Israel, Politics

NJDC: Not Supporting Settlements = Not Supporting Israel

In an attempt to score Democrats points on the pro-Israel register, the NJDC blog recently wrote:

SECOND, we learn that Lugar & Hagels’ Committee colleague and fellow Republican, Lincoln Chafee, opposes the Administration’s support for Israel:
Moreover, Chafee’s foreign policy concerns — expressed in a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice — could alienate Jewish voters and some Christian conservatives who tend to be staunchly pro-Israel. In the letter, Chafee, who chairs the Foreign Relations subcommittee on Near Eastern and South Asian affairs, urged the Bush administration to stop Israel’s construction of 690 new homes in two West Bank settlements.
“It is no secret that I have serious questions about this Administration’s policies in the Middle East,” Chafee wrote.”

Since when is opposing foolish policies that neither secure Israel nor its prospects for peace the same as not supporting Israel?
Really, pander to the Jewish community all you like, but don’t conflate being pro-Israel with being a neoconservative. The majority of American Jews are pro-Israel’s defense, yes, but they’re also pro-sensible Israeli policy. To be critical of Bush’s uncritical stance towards Israel is not the same as being anti-Israel. Part of being pro-Israel is dissenting when the Israeli government has lost its damned mind. One such case: Expanding settlements and further encroaching on territory Israel will inevitably have to return for the sake of viable Palestinian statehood, and which otherwise gives the impression of forcible dispossesion of Palestinians from the West Bank, legitimizing claims of ethnic cleansing.
Democrats need to take a stance on Israel that reflects the positions of progressive Jews — their actual constituency, not the positions of religious right-wingers and neoconservatives who aren’t voting for them anyway.

3 thoughts on “NJDC: Not Supporting Settlements = Not Supporting Israel

  1. Two quibbles. The expansion is in Gush Etzion and Maaleh Adumim, both of which are not going to be given back and do not preclude a contiguous Palestinian state in the West Bank (granted, Maaleh Adumim complicates Palestinain access to East Jerusalem, but it doesn’t preclude easy rail linkage sweeping from Ramallah to Jericho to Bethlehem). Sure, Olmert’s shoring up his right flank, but if he has any chance of bringing dismantling the isolated settlements in the West Bank back on the agenda, he needs to build in the Jerusalem suburbs.
    Second, what do you want the NJDC to do? How many dovish American Jewish swing voters do you know? On the other hand, there are plenty of American Jews with hawkish views towards Israel that are otherwise inclined to vote Democratic but feel the GOP is more “reliable” on Israel. If the Democrats were competing with the Greens for Jewish votes, perhaps the NJDC should try a different tack – but they’re not.

  2. dan — when adding “emphasis,’ as with ‘urged the Bush administration to stop Israel’s construction of 690 new homes in two West Bank settlements’…
    it is best practices to note that, well, you are adding emphasis.
    the entry was, quite clearly, focused on chafee’s rejection of bush’s general support for israel. on the nitty gritty of something like settlements, NJDC is a big tent and doesn’t issue policy wonkery. http://njdc.typepad.com/njdcs_blog/2006/09/anecdotes_aboun.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

The reCAPTCHA verification period has expired. Please reload the page.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.