Sunday, November 6, 2011

Obama and Clinton vs. Israel

When it’s not railing against corporations that are trying to influence the upcoming elections, the mainstream media is hard at work trying to influence the upcoming elections.

We know the central tropes. Women are kept in line by charges that a Republican victory will end abortion rights. African-Americans are induced to vote Democrat by charges that Republicans are racists. Jewish-Americans are told to vote Democratic because Republicans are anti-Semites.

This year, the MSM is facing an especially difficult challenge. How do you keep Jewish voters in line when the Obama administration has been running a largely anti-Israel policy?

Many American Jews have noticed. And many of them have become alienated from the Democratic party. Witness the recent election of Bob Turner in a New York Congressional district that had previously sent Charles Schumer and Anthony Weiner to House of Representatives.

During the last presidential election the media showed its expertise at mind control. It gave Obama a pass on twenty years with the notorious anti-Semite Jeremiah Wright. In this effort it was joined by Jewish organizations who rushed in to defend Obama. After all, he only spent twenty years with his spiritual mentor. Therefore, he count not possibly have known what Wright was preaching.

This year, the task has been made more difficult by the fact that Obama has been conducting foreign policy. When it comes to Israel Obama has blamed the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians on Israeli settlements.

American Jews are not comforted by this effort to blame Israel while Obama allows the Palestinians escape condemnation for a multi-decade terror campaign against Israel.

The nuts and bolts or foreign policy do not make for great television drama. They are complicated and difficult to follow.

So the media has conveniently ignored the policy actions of the administration when they might compromise the Jewish vote.

Moreover, it has elevated the hapless Hillary Clinton into something of a foreign policy maven. For reasons that escape me, the mainstream media has enhanced Clinton’s popularity beyond her achievements. This has made it much more difficult for critics to gain traction criticizing the Obama-Clinton foreign policy team.

Fortunately, the truth has not escaped Caroline Glick. Recounting last week’s UNESCO vote recognizing Palestine as a state, Glick explains clearly how the Obama-Clinton foreign policy team showed its anti-Israeli bias.

In her words: “In the lead up to the vote, the Obama administration went out of its way not to threaten UNESCO. It did not threaten to withdraw the US from the organization. Instead, just days before the vote, US Under Secretary of Education Martha Kanter addressed the body and praised the  ‘great things [that] have happened at UNESCO,’ over the past year. Kanter then announced the US's bid for reelection to UNESCO's executive board.

“The administration did not attack the move as one that undermines chances of peace. It did not note that by endorsing the PA/PLO's decision to act unilaterally, UNESCO was making it all the more difficult for Israel and the Palestinians to achieve a negotiated peace deal. Rather, State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland sufficed with claiming that the move was ‘regrettable,’ and ‘premature’

“Administration officials did not make clear that in accordance with US law, all US funding to UNESCO would end if the Palestinian membership bid was approved. Rather administration officials joined forces with UN officials to lobby Congress to change the law.
“As Claudia Rosett reported in Forbes on Tuesday, David Killion, the US ambassador to UNESCO, made what bordered on an apology for the US funding cut-off when he said, ‘We sincerely regret that the strenuous and well-intentioned efforts of many delegations to avoid this result fell short.’

“Killion added, ‘We pledge to continue our efforts to find ways to support and strengthen the important work of this vital organization.’

“So after UNESCO thumbed its nose at the US, after undermined its own mission, breached its own charter and seriously diminished chances of Palestinian peace with Israel by accepting ‘Palestine’ as a member state, the Obama administration reacted with near groveling apologetics.”

When the Israeli government responded to the UNESCO decision by announcing a decision to approve new housing construction in disputed territories, the Obama-Clinton administration found its voice.

Glick writes: “But speaking of the [Israeli] government's decision, a US official told Reuters that the administration is ‘deeply disappointed by the announcement.’

"’We continue to make clear to the [Israeli] government [that] unilateral actions such as these work against efforts to resume direct negotiations and do not advance the goal of a reasonable and necessary agreement between the parties.’"

Glick adds: “So on the one hand, the Palestinians' move to abandon the peace process and UNESCO's support for their move is merely ‘regrettable’ and ‘premature.’ But on the other hand, Israel's decision not to discriminate against Jewish property rights undermines efforts to resume peace talks and harms prospects for an agreement.”

That pretty much says it all.

No comments: