Soccer Dad

I'll be your best friend if ...

In the category of protesting too much there's Steve Sheffey's guest commentary REPUBLICAN PREDICTIONS HAVE PROVEN WRONG at the NJDC blog. Sheffey concludes

Many Republicans agree with the above Democratic stands on Israel. It would be easy to do an attack piece on Republicans, selectively listing the few Republicans in Congress who do not support Israel, similar to the piece on Democrats that appeared last fall. But that would be just as misleading. Most Congressional Republicans support Israel. The point is that in the last election, some of our Republican friends misrepresented the views of the vast majority of Democrats in Congress. Our Republican friends are entitled to their own opinions, but not to their own facts. There are major differences between the parties, but Israel is not one of them. People who truly care about a strong U.S.-Israel relationship should not try to turn bi-partisan support for Israel into a partisan issue. The Democratic Congress is already proving to be every bit, if not more, pro-Israel than its Republican predecessor. Someone who is pro-Israel and yearns for the days when Dennis Hastert ran the show absolutely should vote Republican. But don’t let anyone question the pro-Israel commitment of those of us who vote Democratic. We are in good company.

The stands to which he refers are sometimes substantive, sometimes not. But what he does so well is to be selective. Arguably the most damaging action regarding Israel taken by anyone in American politics recently was the visit of a group of Representatives to visit President Assad of Syria. The visit was led by Speaker Pelosi and included a number of pro-Israel Representatives. But the visit was ill conceived. I don't care that Pelosi scolded Assad. If Assad did not think the scolding was worth it, he wouldn't have allowed the visit. Assad needed a foil to show that he is more reasonable than President Bush and the visiting representatives (including some Republicans) provided him with the prop he desired.

(Given that the point of the trip to Syria was to show a contrast between the unreasonable President and reasonable Congresspeople, it's astounding that Sheffey lists as one of the Democratic pro-Israel actions

Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), also Jewish, removed from legislation under consideration by the House a provision that would have required President Bush to get explicit permission from Congress before taking military action against Iran. He was supported by Gary Ackerman, and Nancy Pelosi agreed to the change.

So after coming to power campaigning against President Bush's judgment, Engel, Ackerman and Pelosi are willing to give him a free ride in attacking Iran if necessary? I agree that it is a pro-Israel position, but it shows a lack of seriousness in the Democratic position. Either they trust the President in matters of war or they don't. Removing this provision demonstrates either cynicism or poor judgment, not support of Israel.)

But more bothersome than the inconsistencies of this article, is an article in the Forward "Dems warn Olmert about playing politics" Sheffey, like the NJDC blog did earlier, ignored PM Olmert's criticsim of Speaker Pelosi's diplomacy with Syria. The Forward, which is quite reliably Democratic in outlook, did not. The Forward reports that a number of Democratic politicians have warned Olmert not to take sides in American politics.

Israeli officials and Democratic lawmakers are working to mend fences after the fallout between Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following Pelosi’s visit to Damascus. But Democrats are still angry about what they see as Olmert’s desperate attempts to align himself with President Bush even if it means wading into American political controversies.

The latest flap erupted two weeks ago, after Olmert’s office released a statement — based on partial reports from a press conference that Pelosi had held in Damascus — suggesting she had done a poor job of delivering an Israeli message to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. The Israeli criticism of the speaker came as Bush administration officials were blasting the Democratic leader for visiting Syria.

Maybe it's true as the article subsequently reports that Olmert is now backtracking in his criticism. But even at that

“It’s all politics,” said Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat who chairs the House Subcommittee on the Middle East. When asked what led Olmert to criticize Pelosi’s trip to Damascus, Ackerman said that the Israeli premier had “kissed President Bush’s ass.”

“All the criticism of Pelosi is a stupid, idiotic political bube moyse that the Republicans made up here in Washington,” Ackerman said, stressing that the entire debate had nothing to do with Israel but rather with American partisan politics.

So the idea that the head of a sovereign government could disagree with the ambassador wannabes on the basis of his country's national interests is not a possibility they'd entertain.

The article ends with some lovely sentiments

In Democratic circles, Olmert’s low approval ratings — down to 3%, according to one poll — have become a source of comic relief and in some cases have taken the edge off the anger at the Israeli leaders. “Olmert and Bush put together have less than 50% support,” Ackerman said.

Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota, who is the first Muslim to be elected to Congress and is also a member of Pelosi’s delegation to the Middle East, was a bit more colorful in making the same point during his appearance at this week’s convention of Reform activists. “There are,” Ellison said, “more people who believe that Elvis is alive than those who support Olmert.”

OK, I don't care much what else Ackerman says or does. I also don't care how little I care for PM Olmert. That statement politically undermines an ally. So it would appear that despite Sheffey's complaints, the Democrats support Israel, as long as Israel and its leaders treat them with proper deference.

Israel

Democrats

Blogdigger tags: Democrats, Israel, Politics.

Posted by SoccerDad at April 20, 2007 1:04 AM