Soccer Dad

Diss-inviting palin

I don't know how many times I read at the NJDC website that support for Israel is bipartisan. But that's been the mantra there. If anyone had temerity to criticize Democrats for their lack of commitment on Israel, that's the cliche that NJDC would trot out in defense. Never mind that a lot more Democrats than Republicans are skeptical of Israel's rights or are overly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, that's the claim NJDC would make.

Now the mask is off:

Yesterday, NJDC said that Monday's protest against Ahmadinejad was too important to be tainted by partisanship. Today, NJDC commends the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, the National Coalition to Stop Iran Now, The Israel Project, United Jewish Communities, the UJA-Federation of New York and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs for making the right decision by withdrawing their invitation to Governor Sarah Palin. This decision shows that bi-partisan solidarity against President Ahmadinejad has won out over partisanship - even in this highly charged election year.

NJDC had no problem with partisanship when Sen. Clinton was the scheduled speaker, so the issue isn't partisanship. And contrary to NJDC's claim this shows non-partisan support for the anti-Ahmadinejad rally, not bi-partisan support.

Similarly the anti-Israel group that calls itself pro-Israel, J-Street, protested Gov. Palin's scheduled speech to the rally:

Sarah Palin is scheduled to headline Monday's rally in New York of Americans Jews concerned about the threat Iran poses to the United States and Israel.

Sarah Palin at a rally to unify American Jews on Iran? Really?

Palin stands diametrically opposed to the majority of American Jews on nearly all issues - including on Iran. With just a few days left before the rally, we have no time to lose.

Now parse that statement. In what way is Palin's stand on Iran contrary the views of American Jews? Because she stated that Israel had a right to defend itself?

More generally, the implication is that no one has the right to be pro-Israel (in J-Street's anti-Israel way) unless they believe all the right things. Noah Pollak had it right.

This is appalling. When did abortion and the environment become issues of unique concern to Jews? They of course are not, any more than taxes and social security have any special relevance to Christians. J Street is attempting to bludgeon Palin with disapproval from the Jewish community when in fact it is the liberal community that detests her.

What does J Street want its few acolytes to do? Harass the organizers of the Iran rally until they disinvite Palin -- you know, in the spirit of inclusiveness and democracy.

Hot Air:

She was willing to go but the Democrats didn't want to share a spotlight with her. So rather than let her attend and use her presence to drum up attention for the cause they're ostensibly there to advance, the left muscled the organizers into canceling all politicians' invites.

Going back to the NJDC, shouldn't the priority be the opposite? Shouldn't the priority have been that the issue of standing up to Iran is so important that even Democrats would be willing to appear with a Republican to show American resolve. Messianic times might be marked by a lamb lying down with a lion, but apparently it will not include Democratic tolerance for Republicans.

At a time when Democrats fear that Jews might not vote for Barach Obama in the same proportions that they usually do, the Obama campaign takes a gimme and absolutely fumbles it.

Red State:

But that's all right. This is the candidate that the Democrats wanted, this is the candidate that the Democrats deserve, and this is the candidate that the Democrats got; and I offer the pious hope that they fully experience every aspect of their choice, down to the very molecular level.

I hope the Republicans play this up. I listened to Ben Cardin the other night claiming how strong Obama would be against Iran. Now I see that Obama won't even ensure that one of his proxies would speak at a rally to register his symbolic opposition to Iran. Do I really think he'll do anything substantive as President?

The McCain campaign sees an opportunity and takes full advantage:

This issue is too important to fall victim to partisan politics. Instead of pressuring Senator Clinton to withdraw and pressuring the event's organizers to disinvite Governor Palin, we hope Senator Obama will consider lending his own voice to this cause. And if Senator subsequently wishes to clarify any remarks that might be misconstrued, he will have the opportunity to meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions after he speaks at the UN the folllowing day. After all, the last time Senator Obama took the stage to address a nonpartisan, pro-Israel audience, his call for Jerusalem to remain the "undivided" capital of a Jewish state was easily clarified the next day.

Still it's puzzling as to exactly what's going on. Shmuel Rosner offers some explanations.

The first question now is whether it was Sen. Clinton's idea to withdraw or whether she did so on orders from the Obama campaign. I can understand that she was miffed that she wasn't told about Palin's invitation by the organizers, but Rosner didn't think that was a reason for her to withdraw.

So did Hillary - looking to 2012 - see this as a way to make Obama look bad in the eyes of Jewish voters and the Obama campaign stupidly followed along with her faux outrage? Or was the Obama campaign so intent on preventing Gov. Palin from establishing pro-Israel credentials they wanted to force her out whatever the cost?

Regardless the campaign got its Jewish allies NJDC and J-Street - who are vastly more liberal than the Jewish community as a whole - to claim that the event ought to be "non-partisan" - figuring that those groups would inoculate the campaign against charges of playing politics by the wider Jewish community.

Jennifer Rubin has more tawdry details.

More discussion at memeorandum.

Was this a really good time to show that the Democratic commitment to stopping Iran was less than 100%? Uh, no.

Crossposted at Yourish.