But Why Would One Attack a Pro-Israel Platform? - by Jonathan Tobin

...You may disagree, as the ADL does, with the Republicans on whether Israel is an “occupier” on the West Bank or whether two states makes sense. But to call their refusal to pressure Israel into concessions “anti-Zionist” is Orwellian. If the Israeli left and its American friends want to change Israel’s policies, they should win the next Israeli election. Complaining about Americans who sympathize with their nation is as shortsighted as it is ridiculous.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
18 July '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/2128810-why-attack-a-pro-israel-platform-gop/

One plank of the Republican Party’s new platform has ignited a debate within the pro-Israel community. Many friends of the Jewish state cheered the draft that reaffirmed the U.S.-Israel alliance. It also specified that there would be no-“daylight” between the two countries, affirmed the unity of Jerusalem, and opposed the anti-Semitic BDS movement. Others, however, are unhappy with this. In particular, the Anti-Defamation League expressed its dismay that the platform didn’t mention support for a two-state solution. Some dissenters went further still. Haaretz Columnist Chemi Shalev spoke for many on the left when he denounced the plank as being anti-Israel. But whatever the theoretical virtues of two states, the ultimate purpose of these critiques is to attack the foundation of political support for Israel inside the United States: Christian conservatives.

Shalev reasons that any opposition to two states as the answer to the conflict with the Palestinians not only dooms Israel to perpetual fighting, but will also transform the country into an Arab-majority single state. This is a theme we’ve heard before from other figures on the Jewish left, such as Peter Beinart. In effect, it delegitimizes those on the right who oppose Palestinian statehood or support the settlement movement or those who are just skeptical about blind devotion to the peace process.

But no matter your opinion of two states or settlements, such arguments are dangerous because they demonize opponents while also ignoring the beliefs and positions of the Palestinians. In a theoretical world where the Palestinians were willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders were drawn, a two-state peace would make sense and command the support of the overwhelming majority of Israelis. But since even “moderate” Palestinian leaders won’t extend such recognition, the idea remains theoretical.

Palestinians are saying no to two states— as they have repeatedly done since it was first offered to them at the Camp David Summit in 2000. Thus, it’s not a serious policy question. It is slanderous to brand as anti-Zionist those who believe that managing the conflict (instead of solving it) is the best that can be done at the moment. In fact, that group of supposed anti-Zionists would include most Israelis. Those liberals who complain about a decline in civility within the Jewish community and then call opponents enemies of the Jewish state are the worst kinds of hypocrites.

Evidence of an intellectual and moral corruption that runs deep and wide - by Peter Wehner

...The problems of the Palestinians are real and tragic, and when abuses against innocent Palestinians occur, including by Israelis, they should be condemned. But the entire situation in which that suffering arises is by now, after decades of spurning offers and deals that Israel was willing to accept, in essence, a creation of the Palestinian leadership. They have brought this misery upon themselves by refusing to compromise and accept the existence of a Jewish state. And the best thing that those who profess to care about the Palestinian cause could do is to speak honestly to the Palestinians about their leaders’ role in their plight.

Peter Wehner..
Commentary Magazine..
27 May '16..
Link: https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/israel/liberals-shameful-attacks-israel/..

I want to add to Jonathan Tobin’s excellent post about the Democratic Party’s move away from support for Israel, which is, in turn, a result of the party’s lurch to the Left.

As the New York Times puts it in its story, “A bitter divide over the Middle East could threaten Democratic Party unity as representatives of Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont vowed to upend what they see as the party’s lopsided support of Israel.”

What triggered this attention is the appointment of two anti-Israel figures on the party’s platform drafting committee, Cornel West and James Zogby, who on Wednesday “denounced Israel’s ‘occupation’ of the West Bank and Gaza and said they believed that rank-and-file Democrats no longer hewed to the party’s staunch support of the Israeli government.”

These appointments laid bare a steady shift in the Democratic Party, whose members have been less willing to back Israel’s government than in years past. According to a Pew Research Center survey in April, self-described liberal Democrats were twice as likely to sympathize with Palestinians over Israel than they were only two years ago. Forty percent of liberals sympathized more with Palestinians — the most since 2001 — while 33 percent sympathized more with Israel.

What explains this troubling trend? A friend of mine puts it this way: The Left thinks in terms of oppressor and oppressed, and in those terms it’s much easier for them to see the Palestinians as the oppressed than the Israelis, and arguments about who is at fault or who refuses to come to the table don’t change the basic power relations of a powerful, wealthy, successful society facing a weak, poor, failed one. It suggests the Left’s entire oppressor/oppressed framework often is misguided, but that’s just how liberals tend to think.

What’s wrong with this progressive construct is that it is morally offensive and empirically insane. One can sympathize with the suffering of individual Palestinians while also recognizing that Palestinians, not Israel, have brought these miseries upon themselves.

To quickly review the historical record: For those who blame the so-called “Israeli occupation” for Palestinian hostilities, it needs to be pointed out yet again that the PLO, an organization committed to the destruction of Israel, was founded in 1964, three years before Israel controlled the West Bank or Gaza. The entire Palestinian movement, from its inception to this day, is based on vanquishing the Jewish state.

