Schumer, Hillary, Lieberman, John Bolton, and Israel

[whometense]

A very thought-provoking post by Matt Stoller at MyDD

...Now, during the first filibuster, Lieberman didn't take a position for or against Bolton, and since Bolton didn't come up for a vote, he didn't have to. But indications suggest that he would have voted for him. With Lieberman's defeat by Lamont and his consequent move towards a campaign based on fear-mongering and capturing Republican votes, I imagine that he'll become a reliable pro-Bolton vote. But there's a bit more to it than that.

You see, both Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton are considering switching their vote on Bolton, and there's probably a bunch of Senators who will follow them. Schumer in particular has been awful, publicly saying that there will probably be no filibuster of Bolton. So here we have a clear progressive electoral victory over the most right-wing Democrat, combined with a horrible year for Bush and a clearly disastrous foreign policy, and yet his nominee to the UN has an easier path to nomination. Why would Democrats even consider ratifying Bush's foreign policy through Bolton?

Many of you will not like this answer, just as I didn't like discovering it, but the reality is that right-wing wealthy neoconservatives whose pet project is Israel are the ones who are forcing the Democrats to the right. After 9/11, a special breed of incredibly wealthy coastal elites that I call 'Bloomberg Democrats' after their desire to have Michael Bloomberg run on a third party Presidential unity ticket went sharply to the right in their foreign policy thinking. Lieberman is part of this group, always supportive of Israeli hawkishness, but whose fearful instincts were unleashed by 9/11. Torture, lies, dead soldiers, a collapse of American moral authority - all of these pale in comparison to Islamofascism, but it's cool, because they are pro-choice and made a lot of money. That's the type.

While originally distinct from the main branch of neoconservatives whose focus was Iraq, the Bloomberg Democrats have gradually conflated their sympathies towards Israel with a bloody desire to get rid of the American 'honest broker' status in the Middle East, and have become fully integrated into the neoconservative mainstream. While once they were just pro-Israel as I am, like many progressive Jews I moved left, while Bloomberg Democrats have graduated to become full-fledged neoconservative sociopaths. Even as the Israeli public itself is no longer particularly enthusiastic about its Lebanese incursion, AIPAC's hold on Congress prevents any real discussion of American Israeli interests in any context but that of Israel getting 100% blind support for anything it wants to do, even if what it wants to do is spy on America. It's the 'with us or against us' mindset....

He ends with this. I don't often agree with Matt Stoller, but I agree 100% with this:

The sad hijacking of Jewish political activism by right-wing neoconservative crazies is complete. If you're not with Lieberman, if you're not with Bolton, if you're not with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, you're not pro-Israel. I have to say, it's pretty frustrating. Every time I find a political obstacle to a more progressive American posture abroad, it seems like there's another more hidden and intractable one behind it. It's shocking to me that there are no effective progressive Jewish groups focusing on foreign policy. The only ones I've seen are pathetic, wonkified, and largely unwilling to deal with the reality of a crazy domestic right-wing leadership structure.

Anyway, with the war in Lebanon ending and Lieberman's defeat showing that there's a political constituency for a sane multi-lateral approach to foreign policy, the Democratic Party has a real opportunity on its hands to stake out a progressive foreign policy path. That starts with Bolton. Or rather, Bolton will show which Democrats really understand what Connecticut Democrats were trying to say, and which ones are only listening, despite all the populist outrage in the hinterland, to the Beltway elite.

[beachmom]

1. That is interesting

My gut instincts about Israel were correct -- the public there is totally pissed at their government for botching the war and they want accountability NOW. Their democracy is putting ours to shame, where we're called "unpatriotic" for criticizing OUR government for botching THEIR war. Israel is not perfect, but I just have faith in them long term, because they have a flourishing democracy. And, yeah, I agree that they fucked up big time. That was never my point when fighting with the GDers. My point was that they were knee jerk anti-Israel while giving Hezbollah a free pass, and that made me highly suspect of their motives . . . .

[karynnj]

2. Thanks for posting this

The strange thing is the comment that there are no effective progressive Jewish groups focusing on foreign policy. It's strange because as Rabbi Gelman complained - Jews deserted Lieberman in very great numbers because of foreign policy. It's as though an "elite" has totally seperated from the bulk of the population segment.

I intially wanted to counter this - but found I couldn't. We have had representatives speak about a more diplomacy based resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian situation - but they were Israel based groups. Yet, the vast majority of Jews I know are horrified by the idiocy of the PNAC plan. This article also explains why the normally liberal newspapers/magazines/pundits weren't supportive in 2003 or 2004.

Has this been posted on DU-P? It may be that Hillary needs to hear that people care. People not money vote and it is 2008 that she cares about. (she may think that a 2006 vote on a UN ambassador will not be an issue in 2008 - and that could well be the case.) It was people who made her shift on Alito - where it was clear she intended a nice speech and a losing vote to be all that happened.

[whometense]

3. I didn't post it anywhere else,

but I'll put it in GD-P if no one else has.

Speaking as someone who has a lot of relatives living in Israel, I think the politics of the situation are labyrinthian. The AIPAC/Fundie/Neocon affiliation has set the terms of the debate so there's no place to stand if you're not in their camp but still pro-Israel. It's an unholy alliance - no politician wants to be in the position of not being pro-Israel.

No matter what the spin is, most jewish voters are still heavily liberal; even if they do support Israel, they don't do it blindly. Is it money, or is it the jewish vote? Or a combination of the two?

Posted here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x2784275