politics to go

Left goes nuts over Trump ambassador


President-Elect Trump is making it clear that he will be the first pro-Israel U.S. president in eight years and the liberals are short circuiting. Not only did he appoint a Zionist activist as ambassador to Israel, but indications are that he will keep his promise to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem.

Liberals of all faiths, but especially Jewish liberals, are upset at the prospect of a pro-Israel Trump administration. Is it because they are afraid of losing their standing in the generally anti-Israel Democratic Party, or are they afraid that Trump’s actions might put the Jewish vote in play in future elections?

The anger about the move to Jerusalem is really crazy. What many suspect will happen is that the U.S. consulate in Jerusalem will become the new embassy, and the present embassy will become a consulate in Tel Aviv. Should this happen, the new embassy would be within the 1949 armistice lines, not on disputed territory — in other words there should be no beef.

With the announcement of Trump’s selection of Long Island’s David Friedman as the next U.S. ambassador to Israel, the left piled on — “He has no experience as an ambassador” … “he doesn’t support the two-state solution” … and my personal favorite, “he’s called J-Street a bunch of kapos (the Jews who aided the Nazis in the Holocaust). Actually, he said they were worse than kapos:

“Are J Street supporters really as bad as kapos? The answer, actually, is no. They are far worse than kapos- Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one. But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas — it’s hard to imagine anyone worse.”

As regular readers know, I am not a big fan of using Nazi terminology inappropriately, and Friedman’s use of kapo is inappropriate; however, his sentiments about the group are very appropriate and accurate.

J Street, founded in 2008 with money from progressive sugar daddy George Soros, markets itself as kind of left-wing AIPAC. From the very beginning the group went out of its way to emphasize its motto of “pro-Israel, pro-peace.” But as fellow progressive Alan Dershowitz said about the group, “J Street is neither pro-Israel or pro peace.” The group has little legitimacy in the Jewish community, but was promoted by Barack Obama as an important organization.

During the 2008 Israeli action against Hamas, when the IDF was protecting the country after it suffered tens of thousands of rockets from Gaza, J Street called Israel’s “escalation in Gaza counterproductive” and “disproportionate.” It also made a moral equivalency argument between the policies of Israel and Hamas, stating that they found difficulty in distinguishing “between who is right and who is wrong” and “picking a side.” The group has also advocated that the U.S. negotiate with Hamas and lobbied in Congress to accept the discredited anti-Israel Goldstone Report which accused Israel of war crimes during that action against Hamas.

Liberals contend that Friedman has questioned the need for a two-state solution, but that’s not really true; he has questioned Arab support of a two-state solution: There has never been a “two-state solution,” only a “two-state narrative.” The former never existed because a “solution” to the Israel-Palestinian dispute would have required that Palestinians accept Israel as a Jewish state, renounce terrorism, discontinue anti-Israel incitement in their schools and abandon their desire to flood Israel with so-called “refugees” from other countries who never spent a day of their lives in Israel.

Notwithstanding “agreements” reached at Camp David, Oslo, Wye Plantation and elsewhere, neither Yasser Arafat nor Mahmoud Abbas ever had any intention to observe the minimal conditions required for a two-state solution.

When his nomination was announced, Friedman said in a statement frightening to the left, that he would work “tirelessly to strengthen the unbreakable bond between our two countries . . . and look forward to doing this from the U.S. embassy in Israel’s eternal capital, Jerusalem.”

With the move of the embassy to Jerusalem, and the appointment of a Pro-Israel ambassador, Trump may very well put the 2020 Election Jewish vote in play, especially if the Democrats make the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel Keith Ellison their party chairman. Jews tend to have a very high turnout in elections and tend to live in important battleground states such as Ohio, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

If the Trump’s economic program is successful, and he continues his outreach to minorities, Trump’s pro-Israel policies may move much of the Jewish vote from the “D” Column to the “R” column. That’s something that hasn’t happened since Ronald Reagan ran against Jimmy Carter.