Eric Cantor's Pledge of Allegiance (to Israel)

If this news seemed pretty ordinary for a US Congressman to pledge support of Israel, it would not be newsworthy. Steny Hoyer, for example, on a trip to Israel once claimed that he was more Jewish than his Jewish colleagues in the House. But this report on Eric Cantor goes much, much further. Glenn Greenwald, writing at Salon, posted the story. Cantor it seems vowed to protect Israel from his own government (Obama) and its efforts to get Israel (Netanyahu) to the peace table. In short, he vowed to keep Obama off Netanyahu's back.
Soon-to-be GOP House Majority Leader Eric Cantor met on Wednesday with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu -- the same day when the actual U.S. Secretary of State met with Netanyahu -- and vowed that he and his GOP colleagues would protect and defend Israeli interests against his own Government.  According to a statement proudly issued by Cantor's own office: 

Regarding the midterms, Cantor may have given Netanyahu some reason to stand firm against the American administration.

"Eric stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the Administration and what has been, up until this point, one party rule in Washington," the readout continued. "He made clear that the Republican majority understands the special relationship between Israel and the United States, and that the security of each nation is reliant upon the other."

Leave aside the absurdity of believing that Israel needs to be protected from the extremely deferential and devoted Obama administration.  So extraordinary is Cantor's pledge that even the Jewish Telegraph Agency's Ron Kampeas -- himself a reflexive American defender of most things Israel -- was astonished, and wrote

"I can't remember an opposition leader telling a foreign leader, in a personal meeting, that he would side, as a policy, with that leader against the president.  Certainly, in statements on one specific issue or another -- building in Jerusalem, or somesuch -- lawmakers have taken the sides of other nations.  But to have-a-face to face and say, in general, we will take your side against the White House -- that sounds to me extraordinary."

Read on HERE: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/11/13/israel

Tags: (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

Even worse.

You can put than in prime time TV, tell every citizen.

 

And the American people will back Cantor over Obama.

 

You are crying over spilt political capital.

by donkeykong 2010-11-14 05:13PM | 0 recs
RE: Even worse.

"And the American people will back Cantor over Obama."

I would love to see any political argument, with data hopefully, that would support this statement.

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 09:33AM | 0 recs
by donkeykong 2010-11-15 12:21PM | 0 recs
RE: If you would really like to see data the first link is something you should check out

None of this supports the idea that the American people support Cantor over Obama. Take this,

"Washington (CNN) - Only a third of Americans approve of the way President Obama's handling the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, according to a new national poll.

A Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday morning indicates that 35 percent of the public gives the president a thumbs up on how he's dealing with the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, with 44 percent saying they disapprove, and just over one in five unsure.

This stands in contrast with how Americans feel about Obama's overall handling of foreign policy, with 48 percent approving and 42 percent saying they disapprove."

Who is not displeased with Obama allowing himself and the US to be bullied and demeaned by a second-rate right wing colonizer.

by MainStreet 2010-11-16 08:41AM | 0 recs
RE: Even worse.

For reference sake, here is what a liberal Democrat supports as a solution to this conflict, written by Rabbi Michael Lerner.

From 

Middle East Peace Negotiations?

1. A peace treaty that recognizes the State of Israel and the State of Palestine and defines Palestine's borders to include almost all of pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza, with small exchanges of land mutually agreed upon and roughly equivalent in value and historic and/or military significance to each side. The peace plan must also entail a corresponding treaty between Israel and all Arab states -- approved with full diplomatic and economic cooperation among these parties -- along borderlines that existed in the pre-1967 period. And it should include a twenty-to-thirty-year plan for moving toward a Middle Eastern common market and the eventual establishment of a political union along the lines of the European Union.

2. Jerusalem will be the capital of both Israel and Palestine and will be governed by an elected council in West Jerusalem and a separate elected council in East Jerusalem. The Old City will become an international city whose sovereignty will be implemented by an international council that guarantees equal access to all holy sites -- a council whose taxes will be shared equally by the city councils of East and West Jerusalem.

