web analytics
January 23, 2017 / 25 Tevet, 5777

Posts Tagged ‘democrats’

14 Senate Democrats Call for Extending Sanctions on Iran

Wednesday, July 20th, 2016

{Originally posted to the Tower Magazine website}

Fourteen Democratic senators introduced legislation last week calling for an extension of existing sanctions on Iran, which are set to expire at the end of this year.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D – Md.) and Sen. Chuck Schumer (D – N.Y.) are leading the push for renewing the Iran Sanctions Act of 1996, which aims to prevent foreign investment in Iran’s energy sector. Both voiced their opposition to the nuclear agreement with Iran after it was announced.

“After extensive consultations with my colleagues in both chambers of Congress and on both sides of the aisle, it is clear that we need to reauthorize the Iran Sanctions Act before the end of the year,” said Cardin, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “Doing so is vital if the United States wants to retain a credible deterrent of snap back sanctions.”

Cardin and Schumer called on their colleagues in both chambers to quickly advance the legislation when Congress reconvenes in September.

“It is essential that Congress keep Iran’s feet to the fire to make sure they do not violate the [nuclear deal]. This bill would provide the sanction authority that helps us do just that,” said Schumer, chair of the Senate Democratic Policy Committee.

On Friday, many of the same Democratic Senators who originally supported the nuclear deal wrote a letter criticizing the agreement’s inspection procedures and calling for the International Atomic Energy Agency to release more information from its inspections.

Despite international criticism, including from United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, Iran has continued to test ballistic missiles. The Islamic Republic reportedly launched a ballistic missile using North Korean technology on the night of July 11-12, the ninth such test it carried out since reaching a nuclear deal with global powers last year.

Tower Magazine

The Terrorist Defender And The Democrats’ Platform

Friday, June 3rd, 2016

After 9/11 and Paris and the beheadings on the beach, after San Bernardino and Charlie Hebdo and the burning of the pilot in the cage, after all the savage terrorist attacks of recent years – you would think the last person the Democrats would choose to help write their platform would be one of the most vocal defenders of a notorious Palestinian terrorist.

But that’s what they just did.

This sad story begins on May 14, 1979. Chaim and Chaya (Irene) Mark, a couple from Connecticut who had immigrated to Israel, were stepping out of a restaurant in the central marketplace of Tiberias when a huge bomb exploded.

“I was hit in the chest and knocked down,” Chaim later recalled. “When I got up, I saw my wife with a leg and arm nearly blown off.”

Two Israeli children were killed in the bombing and 36 other people were maimed. Mrs. Mark spent a year and half in the hospital, undergoing countless surgeries. She was left severely handicapped.

A few weeks later, one of the terrorists involved in the bombing was captured by Israeli police. He confessed to having constructed the bomb and he named one of his PLO comrades, Ziad Abu Eain, as the one who planted it.

Eain had already fled to Chicago – not exactly the behavior of an innocent person. When the FBI came knocking at the Chicago apartment where he was staying, he denied he was Ziad Abu Eain – again, not the kind of response one would expect from an innocent person.

Israel asked the U.S. to hand him over. Eain fought extradition. He used what I call the have-my-cake-and-eat-it-too defense: he denied his guilt and at the same time argued that the bombing was a “political offense.”

That’s right: murdering two Israeli children and crippling a Connecticut housewife was a “political” act.

In jailhouse interviews with the media, in fact, Eain brazenly defended the bombing. He told the Chicago Reader (June 18, 1981) that the Tiberias murders were a justified response to Israeli strikes on PLO targets in Lebanon: “The bombing was like a message. We are still doing something to help you have your freedom.”

Who was Eain’s loudest supporter? James Zogby, who at the time was the founding director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee. The very first action undertaken by Zogby with the AADC was to launch a campaign of protests, lobbying, and newspaper ads opposing the extradition of Eain.

Soon afterward, Zogby became active in Democratic Party politics, as deputy manager of Jesse Jackson’s 1984 and 1998 presidential campaigns, then later as “Senior Adviser on Ethnic Outrage” for Al Gore in 2000 and Barack Obama in 2008. Since 2001, Zogby has been a member of the Democratic National Committee.

And last week, he was named as one of the 17 members of the committee that will draft this year’s Democratic Party platform. (He was chosen by Sen. Bernie Sanders, who’d been allotted several slots to fill on the platform-writing committee.)

