Will Jews Continue To Support Democrats Despite Obama/Kerry Betrayal?

In my recent post, “Are Jews The New Blacks,” I wondered whether Jews would continue to support Democrats as slavishly as they have in the past, including the recent past. Although it is obviously too soon to say, apparently many influential Democrats are worried and are rapidly attempting to put some daylight between them and Obama’s unpopular abandonment of the United States’s traditional protection of Israel in the Security Council.

Here are some recent examples:

Sen. Chuck Schumer
“Extremely frustrating, disappointing & confounding”

Sen. Chris Coons (just before UN vote)
“I urge the President to veto the resolution because it does nothing to advance peace or hope for a two state solution.”

Sen. BobCasey (two)
“… will move peace further from our reach…. I called on Admin to veto UN resolution on Israel. I am disappointed….

Sen. Chris Murphy
In Hartford Courant: “Murphy Blasts U.N. On Israel Vote, Criticizes Obama”

Sen, Joe Manchin
“I urge the Obama administration to veto the United Nations resolution demanding an end to Israeli settlement building. I support two-party negotiations to reach agreement on any settlement issues, and this U.N. resolution is not the way to pursue peace between the Palestinian Authority and the state of Israel.”

Sen. Richard Blumenthal
“Consistent with past policy, this administration must now veto this most recent misguided and one-sided attempt backed by the Palestinian Authority to isolate Israel and weaken the peace process…. The Obama administration’s decision to abstain from voting on this flagrantly one-sided resolution is unconscionable.”

Sen. Cory Booker
“One-sided resolutions in the UN Security Council that isolate Israel in the international community will not move us closer to a two-state solution and to peace. We need direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian people, and I urge the Administration do everything in its power to stop this resolution from moving forward.”

Sen. Robert Menendez
“… a resolution without a clear purpose other than to continue to disproportionately target Israel. This resolution does nothing to further the prospects for peace in the region or for Israelis and Palestinians, it merely unfairly singles out Israel’s actions, ignoring any wrongdoing on the part of Palestinians.”

Sen. Mark Warner
“I am dismayed that the Administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the UN resolution regarding Israeli settlements…. Involvement at the UN, particularly via one-sided resolutions, is counterproductive to achieving a two-state solution.”

Sen. Ben Cardin
“Greatly disappointed at … abstention. This rushed resolution was 1-sided & does nothing to further peace & security of 2-state solution.”

Sen. Sherrod Brown
“I joined Senate colleagues urging the Administration to uphold its position opposing one-sided resolutions at the U.N. Security Council regarding Israel. Any lasting peace must be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians, not imposed by the international community.”

Sen. Ron Wyden
“I am deeply disappointed that the administration set aside longstanding U.S. policy to allow such a one-sided resolution to pass. Actions like this will only take us further from the peace we all want to see.”

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
“As 87 of my colleagues and I wrote to President Obama earlier this year, one-sided resolutions at the UN are not helpful in trying to resolve the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians and I call on the Administration to do everything in its power to make sure this resolution is not put forward or passed.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer, Minority Whip
Before vote: “The resolution, as proposed, seeks to place responsibility for continued conflict fully on Israel and ignores violence and incitement by Palestinians and the Palestinian Authority and Hamas leaderships. Any workable and long-lasting solution to this conflict must come about through direct, bilateral negotiations, and this resolution undermines that effort.”

After vote: “I am extremely disappointed by this action and today’s vote. Blaming Israel for the continuation of the conflict is not only wrong and unjust; it will also do nothing to move the parties closer to a peaceful and lasting solution. This resolution ignores the culpability of Palestinian leaders and groups for engaging in violent acts, inciting violence against civilians, and delegitimizing Jews’ ancient and historic connection to the land. Furthermore, the United States’s abstention risks lending legitimacy to efforts by Palestinians to impose their own solution through international fora and trough unjustified boycotts or divestment campaigns.

Rep. Eliot Engel (Ranking Member, House Foreign Affairs) on MSNBC:
Abstention “a mistake…. ridiculous for the U.N. to censure Israel, with the acquiescence of the U.S., while people are dying in Syria and genocide is being committed in South Sudan…. a ‘parting shot out the door’ by President Obama…. he would have been a lot better off vetoing the resolution.”

I suspect Rep. Engel et al. would agree that not only Obama but the Democratic Party as well “would have been a lot better off” if he had vetoed the resolution, although it would be unfair to conclude that this widespread Democratic opposition is rooted in nothing but political self-interest. There certainly are, God knows (whether He or She is Jewish or not), many powerful reasons to oppose what Obama did that have nothing to do with partisan calculation. In any event it will be interesting to see whether the Sanders/Warren “progressives” join this chorus or sing a different tune. So far, like Hillary, they seem to be laying low.

Perhaps the most surprising and powerful argument against the rationale and effect of UN Resolution 2334 was made a couple of years ago to the Supreme Court by an influential former Democratic U.S. Senator, an argument that, although it has been mentioned in passing a few times, has not received the attention it deserves in the context of the current controversy. I am referring to the brief filed by Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr., on behalf of former senator but then and now Secretary of State John Kerry in Zivotofsky v. Kerry (2015).

That case dealt with whether Congress could force the State Dept. to comply with a request by United States citizen parents to have their child’s birth certificate identify place of birth as Jerusalem, Israel, when, as General Verrilli stated over and over again in oral argument, that it is a “given” that “the official recognition position of the United States is that we are not recognizing any nation’s sovereignty over Jerusalem at this point until the parties work it out.”

After stating in the very first sentence of Secretary Kerry’s brief that “[t]he status of the city of Jerusalem is one of the most sensitive and longstanding disputes in the Arab-Israeli conflict,” the  brief then emphasized that “[f]or the last 60 years … the United States’ consistent foreign policy has been” that the issue of sovereignty over Jerusalem must “be decided by negotiations between the relevant parties within the peace process.” On the next page the brief insisted that “any unilateral action by the United States” that would recognize Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem “would critically compromise … the peace process,” would “undercut and discredit our facilitative role in promoting a negotiated settlement.” And, significantly: “For parallel reasons, the Executive does not officially recognize Palestinian claims to current sovereignty in Jerusalem….” (Emphasis added)

In enabling Resolution 2334, of course, the United States was the very opposite of neutral. That resolution condemned Israeli settlements and “occupation” of East Jerusalem as flagrantly illegal, but said nothing about Palestinians living in the same areas. It blamed Israel as solely responsible for the failure of the “peace process” and laid the foundation for severe penalties while saying virtually nothing about Palestinian intransigence and violence. By endorsing Palestinian claims lock, stock, and barrel, it undermined any incentives for Palestinians to negotiate directly with Israel.

In short, the Obama administration insisted two years ago to the Supreme Court that recording “Israel” as the place of birth of U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem, even if accompanied by State Dept. declarations that the U.S. official recognition policy has not changed, “would be perceived internationally as a reversal of U.S. policy” and “[t]hat reversal could cause irreversible damage to the United States’ ability to further the peace process.”

The argument that the sovereignty of Jerusalem must be decided by direct negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians, that it must not be imposed by unilateral action from outside, that the United States should be neutral regarding the negotiating parties, was successful in the Supreme Court. It remains persuasive — to the Democrats listed above and probably to a substantial majority of Americans. I wonder if General Verrilli is embarrassed that his client has now abandoned it by enabling a resolution that endorses the Palestinian claim that the control over Jerusalem Jordan won in the 1948 war, and exercised for the next 19 years, was legitimate (the UN certainly never objected to it), but that what Israel recaptured in the 1967 war “constitutes a flagrant violation under international law.”

There are still a few weeks remaining of the Obama administration. Perhaps before leaving office Secretary Kerry, acting on the Obama administration’s current logic, can orchestrate the introduction of another UN resolution, this one demanding the return of Spain to the Muslims.

Are Jews The New Blacks?

Every since Daniel Golden’s The Price of Admission and Jerome Karabel’s The Chosen: The Hidden History of Admission and Exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, and in many other sources such as Ron Unz’s influential “The Myth of American Meritocracy,” Asians have been described as the “new Jews” because, like Jews in the past, they are now the victims of “diversity”-justified discrimination in university admissions and hiring.

One odd, generally unnoticed irony of the Jews’ experience with discrimination is that not long after discrimination against us as Jews wound down — that is, after we came to be regarded as just like other whites, at least for admissions and hiring purposes — we continued to suffer “diversity”-justified discrimination, now as indistinguishable members of the “over-represented” majority.

Although anti-semitism has long simmered just beneath the surface of the black community, ready to be ignited by demagogues like Al Sharpton and Louis Farrakhan, for a good part of the last century Jews and blacks, as both victims of discrimination, were thought to be natural allies. Although that alliance has significantly frayed, over the years the two communities have continued to have one strong, at least apparent identity of interest: they are both among the most loyal supporters of the Democratic party.

That loyalty remained strong in 2016. Although according to exit polls 57% of “whites” supported Trump, 71% of Jews supported Clinton.

If that support continues into the future, it may be time to describe Jews as the new blacks. Now that Obama has become the first American president to side openly with the enemies of Israel by refusing to block a Security Council censure (or not openly, according to Senator Tom Cotton, but “cowardly,” because “he doesn’t even have the courage of his own convictions to vote for it”), it will be interesting to see whether Jews continue to support Democrats in the same numbers. Closely related, it will be equally interesting to see whether those Democrats, progressives, and major media outlets (but I repeat myself) who were so eager to taint Trump with the support he received from a handful of alt-right racists will hold Obama and the Democrats who continue to support his decision responsible for the enthusiastic support his decision has received from Israel-haters the world over.

Enough Is Enough! Bipartisan Hypocrisy

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard two cases in which black plaintiffs claimed that Virginia (Bethune-Hill v. Virginia State Board of Elections) and North Carolina (McCrory v. Harris) discriminating against them in the way they created “majority-minority” legislative districts. “The claim made by black voters in both states,” the Associated Press reports, “is that Republicans created districts […]

Criticizing Racial Preference Is Not “Begging The Question.” In Fact …

Regarding my letter to the editor in the November 27 Washington Post (discussed below, here), a good friend here in Charlottesville — I’ll call him Bob — responded: I think you’re right…almost.  It begs the question though about what is the morally responsible thing to do about social and economic effects lingering from having had […]

Democrats, Blue Collar Whites, And My Washington Post Letter

I have a letter to the editor in today’s Washington Post about the Democrats’ long forgotten but recently rediscovered interest in blue collar white (mainly male) voters. My letter is, in part, a reply to a November 23 Wash. Post article by Charles Lane, “What will it take for Democrats to woo the white working class?” Lane’s article, which […]

Two Washington Post Articles In One!

Philip Bump’s “The Fix” column in the Washington Post, November 21: Headline: “Donald Trump’s favorability ticks up as perceptions of the election drop” First sentence: “In the wake of his surprise presidential victory, Donald Trump’s favorability ratings have spiked upward.” (NOTE: The “two-in-one” meme is, er, borrowed from James Taranto’s “Best of the Web” online […]

Almost Black

“Even if you can’t remember his name (and who but an Indian could?),” I begin my review on the Pope Center site, “you may be familiar with Vijay JoJo Chokal-Ingam’s story as told in his recently self-published Almost Black: The True Story Of How I Got Into Medical School By Pretending To Be Black. Whether or […]

(Former) Lynchburg School Board Member Is A “Fearful Moron”

Is Colorblind Equality On The Trump Agenda? It Should Be.

An (Unwittingly) Successful Attempt At Anti-Trump Humor

The Day After

Roger Clegg Asks: Do You Really Think That?

Both Brazille AND Clinton Cheated

Some Clinton/Trump Thoughts — Election Minus Three Days

The Disgrace Of Early Voting

Trump Should Promise An Independent Counsel … And Pardons

Query: Could President-Elect Clinton Take The Fifth Instead Of The Oath Of Office?