Selecting Dots – The Art of Misrepresentation

By Josh Pasek

The Republican Jewish Coalition wants to tell everyone that they are “connecting the dots” when it comes to Obama and Israel.  They try to stress that what they are doing is putting together relevant facts that need to be “considered” rather than dismissed.  But when the RJC seeks to examine a record like Obama’s they never talk about the whole picture.  They ignore Obama’s voting record on Israel-related bills, disregard Obama’s actual mideast advisors like Dan Shapiro and Dannis McDonough, and make bold and often unsourced claims about Obama’s viewpoints [1].

It is no surprise that the RJC can find a couple of dots and weave them into a story that sounds incriminating.  Indeed, we could easily do the same with John McCain:

• McCain actively recruited the support of the controversial pastor John Hagee [2], who claimed that the Jews were at fault for both Jesus’ death and the Holocaust [3].
• Fred Malek, the man charged with counting the number of Jews in the Bureau of Labor statistics for Nixon [4], is a national finance co-chairman for McCain, who declared him “an inspiring public servant who has served our nation well” [5].
• McCain failed to support the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act which would have authorized state and local governments to divest from companies that invest in Iran [S.1430, thomas.loc.gov].  He similarly opposed a bill restricting business ties with Iran [6].
• McCain suggested in an interview with Haaretz that he would dispatch “Brent Scowcroft or James Baker” to deal with Israeli-Palestinian issues and that Israel should make “concessions and sacrifices” [7].
• Another McCain advisor, Thomas Loeffler, only left the campaign earlier this year when it became obvious that he was a critical lobbyist on behalf of Saudi Arabia [8].

How should we interpret these facts?  We could “connect the dots” like the RJC and start telling American Jews that McCain has bought into an eschatological vision, wants to compromise Israel’s security, or wants to keep tabs on all the Jews in government.  But we know that these very disturbing facts are not the whole story of John McCain.  It’s a shame that the RJC is only willing to pursue the dots that fulfill their ideological goals.  Indeed, the bigger picture tells a very different tale.

Iraq Benchmarks — The Current Status

By Josh Pasek

The Republican Jewish Coalition noted this week that there has been a lot less talk about our failing to meet the benchmarks set in Iraq of late.  They suggest that the lack of discussion is because we have been doing better [1].  

A May 12, 2008 report by the Congressional Research Service, however, suggests that relatively little progress has been made since September [2].  Most of the benchmarks were proposed for achievement in 2007 – now midway through 2008, the Iraqi government is beginning to talk about some of the benchmarks, but they still have not established authority over all of the provinces, created the promised autonomous regions, actually spent any of the $10 billion of Iraqi money promised for reconstruction, or yet held provincial elections [3].  Today’s news notes that the Iraqi’s have finally signed a stopgap set of oil deals, because the benchmark oil law still hasn’t been passed [4].

We all want to see an Iraqi democracy, but moving the goalposts and accepting Iraqi promises as facts are not the way to get there.

 

RJC Presents Loaded Challenges to Barack Obama – Part II

The second question posed to Obama by the RJC was as follows:
One of your top advisors, Tony McPeak, placed blame on Miami and NY Jews for the failure of the Middle East peace process yet he remains in this role. Why?
As pointed out in an earlier article, there is no reason to believe that consultants who have made inappropriate comments about the Jewish community cannot make positive contributions to dialogue on subjects not relevant to the State of Israel. As this is the case with the Republican Jewish Coalition’s decision to host Christopher Hitchens (and the Republicans would presumably argue that this is the case as well with McCain’s national finance co-chairman, Fred Malek), this must also be the case with Tony McPeak, who was chosen by Obama as a co-chairman.
The controversy surrounding McPeak involves a history of comments considered to be less-than-friendly toward the State of Israel. These include allegations that domestic Jewish support for Israel prevents the United States from adopting a more even-handed approach to policy in that region (a charge tracing as far back as George Marshall), as well as assertions as far back as 1976 that Israel should withdraw from territories it conquered in the Six-Day War of 1967. McPeak’s humanitarian record is even shady on subjects that have nothing to do with Jewish rights, such as his support for the Indonesian occupation of East Timor.
While McPeak’s views are hardly admirable, however, there are three factors worth noting:
1. McPeak’s role with the Obama campaign, as co-chairman, does not necessarily give him power to make decisions on matters pertaining to the Jewish State. Indeed, there are dozens of foreign policy advisors working for Obama, with a wide range of views toward Israel.
2. Barack Obama’s voting record in the Senate has been indisputably very strong in its support for Israel, from defending the controversial decision to bomb Lebanon in 2006 to frequently expressing what he has called in campaign speeches the “sacrosanct” relationship between the US and that nation. He has also spoken at AIPAC, America’s largest pro-Israel lobby, on several occasions, with speeches that unequivocally expressed solidarity with Israel.
3. Many of Obama’s strongest supporters are Jewish. Indeed, his Senate campaign in Illinois was greatly assisted by the Chicago Jewish community (where Obama has traditionally been held in great favor), and his presidential candidacy has been bolstered by the support of millions of Jews throughout the country. The Anti-Defamation League has disagreed with the various attempts to insinuate anti-Semitism on the part of Senator Obama (although it has criticized McCain for his “divisive” comments on religion in the past). One of Obama’s most vocal Jewish supporters, Congressman Robert Wexler of Florida, even went so far as to write in The Jerusalem Post that “the facts are clear: Senator Obama is a strong friend of the American Jewish Community and Israel, and will make ensuring Israel’s security a high priority of his presidency.” Wexler is a prominent advocate for Israel in the House of Representatives.

