The Forward newspaper has recently identified ten up-and-coming Jewish politicians. We are pleased to note that four of the ten politicians they identify are Republican.


PERMALINK  

There’s an interesting juxtaposition this week in the news from Israel.

Archaeologists have uncovered structures just outside the walls of the Old City of Jerusalem which date back some 3,000 years to the time of King Solomon. The Jerusalem Post reports:  

The section of the city wall revealed, which is 70 meters long and six meters high, is located in the area known as the Ophel, between the City of David and the southern wall of the Temple Mount.

An inner gatehouse for access into the royal quarter of the city was uncovered in the city wall complex, along with a royal structure adjacent to the gatehouse and a corner tower that overlooks a substantial section of the adjacent Kidron Valley.

The structures and their contents attest to the existence of the Davidic monarchy in Jerusalem, consistent with the biblical account:

Pottery shards discovered within the fill of the lowest floor of the royal building near the gatehouse also testify to the 10th-century-BCE dating of the complex. On the floor, excavators found remnants of large storage jars that survived destruction by fire and that were found in rooms that apparently served as storage areas on the ground floor of the building. One of the jars shows a partial inscription in ancient Hebrew indicating it belonged to a high-level government official.

"The jars that were found are the largest ever found in Jerusalem," said [archeologist Dr. Eilat] Mazar, adding that "the inscription found on one of them shows that it belonged to a government official, apparently the person responsible for overseeing the provision of baked goods to the royal court."

In addition to the pottery shards, cult figurines were also found in the area, as were seal impressions on jar handles with the word "to the king," testifying to their usage within the monarchy. Also found were seal impressions (bullae) with Hebrew names, indicating the royal nature of the structure.

Those who claim that King David is a myth, that Jews never had an independent state in the land of Israel, and that Jews have no historic connection to Jerusalem have been handed some uncomfortable evidence to the truth of Jewish history.

Enemies of Israel have also been handed some uncomfortable evidence this week about Israel’s growing ability to defend itself against the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

The Associated Press reports:

Israel's air force on Sunday introduced a fleet of huge pilotless planes that can remain in the air for a full day and could fly as far as the Persian Gulf, putting rival Iran within its range.

The Heron TP drones have a wingspan of 86 feet (26 meters), making them the size of Boeing 737 passenger jets and the largest unmanned aircraft in Israel's military. The planes can fly at least 20 consecutive hours and are primarily used for surveillance and carrying diverse payloads.

Noah Pollak at Commentary’s blog says that “the 20-hour flight figure is almost certainly a dramatic understatement. Other reports put that figure at 36 hours, and the real number is probably higher still.”

He also notes with this roll-out, Israel has unveiled what appears to be the solution to the IAF’s historic lack of long-range bombing capability, considered one of the obstacles to an Israeli strike on the Iranian nuclear program.

For more than three millennia, the enduring Jewish presence in Israel has included building defensive structures, whether low-tech stone walls or high-tech drone planes.

PERMALINK  

Our big Winter Leadership Meeting is fast approaching (learn more here) and yesterday I was reviewing RJC press clips from the last few months to prepare a packet for our leaders. We’ve been busy! The clippings came to an impressive pile that included press releases and press coverage about:

The buyer’s remorse shown by voters in the off-year elections last November, when Republicans Bob McDonnell and Chris Christie won the governors races in Virginia and New Jersey, respectively;

The decision by 21% of House Democrats to oppose a pro-Israel House resolution on the infamous Goldstone report;

Chris Christie’s strong showing in the New Jersey race among Jewish voters;

Poll results showing that Jewish support for President Obama fell from 83% in January 2009 to 64% in September 2009, to only 52% in November 2009;

Passage of major Iran sanctions legislation, which we pushed hard for in the House and in the Senate - and now the push for both chambers to pass a final bill and send it to the President;

The prominent Democrats who have announced their retirement, leaving the impression that Democrats are abandoning a sinking ship;

Scott Brown’s amazing victory in Massachusetts and what it means that the Senate seat occupied by Ted Kennedy for 47 years is now in Republican hands;

A sharp RJC rebuke of the National Jewish Democratic Council for trying to use a pledge against “Holocaust rhetoric and anti-Semitic language” in political discourse as a cudgel against a pro-Israel Senate candidate (Rep. Mark Kirk – R-IL) when Democrats make use of similar rhetoric;

RJC’s strong efforts to call out the “Gaza 54” – the Democrats in the House who signed a letter asking President Obama to pressure Israel to loosen security measures on the border with Gaza;

Our call to President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton to repudiate Rep. Baird’s outrageous remarks about breaking Israel’s “blockade” of Gaza with American ships.

