The Iranian government’s extreme interpretation of Islamic law, and its anti-Western philosophy, inspires the rise of Islamic extremists across the world. Iran is also one of the principal state sponsors of terror, proudly delivering weapons to Hezbollah and Palestinian terrorists and providing safe haven for many international terrorists, including senior al-Qaeda leaders. Moreover, Iranian agents have acted to perpetrate anti-Western and anti-Israel terrorist attacks in more than 20 countries around the world. Iran has been implicated in the July 2012 bombing in Bulgaria that killed 5 Israeli's, the February 2012 attacks on Israeli representatives in Georgia and India, the failed strikes in Thailand and Azerbaijan against Jewish targets, and the foiled attempt to assassinate Saudi Arabia's ambassador to the U.S. in October 2011. Israel's Mossad security service also noted that Iran was behind foiled plots to attack Jewish and Israeli targets in Kenya and Cyprus as well.
But above all these concerns, the most menacing threat Iran poses to international security is its harnessing of nuclear energy for the purpose of developing a nuclear bomb.
In 2005, Iran made its first advance in the production of enriched uranium and subsequently established a secret nuclear research center to train scientists in all aspects of atomic technology. In August 2013, outgoing Iranian nuclear chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani proclaimed that Iran has amassed some 18,000 functioning centrifuges, a number mostly corroborated by a May 2013 IAEA report which indicated Iran had installed roughly 16,600 centrifuges in two main facilities. The Islamic Republic continues to streamline the uranium enrichment process so that they can convert their more than 6,000 kilograms of low-enriched fissile material into high-grade, weapons-ready material. Analysts believe it could take Iran anywhere from a number of weeks to nine months - from the moment an order is given - to assemble an explosive device and reduce it to the dimensions of a missile payload.
In 2005, Iran made its first advance in the production of enriched uranium and subsequently established a secret nuclear research center to train scientists in all aspects of atomic technology. In August 2013, outgoing Iranian nuclear chief Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani proclaimed that Iran has amassed some 18,000 functioning centrifuges, a number mostly corroborated by a May 2013 IAEA report which indicated Iran had installed roughly 16,600 centrifuges in two main facilities. The Islamic Republic continues to streamline the uranium enrichment process so that they can convert their more than 6,000 kilograms of low-enriched fissile material into high-grade, weapons-ready material. Analysts believe it could take Iran anywhere from a number of weeks to nine months - from the moment an order is given - to assemble an explosive device and reduce it to the dimensions of a missile payload.
Iran also continues to develop its arsenal of long range missiles. It already has weapons capable of reaching Israel, parts of Eastern and Southern Europe, the Arabian peninsula, and American bases in the Middle East. In July 2012, a report released by the US government and signed by US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta showed evidence that Iran is continually boosting the accuracy and lethality of its existing missile systems. These improvements are in tandem with regular ballistic-missile training that “continues throughout the country” and the addition of “new ships and submarines,” the report found. Intelligence reports from 2013 estimate that Iran may be technically capable of flight-testing an intercontinental ballistic missile by 2015.
There is little disagreement as to the intentions of the Iranians
There is little disagreement as to the intentions of the Iranians
For Israel in particular, a nuclear armed Iran is not tolerable. Not only would Iranian nuclear weapons create an existential threat to Israel’s existence, it would also limit Israel's ability to protect itself from Iranian terror proxies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. IDF intelligence believes that Iranian proxy Hezbollah had amassed nearly 65,000 rockets and missiles within striking distance of Israel in southern Lebanon. Former-Minister of Defense Ehud Barak noted that if Iran gained a nuclear capability, then retaliating against an attack from Hamas or Hezbollah "would be tantamount to an attack on Iran," and would thus restrict an aggressive range of operations. Therefore, in the words on PM Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel is “determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; we leave all options on the table; and containment is definitely not an option.”
While the negotiating teams were hard at work on January 14th, the Iranian government made a troubling announcement. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani announced during a visit to the Bushehr nuclear power facility that the facility is to be expanded and that two new nuclear power facilities are to be built in the vicinity. The goal of these power plants is to increase nuclear power output according to the Iranian government. Rouhani firmly stated that "construction of two new power plants will increase the capacity of Bushehr province's power generation to 2,000 megawatts."
(Fars News, January 14, 2015)
(Fars News, January 14, 2015)
A senior commander of Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Gaurd Corps (IRGC) stated on January 31, 2015, that the Iranian regime must strengthen their foothold in the West Bank as well as the Gaza Strip. Iranian Brigadier General Iraj Masjedi called upon Iran to "contain Israel so that it never dares to speak about a missile attack on Iran" and to "reinforce [their] power in the West Bank and Gaza." In the same statement, Masjedi praised Hezbollah after their recent attack on Israel, calling Hezbollah a "powerful and wise organization."
(PressTV, January 31, 2015)
(PressTV, January 31, 2015)
[h=1]Livni at Haaretz conference: Netanyahu is turning democracy into a dirty word[/h] [h=2]At Israel Conference on Democracy, Rivlin says: Jewish democratic state is not a democratic state for Jews; MK Tibi: Lieberman and Bennett are destroying Israel much better than the Arabs could.[/h] By Jonathan Lis | Feb. 17, 2015 | 2:08 PM |
1
Haaretz held its first Israel Conference on Democracy on Monday in Tel Aviv, featuring seminal political figures including President Reuven Rivlin, Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, former ambassador Dennis Ross and others.
The conference, sponsored by the New Israel Fund, the Begin Heritage Center, the Israel Democracy Institute and the ANU movement for social change, aims to promote public discourse on the state of democracy in Israel, and to stress its importance for the future of the State of Israel.
Livni used her chance at the podium to lash out over the video released recently by the Samaria settlers' council likening leftists to money-grabbing Nazi collaborators and over the Likud's latest campaign video comparing the leftist movement to ISIS. "It doesn't interest me whether the video says we are ISIS collaborators or Nazi collaborators," Livni said. "This whole disgusting this is just semantics."
Netanyahu "has a deep worldview that says 'you can't criticize me, and whoever criticizes my policies is cooperating with the enemy,'" Livni said, "This is a worldview that says: This state is me. In the last elections, the word peace turned into a dirty word. In the next elections, if we don't fight that, the word democracy will turn into a dirty word."
