I’ve been pretty unrelenting in criticizing Charles Barron, and Israel has been only one of the issues.
There is no doubt that even without Israel, I’d have plenty of reason to oppose Barron.
I tend to oppose politicians over every stripe who make excuses for international despots. I also dislike homophobes.
But Israel is part of the reason, and Barron is special.
Barron compared Israel to Nazi Germany.
According to the Anti-Defamation League, during media interviews, and as a featured speaker at anti-Israel events around New York City, Barron regularly employs Holocaust language, including describing Gaza as a "concentration camp." e also accused Israel of establishing a "death camp" in Gaza and describing the conditions there as "a clear case of genocide." During one interview, he described the situation in Gaza as "the same kind of conditions the Nazis imposed on the Jews."
Barron is not merely like Nydia Velazquez, who voted “present” on a resolution which condemned a report critical of Israel’s actions it took to protect itself from aggression committed against it which originated in the Gaza.
Barron is not even Yvette Clarke, who actually signed letters calling upon Israel to change certain policies involving Gaza.
Many of us have questioned certain of Israel’s decisions in Gaza; some because they seem to have gone too far, and some because they were just ill-advised.
But very few of us question the right of Israel to decide for themselves what policies best advance its security interests; few of us challenge the right of Israel’s elected government to make those decisions for themselves.
But I found another New York City Congressional candidate who has both (1) used words which implicitly compare the Israeli government to the Nazis, and (2) questioned the right of Israel’s elected government to make its own decisions concerning its security interests.
That candidate is Rory Lancman.
Here he is implicitly comparing Israel’s elected government to Nazis:
Remembering the forced eviction of Jews from Gush Katif by their own govt. Nowhere on earth should be Judenfrei. http://twitpic.com/8neoww”
Gush Katif was a bloc of Jewish settlements in Gaza.
The word Judenfrei (free of Jews) is a clear Nazi reference (also harkening back to the Czarist Pale of Settlement).
Rory Lancman has pretty much said Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert acted like Hitler.
Further. Lancman’s statement takes an extremely harsh view towards the elected government of Israel, openly questioning its right to make a decision that its leaders considered essential to Israel’s security.
Hawkish Israeli leaders.
Longtime hawks like Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert.
But their judgment, conveyed upon them by Israel’s electorate, was not good enough for Rory Lancman.
Lancman actually attended an annual event which mourns the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza as if it were an event as tragic to Israelis as the Nakba was to Palestinian Arabs.
If Lancman was questioning Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza as an ill-advised and counterproductive security measure, he would have had an argument.
But that is not what Lancman was saying.
Lancman was saying that the withdrawal from Gaza was tragic because Jews should continue living there for eternity.
To put things in perspective, Menachem Begin tried to give Gaza back to the Egyptians in the 1970s.
As was later proven, Anwar Sadat did not have the keenest instincts for self-preservation, but that crazy Sadat wasn’t.
He wouldn’t take it.
For sane Israelis—even those of the mainstream right, the question was never whether to get rid of Gaza; the questions was how.
But Lancman wants to stay there forever, because Jews should be able to live wherever Jews once lived.
If Lancman really believes that, let him move to Brownsville.
If Lancman wanted a voice in whether Israel kept Gaza, he should have made aliyah.
If Lancman thinks Jews should still be living in Gaza, let him pick up an Uzi, or send his child to do the same, instead of questioning the right of the Israeli government to make different choices.
In an interview in the Jewish Press, Lancman is asked about “Land for Peace,” and says “This decision is ultimately for Israel to decide…”
But it is clear that Lancman does not believe a word of that statement.
Rory Lancman has no more respect for the Israeli government’s right to make decisions about its own security than does Charles Barron.
Like Charles Barron, Lancman prefers to impose his own extremist ideological views on the Israelis.
At home, Lancman's actaully had the chutzpah to attack Gary Ackerman, one of Congress' leading supporters of Israel, and a man who has had no patience for naive members of the left, for being insufficient in his support of the Jewish state.
