Safire: Democrats vs. Israel

The New York Times ^ | 04/22/2002 | William Safire

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON

Most of the leaders of the Democratic Party and its liberal media voices distanced themselves from Israel in the midst of its defense against Arafat's war. Their echo-chambered furor caused George W. Bush to waver temporarily, but an outcry of moral dismay from Republicans stiffened his administration's spine.

Too partisan a reading? Consider: As the Palestinian murder of Jewish civilians exploded, Democrats blamed Bush for having been "disengaged." This charge of "noninvolvement" had one plain meaning: Bush should have continued the failed policy of Bill Clinton, pressuring Israel's newly elected leader to offer again the dangerous concessions of Camp David and Taba.

The Democrats' line was laid down by Clinton himself. He told Reuters on April 10 that U.S. "involvement" was indispensable, that he was "thrilled" by the dispatch of Colin Powell to negotiate. He took the Palestinian side that "there cannot be a cease-fire without a withdrawal" and equated Arafat and Ariel Sharon as "bull-headed."

Democrat Tom Daschle, Senate majority leader, then blocked a bipartisan resolution by Senators Mitch McConnell and Dianne Feinstein to designate the P.L.O. as a terrorist group. "Counterproductive," said Daschle, preferring to send his Democratic whip, Harry Reid, to repeat the mantra that Bush "should have been involved in this much earlier."

Democrat Joe Biden then refused to allow Bibi Netanyahu to appear before Senate Foreign Relations. The former prime minister's purpose was to call attention to Sharon's acceptance of — and Arafat's rejection of — the U.S. proposal for a cease-fire that would have saved hundreds of civilian lives.

"Totally inappropriate," decreed Biden, forcing his fellow Democrat Joe Lieberman and Republican Jon Kyl (denounced as a "sicko" by the chief U.S. Arab lobbyist) to provide a less prestigious forum to get Israel's message across.

Lieberman, as he famously did in another moral matter a few years ago, went against the Democratic leadership. He said Bush's call to stop the counterattack "muddled our moral clarity" in the war against terror.

This emboldened other presidential candidates, Senator John Kerry and Representative Richard Gephardt, to speak out against the liberals' crusade to force Israel to abort its clean-out of terrorist nests. New York's senior senator, Charles Schumer, had been blasting the hypocrisy of blaming Sharon for responding as Bush did to terrorist outrage, while the junior senator's office ritually co-signed a note and put out a release.

But not Al Gore, titular leader of the Democratic Party. Gore re-entered the political fray in Florida with a harangue about lockboxes and global warming — and not a word about Topic A. Gee, Al used to be an outspoken supporter of Israel.

In refusing to take a stand, Gore avoided the ridicule of liberal pundits. From Mary McGrory in The Washington Post to Mark Shields on CNN, a falafel curtain has descended across our continent, transmogrifying the Arab aggressor into the victim. ABC-Disney leads that parade, as the BBC vies with Al Jazeera to inflame the European street. Pro-Palestinian journalists gain cover from Israel's dovish Haaretz, but such dissent is a democracy's strength; if a Ramallah paper criticized Arafat, the editor's body would be dragged through the streets as a "collaborator."

Contrariwise, what voices were first to blow the whistle on Bush's misbegotten need to placate the shaky regimes in Egypt and Jordan? Conservative commentators, of course. The editorials of The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times; the columns of Charles Krauthammer, George Will, John Leo, Bill Kristol, Michael Kelly and other right thinkers in what the left still calls "the vast conspiracy" — all were well ahead of late-arriving Lieberman and his tiny band of principled Democrats.

We are accompanied in support of embattled Israel, as Tish Durkin notes in the current National Journal, by the much-maligned Christian right, to which Menachem Begin wisely reached out. These voters are an active part of the Republican base.

Here is the political paradox in all this: Eight out of ten American voters who are Jewish have been voting for candidates of a Democratic Party that now only tepidly supports the government overwhelmingly chosen by Israelis. Though foreign policy is not always decisive, perhaps that 80 percent should think again.  

[montag813]

Here is the political paradox in all this: Eight out of ten American voters who are Jewish have been voting for candidates of a Democratic Party that now only tepidly supports the government overwhelmingly chosen by Israelis. Though foreign policy is not always decisive, perhaps that 80 percent should think again.

Scathing. One of his best.

[BCrago66]

Remember the mantra the Dems used to use against right-wingers: racist, sexist, homophobic, antisemetic....

Notice how a few years ago, they dropped the "anti-semetic," because it became too obvious that they harbor the jew-haters?

[Wild Irish Rogue]

I noticed a few weeks ago, that Clinton supporters were starting to obliquely imply that Bubba should be brought into the peace process. Then Clinton himself started to give quotes. I am still suspicious that there is going to be a movement to bring Clinton into the negotiations, promoted by the media and Dems.I doubt Bush would seriously entertain this idea, but it wouldn't surprise me if Clinton was doing some free lancing behind the WH's back.

[Libertina]

Gore re-entered the political fray in Florida with a harangue about lockboxes and global warming
Can't leave out the comedy section of the article! :)

[McGavin999]

Here is the political paradox in all this: Eight out of ten American voters who are Jewish have been voting for candidates of a Democratic Party that now only tepidly supports the government overwhelmingly chosen by Israelis. Though foreign policy is not always decisive, perhaps that 80 percent should think again.

It's always been that way, but the democrats "own" the media and it's always been spun that we are evil personified. LOL, I fully expect that when the elections roll around, the voting patterns will be as they have always been. It doesn't really matter though, you have to stand up for what's right no matter what.

I'm already bracing myself for the kick in the teeth we will end up getting. :o(

[BCrago66]

Give the Bubster a 1-way ticket to Palistine and let him stay in the Ramalla Hilton with roomate Arafat and friends for a few months.

[SAJ]

And **no** halvah, either, and the lefty dolts ('activists') get to stay in the same room with him. ALL the time.

[TopQuark]

that 80 percent should think again. And indeed they should.

[brat]

"Counterproductive," ..........Somehow I think Dashole would find WWII counterproductive. Hitler was a victim just like poor Yassar.

[VaBthang4]

Not the media my friend...they wouldnt dare put out such an affront to Colin Powell.

No...

It will be Arafat and the Arabs that will begin to ask that Bill Clinton be sent as a peace envoy.

If this is to play out, that is how it will go down.

[section9]

Bush and Rove see the value in giving strong support to Sharon. The only reason Bush was more "evenhanded" was because he had Powell "in-theater". Powell ended his trip with a confrontation with Arafat that the Chairman didn't like at all.

On the whole, well played by Bush. This will prove, in the long run, to be a good move to expand the Republican base vote to Conservative and some Reform Jews.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[KC_Conspirator]

In refusing to take a stand, Gore avoided the ridicule of liberal pundits. From Mary McGrory in The Washington Post to Mark Shields on CNN, a falafel curtain has descended across our continent, transmogrifying the Arab aggressor into the victim.

That is a great line. Your point about using the term "anti-semitic" is pretty much true. I can't recall too many times where that charge was made by the left and I think you pointed out why.

[Political Junkie Too]

The problem with involving Clinton is that it is always about him. Never forget that.

If he were to be involved and some progress comes from it, it will be because of him -- he will not share credit, he will use it to bludgeon Bush and his administration.

Bush should take some recent advice from Clinton -- he shouldn't invite Clinton because "it wouldn't be good politics."

-PJ