In an interview with Haaretz editor-in-chief Aluf Benn, Rivlin told the conference that Israel may well find itself facing another election in the next year-and-a-half. He reiterated that he would call on the party with the biggest bloc support to form the next government after March 17.
He also criticized the right-wing over its stance that "a Jewish democratic state means a democratic state for Jews."
"This is not something I am willing to accept or live with," he said, adding that "peace [with Palestinians] will come only when we are willing to live together without threatening them or them threatening us. We need to build confidence," he said.
He also spoke out against Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's peace plan, with envisions an exchange of territories: "Even if the right will come and say that Umm El Fahm was outside of the State of Israel's borders, this would be impossible. A treaty will not alter the topography or the demography."
MK Ahmed Tibi, of the Joint (Arab) List, spoke of his ticket's decision to join forces, saying that the decision to raise the electoral threshold was done "democratically, to keep us out of Knesset."
"[Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman said so. It turns out he doesn't understand Arabic. We disappointed him. We united. Suddenly, he says 'the Arabs have shown their true face, they have united because the Arab goal is to destroy the State of Israel. I want to announce, on behalf of the Arab list, that we aren't dealing with the destruction of the State of Israel because Lieberman and [Naftali] Bennett are doing that much better than we could," Tibi said.
In his remarks to the conference, Herzog accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of destroying Israeli democracy. "The strength of Israel comes first and foremost from the strength of its democracy. In recent years, our democracy has turned into a punching bag by dangerous and extremist elements, paradoxically from within the cabinet and coalition; forces that fill public discourse with fear, hatred and discrimination."
"Once, these forces were on the margins of society. We didn't take them seriously," Herzog added. "The person who turned them into legitimate allies, to partners who do whatever they want in the prime minister's bureau is none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. Bibi is destroying democracy, tearing apart the state of Israel."
The conference is divided into four sessions, each dedicated to a core issue regarding the character of Israel: Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic; Is the Israeli right still liberal, what are the limits of freedom of speech and should that right have limits at all; and the independence of the Supreme Court.
The conference was boycotted by members of the right including Likud, Habayit Hayehudi, and Shas Chairman Arye Deri, due to the sponsoring of the conference by the New Israel Fund. Nevertheless, Haaretz expects a significant representation of the Israeli right, in order to ensure an in-depth and open discussion, as befits a conference dealing with democracy.
| |
Haaretz held its first Israel Conference on Democracy on Monday in Tel Aviv, featuring seminal political figures including President Reuven Rivlin, Zionist Union leaders Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni, former ambassador Dennis Ross and others.
The conference, sponsored by the New Israel Fund, the Begin Heritage Center, the Israel Democracy Institute and the ANU movement for social change, aims to promote public discourse on the state of democracy in Israel, and to stress its importance for the future of the State of Israel.
Livni used her chance at the podium to lash out over the video released recently by the Samaria settlers' council likening leftists to money-grabbing Nazi collaborators and over the Likud's latest campaign video comparing the leftist movement to ISIS. "It doesn't interest me whether the video says we are ISIS collaborators or Nazi collaborators," Livni said. "This whole disgusting this is just semantics."
Netanyahu "has a deep worldview that says 'you can't criticize me, and whoever criticizes my policies is cooperating with the enemy,'" Livni said, "This is a worldview that says: This state is me. In the last elections, the word peace turned into a dirty word. In the next elections, if we don't fight that, the word democracy will turn into a dirty word."
In an interview with Haaretz editor-in-chief Aluf Benn, Rivlin told the conference that Israel may well find itself facing another election in the next year-and-a-half. He reiterated that he would call on the party with the biggest bloc support to form the next government after March 17.
He also criticized the right-wing over its stance that "a Jewish democratic state means a democratic state for Jews."
"This is not something I am willing to accept or live with," he said, adding that "peace [with Palestinians] will come only when we are willing to live together without threatening them or them threatening us. We need to build confidence," he said.
He also spoke out against Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman's peace plan, with envisions an exchange of territories: "Even if the right will come and say that Umm El Fahm was outside of the State of Israel's borders, this would be impossible. A treaty will not alter the topography or the demography."
MK Ahmed Tibi, of the Joint (Arab) List, spoke of his ticket's decision to join forces, saying that the decision to raise the electoral threshold was done "democratically, to keep us out of Knesset."
"[Foreign Minister Avigdor] Lieberman said so. It turns out he doesn't understand Arabic. We disappointed him. We united. Suddenly, he says 'the Arabs have shown their true face, they have united because the Arab goal is to destroy the State of Israel. I want to announce, on behalf of the Arab list, that we aren't dealing with the destruction of the State of Israel because Lieberman and [Naftali] Bennett are doing that much better than we could," Tibi said.
In his remarks to the conference, Herzog accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of destroying Israeli democracy. "The strength of Israel comes first and foremost from the strength of its democracy. In recent years, our democracy has turned into a punching bag by dangerous and extremist elements, paradoxically from within the cabinet and coalition; forces that fill public discourse with fear, hatred and discrimination."
"Once, these forces were on the margins of society. We didn't take them seriously," Herzog added. "The person who turned them into legitimate allies, to partners who do whatever they want in the prime minister's bureau is none other than Benjamin Netanyahu. Bibi is destroying democracy, tearing apart the state of Israel."
The conference is divided into four sessions, each dedicated to a core issue regarding the character of Israel: Can Israel be both Jewish and democratic; Is the Israeli right still liberal, what are the limits of freedom of speech and should that right have limits at all; and the independence of the Supreme Court.
The conference was boycotted by members of the right including Likud, Habayit Hayehudi, and Shas Chairman Arye Deri, due to the sponsoring of the conference by the New Israel Fund. Nevertheless, Haaretz expects a significant representation of the Israeli right, in order to ensure an in-depth and open discussion, as befits a conference dealing with democracy.
Because I'm smart enough to know the best course of action for Israel's survival, and I understand the true nature of Her enemies.
All credit to Israel though for being a vibrant democracy where all opinions can be heard. However, time and time again the people who falsely call this an occupation of another people's land, and want to give it away for a false peace so the Arabs can continue their "Plan of Phases" have been proven wrong. Deflect all you want. Bottom line in what you want to misconstrue as a personality conflict is REALITY: Iran seeks the destruction of first Israel and then the US, and you and the Haaretz loony left want to entrust China, Germany, Russia and Obama to prevent their goal of acquiring the capability to do it.
