rather than Israeli military, Adelson publicly wished that his young son would grow up to be an IDF sniper because “all we care about is being good Zionists, being good citizens of Israel.”
The reason mentioning all this makes people leery is obvious, since Adelson’s words and actions do indeed bring to mind a host of traditionally anti-Semitic allegations. But is the solution that we must simply refuse to talk about the issue that Adelson has made clear is the primary one driving him? That we can call attention to Adelson’s pernicious influence on the Republican party regarding human rights in China but not human rights in Palestine? Adelson’s critics should certainly make sure to avoid lapsing into traditional slurs and innuendos. But if Adelson’s positions on Israel make most Americans deeply uncomfortable, that’s first and foremost his problem.
]]>Republican vice presidential designate Paul Ryan is in Las Vegas today to meet with casino magnate and would-be political kingmaker Sheldon Adelson. He will also hold a public rally and private fundraising event at the Adelson-owned Venetian. Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted, “The Sands [...]]]>
Republican vice presidential designate Paul Ryan is in Las Vegas today to meet with casino magnate and would-be political kingmaker Sheldon Adelson. He will also hold a public rally and private fundraising event at the Adelson-owned Venetian. Laura Myers of the Las Vegas Review-Journal noted, “The Sands Corp. chief is a generous GOP donor who already has contributed $10 million to a political action committee, Restore Our Future, supporting Romney’s campaign.” The advocacy group, ProgressNow Nevada, has announced it will be holding a counter-rally.
In making his obeisance to the moneyman upon whom Mitt Romney is staking his political fortune (Romney’s paltry net worth of $250 million is only a tad over 10% of Adelson’s nearly $24.5 billion), Ryan will no doubt try to assure Adelson that they are on the same page about Israel, or rather, Adelson’s own view of what is good for Israel.
Ryan’s congressional website outlines his position on Israel under the header of National Security:
America has no better friend in the Middle East than the nation of Israel. Not only is Israel the region’s only fully functioning democracy, with a government based on popular consent and the rule of law, but it is also a valuable ally against Islamic extremism and terrorism. Our shared democratic values and national interests are supported by maintaining a close friendship with Israel. Americans also have a strong interest in Israel achieving a lasting peace with its neighbors – including the Palestinians.
Reasonable people – including those who live in the Middle East – differ about how the conflict between Israel and Palestine can be resolved. However, I believe at least one thing is clear: we cannot advocate for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that jeopardizes Israel’s safety or legitimizes terrorism. Hamas, which is one of the two major Palestinian political factions, is an Islamist terrorist group whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction, refuses to recognize Israel’s existence, and calls Osama Bin Laden a “martyr.”
While I do not have a role in the diplomatic discussions over the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, America should not pressure Israel to agree to a peace deal that is unlikely to result in peace and security. Real peace will require Palestinians to recognize that Israel has a right to exist, even as it will require two states for the two peoples. Introduced by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor on May 13, 2011, H. Res. 268 reaffirms the United States’ commitment to a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict through direct negotiations. I co-sponsored this legislation, and it passed the House on July 7, 2011 by a vote of 407-13. I was also a cosponsor of H.R. 4133, the United States-Israel Enhanced Security Cooperation Act, also introduced by Majority Leader Eric Cantor, which passed the House on May 9, 2012 by a vote of 411-2. H.R. 4133 states that it is United States policy to reaffirm the commitment to Israel’s security as a state, provide Israel with the military capabilities to defend itself, expand military and civilian cooperation, assist in a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and encourage Israel’s neighbors to recognize its right to exist.
It should be noted that H.R. 268 had 356 co-sponsors and H.R. 4133 had 304. Legislation deemed to be “pro-Israel” (for better or for worse) almost invariably attracts bipartisan sponsorship and support, and passes the House by an overwhelming majority. As Haviv Rettig Gur writes in the Times of Israel:
…Ryan, like Romney himself, has little experience or visible record in dealing with foreign policy issues. He is a signatory to letters and bills presented by fellow members of Congress, especially from the Republican side of the aisle, which deal with Afghanistan, Pakistan, the UN, Israel, and other issues, but none of these was initiated by Ryan.