RJC and Christopher Hitchens

By Matthew Rozsa

As the Republican Jewish Coalition continues to condemn any Democrat who dares listen to someone who has been less than fully supportive of the State of Israel, it is worth taking the time to look at that group’s own relationship with a prominent anti-Zionist – Christopher Hitchens.

Although noteworthy for his outspoken support of the war on terror and the current military program in Iraq, Hitchens has nevertheless made some shockingly controversial remarks about the State of Israel, from calling Ariel Sharon “vile to referring to Zionism as a “false messiah for Jews” , of stating that Israel was a mistake and serving as an indirect apologist for Holocaust denier David Irving.

How did the RJC defend this decision? Director Matthew Brooks said:

It is not a panel discussion about Israel but about the United Nations. And yes, Christopher Hitchens is controversial figure — on the right and the left. But he is in the process of undergoing an ideological transformation. He is an outspoken supporter of the war in Iraq and what our president is doing in the war against global terror and he’s been an outspoken critic of what the UN has been doing. The fact is that Christopher Hitchens was willing to come and participate in this discussion and bash the anti-Israel and anti-Semitic UN and be particularly critical of George Galloway and the oil for food program, which has been a absolute outrage. We had a number of people scheduled for this panel, expressing different points of view to give the attendees a varied perspective. And I would add that inviting people to participate in our panel discussions does not mean the RJC supports or endorses anything they say.

We happen to think that Brooks is right – that it is possible to have someone with whom you disagree on Israel nevertheless make intelligent and useful contributes to discussions on other subjects. But why does the RJC consider its willingness to let Hitchens speak kosher and brand Obama’s decision to consult individuals like Tony McPeak to be treif?

RJC Has A Breakthrough?

By Josh Pasek

The Republican Jewish Coalition today noticed that unfunded mandates may have negative implications for future taxation [1].  Does this mean that they have finally realized that deficit spending is not a panacea for all economic problems?  Perhaps that large portion of defense spending that they mention might have something to do with the war in Iraq?

Whatever caused this sudden realization, we at RJC Watch are looking forward to the “We Used to Be Republicans Until . . .” advertising campaign.

McCain Uses Outdated RJC Talking Points at AIPAC

By Josh Pasek

John McCain went to AIPAC this week in another attempt to distort Barack Obama’s record on Iran.  In typical RJC style, McCain was careful to conveniently ignore certain facts about the Middle East and Obama’s policy. We outline a number of these misleading statements below:

 

• “We must apply the full force of law to prevent business dealings with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps.  I was pleased to join Senators Lieberman and Kyl in backing an amendment calling for the designation of the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization responsible for killing American troops in Iraq.  Over three quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama.” [1]

Actually, Obama signed on as a co-sponsor to the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act of 2007 (S.970), which had the exact language that McCain claimed Obama had objected to (“The Secretary of State should designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a Foreign Terrorist Organization under section 219 of the Immigration and Nationality Act”).  What was the difference?  A section of the Kyl-Lieberman amendment referred to by McCain (S.AMDT.3017) also suggests that a continued US presence in Iraq is necessary to counterbalance Iran, a proposition that Obama has actively rejected [2].

• We should privatize the sanctions against Iran by launching a worldwide divestment campaign [3].

McCain again fails to note that Obama sponsored the Iran

 Sanctions Enabling Act (S.1430) and that AIPAC supported the bill as one of its major efforts in 2007.  Perhaps this omission stems from the fact that his name remains completely unconnected with the legislation [4].

 

McCain also criticized Obama by stating that talking to our enemies is a bad idea.  While we agree with McCain that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are extremely unlikely to come around, that does not mean all dialogue in the Middle East is wrong. Indeed, Israel mus

t believe the same thing as it recently publicized its peace talks with Syria [5]. We at RJCWatch are still waiting for the RJC and McCain to call Israel out for that move.