CNN/ORC poll: Majority of Americans oppose Netanyahu invite
Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
Updated 1901 GMT (0301 HKT) February 17, 2015
CNN/ORC poll: Most Americans oppose Netanyahu invite 01:49
Washington (CNN)A large majority of Americans believe that Republican congressional leaders should not have invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without consulting the White House, according to a new CNN/ORC survey.
The nationwide poll, released Tuesday, shows 63% of Americans say it was a bad move for congressional leadership to extend the invitation without giving President Barack Obama a heads up that it was coming. Only 33% say it was the right thing to do.
And as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to simmer in the Middle East, the survey found that a similar majority thinks the U.S. should stay out of that fight altogether.
House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu sparked a minor international incident and further strained already tense relations between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Congress next month for increased sanctions on Iran, a key point of contention between the Israeli leader and Obama, who has been urging Congress to hold off on further sanctions for fear of jeopardizing nuclear talks with the nation.
Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu during his visit because the trip comes too close to Israel's elections. A growing number of Democrats in both chambers have announced over the past two weeks that they won't be attending the speech, prompting some to question whether the Israeli leader should cancel or move his speech.
Though the speech has become a partisan issue on Capitol Hill, even Republicans are split on whether it was a good idea for leadership to invite Netanyahu without alerting the White House, with a slight majority — 52% — backing the move. Just 14% of Democrats say it was the right thing to do, and just over a third of independents support the move.
But Americans overall believe the U.S. should stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with 66% in the new poll advocating the U.S. remain neutral. Of those who do support picking a side, the majority, 29%, back Israel, while only 2% support Palestine.
Even Republicans, typically seen as the party offering the strongest defense of Israel, are split on whether the U.S. should officially support Israel in the conflict. Forty-nine percent support backing the nation, while 47% say the U.S. should stay out of it.
And a significant age gap suggests U.S. sentiment may, in the long term, be moving further in favor of neutrality in the conflict. While 56% of those age 50 or older believe the U.S. should stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian fight, that number skyrockets to 75% of Americans under age 50.
The survey was conducted among 1,027 adult Americans from Feb. 12-15 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
Alexandra Jaffe, CNN
Updated 1901 GMT (0301 HKT) February 17, 2015
CNN/ORC poll: Most Americans oppose Netanyahu invite 01:49
Washington (CNN)A large majority of Americans believe that Republican congressional leaders should not have invited Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress without consulting the White House, according to a new CNN/ORC survey.
The nationwide poll, released Tuesday, shows 63% of Americans say it was a bad move for congressional leadership to extend the invitation without giving President Barack Obama a heads up that it was coming. Only 33% say it was the right thing to do.
And as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to simmer in the Middle East, the survey found that a similar majority thinks the U.S. should stay out of that fight altogether.
House Speaker John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu sparked a minor international incident and further strained already tense relations between the U.S. and Israeli leaders. Netanyahu is expected to make the case to Congress next month for increased sanctions on Iran, a key point of contention between the Israeli leader and Obama, who has been urging Congress to hold off on further sanctions for fear of jeopardizing nuclear talks with the nation.
Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu during his visit because the trip comes too close to Israel's elections. A growing number of Democrats in both chambers have announced over the past two weeks that they won't be attending the speech, prompting some to question whether the Israeli leader should cancel or move his speech.
Though the speech has become a partisan issue on Capitol Hill, even Republicans are split on whether it was a good idea for leadership to invite Netanyahu without alerting the White House, with a slight majority — 52% — backing the move. Just 14% of Democrats say it was the right thing to do, and just over a third of independents support the move.
But Americans overall believe the U.S. should stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, with 66% in the new poll advocating the U.S. remain neutral. Of those who do support picking a side, the majority, 29%, back Israel, while only 2% support Palestine.
Even Republicans, typically seen as the party offering the strongest defense of Israel, are split on whether the U.S. should officially support Israel in the conflict. Forty-nine percent support backing the nation, while 47% say the U.S. should stay out of it.
And a significant age gap suggests U.S. sentiment may, in the long term, be moving further in favor of neutrality in the conflict. While 56% of those age 50 or older believe the U.S. should stay out of the Israeli-Palestinian fight, that number skyrockets to 75% of Americans under age 50.
The survey was conducted among 1,027 adult Americans from Feb. 12-15 and has a margin of error of 3 percentage points.
hno:"The survey was conducted among 1,027 adult Americans from Feb. 12-15"
Well THAT decides it!!!
I'd love to here the question Leroy in Tennessee and Rosie in Tucson were asked and how it was worded.
Exposé: Phony J Street Poll on Iran
By Benjamin Korn and Moshe Phillips, INN
Viewers of CNN this week were informed by anchor Erin Burnett of what she called “a historically momentous event”: 84% of American Jews support President Obama’s position on a nuclear deal with Iran, Burnett declared.
But the claim is a fraud.
Burnett was interviewing Israeli cabinet minister Naftali Bennett, who argued that the weak terms President Obama is proposing to Iran will leave Teheran with the capability to develop nuclear weapons in a short time. So Burnett swooped in with what she undoubtedly thought would be a “gotcha” moment.
(Read more…)
Well THAT decides it!!!
I'd love to here the question Leroy in Tennessee and Rosie in Tucson were asked and how it was worded.
Exposé: Phony J Street Poll on Iran
Ted Belman. In this video CNN interviews Naftali Bennett on why Netanyshu is going to speak to Congress. In the interview she makes the point that a J-Street poll concluded that 84% of American Jews supported the deal being talked about. Bennett couldn’t comment on it but Benjamin Korn and Moshe Phillips sure did in this article.
It’s all in the wording of the question. How to lie with statistics.
By Benjamin Korn and Moshe Phillips, INN
Viewers of CNN this week were informed by anchor Erin Burnett of what she called “a historically momentous event”: 84% of American Jews support President Obama’s position on a nuclear deal with Iran, Burnett declared.
But the claim is a fraud.
Burnett was interviewing Israeli cabinet minister Naftali Bennett, who argued that the weak terms President Obama is proposing to Iran will leave Teheran with the capability to develop nuclear weapons in a short time. So Burnett swooped in with what she undoubtedly thought would be a “gotcha” moment.
(Read more…)
OBAMA ADMINISTRATION ISSUES TRAVEL WARNING TO ISRAEL
Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 7:27 PM in Politics | 56 Comments
According to the Israeli version of YNET News, the State Department has issued a travel warning to Israel, specifically to Jerusalem. Below is the Google Translate version of the article:
The full writeup on this travel warning is here at the State Department’s website.
