YISRAEL MEDAD: ON WEPRIN AND TURNER
http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2011/10/wexler-nixes-ny-9th-district.html
Well, Robert Wexler thinks the Turner victory over Weprin has turned the tide – into a pro-Obama wave:
Since then, the people who never trusted Obama on Israel have won argument after argument. The policy hasn’t changed. In 2008, Obama backed a two-state solution, with the 1967 borders as the basis, and land swaps shifting the territories to ones that Israel and a theoretical Palestine could defend, and he wanted Israel to stop building settlements in Gaza and the West Bank. In 2011, Republicans ran against this—and on the idea that Obama was “disrespecting” Israel—to win the 9th congressional district seat in New York City. Last month, a Gallup Poll clocked Jewish support for Obama falling 30 points, to 53 percent.
Wexler doesn’t dispute that there was a problem. He dings the media for exaggerating it, hyping the critiques of people like Ed Koch, who endorsed the Republican in New York’s 9th. “His reputation in Florida with former New Yorkers is strong,” Wexler shrugs. “In New York, he’s maybe less persuasive. That’s just what I hear.
Besides, says Wexler: “The universe has changed dramatically since that election in New York. The past month, we have witnessed what may be a series of the most high-profile, staunchly pro-Israel actions by a president in years.” He rattles them off, drumming his fingers on the table to make his points: Defending the Israeli Embassy in Cairo, revealing a sale of bunker-busting missiles to the Jewish state. “You had the secretary of state, [U.N.] Ambassador [Susan] Rice, and others, aligned with Israel consistently, and at times seemingly against the world—certainly against a consensus of world opinion—in terms of thwarting the unilateral Palestinian effort for statehood at the United Nations.”
And then there was the killing of Yemeni cleric and al-Qaida leader Anwar al-Awlaki. It was good for America, he says, and helpful for his quest of brokering Middle East peace to help out Israel. “It shows a strong, bold, resolute president in defense of American interests,” he says. “As a result, America, as well as President Obama, gets more respect.” It helps America if an American citizen is killed by drones? “I think it’s totally within the bounds of the law. The more interesting legal questions will be: What about collateral damage? What about the unintended effects of some of these actions? Again, I think totally within the bounds of the law, but those may have factors that the law may not have anticipated.”
Wexler is president of the Washington-based S. Daniel Abraham Center for Middle East Peace and was a Democratic member of the U.S. House of Representatives, representing Florida’s 19th congressional district. Peace Now looks with favor on his activities. The tent cities’ protest thanks him for his money. Many Orthodox religious institutions do, too.
Of course, the Biden-Pollard mess has made a negative rebound.
(But look at the Pollard example here:
A Pakistani commission has recommended bringing charges of high treason against Dr. Shakeel Afridi. He’s accused of helping U.S. intelligence with a vaccination program in Abbottabad to try to get DNA samples to see if Bin Laden or his family lived in the compound….
…TODD: Contacted by CNN, a Pakistani official could not say whether his government will put the doctor on trial. Our national security analyst Peter Bergen says if they do, the Pakistanis may have a case. He compares it to a well-known spying case in the U.S. in the 1980s.
PETER BERGEN, CNN NATIONAL SECURITY ANALYST: Jonathan Pollard was tried in this country for spying for a friendly country’s intelligence service, Israel. Why should Pakistan treat its citizens any different than the way we treat Americans who spy for even friendly countries?)
But let’s return to Wexler
“I wish people, before they make these grandiose proclamations [such as the call for an end to new settlements, a “snub” of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the 1967 borders discussion], would take into account at least two factors,” he says. “Number one, take the security impact on Israeli Security Forces. Number two, think of that Israeli mom who’s putting her kid on the bus in the morning—does your action make her kid more or less safe? If you take away that funding, the extraordinary security gains that have been laboriously achieved over the last half a dozen years will be compromised. The Palestinian people will suffer and the Israeli people will suffer as a result. Bankrupting the Palestinian Authority is a boon to Hamas! If you want to help the extremists in Gaza and the West Bank, bankrupt the Palestinian Authority. Go ahead!”
…The problem with the Obama-skeptics in the GOP, he says, is that their Israel policies are unrealistic, untethered to the peace process that actually exists. What’s the natural conclusion, he asks, of the attack on the two-state solution based on 1967 borders with swaps? Is it no Palestianian state? “You do that,” he says, “and then [Palestinians] say: ‘All right, I’ll take one state—can I have my vote please?’ I remember that Dick Armey—I don’t want to misquote him, I’ll paraphrase him—used to call for the expulsion of Arabs from the West Bank. Look. This isn’t the end of World War I. The world isn’t going to permit the mass expulsion of hundreds of thousands of people. Advocating for something that would make Israel less democratic, and less of a moral compass—I don’t think that’s in Israel’s best interest.”
Talking unrealisitically is also one way for Wexler (and Co.) to put down the cogent criticism of the Obama Administration’s anti-Israel policies which pit supposed Obama solutions with actual “Palestinian” actions which will endanger Israeli’s security and existence. But more than that, what he suggests are the only conclusions of Israel’s strong policy on retention of territories, on punishing the Pals. for their refusal to engage in negotiations or if they violate Oslo or in seeking to make sure Iran is not a threat, just to name a few, is a sort of straw-man approach. He misrepresents what will develop, misconstrues the opportunities and possibilities and avoids a serious discussion of the issues Israel faces and what it can and should do to avoid the worst, even if the less-than-worst is a result.
In any case, yes, the Weprin defeat was a watershed.
Can we properly take advantage?
Comments are closed.