3. Immediate and unconditional freedom will be accorded all prisoners in Israel and Palestine whose arrests have been connected in some way with the Occupation and resistance to the Occupation.

4. An international force to separate and protect each side from the extremists of the other side who will inevitably seek to disrupt the peace agreement. And the creation of a joint peace police -- composed of an equal number of Palestinians and Israelis, at both personnel and command levels -- that will work with the international force to combat violence and to implement point number six below.

5. Reparations for Palestinian refugees and their descendents at a sufficient level to bring Palestinians within a ten-year period to an economic well-being equivalent to that enjoyed by those with a median Israeli-level income. The same level of reparations must also be made available to all Jews who fled Arab lands between 1948 and 1977. An international fund should be set up immediately to hold in escrow the monies needed to ensure that these reparations are in place once the peace plan is agreed upon.

6. Creation of a truth and reconciliation process modeled on the South African version but shaped to the specificity of these two cultures. Plus: an international peace committee appointed by representatives of the three major religious communities of the area to develop and implement teaching of a. nonviolence and non-violent communication, b. empathy and forgiveness, and c. a sympathetic point of view of the history of the "other side" mandated in every grade from sixth grade through high school. The committee should moreover ensure the elimination of all teaching of hatred against the other side or teaching against the implementation of this treaty in any public, private, or religious educational institutions, media, or public meetings. Such teachings would become an automatic crime punishable in an international court set up for this purpose.

7. An agreement from Palestine to allow all Jews living in the West Bank to remain there as law-abiding citizens of the new Palestinian state as long as they give up their Israeli citizenship and abide by decisions of the Palestinian courts. A fund should be created to help West Bank settlers move back to Israel if they wish to remain Israeli citizens and to help Palestinians move to Palestine if they wish to be citizens of the new Palestinian state. In exchange for Palestine agreeing to allow Israelis to stay in the West Bank as citizens of the Palestinian state, Israel must agree to let 20,000 Palestinian refugees return each year for the next thirty years to the pre-1967 borders of Israel and provide them with housing. (This number -- 20,000 -- is small enough to not change the demographic balance, yet large enough to show that Israel cares about Palestinian refugees and recognizes that they have been wronged.) Each state must acknowledge the right of the other to give preferential treatment in immigration to members of its leading ethnic group (Jews in Israel, Palestinians in Palestine).

8. Agreement by the leaders of all relevant parties to talk in a language of peace and openhearted reconciliation, and to reject the notion that the other side cannot be trusted. The agreement has the greatest likelihood of working if it is embraced in full and pushed for enthusiastically by the leaders of all relevant parties, as well as endorsed by a majority vote of the populations of each country that wishes to be a party to this agreement.

Do you have any problem with this very constructive resolution that would, going back to 1948, attempt to make right all of the injustices suffered by the Palestinian people, and would lead to a permanent peace?

LINK: http://www.tikkun.org/article.php/november2010lerner2

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 09:49AM | 0 recs
RE: Even worse.

Look there are lots of people with lots of plans.

 

Bill Clinton at the height of his power tried to help the Palestinians out.

They opted to continue wallowing in their mess.

 

Israelis don't want peace because they are stronger, richer,  and more organized today and they hope to gain more land.

Palestinians don't want peace because they are having more kids and eventually the USA won't run the world.

 

You can't change that.  Rabbi whoever can't change that.

Fundamentally both sides think they have already won.

by donkeykong 2010-11-15 12:17PM | 0 recs
RE: Even worse.

If Barak can admit that he was unable to get anyone in the Israeli parliment to "disengage" (withdraw) from West Bank settlements, including his own party, in order to create a Palestinian state, then certainly Clinton would not have been able to do so. Taba, according to Barak himself, was "nothing" but meetings among low level staff. He eventually called a halt to the continuing discussion.

The unresolved issues for Arafat were East Jerusalem and the refugees, and there was no budging on those points by the Israelis. He was agreeable to land swaps.

