Offline
Ronald Reagan once declared an eleventh commandment for the GOP. "Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow republican.
That commandment has fallen by the wayside; replaced with "Thou shalt not speak ill of Netanyahu".
When did the Likud party become the GOP of the Med?
Republicans, in Shift, Demand Lockstep Support for Israel
WASHINGTON — When former Secretary of State James A. Baker III accused Israel’s leader this week of undermining the chances of peace in the region, he said nothing more than the kinds of things he had said at times when he was in office a quarter-century ago.
But the instant backlash from fellow Republicans that prompted Jeb Bush, the son of Mr. Baker’s best friend, to distance himself underscored just how much their party has changed on the issue of Israel. Where past Republican leaders had their disagreements with Israel, today’s Republicans have made support for the Jewish state an inviolable litmus test for anyone aspiring to national office.
“If you’re a Republican and you hedge on your support on Israel, it’s viewed as having a flawed foreign policy,” said Ron Bonjean, a party strategist who has worked for Republican leaders in Congress. “It’s a requirement for Republicans these days to be very strong on Israel if they’re going to be taken seriously by primary voters.” Any deviation on that, he said, leads to inevitable questions: “If you’re not supporting Israel, then who are you supporting? Are you supporting Iran?”
The Republican support coalescing behind Israel, and particularly its hawkish prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has been on display in recent weeks as President Obama has neared a nuclear agreement with Iran that critics call dangerous. The House speaker, John A. Boehner, invited Mr. Netanyahu to address Congress on the matter while 47 Senate Republicans signed an open letter to Iran warning against making a deal with the president.
The shift in the party’s attitude toward Israel stems from several factors, according to Republicans – a greater sense of solidarity in the fight against Islamic extremism since the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, increased support for the Jewish state among evangelical Christians and the influence of wealthy donors like Sheldon Adelson, the Las Vegas casino magnate. And the more Mr. Obama feuds with Mr. Netanyahu, the more Republicans feel motivated to come to the Israeli leader’s defense.
“It is remarkable,” said William Kristol, editor of The Weekly Standard, a conservative magazine and one of the leading voices promoting Israel’s cause in the United States. Mr. Netanyahu, who goes by the nickname Bibi, has become a rallying point for Republicans, he said. “Bibi would probably win the Republican nomination if it were legal,” he said.
Mr. Kristol, emailing from Israel where he was meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, described the shift as a result of broader underlying trends in American politics as the political left grows more “European” and the political right grows more “Reaganite.” He added that “the conservative belief in American exceptionalism is akin to Zionism.” And he said the contrast between Mr. Obama’s friction with Mr. Netanyahu and former President George W. Bush’s strong support for Israel “is pretty dramatic.”
Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder and president of J Street, the liberal pro-Israel advocacy organization that hosted Mr. Baker at its convention in Washington this week, said the Republican Party had grown more radical, leaving behind the former secretary of state and others like Brent Scowcroft, who was national security adviser under the first President George Bush, and Colin L. Powell, another former secretary of state.
“These used to be the center of the Republican Party,” Mr. Ben-Ami said. “I don’t think they’ve shifted. They’re still saying the same thing. The Republican Party of today has moved so far to the right they can’t relate to what these folks are saying.”
In his speech on Monday night, Mr. Baker said he had “been disappointed with the lack of progress toward a lasting peace” between Israelis and Palestinians and recalled that Mr. Netanyahu had once spoken out in favor of a Palestinian state as part of an eventual solution.
“Since then, his actions have not matched his rhetoric as settlement construction has continued unabated and last week, under intense political strain, he announced his opposition to a two-state solution,” Mr. Baker said. “Now even though he attempted to back away from his statement two days after, I think we would all agree that the short term prospect for such a solution obviously remains quite bleak.”
Mr. Baker added that the United States would “never, never, never abandon Israel” and criticized what he called the “political gamesmanship” that has turned the issue into a political football lately. Clear thinking on the difficult issues in the region, he said, “should not be muddled by partisan politics.”
Within minutes, conservatives on Twitter blasted Mr. Baker, who served under Mr. Bush, and who had just been listed as an adviser to Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor now poised to run for president. By the next morning, Jeb Bush authorized his spokeswoman to publicly differ.
“While he respects Secretary Baker, he disagrees with the sentiments he expressed last night and opposes J Street’s advocacy,” said the spokeswoman, Kristy Campbell. “Governor Bush’s support for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu is unwavering, and he believes it’s critically important our two nations work seamlessly to achieve peace in the region.”