So, there is nothing particularly remarkable about Ryan’s voting record on foreign policy issues. Touting his record as a pro-Israel advocate, Ryan is grasping at straw, hoping to spin it into gold. It is noteworthy, however, that Ryan doesn’t go out of his way to draw pubic attention to the numerous House appropriations bills he’s voted in favor of that have included generous aid for Israel.
Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren recently met with Ryan and praised him for being “very supportive” of Israel. The Republican Jewish Coalition gleefully seized upon Oren’s approval of Ryan, depicting it as an enthusiastic endorsement:
…we are pleased that by picking Paul Ryan, Gov. Romney has opted for a running mate who has a record Israel’s Ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren, has already praised as ‘very supportive’ of the Jewish state. Paul Ryan has earned appreciation from pro-Israel voters by rejecting the Obama administration’s tactic of pressuring Israel to make concessions its leaders believe will undermine its security – and he rightly insists that a rejection of violence and incitement on the Palestinian side is an essential precondition for a meaningful peace agreement.”
Right-wing Jewish news sites and blogs are cherry-picking and parsing Ryan’s pro-Israel platitudes and voting record. Ryan’s mention on his website of “reasonable people” differing about how to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is being ignored, as is Ryan’s reference to “two states for the two peoples.” Nevertheless, a criticism of Romney’s pro-Israel position published back in June, in the very conservative and orthodox-oriented Jewish Press, is equally applicable to Ryan’s position:
The Romney campaign literature states that “with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Mitt’s policy will differ sharply from President Obama’s,” but continues to state that “as president, Mitt will reject any measure that would frustrate direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He will make clear to the Palestinians that the unilateral attempt to decide issues that are designated for final negotiations by the Oslo Accords is unacceptable.”
Essentially, it means that Romney endorses Oslo, but with a better behaved Palestinian partner. And although his campaign threatens that “the United States will reduce assistance to the Palestinians if they continue to pursue United Nations recognition or form a unity government that includes Hamas,” it still envisions a reality in which a more compliant Palestinian Authority will be rewarded with a state.
In other words, any “two-state solution” is unacceptable to right wing Jews. This includes Adelson, who told Jewish Week editor Gary Rosenblatt that “the two-state solution is a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people”, and that he sees no distinction between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
Also being politely overlooked is Ryan’s silence and evident lack of enthusiasm about Israel or the U.S. attacking Iran. Ryan has, like the overwhelming majority of members of Congress, consistently voted in favor of increasingly stringent Iran sanctions. Nonetheless, Matt Yglesias of The American Prospect points out that in a foreign policy speech to the Alexander Hamilton Society on June 2, while Ryan “called for America to ‘speak boldly for those whose voices are denied by the jackbooted thugs of the tired tyrants of Syria and Iran,’ he did so without embracing neoconservative demands for military action.” In the same speech, Ryan mentioned Israel only once: “What we can do is affirm our commitment to democracy in the region by standing in solidarity with our longstanding allies in Israel and our new partners in Iraq.”
In a joint interview on CBS’s Sixty Minutes this past Sunday, the subject of Israel never came up, while Iran came up once in passing. Romney described Ryan to Bob Schieffer — who had been gently blowing puffball questions at the political newlyweds — as a “…policy guy. People know him as a policy guy. That’s one of the reasons he has such respect on both sides of the aisle.” Romney also tried to attach the “policy guy” description to himself: “…believe it or not. I love policy. I love solving tough problems. And we face real challenges around the world, places like Syria, Egypt, Iran.”
Neither Romney nor Ryan offered any clue as to how either of these two policy guys would deal with the “challenges” Romney alluded to during the interview. In response, Schieffer quickly returned the feel-good interview to chatter about Ryan’s role in the upcoming campaign.
Haviv Rettig Gur offers what is probably the most clear-eyed assessment about the real impact of Middle East foreign policy questions on the 2012 presidential election:
While Israel’s media is currently in the grip of a government leak-fueled obsession with the question of whether Israel is about to strike Iran — and whether the US can be relied upon to thwart an Iranian bomb if Israel holds its fire — even this issue, with its potential to prompt radical regional drama, isn’t figuring in the presidential campaign.
