unz | But there is one significant difference between Trump and the
“establishment,” be they Democrats or Republicans that has not been
highlighted. I would suggest that quite a lot of the depth and intensity
of what we are experiencing is actually about Israel. Trump is the
first high level politician aspirant within living memory to challenge
the notion that the United States must stand by Israel no matter what
Israel does. Even while affirming his affection for Israel, he has said
that Washington must be even handed in its efforts to bring about peace between Israelis and Palestinians, implying that Tel Aviv might have to make concessions.
Trump has also added insult to injury by delinking himself from the
blandishments of Jewish political mega-donors, who largely call the tune
for many in the GOP and among the Democrats, by telling them he doesn’t
need their money and can’t be bought.
His comments have challenged conventional interest group politicking in
American and have predictably produced a firestorm reaction in the
usual circles. Robert Kagan announced
that he would be supporting Hillary, who famously has declared that she
would immediately call Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu upon
taking office as a first step in moving the relationship with Tel Aviv to “the next level.” It is to be presumed that Kagan and his fellow neocons will be experiencing a welcoming vibe
from at least some of the Democrats as the neoconservatives have always
been liberals at heart on nearly all issues except foreign policy,
rooted by them in the “unshakable and bipartisan bond” with Israel.
It is my opinion that the “I” word should be banned from American
political discourse. Ironically, many American Jews are themselves
uneasy about the place occupied by Israel in ongoing political debates,
recognizing that it is both unhealthy in a democracy and reflective only
of the extreme views of the hardline members of their own diaspora
community. It is also unpleasantly all about Jews and money since the
Republicans and other mouthpieces now piling on Trump are motivated
largely by their own sinecures and the Sheldon Adelson type donations
that might be forthcoming to the politically savvy candidates who say
the right things about the conflict in the Middle East.
Slate’s Isaac Chotiner has noted
a particularly odd speech by Senator Marco Rubio in which he spoke of
his single electoral triumph in Minnesota before immediately jumping to
the issue of Israel, as if on cue or by rote. It is a tendency that is
not unique to him. I read through the transcript
of the GOP debate that preceded Rubio’s sole victory, which in part
reflected a competition to see who could promise to do most for Israel.
Senator Ted Cruz stated that he “would stand unapologetically with the
nation of Israel…and the alliance with Israel.” Governor John Kasich
declared that he’s “been a supporter of Israel – a strong supporter of
Israel longer than anyone on this stage.” Senator Marco Rubio indicated
that “I will be on Israel’s side every single day because they are the
only pro-American, free enterprise democracy in the entire Middle East.”
Ben Carson called Israel not only a strategic partner but also an
element in America’s “Judeo Christian foundation” that can never be
rejected.
Quite a few assertions about Israel made by politicians are, of
course, nonsense. It is not in alliance with the United States and is
not a democracy for starters, but the real question becomes why is
Israel part of the debate at all? It is because of concerns that the
deep pocketed donors like Sheldon Adelson will join his good friend Haim
Saban in funding Hillary if candidates do not say what he expects to
hear. Saban has referred to Trump as a “clown” and attacked him because he would be “dangerous for Israel.”
0 comments:
Post a Comment