The-blame-it-on-Arafat hoax was engineered by Clinton's staff, and then played out hypocritically by Barak and the hasbara network here and in Israel.

 

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 09:38PM | 0 recs
Weakness invites actions like Cantor's

If Obama wasn't so weak and groveling, it wouldn't be necessary for majority-leader-in-waiting Eric Cantor to provide assurances to our allies.

In case you hadn't noticed, Lame Street, Israel is still our most important ally in the Mideast, and in the world, for that matter. But Obama's shabby treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu on his trip to DC, as well as his courtship of Muslims at every opportunity, make it critical for other leaders in our government to reassure our important allies of US loyalty. 

Traditionally, Democrats have nurtured the special relationship between America and Israel; it's regrettable that the current White House occupant doesn't see fit to do so. But then, we'll have the chance to rectify the situation in another two years, won't we?

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-14 07:49PM | 0 recs
RE: Weakness invites actions like Cantor's

As for this statement: "Israel is still our most important ally in the Mideast," you may not have heard, but Biden and even General Paetreus have remarked on how our fawning relationship with Israel has endangered our troops and stimulates terrorism by Islamic extremist groups.

When more Palestinians are killed by the IDF, and it happens weekly, or by the Gaza siege (where a two year old with cancer just died because she was not permitted to leave for treatment), it stimulates hatred and extremism. And it has been going on for over 40 years, nay, over 60 years.

It has to stop. Greater Israel is a formula for generations more of strife in the region.

No friend of the United States would want to cause more deaths, especially of American soldiers fighting in Iraq or Afganistan.

 

 

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 09:58AM | 0 recs
Yeah, Joe Biden is a great foreign policy expert

When he isn't busy bumping into doors, Joe Biden is usually busy showing his ignorance on all things related to foreign policy.....kinda like you, lame.

Just remember: this is the man whose solution for quelling the violence in Iraq was to partition it into three separate countries. And of course, this is after he assured the three or four people listening to him that he was against nation-building.

 

by BJJ Fighter 2010-11-15 01:51PM | 0 recs
RE: Yeah, Joe Biden is a great foreign policy expert

I actually liked Biden's plan.  I think his argument that its very rare for warring factions to live together unless one has totally vanquished the other.  By making areas where each faction is a supermajority there is little incentive to fight.

by donkeykong 2010-11-16 04:29AM | 0 recs
RE: Weakness invites actions like Cantor's

And lastly, Fighter, your kind of blind support for Israel, now in the hands of right wing nationalist hawk, does not help Israel. All it does is to take down. Support for people like Cantor is nothing more than support of the most pernicious right wing government Israel ever had, and there have been some pretty bad ones.

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 10:03AM | 0 recs
RE: Weakness invites actions like Cantor's

Oh BJJ.  Given that the last time you responded to me, you opened with "screw you Strummerson" and proceeded to adopt this asinine "enforcer" accusation instead of actually engaging my arguments, I feel absolved of any obligation to civility where you are concerned.

My only question for you is the following: Is it that you are a jackass, a moron, or both?

Obama has not compromised Israel's security in the least.  He hasn't touched aid or weapons shipments or intelligence cooperation.  He reaffirms Israel's right to exist at every turn as well as its right to defend itself.  

The only difference between Obama's administration and every other US administration in the past few decades is that he has demanded that Israel suspend construction in East Jerusalem and in the West Bank pending a two state solution that is in Israel's interests, as well as the Palestinians.  He has only treated Israeli interests in a weak and groveling manner by caving to Netanyahu's obstruction of the two state solution that Bibi himself claims to support, albeit disingenuously.  His other mistake has been not traveling there and addressing the Israeli public directly.

Cantor's behavior is outrageous, unhelpful, and contrary to Israel's interests.  What the hell is going to "check" Obama on?  The aid and diplomatic cover he provides for Israel's addiction to right wing thuggish policies?