Some Thoughts Concerning Post-Colonial Hangover and the Jihadi Bomb

...They despise Benjamin Netanyahu for warning about the bomb, but they do not despise Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi for the joyous head-chopping of infidels of any color. They despise Benhamin Netanyahu for an alleged breech of protocol, but they do not despise Barack Obama for lying to the American public concerning the administration's lack of intentions toward an Iranian nuclear bomb. The western liberal instinct has become self-flagellating and corrosive to the safety and well-being of people all around the world. The Obama administration has signaled that the West, including the United States, is in decline and is thereby leaving the very worst actors to fill the void.

Michael Lumish..
Israel Thrives..
16 March '15..

One thing that is striking about this political moment is the fact that the western Left seems entirely complacent with the idea of a nuclear bomb controlled by the ayatollahs.

This is rather odd since the Left, in general, opposes nuclear proliferation. Yet few seem disturbed at the idea of a theocratic-authoritarian regime, grounded in al-Sharia, that hangs Gay people from cranes, and that has incessantly called for the destruction of Israel, gaining a nuclear arsenal that could devastate anything on the planet.

When Barack Obama told the world that it was US policy to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear bomb, he was lying. Without ever being explicit about it, the Obama administration changed its stated, if not actual, policy from preventing an Iranian bomb to enabling an Iranian bomb within a few years, presumably sometime shortly after Obama's departure from the White House.

Democrats still complain about Netanyahu's speech as a violation of protocol. This is transparent nonsense. The problem that Obama has with Netanyahu's speech has nothing to do with protocol and everything to do with the fact that Netanyahu alerted the world that Obama's "deal" enables a Jihadi bomb in the not too distant future.

That is it. That is all. And although The Speech was well-received by Congress, the Obama administration has done a lovely job of sicking the hounds on the Israeli Prime Minister who is up for reelection tomorrow. Obama has done everything short of literally spitting at Netanyahu in order to delegitimize the guy.

How anyone can seriously yammer about protocol when the real issue is a nuclear holocaust, is beyond me. Politically-inclined people often tend to have issues of proportionality. That is, we often have a tendency to blow up small issues at the expense of much more important issues because doing so fits our political predispositions. Thus, when we lambaste Netanyahu about protocol or about "playing politics" versus discussing the possibility of Iranian bomb, this is what we are indulging in.

Disproportionality.

Defending Yourself Only Makes Us Hate You More

Daniel Greenfield
Sultan Knish
08 June '10

The underlying narrative of just about every liberal attack on Israel has been this. Defending yourself only makes us hate you more. This cynical sleight of hand is of course an old trick used by bigots to inhibit their targets from daring to fight back. And liberals have made it their weapon of choice when going after Jews and Israel.

The tactic works by criminalizing any attempt at a defense by the target, and making the defense itself part of the indictment. The goal is to impose a Catch 22 framework on Jews with the only way out being to agree and participate in the indictment of Israel. The defense itself is then incorporated into the bigot's narrative. A 100 years ago, Jews would be charged with being "Pushy" and any defense against pushiness would itself be construed as pushy. Thus attempting to defend yourself would itself be an indictment proving the case already made against you. Similarly Israel is charged with defending itself too strongly. Anytime Israel defends itself in any way, it is automatically then proven guilty of defending itself. Liberal bigotry against Israel is not simply a charge immune to any defense, it is a charge which incorporates any defense as proof of the truth of the original accusation. Self-defense itself becomes the crime.

Playing this game allows liberals to express antisemitic ideas and beliefs while blaming Israel and the Jews for making them feel that way. A liberal bigot will explain that he is a reasonable person, but that Israel and those Jews who defend it are causing him to hate them. Speaking the truth about the situation only inspires more vitriol, as the bigot warns his target that defending Israel is itself hateful, and will cause him to hate even more. The target is then left with the choice of joining with the "Good Jews" who agree with the bigot, or becoming one of the "Bad Jews" who believes that his people have rights. As one of the "Good Jews", the target is then expected to join in the Jewbaiting. And as one of the "Bad Jews", he or she is now expected to shoulder responsibility for the liberal's bigotry. Catch 22. Either way the liberal bigot wins.

The use of such a tactic displays not only liberal hypocrisy on bigotry, but demonstrates their ability to exploit the social insecurities of a minority to prevent them from exercising their political and civil rights. No wonder then that so many liberal Jews who do support Israel's right to exist are complaining that they are tried of being expected to constantly defend Israel. Because that is exactly what the left wants to accomplish.

The same tactic has been quite effectively used against Israel. Each time Israel defends itself against Islamic terrorists, it is warned that defending itself will only inspire more hatred. And so it scales down its self-defense. It abandons defensible borders. It gives over land to terrorists. It reduces itself to naval patrol and a defensive wall. And yet each time, the same hateful shriek follows in its wake. "Don't you know that defending yourself only makes us hate you more."

When an Israeli comedy website produced a parody of the hysterical attacks on Israel, titled, "We Con the World", the liberal bigots rushed to warn us that we were only causing them to hate us more. Both the Huffington Post and Andrew Sullivan featured the video, and condemned Jews for daring to make a production mocking the lies being directed at Israel. An AlterNet blogger triumphantly announced that the video was just making people hate Israel even more. Which of course is as always the point. Because liberals have to justify their bigotry, by using the refusal of their target to just lie down and take it, as their justification. And so the balance swings right back to, "Defending yourself only makes us hate you more."

(Read full article)

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.