Barring significant developments, such as an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, it is likely that Israel, or any foreign policy agenda, is now tabled for the duration of the campaign. The American people are simply not listening. The Romney campaign now views foreign policy differences as a distraction from the business of hammering the president on the economy, and the Obama campaign can’t afford to get distracted from the battle to control the narrative on the country’s economic and fiscal woes.
Except when it means spinning straw into gold.
]]>Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is courting the Republican Jewish vote with a series of statements showing his unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel American conservatives. On Wednesday, he declared that he would appoint former U.N. ambassador — and [...]]]>
Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich is courting the Republican Jewish vote with a series of statements showing his unwavering support for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel American conservatives. On Wednesday, he declared that he would appoint former U.N. ambassador — and outspoken über-hawk — John Bolton to be Secretary of State if elected president. In an interview released today, he struck out an even more extreme position by declaring Palestinians “an…invented people.”
He told The Jewish Channel:
We’ve had an invented Palestinian people who are in fact Arabs and are historically part of the Arab community and they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel since the 1940s. It’s tragic.
Watch it:
Gingrich, much like former Senator Rick Santorum, is effectively denying the right of Palestinians to a state, a position that goes against the policy positions of the Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations.
With this assertion comes questions as to where Gingrich thinks the Palestinian — or “Arabs” as he refers to them — should go. Will residents of the West Bank gain full voting rights in a unified Israeli state? Will Israel allow them to stay as second-class citizens with limited voting and legal rights? Or is he in favor of forced deportation?
Gingrich isn’t the only GOP presidential candidate to stake out political ground which, if actually implemented as U.S. policy, would effectively end U.S. support for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Gingrich, Mitt Romney, and Rick Perry have all endorsed moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and Michele Bachmann claims to “already have secured a donor who said they will personally pay for the ambassador’s home to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.”
]]>Former pizza company CEO and GOP candidate Herman Cain started his presidential campaign — quite by accident, it seems — as an advocate for a cherished Palestinian ideal to return to their homelands throughout historic Palestine by endorsing the “right of return.” But he’s [...]]]>
Former pizza company CEO and GOP candidate Herman Cain started his presidential campaign — quite by accident, it seems — as an advocate for a cherished Palestinian ideal to return to their homelands throughout historic Palestine by endorsing the “right of return.” But he’s come a long way since then. Cain’s not “foreign policy dumb,” he says, and now he’s challenging reporters to take on his expertise in global affairs. He’s come so far on the Palestinian issue that he is even hedging about whether or not Palestinians have a national identity at all.
In an interview with the free Israeli daily newspaper Israel Hayom (or Israel Today), Cain, in attempt to show how President Obama’s “lack of a firm stand regarding Israel has emboldened Israel’s enemies,” made his most disparaging comments yet about Palestinians, verging on denying their existence as a people:
I think that the so-called Palestinian people have this urge for unilateral recognition because they see this president as weak.
In reality, the Palestinian national movement is decades old, if not more — and certainly older than Obama. But the most shocking part of Cain’s statement was his equivocation on the existence of the Palestinian people. As Center for American Progress analyst Matt Duss wrote last year:
Despite the fact that scholars such as Rashid Khalidi have established the emergence of a distinct Palestinian national consciousness in the 19th century, the offensive idea that the Palestinians don’t exist — or the equally offensive idea that they only exist as a negative reaction to the creation of Israel — is unfortunately still a fairly common belief among Israel hawks. [...]
As Peter Beinart noted in his recent piece in the New York Review of Books, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu himself made the claim in his 1993 book A Place Among the Nations.
With regard to Duss’s last point, it seems Israel Hayom is the perfect place for Cain to make his statement. In a 2008 New Yorker profile of the daily paper’s owner, American right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson, Connie Bruck wrote:
In the Israeli media world, Israel Hayom is referred to as Bibi-ton, because many believe that it serves as a mouthpiece for Netanyahu, whose nickname is Bibi, and who has long received extraordinarily negative press coverage in Israel.
Cain’s latest comments about the “so-called Palestinian people” and his bogus interpretation of their national movement should give us an idea of what kind of progress (or lack thereof) a Cain presidency would make in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.
]]>