Neutral Sources

By Josh Pasek

Many of the documents linked to by the RJC come complete with newspaper images and links.  These are effective political tools because they offer the aura of legitimacy for what is being said in the article.  Yet the articles are almost universally opinion pieces (or op-eds).  This means that their actual text is simply the perspective of a single individual.  Further, the text of these articles is often written by members of the RJC board.  While we are all for referring to news articles, the links that the RJC provides are not checked for accurate information by the newspaper, so everything in them is at the word of the author.  With the RJC’s history, it may not be too good an idea to simply accept their members’ view of the facts.

New Yorker’s Adelson profile paints grim portrait of RJC-style plutocracy

by Daniel Sieradski

Offering a rare glimpse at the grim realities of 21st century plutocracy, The New Yorker has profiled billionaire casino magnate and top RJC contributor Sheldon Adelson in a lurid epic that should give pause to any Jew who values the precept of Jewish self-determination.

The revelations are staggering. Some highlights:

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.

 

RJC Presents Loaded Challenges to Barack Obama

By Matthew Rozsa

In preparation for Senator Obama’s trip to a Florida synagogue, the Republican Jewish Coalition presented a list of three questions to pose to the soon-to-be presidential candidate. RJCWatch has decided to address these challenges (as well as expose the manipulative political maneuvering behind them) in a three-part series. Now to the first question:

In an interview, you called for a summit of Muslim nations, including Iran and Syria, but excluding Israel. Why?

The answer to this inquiry is fairly obvious. The summit in question is meant to open dialogue between the United States and Islamic countries. As such, Israel (which has a predominantly Jewish population) would not by definition fall into the category of nations with which Obama would be conversing. This in itself does not discriminate Israel in the slightest. Indeed, one could only make a case for discrimination against the Jewish state if it turned out that Obama was planning on talking with these nations on matters affecting Israel and that he was then not going to included Israel’s input before making relevant policies. However, there is no evidence, that this is the case. That makes this question a loaded one; RJC is implying that Israel’s exclusion from a summit of Muslim countries indicates anti-Israel bias, when in fact his reasons for not including Israel are perfectly legitimate (as well as obvious) and no other indication of anti-Israel predilections can be found.

Conquering False Fears About Obama and Israel

By Salomon Kalach

Senator Obama has been campaigning in Florida meeting with Jewish communities to convince them of his genuine support for Jews and Israel. It’s not an easy job. Misinformation and stereotypes have hardened and it will be an uphill battle, especially now that the Democratic party is still divided with the nominating contest still in progress.

But the battle becomes more than unfair when groups like the Republican Jewish Coalition cross the line and start using spin to scare people from sticking to their traditional political party. It definitely crosses the line when they use Israel in order to snatch away some Jews, especially when all three candidates are strong supporters of Israel. It crosses the line when President Bush addresses the Israeli Knesset and hints, not so subtly, that Obama is an appeaser. (Right, I forgot how his cowboy foreign policy of “with us or against us” has been really successful in creating a safer world and making the U.S. be more respected around the world.)

Can these groups really not come up with any other reason why Republican nominee John McCain would be a better president without bringing up Israel? Is their only hope scaring people away from the democratic party by tapping into one of the most sensitive corners of the Jewish psyche? If that’s the case, that is pretty telling.

But well, since they do want to focus on Israel, I decided to contribute my two cents by fighting back and trying to convince people why Obama not only poses no danger to Israel but could also be great. I wrote an op-ed on the Jerusalem Post on the issue (click here to read it). You can also read Obama’s interview with Jeffrey Goldberg here.