by Caroline Glick
At the J Street conference, Warren became the first American political leader to openly call for the overthrow of the leader of a sister democracy.
Just a few years ago, Senator Elizabeth Warren was a bit of joke.
With her views placing her at the leftist edge of the political
spectrum, Warren was viewed as a marginal figure in national politics.
She was known most widely for a cynical fraud she committed in her
academic days.
A white Protestant from Boston, Warren claimed to be the descendant
of Native Americans to land a job as a professor at Harvard Law School.
Donald Trump turned her fraud into a parody when he nicknamed her
Pocahontas.
Today, with the Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress and
the White House, and with the progressive wing of the party very much
the dominant force in the party, along with Bernie the Red, Warren has
become one of the most powerful senators in America. On most fronts, what she says goes.
This week Warren turned her attention to Israel in a speech she gave at J Street’s annual conference.
Warren’s speech was clearly important to her because she posted it on
YouTube as soon as she delivered it. She was right to want to get it
out. She made history in that speech.
At the J Street conference, Warren became the first American
political leader to openly call for the overthrow of the leader of a
sister democracy. In her speech, Warren called on – or rather demanded
that – opponents of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “join together to
begin the difficult task of rooting out corruption and reinstating the
rule of law,” by ousting Netanyahu from power.
Warren claimed Trump was defeated only because all the forces from
across America’s political spectrum that opposed him banded together.
“Israel’s elected leaders,” she barked, “should do the same and give the
Israeli people a new prime minister.”
Undoubtedly, many Israelis would be hard pressed to feel shock at
Warren’s exhortation. After all, the “NeverBibi” crowd of Netanyahu
haters in Israel have been saying similar things for years.
But there are two big differences between Netanyahu’s Israeli
antagonists and Warren. The first is that she isn’t Israeli. Her call
for Netanyahu’s opponents to oust him, and to do so through
parliamentary tricks rather than elections, constitutes gross
interference in the internal affairs of an ally. The second difference
between Warren’s call for Netanyahu’s ouster and calls by the likes of
opposition leader Yair Lapid for his removal from politics is that her
call came in the middle of one of the most anti-Israel speeches ever
given by an American leader.
Of course, Warren didn’t present herself as an Israel hater. To the
contrary, at the outset of her remarks Warren claimed, “I am committed
to US-Israel relations and I’m committed to Israel’s security and
safety.”
Unfortunately, Warren’s interpretation of the term “committed” is not
the first definition you’re likely to find in the dictionary. Right
after pronouncing her “commitment” to the Jewish state Warren said, “But
one of the most sacred aspects of friendship is speaking honestly, and,
sometimes providing tough love.”
Warren’s exposition on “tough love” began with an excoriation of
Trump. Trump, she seethed, “undermined fifty years of US leadership as
an effective mediator by abandoning any pretense of neutrality” and
favoring Israel.
That has to end. But going back to neutrality is insufficient in Warren’s world of committed tough love.
“In the past,” she explained, “US administrations and members of
Congress relied on the comfortable talking point that the parties must
get together and work out their differences through negotiations. That
approach is no longer enough. When the imbalance of power between the
two sides is as vast as it is between Israel and the Palestinians,
passive calls for a negotiated solution do little more than perpetuate
the status quo.”
Having made clear that tough love and commitment to Israel involves
siding with the Palestinians against Israel, Warren proceeded to explain
how it should be done. First, she said, Israel has to work on behalf of
the Palestinians who “suffer under Israeli occupation.”
Warren claimed Israel is obligated under international law to provide
COVID-19 vaccinations to the Palestinians. In reality, no such
obligation exists under international law. But whatever.
Next, Warren laid out steps the US must take to empower the
Palestinians. She called for the Biden administration to reopen the US
consulate in Jerusalem for the Palestinians and to reopen the PLO
representative office in Washington. Both moves would face significant
legal challenges due to the Palestinian Authority’s support for
terrorism.
She called for the US to provide aid to Hamas-controlled Gaza. And
she called for the US to support Palestinian elections even though, she
admitted, “Hamas is a terrorist organization and it’s likely going to
win many seats” in the Palestinian legislative council.
True, Warren acknowledged, supporting the election of a terrorist
organization “is hard.” But she insisted, you just can’t “stand in the
way of democracy or reject democratic outcomes we don’t like.”
Finally, Warren set out the final component of her tough love policy towards the Jewish state: Weakening Israel.
Having legitimized a future Hamas terror regime in Judea, Samaria and
Gaza, Warren turned to what she called, “the elephant in the room –
America’s military assistance to Israel.” Warren, who to be sure, is
“committed to Israel’s security,” said that Israel must be prohibited
from using US military aid “in the occupied territories.”
In other words, for the queen of Democrat progressives, it’s fine for
Hamas to rule, but Israel must be prohibited from defending itself.
Leaving aside how her plan squares with her commitment to Israel’s
security, it certainly will achieve her goal of decreasing the
“imbalance of power” between Israel and the Palestinians.
Bernie Sanders, who also spoke at the J Street conference, echoed
Warren’s call to prohibit Israel from using US military assistance to
defend against Palestinian aggression in Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
This then brings us back to her call to oust Netanyahu. Her policy
proposals make clear that Warren’s hatred for Israel has nothing to do
with him. These policies whose goal is to strengthen Israel’s enemies
and enfeeble Israel are policies she and her comrades seek to implement
with a “new Prime Minister” in Israel.