In his efforts on behalf of the Tiberias bomber, Zogby charged that extraditing Eain would create a dangerous precedent for handing over individuals accused of “political crimes.” Zogby also played the race card. He told the Washington Post (July 24, 1981): “The only way to account for the State Department’s and the U.S. attorney’s behavior in this case is the fact that Ziad Abu Eain is an Arab.”

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected those claims and ordered Eain extradited. The New York Times applauded the extradition. In a lead editorial, it said the “political offense” argument could not be accepted in such a case, since “the crime attributed to Mr. Eain was planting a bomb in a crowded market where children were celebrating Independence Day.”

Zogby was so passionate in support of Eain that even after the bomber was extradited he continued mobilizing AADC members to send letters of protest to the State Department and the Israeli Embassy.

To this day Zogby has never expressed a word of remorse for his crusade on behalf of the Tiberias bomber.

Eain was tried, convicted of murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Three years later, he was released in a prisoner exchange. So what did Mr. Innocent do when he was set free? Just two months later, he was arrested for conspiring with other terrorists to hijack an Israeli bus. He spent three more years in prison. When the Oslo accords were signed, Eain, like many terrorists, accepted a senior position in the Palestinian Authority. Evidently he finally recognized the value of “working from within.”

James Zogby, too, understands how effective he can be from “the inside.” Drafting the Democratic Party’s platform plank on Israel will have a lot more influence than organizing petitions on behalf of a Palestinian terrorist with American blood on his hands.

Most people have forgotten about Ziad Abu Eain, the two Israeli children he murdered, and the Connecticut housewife he maimed for life. But the American Jewish community should neither forget nor forgive. Someone who defended a terrorist who harmed Americans should not be rewarded with an influential role in the Democratic Party.

Stephen M. Flatow

Pew Poll Proves Progressive Democrats Are Not Fans of Israel

Wednesday, May 25th, 2016

{Originally posted to the author’s website, The Lid}

Anecdotally it’s been easy to say for a very long time that the more liberal politically one is the less they support the Jewish State of Israel.  The Anti-Israel policies of the leftist Barack Obama/Hillary Clinton foreign policy offer some anecdotal proof, as does the fact that the Democrats removed four pro-Israel planks in their 2012 platform, and when they were caught by your’s truly, they added back one, the Jerusalem is the capital of Israel plank. They left out a promise not to negotiate with Hamas as long as they refused to renounce terrorism, that in a final deal any Palestinian refugees would be resettled in a Palestinian State rather than flooding Israel with the purpose of removing its Jewish character, and that the 1948 armistice lines should not represent the final boarders of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.  A new Pew Poll backs up the qualitative judgements with quantitative evidence:

Views of Israel and the Palestinians have become more ideologically polarized. In early September 2001, just before the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there were only modest partisan and ideological differences in Israeli-Palestinian sympathies. But since then, and especially over the past decade, the share sympathizing more with Israel than with the Palestinians has increased among all ideological groups, with the exception of liberal Democrats.

Today, majorities of conservative Republicans (79%) and moderate and liberal Republicans (65%) say they sympathize more with Israel than with the Palestinians, while just 4% and 13%, respectively, sympathize more with the Palestinians. This is the case for conservative and moderate Democrats as well – far more have a more sympathetic view of Israel (53%) than of the Palestinians (19%). Liberal Democrats, however, are more divided, with four-in-ten (40%) sympathizing more with the Palestinians, versus a third (33%) with Israel.

The share of liberal Democrats who side more with the Palestinians than with Israel has nearly doubled since 2014 (from 21% to 40%) and is higher than at any point dating back to 2001.

Lib Dem

This certainly helps to explain the fact that the progressives who control the Democratic party pushed through the horrible Iran nuclear deal which does very little to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions (heck they even get to inspect themselves).

Making this poll even worse is despite the fact that progressive Democrats tend more supportive of the Palestinians, American Jews continue to vote them in office.

Thirty years ago, Republican James Baker famously said, “F— the Jews. They won’t vote for us anyway.”  Today because of the blind loyalty to the Democratic Party by most Jews, Democrats act as if their stance is, “F— the Jews, they will vote for us whatever we do!”