Republican presidents like Dwight D. Eisenhower, Richard M. Nixon and the first President Bush were not always seen as unequivocally supportive of Israel. For decades, throughout the Cold War especially, Republican leaders were viewed as close to anti-Communist Arab allies and the oil industry. They presided over a predominantly Protestant electoral base while Democrats assembled a more urban coalition with lopsided support from American Jews. Even when Republican presidents supported Israel and its security, they also openly quarreled with its leadership at times, much as Democratic presidents did.
Eisenhower pressured Israel to withdraw from Egypt after it sent troops into Sinai in 1956 with the support of Britain and France in an effort to secure the Suez Canal and topple the government of President Gamal Abdel Nasser.
President Ronald Reagan defied Israeli objections to sell Awacs reconnaissance planes to Saudi Arabia and supported a United Nations resolution condemning Israel after it bombed a nuclear plant under construction in Iraq without telling the United States first. His successor suspended $10 billion in loan guarantees to Israel after it expanded housing settlements in occupied territories.
Continue reading the main storyContinue reading the main storyContinue reading the main story
As secretary of state, Mr. Baker gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, calling on all sides in the Middle East conflict to face hard truths, including Israel, which he said should stop settlement activity. Mr. Baker even barred Mr. Netanyahu, then a deputy foreign minister, from the State Department building after the Israeli called American policy dishonest.
“It is a different Republican Party from those days,” said Dennis B. Ross, who worked as a top adviser to Mr. Baker at the time and later went on to work for Mr. Obama on Middle East issues. “When Baker made his Aipac speech that was seen as so tough at the time in 1989, he drew little criticism from Republicans.”
“Historically,” Mr. Ross added, “it was the Democrats who were closer to Israel than the Republicans. Now among Republicans, it is not just a possible issue to try to wean voters away but a measure of American reliability with its friends.”
That shift really began in earnest under President George W. Bush. Although he, too, had his differences with Jerusalem at times – he was the first president to make support for a Palestinian state official American policy – he became known as probably the strongest ally Israel had ever had in the Oval Office.
Ari Fleischer, the White House press secretary at the time, recalled a flare-up of violence between Israel and Arabs. He was given talking points with a typical American message for such episodes urging both sides to refrain from violence.
“I took them to Bush and Bush said: ‘No, don’t say that. Just say this: Israel has a right to defend itself,’” Mr. Fleischer said. “It was one of those decisions that sent shock waves through the bureaucracy. But that was Bush.”
Mr. Bush, and other Republicans, came to identify with Israel’s struggle with terrorism. “Sept. 11 made it vivid, made it real and made it powerful,” said Mr. Fleischer, now a member of the Republican Jewish Coalition’s board of directors. “It happens to them, it happens to us, we’re on the same side. Being pro-Israel is a no-brainer, absolutely moral issue to take inside the Republican Party.”
Offline
I am by no means anti-Israel, but I have recently taken a closer look at the Palestinian side of things in the interest of fairness, and I have to say, I didn't like what I saw as far as what Jewish Israelis are doing to them. I was frankly shocked that a people that went through what the Jewish people did, would subject others to some disturbing things. I knew there was some kind of "wall" over there, but I really didn't know it was a literal wall the whole way around their "settlement" they were put into. They have to go through armed checkpoints to get in or out, and every day they have to line up to get a type of "day pass" to go out into Israel to work, then come back through after work. Whether you like the Palestinians or not, it just feels so wrong. I also got the impression that they're not as fond of Hamas as everyone makes them all out to be, like they feel as if they don't have anyone else and feel a pressure from Hamas to "accept" them as their military wing of sorts. Don't get me wrong, the Jewish Israeli people individually seemed really nice, but when en-masse, they took on a sort of bullying type feel. It all seems very strange to me, as I've never really dove deep into the issue. I knew the basics and a bit of the history, but I didn't know details.
Offline
I don't like it either.
I am pro-israel. But, they shouldn't get a blank check from us to abuse the Palestinian population. It's like apartheid over there..
Israel is a minor ally and they shouldn't get to own our Congress.
We need to be seen as having some fairness in that conflict.
The Palestinians are their own worst enemies. Some one once said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. If they would only reject violence against noncombatants, they could have a friend in the US.