I will be clear on my views; I am at the far right wing of the Zionist left.
I believe that Israel cannot continue as a state both Jewish and democratic if it continues to hold the West Bank.
The settlements are not the cause of the conflict; other issue must be resolved first before there is peace.
But once there is a resolution, the settlements are an impediment to implementation of any workable solution.
Further expansion makes resolution of a solution even more difficult, and at some point, it may make it impossible.
And that would be the death of Israel.
And most American Jews would appear to agree; according to The Forward’s J.J. Goldberg:
“Obama, despite all the thunder and lightning around him, didn’t ring many bells. Israelis might not like the president’s hard-nosed stand on settlements, but American Jews don’t agree. Both of the post-election surveys actually gave him high marks for his performance in Israel and Middle East affairs. J Street found solid Jewish support for a two-state solution and for vigorous American leadership to bring the parties together — even if it means pressuring the two sides or openly criticizing Israel.”
As I’ve noted, the problem is multi-dimensional.
The first is that a significant minority of the Jewish community does not agree.
The second is that those who do agree don’t care as much.
Some of this is just lack of enthusiasm for their own position. Like me, they don’t like all the Obama bells and whistles. Or they know Obama’s right, but prefer the position of opposing the settlements, but not actually wanting to do anything about it. Or they oppose the settlements, but still want to bomb Iran.
More importantly, they don’t care enough to vote on that basis. Jews who are support liberal Zionist positions are often unwilling to punish candidates who hold anti-Israel positions. Further, they are often unwilling to punish candidates who hold right-wing Zionist positions as well.
Many just care more about other issues.
Rory Lancman isn’t merely more cautious about security than liberal Zionists.
If it were about being more cautious I could accept that.
But Rory’s complaint is not about security; Rory is either on a mission from G-d or pretends to be.
In 2008, Lancman threatened not to support Barack Obama because of Israel, actually urging him to say that “Jews can live in Hebron or anywhere else, and Israel has the right to protect them if the Palestinians won’t.”
In Hebron, 83 years ago this August, a bloodthirsty mob (to call them animals would invite a rebuke from the ASPCA), encouraged by their “clergy”, killed 65 members of a Jewish community which dated from Biblical times, while the British authorities did nothing but imply that the Jews had brought it upon themselves; 58 others were wounded and those who survived were psychological dogmeat; they left and did not come back. Jews did not return to live in Hebron for almost 40 years.
During the period of rule by Jordanian “moderates”, Jews attempting to enter some of their holiest shrines were shot on site.
Today, Hebron's Jewish populations consists of a small group of deranged fanatics living lives of Russian roulette, who tax the resources and risk the lives of an Israel force several times their size, whose job (much to the consternation of most Israelis) is to protect them.
George W. Bush has never promised to protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron; John McCain and Mitt Romney have never promised to protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron; Ehud Olmert wished with all his heart he did not have to protect Jews who wished to live in Hebron, and Bibi probably wishes secretly he did not have to protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron.
G-d him or herself probably cannot protect Jews who wish to live in Hebron, or in a piranha tank.
I think the 6th CD race—at least in the primary—may be time for Jews with a liberal Zionist orientation to draw a line in the sand.
We may care more about other issue, and Rory Lancman may be appealing on those issues, but genug is genug.
If a Congressman with a district with a large Jewish population decides that they will make a presumption in favor of supporting the positions of Israel’s elected government, I can accept that.
Provided they really mean it.
One day, G-d willing, there may again be an Israeli government intent upon a two state solution.
This may require resettlement of many Israeli settlers and entail other costs as well, including lives. Many in Congress may oppose funding to help facilitate such a solution, for all sorts of reasons.
At that point, Israel’s government will needs a lot of friends, and if the Congressman from NY’s 6th CD won’t back the Israeli government in its hour of need, who the hell will?
I have no confidence that Rory Lancman will stand with Israel’s government at that hour.
All the available evidence point the other way.
I wouldn’t vote for Avigdor Lieberman if I lived in Israel and I see no reason to vote for him here.