Prior travel warnings by the State Department this year have been issued to Yemen, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Nigeria, Liberia, Libya, Iran, Ukraine and other African nations.
So now all of a sudden Israel is on the list?
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/obama-administration-issues-travel-warning-to-israel/#ixzz3S9aBZu00
Posted on Feb 18, 2015 at 7:27 PM in Politics | 56 Comments
According to the Israeli version of YNET News, the State Department has issued a travel warning to Israel, specifically to Jerusalem. Below is the Google Translate version of the article:
The US State Department issued a travel warning for Americans who travel to Israel, with an emphasis on visits to Jerusalem. “The security situation can change from day to day, depending on the state and regional peace. There is a danger of political tension and violence in Jerusalem and the West Bank will bring your injuries and even death American citizens,” reads the warning.
American publication states that the security situation in Tel Aviv and Haifa similar to other major cities in the world and travel warnings related to visiting Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
American publication states that the security situation in Tel Aviv and Haifa similar to other major cities in the world and travel warnings related to visiting Jerusalem, the West Bank and Gaza.
The full writeup on this travel warning is here at the State Department’s website.
Prior travel warnings by the State Department this year have been issued to Yemen, Sierra Leone, Cameroon, Nigeria, Liberia, Libya, Iran, Ukraine and other African nations.
So now all of a sudden Israel is on the list?
Read more: http://therightscoop.com/obama-administration-issues-travel-warning-to-israel/#ixzz3S9aBZu00
[h=1]Spending Habits Of The Netanyahus Get Scrutiny In Growing Scandal[/h]
February 18, 201512:49 PM ET
Bill Chappell
Twitter
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seen here speaking Monday, is under fire over a report of lavish spending.
Debbie Hill/UPI/Landov
The household spending of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become a political issue in Israel, where the attorney general is now considering whether to open an official inquiry over allegations of excessive spending and related crimes.
From Jerusalem, NPR's Emily Harris reports:
In the wake of the comptroller's report, a new voter survey finds that 41 percent of respondents are now less likely to support Netanyahu's Likud party, reports Ynet news.
But a story by Haaretz states, "Netanyahu is cheap, petty, paranoid — but coated in Teflon."
The newspaper's Gidi Weitz elaborates:
February 18, 201512:49 PM ET
Bill Chappell
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, seen here speaking Monday, is under fire over a report of lavish spending.
Debbie Hill/UPI/Landov
The household spending of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become a political issue in Israel, where the attorney general is now considering whether to open an official inquiry over allegations of excessive spending and related crimes.
From Jerusalem, NPR's Emily Harris reports:
"Israel's comptroller general issued a report on the Netanyahus' household spending following complaints from members of parliament.
"The report cited 'excessive spending,' such as an average monthly cleaning bill of over $20,000 for two homes and $40,000 spent in takeout food over two years.
"Possible criminal wrongdoing includes hiring an electrician forbidden to work for the prime minister because he's an official in Netanyahu's political party.
"One political rival, Yair Lapid, said the report shows Netanyahu is 'totally disconnected' from ordinary Israelis. Netanyahu's office said household management is changing and blamed a campaign focused on removing him from office."
The story has brought topics such as payments for recycling and garden furniture into Israel's political sphere, about one month before the country holds elections on March 17."The report cited 'excessive spending,' such as an average monthly cleaning bill of over $20,000 for two homes and $40,000 spent in takeout food over two years.
"Possible criminal wrongdoing includes hiring an electrician forbidden to work for the prime minister because he's an official in Netanyahu's political party.
"One political rival, Yair Lapid, said the report shows Netanyahu is 'totally disconnected' from ordinary Israelis. Netanyahu's office said household management is changing and blamed a campaign focused on removing him from office."
In the wake of the comptroller's report, a new voter survey finds that 41 percent of respondents are now less likely to support Netanyahu's Likud party, reports Ynet news.
But a story by Haaretz states, "Netanyahu is cheap, petty, paranoid — but coated in Teflon."
The newspaper's Gidi Weitz elaborates:
"When Netanyahu was leader of the opposition, many Jerusalem restaurateurs became familiar with his habit of walking out after a meal without paying. During his first term as prime minister (1996-99), he sought to buy cigars at the taxpayers' expense. At the end of that term came the scandal over a contractor who provided the Netanyahus with hundreds of thousands of shekels worth of services that they charged to the state. They were also suspected of having kept hundreds of gifts they received in their official roles."
[h=1]American Jews, speak out against Netanyahu’s policies[/h] [h=2]The Israeli prime minister and the majority of U.S. Jews fundamentally disagree on key issues. The time has come for American Jewish institutions to address this tension.[/h] By Benjy Cannon 22:31 18.02.15
4
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech before Congress – organized behind President Obama’s back – has uncharacteristically split the Jewish communal establishment. Yet the controversy over the speech exposes a tension that has been brewing below the surface for years. The fact is that when it comes to politics, values and the key issues that will decide Israel’s future, Netanyahu and the majority of American Jews fundamentally disagree. The time has come for American Jewish institutions to accept and address that important tension.
The speech, and Netanyahu’s intransigent refusal to back down from it, have created a firestorm of criticism, coming from such mainstream Jewish leaders as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Union for Reform Judaism.
In a column published last week in Haaretz, Peter Beinart noted that Netanyahu’s speech had alienated his old “broad” base of support. Historically and today, organizations like AIPAC and the AJC rely on the premise that Americans can support both the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel without any major conflict. By throwing Obama under the bus, Netanyahu shattered that perception.
But the disagreement between the Israeli prime minister and American Jews runs far deeper than this speech and the Netanyahu-Obama relationship.
American Jews overwhelmingly reject settlements; Netanyahu’s government aggressively promotes settlement expansion. Even during the last round of talks with the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu refused to halt or curtail settlement expansion, consistently humiliating American mediators.
American Jews are serious about giving diplomacy with Iran a chance; Netanyahu has consistently denigrated the Iran talks and seems determined to prevent and undermine any deal that Iran might accept.
Most crucially, American Jews overwhelmingly favor a two-state solution; Netanyahu has made it clear that he is unwilling to make the necessary compromises to bring it about. While he has paid lip service to the two-state solution in the past, he has also rejected the 1967 lines as basis for negotiation, and repeatedly refused to halt settlement construction on land that would ostensibly be part of a future Palestinian state.