Offline
It's like apartheid over there..
Exactly. They live in Israel, and yet can't even vote.
Offline
It feels like the U.S. just kind of looks the other way, when we would not tolerate that type of thing here. I don't hear people in general talking about it here in the U.S.. Remember when you were a kid and your best friend did something you didn't like to someone else, and you're put in that weird position of them being your friend, but you also know when wrong is wrong. That's what it feels like with U.S. and Israel sometimes.
I think it's pretty much been proven throughout history that trying to govern people with force never works. It's a true exercise in futility. While I understand why Israel has issues with the Palestinians, and vice versa, I'm really puzzled as to why they think the way they are handling people will work at all.
From what I understand of the whole conflict, it sounds eerily similar to the middle east mess, in that along the way other countries decided to draw up countries/borders and force people together whether they want to be or not. In a weird sort of way, I can understand why the people in the middle east are pissed off at everyone. (certainly don't agree with the violence all the time though). Can you imagine if other countries were periodicaly re-drawing our state lines and pushing groups of us together when we don't want to be? What chaos that would create!
Offline
If the Palestinians had not gone the route of terrorism, they would have the support of the american people.
And I don't think it's too late for them to turn this around.
When I was a kid, Israel was a heroic underdog nation, survivors of the horror of the holocaust and surrounded by enemies who wished to push them into the sea.
The palestinians were the folks who murdered unarmed men at the olympics.
And so, American hearts hardened.
But, this generation sees the unchallenged military strength of Israel now, and their rough treatment of civilians. This opens the door to another narrative.
Palestinians need a Martin Luther King.
Offline
I don't know a great deal about the olympic situation. Was it Palestinians in general that were supportive of murdering people at the Olympics, or was it a small group?
Offline
BYOB wrote:
I don't know a great deal about the olympic situation. Was it Palestinians in general that were supportive of murdering people at the Olympics, or was it a small group?
The attacks were carried out by the Palestinian terrorist group, Black September.
I don't have any data such as polling that would measure the support, or lack of support, among average Palestinians for the massacre.
However, the massacre, and the way that Arab states reacted to the massacre were a public relations disaster vis a vis their image with Americans. King Hussein of Jordan was the only head of an Arab state to condemn the attacks. The bodies of several terrorists were released by the German government to Libya. There they were give a funeral with full military honors. Fatah, to this day celebrates the attackers as heroes. You can imagine what people in the West thought of this.
So, fair or not, the image of Palestinians was fixed in the American mind, to their - in my opinion - great misery.
Offline
Goose wrote:
BYOB wrote:
I don't know a great deal about the olympic situation. Was it Palestinians in general that were supportive of murdering people at the Olympics, or was it a small group?
The attacks were carried out by the Palestinian terrorist group, Black September.
I don't have any data such as polling that would measure the support, or lack of support, among average Palestinians for the massacre.
However, the massacre, and the way that Arab states reacted to the massacre were a public relations disaster vis a vis their image with Americans. King Hussein of Jordan was the only head of an Arab state to condemn the attacks. The bodies of several terrorists were released by the German government to Libya. There they were give a funeral with full military honors. Fatah, to this day celebrates the attackers as heroes. You can imagine what people in the West thought of this.
So, fair or not, the image of Palestinians was fixed in the American mind, to their - in my opinion - great misery.
Thanks for the explanation. I really should know more about it all, but there is so much to know with everything going on everywhere that it's hard to research all of it. I get the impression that most of the younger generations on both sides over there generally think everybody ought to basically knock it off and try to live together peacefully regardless of what all has happened in the past. They see the never-ending cycle of the 'you did this, so we did that, so then you did this' mentality, and want to break it, but cannot without the older generations' help.
Last edited by BYOB (3/28/2015 8:08 am)
Offline
I agree that there is a possible generational split on this.
I'm 55. I grew up with a very heroic image of Israel taught to me.
I also grew up with a very distinctive idea of what the acceptable way to wage war was. My example were the Americans who liberated Europe and the Pacific from tyranny, and liberated the Nazi death camps at Dachau and Buchenwald. When I saw the Palestinians blowing up city buses, you can imagine what my view of them was.
The younger generation sees Israel as a mature state, and one that basically plays a tit for tat battle which injures and kills women and children much like the other side does. So, they are a bit more balanced in their assessment of Israeli actions.
In my view, the younger generation has something to teach us older folks.