All in all, we covered a lot of important ground in the last few months, and we will continue to be your eyes and your voice on important issues like these.

And let’s not forget the dozens of local chapter events we’ve held recently, too. Did you attend one of our events with great speakers like Aryeh Green (of MediaCentral), Kristen Silverberg (about Iran), Norman Podhoretz (legendary author and Commentary editor), Jennifer Rubin (reporter and blogger extraordinaire), Gal Luft (on energy and security), and a host of elected officials and candidates for office?

Don’t miss important RJC news and events – become an eTeam member and get RJC emails; follow us on Twitter; join us on Facebook.

Your support is what makes all this energetic, effective, and enlightening activity possible. Please take a moment to add your two cents (or more) to our work by visiting our donation page. Thank you!

PERMALINK  

Note: This item has been updated since initial posting.

Since some efforts I've been involved in have become controversial, here's my take on the latest twist in the "Gaza 54" saga.

When I first learned that 54 Democrat members of the U.S. House of Representatives had sent a letter to President Obama urging him to pressure Israel to relax security measures aimed at combating terrorism emanating from Hamas-ruled Gaza, one of the things I was immediately curious to see was how the letter's authors would address the obvious objection from Israel's leaders - that doing so would heighten the risk to Israelis. 

As a long-time Hill staffer, I'd drafted letters like this.  I knew that one of the essential components of the form - one of the things you know the members of Congress you hope will sign their names to it will expect to see included - is a diligent attempt at anticipating and refuting the expected counter-arguments that will be raised by those who disagree.

So I was struck when I read the letter that its authors had not, as Power Line's Paul Mirengoff noted, made even a cursory attempt "to explain how Israel's security concerns would be met in the absence of the blockade."

The letter did include a reference to "legitimate and keenly felt fear of continued terrorist action by Hamas and other militant groups" that had led Israel to impose the restrictions in the past.  But it never engaged the claim put forth by Israel that loosening the restrictions in the current environment would leave Israelis at greater risk in the future. 

Since I found this omission so remarkable - and damning - I made a point of noting it with special emphasis when I drafted RJC's action alert to our members.  My words: "These 54 Democrats expressed no concern whatsoever about the consequences their ideas might have for Israelis living under the threat of terrorism from Gaza!"

Then yesterday, Ron Kampeas of JTA questioned my veracity in a way he has since seen fit to retract.  The basis he cited for doing so: a general statement from the letter that the changes sought would be in Israel's overall interest:


Sorry, Mr. Kampeas. When Israel specifically cites the imperative of impeding terrorism from Gaza as a rationale for restrictions, the failure by members of Congress to address the issue specifically in a major public statement is telling and damning.  ZOA's Morton Klein captured the distinction that eluded Kampeas when he said "It is meaningless and insincere for these Members of Congress to claim that they recognize that Israel has imposed restrictions on well-founded security grounds – then call for the lifting of those restrictions."

Of course, Kampeas offers no criticism of the 54 Democrat Congressmen campaigning for U.S. pressure on Israel.  Neither does James Besser, another writer whose work is widely syndicated in Jewish newspapers.  The only criticism offered is aimed at critics of the Gaza 54.  Both writers display a deep concern about Rep. Keith Ellison being portrayed as anti-Israel. 

The zeal to protect Ellison is difficult to understand as anything other than a particularly irksome manifestation of political correctness.  Anyway, it's irksome.

And just as much as the next fellow, I don't appreciate being having my veracity called into question in such a fashion.

