As the number of Israelis murdered during a streak of Palestinian terrorism continues to rise, the Obama administration sought to equate the sides and told reporters that, in its view, Israel is guilty of terrorism.
“Individuals on both sides of this divide are—have proven capable of, and in our view, are guilty of acts of terrorism,” State Department Spokesman John Kirby told reporters following questions about the spike in violence.
The administration has called the attack a tragic mistake. But Lee recalled Israel’s August 2014 shelling of a UN school in Gaza — which State immediately labeled “disgraceful,” adding: “The suspicion that militants are operating nearby does not justify strikes that put at risk the lives of so many innocent civilians.”
Lee asked: Does that policy still hold?
I mean, really, that’s a question with a heck of a lot of teeth to it. Needless to say, the policy is neither still being held, nor abandoned; and that’s because the State Department doesn’t have one policy. It has two policies, or more accurately, standards: one for the Jews, and one for everybody else. Although, admittedly, I would have said the same thing about the Associated Press.
(H/T Hot Air Headlines) Want to see a little panic? The New York Times will indulge you. Well, maybe not indulge you… or, at least, it’s not really happy about the situation. The paper is a little freaked out by the whole thing, in fact:
Republicans currently in the Senate raised more money during the 2014 election cycle in direct, federally regulated campaign contributions from individuals and political action committees deemed pro-Israel than their Democratic counterparts, according to data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics and analyzed for The New York Times by a second nonprofit, MapLight. The Republican advantage was the first in more than a decade.
The alliances in Congress that pro-Israel donors have built will certainly be tested as they lobby lawmakers to oppose the deal with Iran and perhaps even expand sanctions against the country, despite objections from the Obama administration.
If this doesn’t prove to certain people that NPR lives in its own little world, probably nothing will.
“Israel is the biggest applause line at an evangelical Christian university?” …asks the “Lead Editor for Politics and Digital Audience” for National Public Radio. I actually don’t want to whale too badly on Domenico Montanaro: for all I know he’s kind to his mother, helps old ladies across the street, and mentors orphans. But this is a remarkably pure example of what the Left used to call ‘epistemic closure,’ before they realized that we could throw that comment right back at them, and with considerably greater impact. Continue reading NPR’s Lead Editor for Politics unaware that Evangelicals support Israel.
The New York Sun is pretty blunt about this: “It may be too soon to say who won the election in Israel but it’s not too soon to say who lost — President Obama.” …and, let’s be honest, here. It was a remarkably silly thing for the President to try to get involved in. No, seriously, think about it for a moment. What was the upside for any attempt by Barack Obama to influence the Israeli election? What was his victory condition?
More than that is hard to assess: I don’t know the Israeli political map, and the people who do are doing some impressive shrugging about accurate answers. Suffice it to say that Benjamin Netanyahu’s likely coalition is right now having a better night than expected. Past that, I intend to stay out of the Israeli election.
Would that President Obama had done the same. On the other hand, he probably didn’t want Netanyahu to win. On the gripping hand, Barack Obama’s track record at getting people do things when they don’t want to do them is… poor.
…Of course, it’s a progressive group of American Jews and the election in question is Israel’s, but that’s probably just a minor detail: “A coalition of U.S.-funded progressive groups has planned a massive get-out-the-vote effort to influence the Israeli elections, targeting communities that are most likely to vote against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-leaning Likud Party, according to a confidential strategy memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.” The group in question is called Ameinu, and while I do not actually personally care that it’s apparently engaged in an international Zionist campaign* to influence foreign elections, I would like to note that there’s at least a bit of historical awkwardness, here. Not to mention, historical irony. Who would have thought that there might one day be an international Jewish plot to maybe destabilize Israel?
PS: One other thought: perhaps Ameinu could have found someone to do their voter analysis who was once notaccused of having written a “Jewish Protocols of the Elders of Zion?” Look, I understand fully that Israeli political debates are not for the timid, but nonetheless this Seffi Rachlevsky fellow seems to be at least a little bit twitchyabout Orthodox Jews. I mean, can you be really sure that some of that stuff won’t leak through and get on the analysis?
PPS: No, this article was not paid for by AIPAC. Also: hold on, is that a thing? What’s their per-word? Do I need to fill out a 1099 first?
*Not quite a conspiracy, but they probably shouldn’t have called that memo ‘confidential.’