American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and support Obama; Netanyahu has consistently demonstrated a preference for Republican candidates. In fact, Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson is also a patron and close political ally of Netanyahu. The prime minister infuriated many Democrats when he made former Republican political operative Ron Dermer his ambassador to the U.S., and unabashedly supported Mitt Romney (for whom just 30 percent American Jews voted) in the last U.S. presidential election.
So why don’t American Jewish institutions speak out about the differences between the communities they serve and the Netanyahu government?
For a long time, our leaders have taken the path of least resistance. Fearing criticism from the very loud and very active right-wing minority of American Jews, they have decided that the safest and simplest course of action is to silently follow the lead of the Israeli government, only occasionally muttering a few words of quiet protest. They have mostly ignored the right-wing drift in Israeli politics over the last decade, in the hope that it would just go away. Instead, as Netanyahu’s intransigence over the speech has demonstrated, the problem has only intensified.
Now, American Jewish organizations have an opportunity. The outrage over the speech has empowered Jewish organizations – and members of congress – to speak out when an Israeli prime minister’s policies and actions run counter to the shared interests and principles that form the basis of the alliance. But they should not wait until the next crisis to make their next move.
Clarifying our differences is the only way we can resolve them; pretending they don’t exist only makes the eventual blow-ups more dramatic. As it stands, these tensions boil over into vicious public fights between American and Israeli officials, with the American Jewish community constantly caught in between. Let’s take responsibility: We need ongoing and serious debate about the ongoing and serious discrepancy between American Jews and Netanyahu’s policies.
If we want the relationship between Israelis and Americans and between our two governments to be healthy and mutually beneficial, we have to acknowledge and explore this tension. Netanyahu does not speak for us – but how can he know that if we don’t speak up for ourselves?
Benjy Cannon is the National Student Board President of J Street U. He studies politics and philosophy at the University of Maryland, where he sits on the Hillel Board. Follow him on Twitter @benjycannon, or send him an email at benjycannon@gmail.com
| |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech before Congress – organized behind President Obama’s back – has uncharacteristically split the Jewish communal establishment. Yet the controversy over the speech exposes a tension that has been brewing below the surface for years. The fact is that when it comes to politics, values and the key issues that will decide Israel’s future, Netanyahu and the majority of American Jews fundamentally disagree. The time has come for American Jewish institutions to accept and address that important tension.
The speech, and Netanyahu’s intransigent refusal to back down from it, have created a firestorm of criticism, coming from such mainstream Jewish leaders as Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League and Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Union for Reform Judaism.
In a column published last week in Haaretz, Peter Beinart noted that Netanyahu’s speech had alienated his old “broad” base of support. Historically and today, organizations like AIPAC and the AJC rely on the premise that Americans can support both the president of the United States and the prime minister of Israel without any major conflict. By throwing Obama under the bus, Netanyahu shattered that perception.
But the disagreement between the Israeli prime minister and American Jews runs far deeper than this speech and the Netanyahu-Obama relationship.
American Jews overwhelmingly reject settlements; Netanyahu’s government aggressively promotes settlement expansion. Even during the last round of talks with the Palestinian Authority, Netanyahu refused to halt or curtail settlement expansion, consistently humiliating American mediators.
American Jews are serious about giving diplomacy with Iran a chance; Netanyahu has consistently denigrated the Iran talks and seems determined to prevent and undermine any deal that Iran might accept.
Most crucially, American Jews overwhelmingly favor a two-state solution; Netanyahu has made it clear that he is unwilling to make the necessary compromises to bring it about. While he has paid lip service to the two-state solution in the past, he has also rejected the 1967 lines as basis for negotiation, and repeatedly refused to halt settlement construction on land that would ostensibly be part of a future Palestinian state.
American Jews overwhelmingly vote Democrat and support Obama; Netanyahu has consistently demonstrated a preference for Republican candidates. In fact, Republican mega-donor Sheldon Adelson is also a patron and close political ally of Netanyahu. The prime minister infuriated many Democrats when he made former Republican political operative Ron Dermer his ambassador to the U.S., and unabashedly supported Mitt Romney (for whom just 30 percent American Jews voted) in the last U.S. presidential election.
So why don’t American Jewish institutions speak out about the differences between the communities they serve and the Netanyahu government?
For a long time, our leaders have taken the path of least resistance. Fearing criticism from the very loud and very active right-wing minority of American Jews, they have decided that the safest and simplest course of action is to silently follow the lead of the Israeli government, only occasionally muttering a few words of quiet protest. They have mostly ignored the right-wing drift in Israeli politics over the last decade, in the hope that it would just go away. Instead, as Netanyahu’s intransigence over the speech has demonstrated, the problem has only intensified.
Now, American Jewish organizations have an opportunity. The outrage over the speech has empowered Jewish organizations – and members of congress – to speak out when an Israeli prime minister’s policies and actions run counter to the shared interests and principles that form the basis of the alliance. But they should not wait until the next crisis to make their next move.
Clarifying our differences is the only way we can resolve them; pretending they don’t exist only makes the eventual blow-ups more dramatic. As it stands, these tensions boil over into vicious public fights between American and Israeli officials, with the American Jewish community constantly caught in between. Let’s take responsibility: We need ongoing and serious debate about the ongoing and serious discrepancy between American Jews and Netanyahu’s policies.
If we want the relationship between Israelis and Americans and between our two governments to be healthy and mutually beneficial, we have to acknowledge and explore this tension. Netanyahu does not speak for us – but how can he know that if we don’t speak up for ourselves?
Benjy Cannon is the National Student Board President of J Street U. He studies politics and philosophy at the University of Maryland, where he sits on the Hillel Board. Follow him on Twitter @benjycannon, or send him an email at benjycannon@gmail.com
[h=1]European Jews Rebuff Netanyahu’s Call to Migrate to Israel[/h] [h=2]European Leaders and Jewish Activists Say Israeli Prime Minister’s Remarks Send Wrong Message[/h]
By Naftali Bendavid
Feb. 18, 2015 5:11 p.m. ET 118 COMMENTS
BRUSSELS—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s calls for European Jews to move to Israel after recent terrorist killings are prompting a backlash from not only European leaders but Jews themselves, reopening a long-standing debate about the role of Israel in the Jewish world.