My displeasure quickly crystallized into a tweet.  My 140 characters were intemperate and I have pulled the tweet down subsequently, but a J Street operative took note and controversy ensued.

Of course, the racism card is being played.  Why do many refer to the Gaza 54 missive as "Ellison's letter"?  Probably because one of the first accounts to circulate widely was this sympathetic report on the Minnesota Independent site in which it is described as, um, "Ellison's letter."

There may be more to say about this, but I'll just close with this assurance: whether "straight shooters" like Kampeas and Besser like it or not, RJC is going keep the heat on the Gaza 54.

PERMALINK  

As we noted in our e-newsletter today (click here to sign up!), President Obama has implemented an aggressive policy of targeting al-Qaeda members using unmanned drones. Several terrorist leaders have been killed. Is this a good idea, or does it rob us of needed intelligence? Marc Thiessen argues for the latter view:

Obama's escalation of the "Predator War" comes at the very same time he has eliminated the CIA's capability to capture senior terrorist leaders alive and interrogate them for information on new attacks. The Predator has become for President Obama what the cruise missile was to President Bill Clinton -- an easy way to appear like he is taking tough action against terrorists, when he is really shying away from the hard decisions needed to protect the United States... The problem is that Obama is increasingly using drone strikes as a substitute for operations to bring terrorist leaders in alive for questioning -- and that is putting the country at risk.

There is something to be said for making sure a terrorist is prevented - permanently - from carrying out his planned attacks, but it would be better to know his plans and who else was in on them. This avoidance of the hard work of interrogating enemy combatants runs through the administration's policies. The decision to read Miranda rights to the al-Qaeda-trained Nigerian terrorist who nearly carried out an attack on Christmas day is another example.

It leaves the Obama administration with an odd policy toward terrorists - if you're far enough away, we'll use advanced technology to blow you to smithereens, but if we get close enough to touch you, we're going to treat you like a wayward American teen. Let's find a middle ground: no matter where you are, we'll find you, we'll put you out of action, and we'll find out everything you know about others who want to harm us, so we can stop them too.


PERMALINK  

Two quite unrelated items came to my attention this week, but they illustrate a couple of things about how America is perceived abroad.

Our health care is popular, apparently. Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Danny Williams is coming down from Canada to the U.S. to have heart surgery. Over at the Hot Air blog, Ed Morrissey noted that Mr. Williams vehemently defended the care available from Canada’s national health care system back in 2008. Meanwhile, Williams is under some heat back home for crossing the border to get care. His deputy told reporters that he didn’t have the option of having such surgery done in his own province, but it remains unclear why he had to leave the country altogether for his surgery.

Another unanswered question: Where will Canadians go for treatment if America nationalizes health care?

Let's move our attention to Egypt, where American hair styles are not so popular – at least among women at Cairo University. Mark Steyn notes that women graduating from Cairo University now wear the hijab (head scarf) far more often than in decades past.

So now look at these two pictures:  First, the Cairo University class of 1978, with every woman bare-headed; second, the Cairo University class of 2004, hijabed to the hilt.

Whenever I give a speech on Islam, some or other complacenik always says, "Oh, but they haven't had time to Westernize. Just you wait and see. Give it another 20 years, and the siren song of Westernization will work its magic." This argument isn't merely speculative, it's already been proved wrong by what's happened over the last 20 years. Compare the Cairo University class of 1959 with those of the 21st century, and then see if you can recite your inevitablist theories of social evolution with a straight face. The idea that social progress is like the wheel or the internal combustion engine — once invented, it can never be uninvented — is one of the laziest assumptions of the Western Left.

Personally, I doubt that these women are all choosing this expression of religiosity of their own volition. What does this trend in "moderate" Egypt mean for future Mideast-U.S. relations?


PERMALINK  

This is great work from South Dakota State Representative Dan Lederman, who has introduced an Iran disinvestment bill that has gained support from Governor Mike Rounds and appears certain to be enacted.

Dan is a Jewish Republican. He founded our Great Plains Chapter and is a member of our national leadership. For more details about this effort, please read this article from the Associated Press.

PERMALINK