In recent weeks the Obama administration has undertaken a number of initiatives that are damaging to Israel.
The administration decided to engage the planners of the “Durban II” conference, it pledged nearly $1 billion to rebuild Gaza and apparently has appointed Chas Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council.
During this time I was wondering when the National Jewish Democratic Council would protest these moves. The NJDC has been pretty emphatic that support for Israel is bipartisan and that President Obama is steadfast in his support for Israel. Except it was really hard to see how these actions comported with with the President’s supposed support of Israel. Even, Martin Peretz, an enthusiastic supporter of President Obama and scold of those who doubted the candidate’s commitment to Israel, expressed reservations about these actions.
Last Friday it was reported that the administration decided that “Durban II” conference was beyond salvation and was pulling out.
It took until March 3 for the NJDC to issue any statement on these three policies. At that time NJDC’s spokesman Aaron Keyak reassured us that Secretary Clinton announced that none of the funds pledged by the U.S. would go to Hamas. I’m reassured. Aren’t you?
That same day, the NJDC’s Ira Forman published a piece in the Huffington Post that included this gem:
This support for Israel by the new administration highlights two important points about Obama and his die-hard, ideological opponents. First, the President has once again illustrated that he works hard to keep his campaign promises. Second, it highlights the tenacity of Obama’s ideological opponents to invariably find him to be intensely anti-Israel—even if that evidence runs up against cold hard facts.
During last year’s presidential campaign, candidate Obama promised to reengage in the U.N. and argued that the concept of a conference against racism had value. However, he also stated on the Simon Wiesenthal Center presidential candidate questionnaire that, “If our efforts to keep the conference on a responsible path are not working, and the conference planning committee is not cooperative, the U.S. will not participate.â€
However it is Forman who is ignoring facts. Anyone vaguely familiar with the way the first Durban conference would have known that engaging the UN in this matter was futile. The participation of the United States. The promise he praises the President for keeping demonstrated no virtue. The United States risked lending legitimacy to the proceedings. And as Claudia Rosett observed, the American withdrawal wasn’t nearly as decisive as the administration claimed.
But since the administration withdrew, naturally Keyak wrote the next day that Jews should write to the President praising him for standing his ground. There was no virtue in withdrawing given that participation was a dubious undertaking in the first place.
But Forman’s and Keyak’s belated mention of the Durban II conference raises an interesting question. Why did they wait so long? Where were the reassuring posts claiming that participation in Durban II was a good idea and that the President will stand by Israel in the end? Could it be that they were unsure of how the administration would act? They waited until the administration belatedly withdrew and then said (something like), “We always knew the President would keep his word. How could you doubt him? Now give him his due!”
I often lump NJDC and J-Street together, but J-Street possesses an intellectual honesty that’s lacking from the NJDC. J-Street is clear that it believes that American ought to pressure Israel to give in to every Palestinian demand. While J-Street misleadingly calls their approach “pro-Israel,” they’re at least consistent. NJDC seems to define being pro-Israel as anything the President does with respect to the Middle East.
The President promises that millions pledged for Gaza won’t go to Hamas – even though there’s no way to prevent that – that’s pro-Israel.
The President has his representatives participate in an anti-Israel planning session and eventually pulls out – that’s pro-Israel too.
The President appoints an anti-Israel diplomat to an important intelligence post – maybe it’s not pro-Israel, but apparently no reason to be alarmed since Forman and Keyak have not deigned to weigh in on the Freeman appointment. Hey guys, Schumer’s spoken up. Maybe now you could allow that the appointment is a cause for concern but that you have faith that the President will do the right thing and not give into the anti-Israel lobby that is fighting for the appointment. Guys?
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