You're just spouting propaganda.  Do you really want Israel to stall until it is faced with a 60% non-Jewish population whose pragmatists and moderates who want to promote the interests of their own people and of regional prosperity, including Israel's economic, cultural, and political resources, have been totally discredited?  How comforting will your bravado driven and misleading propaganda be in that situation?

by Strummerson 2010-11-16 11:52AM | 0 recs
For BJJ Fighter

Obama, as most Americans believe, is for a peaceful settlement, not Netanyahu's idea of establishing a Greater Israel which can only formalize the Apartheid situation that now exists.

And no, Democrats will not think to replace Obama in two years for Israel's sake.

There are many Jewish congressmen and senators now serving in Congress, and while all of them support Israel, none have been so callous about it as to essentially claim that Israel comes first, America second. And most of them I believe support Obama's effort to create the two state solution that Netanyahu, a right wing Likud hawk, doesn't want.

(sorry, for some reason Reply text will not post)

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 09:31AM | 0 recs
Glen Greenwald's update on his article about Cantor:

UPDATE:  Adam Serwer recalls that in 2007, Nancy Pelosi visited Syria -- she didn't pledge to side with them against her own country, just visited them -- and Eric Cantor himself was one of the many Republicans accusing her of likely having committed a crime.  Cantor wrote:  "Several leading legal authorities have made the case that [Pelosi's] recent diplomatic overtures ran afoul of the Logan Act, which makes it a felony for any American 'without authority of the United States' to communicate with a foreign government to influence that government's behavior on any disputes with the United States."

As Serwer writes:  "Based on Cantor's own standard, he's just committed a felony."  For Cantor, the operative term distinguishing his conduct from Pelosi's is presumably "foreign government," which -- in Cantor's mind -- applies to those with whom Pelosi met but not to those with whom Cantor met.  Steve Benen correctly argues that "this is a legitimate scandal worthy of far more attention"; the fact that it won't receive any real attention tells you all you need to know.  Had Cantor done this with any foreign nation other than Israel, this would easily be the leading political controversy of the week.

It would appear that Israel is excepted from the law, such that any congressman or senator may interfere with US foreign policy, but only if it involves Israel. No longer does the executive branch have total responsibility for conducting US foreign policy.

WTF!

by MainStreet 2010-11-15 10:28AM | 0 recs
RE: Glen Greenwald's update on his article about Cantor:

OK lets put nancy in jail.

 

by donkeykong 2010-11-15 12:11PM | 0 recs
Milbank’s progress, from Philip Weiss about our new Secretary of State, Eric Cantor.

Nov 15, 2010 

Snarky Dana Milbank at the Washington Post once smeared Walt and Mearsheimer as white-knuckled Teutons but he now seems to have imbibed their wisdom. Lately he was disturbed by Netanyahu's response to the hecklers in New Orleans. And today he is upset about Republican Eric Cantor's presumption.

Eric Cantor seems to be settling in well as secretary of state. Technically, his position is expected to be majority leader of the House next year, but he is already operating his own foreign policy. He held a meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and, according to the congressman's office, "stressed that the new Republican majority will serve as a check on the administration" in U.S.-Israel relations. As the administration seeks ways to revive peace talks in the region, it must be reassuring to all sides that Cantor will serve as a vital check on peacemaking efforts.

Come on Milbank, be a non-Zionist...

by MainStreet 2010-11-16 08:30AM | 0 recs
RE: Eric Cantor's Pledge of Allegiance (to Israel)

I agree it, and the American people will back Cantor over Obama.

china doors, wood doors, garage doors

by wooddoor 2010-11-21 04:03AM | 0 recs
President Cantor?

Not even your compatriots, the Republicans, believe that is possible. A President Palin, God forbid, is more likely.

by MainStreet 2010-11-21 10:48AM | 0 recs
President Cantor?

Not even your compatriots, the Republicans, believe that is possible. A President Palin, God forbid, is more likely.

by MainStreet 2010-11-21 10:48AM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads