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.

State of Chaos

"There's simply no reason to avoid the subject of how we get to a Palestinian state..."
Sec. of State Condoleeza Rice (1)

"Hamas, Fatah fighting kills 17; two sides declare another truce" (1)

Secretary Rice, like her boss President Bush, never lets developments on the ground spoil her plans, whether for Gaza or Iraq. But Israelis, and friends of Israel around the world, should take note of what is going on in Gaza and modify their plans accordingly.

The fighting in Gaza is between forces loyal to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas (aka Abu Mazen) and those of Hamas, the "Islamofascist" movement that won last year's parliamentary elections. The political structure of the Palestine Authority (PA), in which a strong president is elected separately from the parliament, is similar to that of France. In both cases, during the term of a president another party won the office of prime minister .

In France there was no fighting: the Gaullist President and Socialist Prime Minister negotiated a number of issues and appointments and formed a stable government. They could do this because both their parties (as well as other French parties) put the interests of France as a stable democracy ahead of partisan interests.

Here is where the analogy with the Palestine Authority breaks down. Although Fatah and Hamas are both composed of Sunni Muslim Arabs with similar long-term objectives, hotheads on both sides want power so much they are more than willing to kill each other to get it. During the past year hundreds of Palestinians have been killed in the internecine slaughter, dozens of truces have been made, and all the truces have been broken. International efforts, including those by Egypt and the Arab League, to form a unity government have come to nothing.

You might think that it is better that Palestinians concentrate on killing each other rather than co-operate to kill Israelis; indeed, the Government of Israel has supported the Abbas faction with both money and permission to obtain vast quantities of arms from the US. Although "Abu Mazen" has publicly urged that the arms shipped to Fatah be used against "The Occupation" (Israel), Prime Minister Olmert seems happy to help Fatah get all the ammo they want.

The backers of the "Road Map" to the two-state solution of the Israel-Arab conflict have yet to draw the obvious conclusion from the Palestinian bloodshed: the Abbas government cannot deliver peace, even if it really wanted to. Those who make and break truces with their fellow Arab Muslims cannot be trusted to keep a permanent armistice with Israelis. If so, establishment of a Palestinian state under present conditions would be disastrous.

The Quartet (2) that backs the Road Map need not worry about the dangers that would emerge from the State of Palestine, since none of them border on it. Israel, on the other hand, already contending with rockets from Gaza and terrorists tunneling under the Security Fence, would be the target of continual attacks from the new state.

Let us hope that Israeli leaders have the courage to reject a State of Chaos on their border .

=======================================================
(1) Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Feb. 3, 2007.

(2) The United States, United Nations, Russia, and the European Union.