Dems Host Islamic Invocation

"...Help us to stop the war and violence and oppression and occupation."
Husham Al-Husainy, delivering the invocation at the
Democratic National Committee's (DNC) 2007 Winter Meeting. (1)

What occupation? The American occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan? Ethiopian occupation of Somalia? Russian occupation of Chechnya?

Although not explicitly stated, Mr. Al-Husainy probably meant the Israeli occupation of the West Bank. I think so because he was seen addressing 3,000 Hezbollah supporters in Dearborn, Michigan this past autumn . He was reported to have cheered calls for "the destruction of the Jews." (2)

The DNC, now under the leadership of Howard Dean, who made the Primal Scream a weapon of political self-destruction after losing the Iowa Caucuses in 2004, apparently chose a Muslim preacher for the invocation as a way of reaching out to Muslim voters. Perhaps Dean did not know what Al-Husainy would say. But if he did not know what his attitude was toward Israel, he should have known. Points raised in political debate can be refuted by other speakers, but there is no polite way to refute an invocation. For this reason, the invocation (if necesary, which I think it is not) at a political event should be totally non-political. Dr Dean and his associates erred on this, and the Jews will remember it in 2008 (or they will be reminded).

The relationship between the Democratic Party and Israel has been volatile in recent years. Democratic President Harry Truman over-ruled the State Department to give the new State of Israel instant recognition in 1948. When Israel was threatened by Egypt, Jordan and Syria in 1967, President Lyndon Johnson tried to defuse the crisis diplomatically. When Israel launched pre-emptive attacks on the three Arab countries, the US was neutral. Johnson even forgave the mistaken Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, off the Sinai coast. Johnson, unlike GOP President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956, did not pressure Israel to withdraw from the captured territories without peace.

The two major peace agreements made between Israel and Arabs were both obtained with the assistance of Democratic presidents. Jimmy Carter, whose favoritism for the Arab cause has become abundantly clear with his latest book (3), brokered the treaty with Egypt in 1977, which has already bought Israel 30 years of peace on that crucial front. Bill Clinton, though far more friendly to Israel than Carter, arranged the disastrous Oslo Agreement in 1993, which has been continously violated by Yasir Arafat and his successors.

Both major parties have solid pro-Israel voting records in the Congress. The difference is that Democratic members are far more likely to be Jewish themselves (e.g. Kohl, Schumer, Wyden) or represent heavily Jewish states (e.g. Hillary Clinton). On the other hand, Senator Sam Brownback (R, Kansas), a great friend of Israel, doesn't have to worry about the Jewish vote. Congressional Republicans, perhaps due to influence of the Bush Adminsitration, tend to be more supportive of the use of American power against Islamic militants, such as our endeavors in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As the 2008 Presidential Election approaches, Jews and other friends of Israel should demand that candidates for both nominations answer tough questions about the Middle East unequivocally . For this reason, the group Advocates for Israel of Milwaukee (AIM) is planning a Middle East Candidate Forum before the Wisconsin Primary.
Let's hope for some straight answers!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Cal Thomas column of Feb. 6, 2007.

(2) Blog by Debbie Schlussel, who was present.

(3) See the Nov. 26, 2006, Glazerbeam.