In 2008, despite all the warnings, despite the fact that Barack Obama sat in a church listening to anti-Semitic sermons for two decades, despite the fact that he was a close friend with Palestinian Liberation Organization spokesman Rashid Khalid, the mainstream media and the Jewish community ignored the warning signs. Even before the election the Jewish community knew about the 2003 event honoring Khalidi, where Obama had made a toast that was so anti-Israel that the liberal L.A. Times hid the tape. Before the 2008 election Obama had already surrounded himself with anti-Semitic and anti-Israel advisers. Ignoring all that, the Jewish community gave Obama 78 percent of the Jewish vote. The leadership of certain major Jewish organizations, despite their phony claims of bi-partisanship, had a blind allegiance to the Democratic Party.

During his first term, President Obama proved to be the most anti-Israel president since the modern state of Israel was created in 1948. But it shouldn’t have been as surprise.

Despite an anti-Israel first term, as the 2012 election neared, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Committee in a joint statement asked their fellow Jews to pledge not to criticize Obama’s Israel policy. They said it was to keep the issue bi-partisan but it was really because their leadership was very partisan. Per Michael Oren these leaders like Abe Foxman of the ADL for instance were in a meeting with Obama in 2009 where he told them he was going to drive a wedge between the US and Israel (for Israel’s own good) and they said nothing.  Another of those supposedly “bi-partisan” leaders, Jack Rosen of the American Jewish Congress, actually hosted fundraisers for the president in his home, ignoring Obama’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic stances. The publisher of the liberal Jewish Week newspaper even warned Jews not to make Obama angry or he will be worse in a second term.

Don’t be surprised if those same leaders ignore the supposed bi-partisanship of their organizations to support Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. They will even try to whitewash the fact that with the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009– except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has always been anti-Israel.  But she is a progressive Democrat. And just like they supported Barack Obama, whose progressive policies have ignored the constitution and ruined the economy, they will support Hillary and try to sell her to the Jewish community.

Here’s a little secret my Jewish brethren should learn the way people vote influences candidate positions. Since Progressives are not pro-Israel and the Jews keep voting for them anyway, why should Democrats support Israel? On the Republicans side, the reason many GOP candidates are pro-Israel (besides the fact they are a strong American ally) is the evangelical vote that is a major part of their base. But if the very pro-Israel evangelicals ever lose their influence in the party, only then will there be a possibility that support for Israel will be bi-partisan— both parties won’t care about us.

After the P5+1 vote, Obama supporters claimed that the POTUS defeated the nefarious “Jewish Lobby,” but any influence the Jews ever had was defeated years ago by a blind allegiance to the Democratic Party by Jewish voters, and false tales by the supposed Jewish leadership.  The only way we will ever get it back is for Jews to start voting for the other party — not blindly, but look at Republican candidates with an open mind.

Oh and one more thing about Democratic Party support of Israel.  During the 2012 convention when they they added back the Jerusalem plank, it actually lost the voice vote but it was counted as being passed anyway to the boos of the angry crowd.

Watch the video below:

Jeff Dunetz

Pew Survey: Support For Israel Eroding Among Younger Democrats

Wednesday, May 18th, 2016

Earlier this month, a Pew Research Center survey examining attitudes about foreign policy among the U.S. electorate found that Americans continue to strongly favor Israel (54 percent) over the Palestinians (19 percent). Yet the survey also indicated a number of trends that suggest a possible erosion of the long-held bipartisan pro-Israel consensus.

Notably, while figures show sympathy for Israel has remained relatively consistent over the past few decades, there has been a slight uptick in sympathy for the Palestinians, 14 percent to 19 percent, from July 2014 – with a substantial increase in support for the Palestinians among respondents ages 18-29, also known as millennials.

At the same time, Pew’s data confirmed a partisan divide on Israel. While support for Israel among Democratic voters has remained steady over the past few decades – 44 percent in 1978 compared to 43 percent today – there has been a sharp rise during that time in Republican sympathy for Israel, 49 percent to 75 percent, and a modest gain among independents, 45 percent to 52 percent.

Only 33 percent of Democrats who describe themselves as liberal support Israel, while 40 percent sympathize with the Palestinians.

The survey revealed a further divide within the Democratic electorate itself. Hillary Clinton supporters were more likely to sympathize with Israel than the Palestinians, 47 percent versus 27 percent, while Bernie Sanders supporters favored the Palestinians over Israel by 39 percent to 33 percent.