Following attacks in Paris and Copenhagen, Mr. Netanyahu has declared Israel “the home of every Jew.” But for many Jews, such remarks ignore, and even insult, the acceptance they feel in the countries where they and their families have often lived for generations.
“We are a little confused by this call, which is basically like a call to surrender to terror,” said Arie Zuckerman, senior executive at the European Jewish Congress. “It may send a wrong message to the leaders of Europe.” Menachem Margolin, general director of the European Jewish Association, said Mr. Netanyahu is wrong in suggesting that Jews can’t live safely in Europe. “To come out with this kind of statement after each attack is unacceptable,” Rabbi Margolin said.
Other Jews in Europe are reacting the same way. Sydney Schreiber, a Canadian attorney who moved to Brussels in 1992, called Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks appalling, complaining of “a statement that can be interpreted as meaning that Jews don’t belong in Europe.”
The widespread rejection of Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks is unusual, given Jewish activists’ frequent efforts to unite behind Israel’s leaders. It comes on the heels of the furor caused by Mr. Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress, which concerns U.S. Jewish leaders because it is seen as a snub of the White House.
Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals have also revived sensitivities that date to the beginning of the Zionist movement. From the outset, some Zionists envisioned all Jews moving to the Jewish state, while others pictured it as one of many vibrant Jewish communities world-wide.
“In a way, Netanyahu is doing nothing other than repeating a classic mantra,” said Daniel Levy, who heads the Middle East program at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Few Israelis expect a mass immigration to Israel. But an undercurrent of tension has persisted between Israeli leaders, who urge Jewish immigration, and Jewish leaders in the U.S. and in Europe, who work to foster Jews’ acceptance in their home countries. Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals have broken that tension into the open.
His words are proving more popular in Israel, where the perception of growing European anti-Semitism has featured in the current election campaign. Leaders from across the political spectrum have supported the Israeli prime minister’s outreach to Jewish Europeans.
The Israeli government has set aside about $40 million in additional money to assist Jews who want to come this year, according to Mr. Netanyahu’s office. “It is probably a historical moment in which many Jews in Europe, perhaps tens of thousands, are considering immigration,” said Yigal Palmour, spokesman for the Jewish Agency for Israel, a nongovernmental agency that helps Jews wanting to immigrate.
But Mr. Palmour said it is too early to tell whether the terrorist attacks have affected immigration. Denmark’s Jewish community numbers about 7,000, of which 12 moved to Israel last year, he said. In France, some 6,900 Jews out of a population of a half million came to Israel in 2014, up from 3,300 in 2013.
Daniel Schwammenthal , director of the Brussels-based AJC Transatlantic Institute, which fights anti-Semitism in Europe, said many Jews now feel unsafe on the Continent. “European governments have failed their Jewish citizens,” he said. Whether they leave, he added, won’t be determined by Mr. Netanyahu’s invitation, but by whether things improve: “They just feel insecure and in some cases they have lost trust in Europe, and this should change.”
Still, some leaders argue that Israel is hardly a refuge for Jews seeking to avoid violence. “Israel isn’t in the situation where it can guarantee a life without terror attacks,” said Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. He said he considered Mr. Netanyahu’s call “not to be appropriate.”
Alberto Saravelle, 58, a lawyer in Milan, said today’s Europe isn’t like that of the 1930s, during the rise of Nazism. “This is my home,” Mr. Saravelle said. “I think it’s important for us to stay in our countries and make a stand here against all forms of anti-Semitism, discrimination and racial hatred. My father and uncle were forced to leave this country in 1939, and I don’t want to do that.”
Some Jewish leaders worry that Mr. Netanyahu is flirting with the revival of an age-old problem. By depicting every Jew as a potential Israeli, they say, the prime minister risks giving new life to the longtime accusation that Jews’ true loyalties lie not with their home countries, but with Israel or some other global Jewish entity.
“It’s a classic dual-loyalty thing,” said Mr. Levy, who used to work for leaders of Israel’s Labour Party, which opposes Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud. “Netanyahu’s message is, ‘You may go around thinking you’re French or Danish or British, but actually you’re just a potential Israeli. Your real home is somewhere else.’ Well, no—these communities have deep roots.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s comments have also drawn rebukes from European leaders, who suggest Mr. Netanyahu is challenging their ability to protect their citizens. “I regret Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on a radio program this week. “Being in the middle of an election campaign doesn’t mean you authorize yourself to make just any type of statement…The place for French Jews is France.”
Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, visiting the Copenhagen synagogue where a gunman killed a 37-year-old guard this week, said Danish Jews “belong in Denmark. They are a strong part of our community, and we will do everything we can to protect the Jewish community in our country.”
Although the dispute is unusual, it isn’t unprecedented. Mr. Netanyahu’s calls echo those of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who in 2004 said French Jews were threatened by anti-Semitism and should leave. “I’ll tell them one thing—move to Israel as soon as possible,” Mr. Sharon said, prompting a furious reaction from French politicians and journalists.
Many Jewish leaders unhappy with Mr. Netanyahu’s comments said Europe still must do more to protect Jewish communities, from stepping up security to combating radicalization. But none said that justified Mr. Netanyahu’s comments.
“He is entitled to his view,” said Vivian Wineman, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. “But there is a universal rejection of it by diaspora leaders.”
—Nicholas Casey contributed to this article.
Write to Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com
By Naftali Bendavid
Feb. 18, 2015 5:11 p.m. ET 118 COMMENTS
BRUSSELS—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s calls for European Jews to move to Israel after recent terrorist killings are prompting a backlash from not only European leaders but Jews themselves, reopening a long-standing debate about the role of Israel in the Jewish world.
Following attacks in Paris and Copenhagen, Mr. Netanyahu has declared Israel “the home of every Jew.” But for many Jews, such remarks ignore, and even insult, the acceptance they feel in the countries where they and their families have often lived for generations.
“We are a little confused by this call, which is basically like a call to surrender to terror,” said Arie Zuckerman, senior executive at the European Jewish Congress. “It may send a wrong message to the leaders of Europe.” Menachem Margolin, general director of the European Jewish Association, said Mr. Netanyahu is wrong in suggesting that Jews can’t live safely in Europe. “To come out with this kind of statement after each attack is unacceptable,” Rabbi Margolin said.
Other Jews in Europe are reacting the same way. Sydney Schreiber, a Canadian attorney who moved to Brussels in 1992, called Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks appalling, complaining of “a statement that can be interpreted as meaning that Jews don’t belong in Europe.”