J Street is certainly on board with their agenda. Ahead of its
conference J Street joined with Peace Now to support Cong. Betty
McCollum’s bill calling for such conditioning. McCollum is one of the
most anti-Israel lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Hating Israel no longer
being a bar for promotion in the House of Representatives, Speaker Nancy
Pelosi promoted her to serve as chair of the House Appropriations
Committee’s defense subcommittee. From that position, McCollum submitted
a bill last week that would prohibit Israel from using US military aid
in Judea and Samaria. McCollum’s bill, which falsely accuses the IDF of
deliberately and systematically harming Palestinian children, is based
on a report by a Palestinian NGO with intimate ties to the Popular Front
for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) terrorist organization.
While J Street is growing, it is far from representative of the
mainstream view of American Jews. So too, Warren, McCollum and Sanders
are heads of the most powerful and fastest-growing faction in the
Democrat party. But to date, the desire to harm Israel is not shared by
the majority of their fellow Democrat lawmakers at least as far as
military aid to Israel is concerned.
Following the J Street conference, AIPAC got a majority of Democrats
to sign a letter to the heads of the Appropriations Committee opposing
any conditions on US military aid to Israel. AIPAC, whose relevance
wanes as the progressives’ power rises, is still capable of rallying the
votes to approve military assistance to Israel.
Although the picture of progressive power to harm Israel is mixed,
there are two clear takeaways from Warren’s speech and those of her
Democrat colleagues at the J Street conference. The first takeaway
lesson relates to J Street itself. In its heyday, AIPAC was about more
than protecting US military aid to Israel. AIPAC used to spearhead
pro-Israel initiatives in Congress. AIPAC lobbyists would lock onto an
issue, like moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, and lobby lawmakers to
advance it until their idea became law.
As an anti-Israel Jewish-led lobby, J Street operates much
differently than AIPAC did. J Street’s job isn’t to initiate anti-Israel
policies as a counterpart to AIPAC. J Street’s job is to serve as a
Jewish fig leaf for anti-Israel Democrats.
Warren doesn’t seek to block Israel from defending itself against
Palestinian aggression because J Street asked her to. J Street supports
placing conditions on US military aid to Israel because Warren and her
comrades wish to condition the aid. The anti-Israel Democrats come to
the J Street conference every year to receive J Street’s Jewish stamp of
approval for their anti-Israel policies. It can be assumed that the
more powerful Warren and her comrades become, the less need they will
have for their Jewish fig leaf. Over time, the rise of the progressives
is likely to render J Street even more irrelevant than AIPAC.
The second lesson from Warren’s speech and the J Street conference
more generally is that the era of bipartisan support for Israel is
essentially over. Israel has become a partisan issue.
The Republican Party is a pro-Israel party. Republicans, almost to
the last want to maintain and strengthen the US-Israel alliance. While a
majority of Democrats will still support US military aid to Israel,
most Democrats prefer to keep their positions quiet because the Democrat
base opposes Israel. The Democrat leadership in both houses not only
refuses to take any steps against the Israel hating progressives. Senate
Majority Leader Charles Schumer and Pelosi are promoting them even as
they push policies openly geared towards empowering Israel’s enemies and
weakening Israel.
For many years, leftists in Israel and the US accused the Israeli
Right – and Netanyahu in particular – of making US support for Israel
into a partisan issue. But Warren’s address and those of her colleagues
this week proved that neither the right in Israel nor Netanyahu is
responsible for what has happened.
In her 15-minute speech, Warren referred to her demand that Israel
withdraw from Judea and Samaria as a “moral” imperative five times. As
she and her camp see it, anyone thinks Israel should maintain its
presence in the areas is immoral. And if withdrawal opponents are
immoral, it follows naturally that they do not share the values of
Warren’s America. And since they do not share progressive values, they
cannot be allies with the America of Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders.
As for President Joe Biden, so far, the difference between him and
them is hard to find. While he may not be going down the anti-Israel
path as quickly as Warren, Sanders and their comrades would wish, Biden
has done nothing they disagree with. His trajectory, like theirs, is
clear.
Originally published in Israel Hayom.
Caroline Glick
Source: https://carolineglick.com/for-progressives-netanyahu-isnt-the-problem/
Follow Middle East and Terrorism on Twitter
It
is helpful to examine both the Working Group of experts and the
organization from which it originated. It is a body of five, chaired by
U.S. attorney Dominique Day. The UN World Conference against racism,
racial discrimination, xenophobia, and related intolerance, held in
Durban, South Africa, in September 2001 adopted the Durban
declaration. Among other matters, it requested the UN Commission on
Human Rights to consider establishing a working group or other mechanism
of the UN to study the problems of racial discrimination faced
by “people of African descent living in the African diaspora.” A year
later the WG of experts was established by the Commission on Human
Rights. It is composed of five independent experts appointed on the
basis of equitable geographic representation. Member are chosen for a
three-year term and can be renewed for an additional three year mandate.
The commission changed its name in June 2006 and became the UN Human
Rights Council.
Oil
reserves off the coast of South Sudan hold a promising future and are
considered the third largest in Africa. Again, China is the leading oil
and gas operator in the region despite its sociopolitical instability.
To make itself immune from that instability, China has 