“Evidence has been accumulating for some time of a division among Democratic voters over Israel,” said Dr. Theodore Sasson, senior research scientist at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University. “The left wing of the party is more critical of U.S. support for Israel.”

Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, director of the Argov Center for the Study of Israel and the Jewish People at Bar-Ilan University, said that generally the American public’s sympathy toward Israel has been growing since 2000.

Yet Americans have become more divided over policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those divisions “increasingly line up with the main ideological and political divides in America,” he noted.

“Since younger Americans are more liberal, and each generation is more liberal than the previous generation, they are less sympathetic toward Israel and more inclined to believe that the U.S. should adopt an even-handed approach toward the conflict,” Rynhold told JNS. “They are also more critical of Israel’s use of military force against Hamas and Hizbullah.”

“I doubt the level of hostility [in America] will reach the levels we see in Europe,” said Brandeis’s Sasson. Rynhold echoed that sentiment, saying the gap on Israel between the American left and the European left remains wide.

“American liberals are far more sympathetic to Israel than the European left,” Rynhold said. “The gulf remains huge. The debate in the U.S. is over siding with Israel or being even-handed, and that goes for the Democrats as well. Whereas on the European left, the debate is over [being] anti-Israel or even-handed.”

Yet fears persist about the growing liberal electorate’s views on Israel, especially among younger Americans.

“Over time, as the percentage of liberals among Democrats increases, the party’s support for Israel could well become more conditional on what they perceive as Israel’s willingness to support a two-state solution and perceptions related to other liberal causes inside Israel,” Rynhold said.

(JNS)

Sean Savage

Shiloh Musings: Republicans More Pro-Israel than Democrats

Monday, May 2nd, 2016

My gut feeling about the antipathy and unreliability of the American Democrats towards the State of Israel is shown in the numbers in this article:

The US may offer Israel the ‘largest single pledge’ of military assistance in US history
Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chris Coons were behind the letter, which was signed by 51 Republican and 32 Democratic senators*.
Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz was one of the signatories, while Sanders was not.

And besides those numbers, don’t forget that POTUS wannabe Bernie Sanders has not shown support for the bill.

I have no doubt that the timing of the bill is connected to the campaign, but the important thing to remember is that the two Democratic frontrunners are extremely problematic when it comes to Israel. It is beyond ambivalence or neutrality. Hillary Clinton has a long history of anti-Israel policies and statements. She also has some gevaltik pro-Israel (or good faker) speechwriters, so listening to Hillary talk, you’d think she’s the epitome of pro-Israel, but it’s an act. As the late President Ronald Reagan was known to say, “I don’t know how someone not an actor can be President.” (Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I haven’t found the exact quotation online.)

And radical Leftist Bernie Sanders has shown and stated much more sympathy and understanding for the Arabs, even the Gazan terrorists, than for Israel and Israelis.

Just because they mantra over and over that they love Israel and are pro-Israel means nothing. It’s just words! Think of abusers who claim “love” as they beat and punish their victims!

One thing, no doubt, is that the Republican frontrunners will be better for Israel than the Democrats, especially since the Bush Machine does not control them. I am very relieved that the grassroot Republican voters defeated the Bush Machine in the early primaries.

*{author’s emphasis}

Batya Medad

Democrats Try To Save Israel From Itself

Wednesday, April 20th, 2016

It bears noting that the positions taken by the two contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination regarding Israeli foreign policy are at odds with those of the elected government of Israel.

Thus, Senator Bernie Sanders and former secretary of state Clinton, whose party used to pride itself on almost total support for Israel, are sharply critical both of Israel’s alleged failure to make greater efforts to entice the Palestinians into renewed negotiations and its policy on settlements.

In fact, both Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders are hewing to the Obama/Kerry/J Street line that Israel’s judgment concerning what’s in its best interests must take a back seat to the views of others who are more realistically attuned to Israel’s needs.

While disputes between Israeli governments and U.S. administrations have been far from rare, the Obama administration and candidates Sanders and Clinton no longer dwell on U.S interests in their criticism of Israel but rather on how much more they know than Israelis themselves about what’s best for Israel.

This form of preachiness is unknown in the ordinary interactions of nations but has become quite de rigueur when American officials come down hard on their Israeli counterparts.

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon was evident in the contretemps that developed this week between Israel and the U.S. after Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that the Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, would never be turned over to the Syrians.