The widespread rejection of Mr. Netanyahu’s remarks is unusual, given Jewish activists’ frequent efforts to unite behind Israel’s leaders. It comes on the heels of the furor caused by Mr. Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress, which concerns U.S. Jewish leaders because it is seen as a snub of the White House.
Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals have also revived sensitivities that date to the beginning of the Zionist movement. From the outset, some Zionists envisioned all Jews moving to the Jewish state, while others pictured it as one of many vibrant Jewish communities world-wide.
“In a way, Netanyahu is doing nothing other than repeating a classic mantra,” said Daniel Levy, who heads the Middle East program at the European Council on Foreign Relations.
Few Israelis expect a mass immigration to Israel. But an undercurrent of tension has persisted between Israeli leaders, who urge Jewish immigration, and Jewish leaders in the U.S. and in Europe, who work to foster Jews’ acceptance in their home countries. Mr. Netanyahu’s appeals have broken that tension into the open.
His words are proving more popular in Israel, where the perception of growing European anti-Semitism has featured in the current election campaign. Leaders from across the political spectrum have supported the Israeli prime minister’s outreach to Jewish Europeans.
The Israeli government has set aside about $40 million in additional money to assist Jews who want to come this year, according to Mr. Netanyahu’s office. “It is probably a historical moment in which many Jews in Europe, perhaps tens of thousands, are considering immigration,” said Yigal Palmour, spokesman for the Jewish Agency for Israel, a nongovernmental agency that helps Jews wanting to immigrate.
‘Israel isn’t in the situation where it can guarantee a life without terror attacks.’
—Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany
—Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany
But Mr. Palmour said it is too early to tell whether the terrorist attacks have affected immigration. Denmark’s Jewish community numbers about 7,000, of which 12 moved to Israel last year, he said. In France, some 6,900 Jews out of a population of a half million came to Israel in 2014, up from 3,300 in 2013.
Daniel Schwammenthal , director of the Brussels-based AJC Transatlantic Institute, which fights anti-Semitism in Europe, said many Jews now feel unsafe on the Continent. “European governments have failed their Jewish citizens,” he said. Whether they leave, he added, won’t be determined by Mr. Netanyahu’s invitation, but by whether things improve: “They just feel insecure and in some cases they have lost trust in Europe, and this should change.”
Still, some leaders argue that Israel is hardly a refuge for Jews seeking to avoid violence. “Israel isn’t in the situation where it can guarantee a life without terror attacks,” said Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany. He said he considered Mr. Netanyahu’s call “not to be appropriate.”
Alberto Saravelle, 58, a lawyer in Milan, said today’s Europe isn’t like that of the 1930s, during the rise of Nazism. “This is my home,” Mr. Saravelle said. “I think it’s important for us to stay in our countries and make a stand here against all forms of anti-Semitism, discrimination and racial hatred. My father and uncle were forced to leave this country in 1939, and I don’t want to do that.”
Some Jewish leaders worry that Mr. Netanyahu is flirting with the revival of an age-old problem. By depicting every Jew as a potential Israeli, they say, the prime minister risks giving new life to the longtime accusation that Jews’ true loyalties lie not with their home countries, but with Israel or some other global Jewish entity.
“It’s a classic dual-loyalty thing,” said Mr. Levy, who used to work for leaders of Israel’s Labour Party, which opposes Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud. “Netanyahu’s message is, ‘You may go around thinking you’re French or Danish or British, but actually you’re just a potential Israeli. Your real home is somewhere else.’ Well, no—these communities have deep roots.”
Mr. Netanyahu’s comments have also drawn rebukes from European leaders, who suggest Mr. Netanyahu is challenging their ability to protect their citizens. “I regret Benjamin Netanyahu’s remarks,” French Prime Minister Manuel Valls said on a radio program this week. “Being in the middle of an election campaign doesn’t mean you authorize yourself to make just any type of statement…The place for French Jews is France.”
Danish Prime Minister Helle Thorning-Schmidt, visiting the Copenhagen synagogue where a gunman killed a 37-year-old guard this week, said Danish Jews “belong in Denmark. They are a strong part of our community, and we will do everything we can to protect the Jewish community in our country.”
Although the dispute is unusual, it isn’t unprecedented. Mr. Netanyahu’s calls echo those of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, who in 2004 said French Jews were threatened by anti-Semitism and should leave. “I’ll tell them one thing—move to Israel as soon as possible,” Mr. Sharon said, prompting a furious reaction from French politicians and journalists.
Many Jewish leaders unhappy with Mr. Netanyahu’s comments said Europe still must do more to protect Jewish communities, from stepping up security to combating radicalization. But none said that justified Mr. Netanyahu’s comments.
“He is entitled to his view,” said Vivian Wineman, president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. “But there is a universal rejection of it by diaspora leaders.”
—Nicholas Casey contributed to this article.
Write to Naftali Bendavid at naftali.bendavid@wsj.com
[h=1]Netanyahu’s curious GOP connection[/h]
By Harold Meyerson Opinion writer February 18 at 8:24 PM
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is giving chutzpah a bad name.
Over the past several weeks, Netanyahu has aligned himself and his cause with the Republican Party, which an overwhelming majority of American Jews reject, and many actively despise; he has told European Jews to pull up stakes and come to Israel; and, according to a report just released by Israel’s comptroller, he has spent large amounts of Israelis’ tax dollars (well, actually, shekels) on cleaning his private home (to the tune of $2,000 a month) and his wife’s makeup and hairstyling ($68,000 over a two-year period).
Harold Meyerson writes a weekly political column that appears on Thursdays and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive
Like every world leader and, for that matter, nearly everybody else, Netanyahu is fully aware that the fault lines in U.S. politics between Republicans and Democrats have widened to a chasm. Unlike every other world leader, the bumptious Bibi has decided to take a side in America’s internal conflict by addressing a joint meeting of the Republican-controlled Congress (responding to an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner) without even informing President Obama that he was Washington-bound. One of Netanyahu’s goals is to undercut the administration’s efforts to negotiate a pact with Iran that will impede that nation’s nuclear program. His other goal is clearly to stick it to Obama and thus appear to the Israeli electorate — which will go to the polls on March 17 — as one tough dude. If Netanyahu’s talk, the idea for which was at least partly cooked up by Ron Dermer, a former GOP operative who moved to Israel and is now its ambassador to the United States, also has the effect of boosting the Republican Party at the expense of Obama and the Democrats, so much the better. During the 2012 election, Netanyahu did everything he could to make apparent that he preferred Mitt Romney to Obama, with no perceptible effect on the outcome or even on the voting preferences of American Jews, who backed Obama, 69 percent to 30 percent.
Of all the reasons that American Jews remain firmly Democratic, and liberal as well, the most fundamental is their commitment, both particular and universal, to minority rights. For Jews in a majority-Christian country, the enshrinement of minority rights and its institutional guarantees — nondiscrimination in hiring and voting, say, or a judiciary independent of the elected branches of government — has always been paramount. It’s why American Jews have embraced not only the battles for their own liberties but those of every other minority group.
Consider, for instance, the way most American Jews look at the two parties’ stances in recent decades on immigration and immigrants’ rights. As far back as 1994, when California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 187, that would have denied virtually all public services — including the right to attend K-12 schools — to undocumented immigrants, the state’s most heavily Jewish neighborhoods, including West Los Angeles, voted overwhelmingly against it. (The measure was subsequently struck down by the courts.) Today, with Republicans bent on denying legal status to undocumented immigrants who’ve been here for decades, or who were brought here as children, or who came here fleeing horrific violence in their Central American homelands, many Jews respond not just with sympathy but with empathy: Their grandparents or great-grandparents once came here, too, and many of them were fleeing the kind of violence that propelled more recent immigrants to cross the Rio Grande. Some of their grandparents also tried to come here after Hitler’s rise to power, but our restrictive post-1924 immigration laws blocked their escape.
Some American Jews, to be sure, support the Republicans, but for most, to back a party so hostile to minority and immigrant rights is all but unnatural. It’s not in their DNA. This egalitarianism also informs many American Jews’, and American Zionists’, support for a two-state solution establishing a Palestinian state that abuts Israel.
When American Jews — or anyone with eyes to see — look at Netanyahu and the Israeli right, they don’t see a leader or movement with any such interest in a two-state solution or the minority rights that have been so fundamental to Jews in the diaspora. Many Israelis, in contrast to Bibi, have maintained that more egalitarian perspective despite living in a state where they constitute the majority. Many have not; the upcoming Israeli elections will at least partly measure the strengths of these two camps.
For now, Israel’s prime minister is aligning himself with one of America’s two camps. It’s not the camp that commands — or even can command — the support of most American Jews. That will pose a problem for Israel.
By Harold Meyerson Opinion writer February 18 at 8:24 PM Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is giving chutzpah a bad name.
Over the past several weeks, Netanyahu has aligned himself and his cause with the Republican Party, which an overwhelming majority of American Jews reject, and many actively despise; he has told European Jews to pull up stakes and come to Israel; and, according to a report just released by Israel’s comptroller, he has spent large amounts of Israelis’ tax dollars (well, actually, shekels) on cleaning his private home (to the tune of $2,000 a month) and his wife’s makeup and hairstyling ($68,000 over a two-year period).
Harold Meyerson writes a weekly political column that appears on Thursdays and contributes to the PostPartisan blog. View Archive
Like every world leader and, for that matter, nearly everybody else, Netanyahu is fully aware that the fault lines in U.S. politics between Republicans and Democrats have widened to a chasm. Unlike every other world leader, the bumptious Bibi has decided to take a side in America’s internal conflict by addressing a joint meeting of the Republican-controlled Congress (responding to an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner) without even informing President Obama that he was Washington-bound. One of Netanyahu’s goals is to undercut the administration’s efforts to negotiate a pact with Iran that will impede that nation’s nuclear program. His other goal is clearly to stick it to Obama and thus appear to the Israeli electorate — which will go to the polls on March 17 — as one tough dude. If Netanyahu’s talk, the idea for which was at least partly cooked up by Ron Dermer, a former GOP operative who moved to Israel and is now its ambassador to the United States, also has the effect of boosting the Republican Party at the expense of Obama and the Democrats, so much the better. During the 2012 election, Netanyahu did everything he could to make apparent that he preferred Mitt Romney to Obama, with no perceptible effect on the outcome or even on the voting preferences of American Jews, who backed Obama, 69 percent to 30 percent.
Of all the reasons that American Jews remain firmly Democratic, and liberal as well, the most fundamental is their commitment, both particular and universal, to minority rights. For Jews in a majority-Christian country, the enshrinement of minority rights and its institutional guarantees — nondiscrimination in hiring and voting, say, or a judiciary independent of the elected branches of government — has always been paramount. It’s why American Jews have embraced not only the battles for their own liberties but those of every other minority group.
Consider, for instance, the way most American Jews look at the two parties’ stances in recent decades on immigration and immigrants’ rights. As far back as 1994, when California voters approved a ballot measure, Proposition 187, that would have denied virtually all public services — including the right to attend K-12 schools — to undocumented immigrants, the state’s most heavily Jewish neighborhoods, including West Los Angeles, voted overwhelmingly against it. (The measure was subsequently struck down by the courts.) Today, with Republicans bent on denying legal status to undocumented immigrants who’ve been here for decades, or who were brought here as children, or who came here fleeing horrific violence in their Central American homelands, many Jews respond not just with sympathy but with empathy: Their grandparents or great-grandparents once came here, too, and many of them were fleeing the kind of violence that propelled more recent immigrants to cross the Rio Grande. Some of their grandparents also tried to come here after Hitler’s rise to power, but our restrictive post-1924 immigration laws blocked their escape.
Some American Jews, to be sure, support the Republicans, but for most, to back a party so hostile to minority and immigrant rights is all but unnatural. It’s not in their DNA. This egalitarianism also informs many American Jews’, and American Zionists’, support for a two-state solution establishing a Palestinian state that abuts Israel.
When American Jews — or anyone with eyes to see — look at Netanyahu and the Israeli right, they don’t see a leader or movement with any such interest in a two-state solution or the minority rights that have been so fundamental to Jews in the diaspora. Many Israelis, in contrast to Bibi, have maintained that more egalitarian perspective despite living in a state where they constitute the majority. Many have not; the upcoming Israeli elections will at least partly measure the strengths of these two camps.
For now, Israel’s prime minister is aligning himself with one of America’s two camps. It’s not the camp that commands — or even can command — the support of most American Jews. That will pose a problem for Israel.