Mr. Netanyahu, speaking during a Cabinet meeting held on the Golan Heights, said Israeli control of the Golan was essential to its security interests:

We are here on the Golan Heights. This is the first time that the government of Israel has held an official meeting on the Golan Heights in the 49 years that they have been under Israeli rule. The Golan Heights have been an integral part of the Land of Israel since ancient times; the dozens of ancient synagogues in the area around us attest to this. The Golan Heights are an integral part of Israel in the new era. During the 19 years that the Golan Heights were under Syrian occupation, when they were a place for bunkers, wire fences, mines, and aggression, they were for war. In the 49 years that the Golan Heights have been under Israeli rule, they have been for agriculture, tourism, economic initiatives, and building. They are for peace. In the stormy region around us, Israel is the stabilizing factor; Israel is the solution, not the problem…. The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands. Israel will never come down from the Golan Heights.

The State Department quickly responded. On Monday night, spokesman John Kirby said the Obama administration does not consider the Golan Heights to be part of Israel:

The U.S. position on the issue is unchanged. This position was maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those territories are not part of Israel and the status of those territories should be determined through negotiations. The current situation in Syria does not allow this.

But what about the Golan’s obvious impact on Israeli security interests? They were not even alluded to by Mr. Kirby. Yet according to Aaron David Miller, who served both Democratic and Republican presidents as a Mideast negotiator and was involved in attempting to fashion an accord between Israel and Syria on the Golan issue, said that had an agreement been reached, “the results might have been catastrophic for Israel and for the U.S.”

In a column published in the Wall Street Journal Mr. Miller went on to explain,

What we failed to realize was that of all of Israel’s peace efforts…any deal to return the Golan Heights occupied by the Israelis in 1967 was likely to be fraught precisely because Mr. Assad was so cruel in his policies and that his regime consisted of an Alawite minority governing a Sunni majority…. [so] perhaps it would have only been a matter of time before Syria experienced real instability…. What can be said with certainty is that had Israel given up the Golan, the situation today would have been much more complex. In response to the Syrian civil war and the rise of Islamic State, Israel would have faced a hot front confronting Hezbollah, Iran, and a range of Islamist jihadis. Given the Golan’s strategic importance, Israel would have had to reoccupy it and would have found itself in the middle of Syria’s civil war…

Thus, Miller’s common sense message is that in areas of great instability, political settlements are problematic for the simple reason that nothing agreed to can be reliably viewed as authoritative. Yet Israel is constantly rebuked in the United Nations for not making the concessions necessary for a settlement of the issues between it and the Palestinians.

Editorial Board

New York Jews Dumping Clinton for Sanders

Thursday, September 24th, 2015

New York Jews are losing their taste for Hillary Clinton and are moving towards Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, according to a new Siena College poll.

A majority of 54 percent of Jews in New York view Clinton as “unfavorable,” slightly more than the state average of 51 percent. If primary elections were held today, Clinton would come out on top but only with a plurality of 45%, compared with 24 and 23 percent for Biden and Sanders respectively.

Among Jewish voters, according to JPInsider, registered Democrats would give Clinton only 36 percent of their votes. Biden would win 31% of the Jewish vote, and Sanders would pick up 25 percent.

Clinton is in a tailspin and cannot dig her outsell of her deepening e-mail scandal hole, which makes Sanders look more appealing. Biden still has not announced if he will run, and if he does throw his hat in the ring, he will grab support from those who so far have backed off because of his procrastination.

Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg said:

For the first time ever, Hillary Clinton is under water with New York voters, facing her worst favorability rating ever in her adopted home state. Her favorability rating has seen a net drop of 21 points since July.

However, Clinton is the choice of New York Democrats

On the Republican side, Jews favor Marco Rubio.

Statewide, the Siena poll showed that a majority of Democrats want Biden to run for president.

Trump still leads the Republican field, with a commanding lead of 34% compared with only 14% for Carson and 11% for Bush.

Greenberg added:

Biden runs best against the three leading Republican candidates, and he runs stronger against each of the three than does Clinton with Democrats, Republicans and independents.  Though Sanders has a bigger lead against Bush than does Clinton, she has bigger leads than Sanders against Carson and Trump.

 

Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/new-york-jews-dumping-clinton-for-sanders/2015/09/24/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: