Andy Levin's Views On Israel Matched The Israel-Haters He Looked To For Support (Daled Amos)

By Daled Amos

Representative Andy Levin's defeat in the Democratic primaries has brought out his defenders, who staunchly defend his Jewish bonafides.

Like Mehdi Hassan, for example:

Because nothing establishes the unassailability of your position on Israel like being a synagogue president.

Sheesh, indeed.

If you do a search on Twitter, it seems that everyone knows that Levin was a synagogue president, and thinks it actually means something. Twitter doesn't track how many tweets come up, but in a Google search, over 9,500 hits come up.

More dishonest is Hassan's deft little twist that the opposition to Levin must be based on his support for Palestinian human rights -- a nice touch.

Peter Beinart certainly agrees:

Left unsaid is the fact that Jewish opposition to Levin was not about his support for Palestinian human rights.

Israel-supporters were more concerned with backing for the rights of Israelis in their homeland.

After all, Levin is the one who introduced the H.R.5344 - Two-State Solution Act, which if passed would have established (among other things):

o  It is the policy of the United States that the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and Gaza are occupied territories and should be referred to as such consistently in official United States policies, communications, and documents.

o...the United States should maintain diplomatic relations with the Palestinians, including by reopening a United States consulate in Jerusalem and allowing for the reopening of the Palestine Liberation Organization foreign mission in the District of Columbia. [emphasis added]

So according to Andy Levin -- the Congressman and former synagogue president -- Jerusalem should once again be a divided city.

And according to Levin's bill, the Western Wall belongs to the Palestinian Arabs.

But the problem with Levin's stand goes beyond his wanting to undo Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem.

On November 18, 2019, Secretary of State Pompeo announced a change in US policy on Israeli settlements:

After carefully studying all sides of the legal debate, this administration agrees with President Reagan: the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not, per se, inconsistent with international law.

On November 21, Levin responded with a letter he initiated, signed by such Israel-haters as Betty McCollum, Ilhan Omar, Mark Pocan, Rashida Tlaib, Pramila Jayapal, Henry Johnson, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and others.

A copy of Levin's letter, with the signatures, is available online.

Pompeo wasted no time in responding and rebutting Levin's claims, writing:

I am in receipt of your letter of November 21 in which you criticize the State Department’s determination that the establishment of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank is not categorically inconsistent with international law - a decision which you contend reverses “decades of bipartisan US policy on Israeli settlements.” You further argue. in conclusory fashion, that this determination “blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”

While I appreciate your interest in this important issue, I could not disagree more with those two foolish positions. [emphasis added]

In response to Levin's claim that "the State Department's decision to reverse decades of bipartisan U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank," Pompeo wrote:

First, the State Department’s determination did not reverse any policy with regard to Israeli settlements. Rather, the State Department reversed a legal determination by Secretary Kerry made during the waning days of the Obama Administration, that the establishment of settlements was categorically inconsistent with international law. That determination was made in a failed attempt to justify the Obama Administration’s betrayal of Israel in allowing UNSCR 2334 — whose foundation was the purported illegality of the settlements and which referred to them as “a flagrant violation” of international law — to pass the Security Council on December 23, 2016. [emphasis added]

In response to Levin's claim that the US policy on settlements, as reflected in UN Resolution 2334 had bipartisan support, Pompeo reminded him:

Secretary Kerry’s determination did not enjoy bipartisan consensus. Rather, it received bipartisan condemnation, including from leading Democrats in both chambers of Congress. Indeed, an overwhelming number of Senators and House Members, on both sides of the aisle, supported resolutions objecting to the passage of UNSCR 2334. 

...No less a Democratic spokesman than the Senate Minority Leader [Schumer] publicly stated at his AIPAC address on March 5, 2018, that “it’s sure not the settlements that are the blockage to peace.” [emphasis added]

Levin goes so far as to challenge Pompeo on The Geneva Convention, "This State Department decision blatantly disregards Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which affirms that any occupying power shall not 'deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.'" -- which Levin apparently is taking literally, as if the Israeli government was actually transferring Israelis to these areas, a claim Pompeo rebuts with a reference to Eugene Rostow, former Dean of the Yale Law School and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs during the Johnson Administration. He was responsible for the draft of UNSCR 242, a foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Pompeo quotes Rostow, who stated in 1983 that “Israel has an unassailable legal right to establish settlements in the West Bank.”

Former Ambassador David Friedman writes in his book, Sledgehammer:

I was deeply grateful that 106 members of the House, led by Congressman Andy Levin of Michigan, wrote to Pompeo to condemn his decision. Without that letter, the record supporting the decision might have been incomplete insofar as some members of the Legal Department at State were reluctant  participants.. But the letter created a platform for a more fulsome response. [p. 165]

Hassan, Beinart and other defenders of Levin will of course continue to attempt to muddy the waters on the reaction against Levin's attempt to impose his leftwing politics on Israel.

But the fact remains that Andy Levin no more represented support of the Democratic Party for Israel than did the Israel-haters he found it convenient to ally himself with.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Andy Levin's synagogue celebrates Tisha B'Av with a yoga class

In response to a tweet about Andy Levin, who touted himself during his campaign as a former synagogue president, Melissa Braunstein asked, "Why hasn’t an article been written about that synagogue? Are the members all like Levin politically speaking?"

The answer is that his synagogue is as fringe about Judaism as Levin is about Israel. 

His synagogue is Congregation T'chiyah, a Reconstructionist synagogue. According to the 1990 National Jewish Population Survey, only 1% of Jews identified as Reconstructionist at the time. Since then, the survey has lumped them in with "others" which are at 4% total. About 2.5% of American synagogues in 2002 identified as Reconstructionist.

Either way, they represent a tiny slice of American Judaism.

The founder of Reconstructionist Judaism does not believe in a personal God. He defined God as "the sum of all natural processes that allow people to become self-fulfilled." This is not mainstream Judaism, or mainstream religion.

Levin's congregation describes itself in progressive word-salad style.

At this time, services - when they are held - are in a rented room of a Methodist church that is also considered progressive.

Their calendar does not mention Tisha B'Av this coming Sunday. Instead, they are having a yoga class.

My point isn't to slam Reconstructionist Judaism, although I strongly disagree with everything about it. I'm just saying that all the people who pretended that Levin was some sort of SuperJew for being the president of a synagogue are gaslighting the Jewish community, because a synagogue like this -  that says nothing about Israel on its webpage and in its programming - is not at all mainstream.

Just like Andy Levin's political views are not at all mainstream among American Jews.  

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

The Levin/Stevens race proves that hypocritical J-Street is way out of the mainstream for American Jews

Tuesday's primary is over, and in the closely watched Michigan congressional race between two incumbents, moderate Haley Stevens and "progressive" Andy Levin, Stevens trounded Levin by 20 percentage points.

The result is being painted by the far-Left crowd as AIPAC stealing the election by spending millions of dollars through their PAC, UDP, to pay for ads for Stevens. While AIPAC did spend the money, the margin of victory is not because of them - it is because Stevens was heavily backed by moderate Democrats.

One byproduct of the race, though, is that is exposed J-Street's hypocrisy.

J-Street went all out for Levin, no less than AIPAC did for Stevens. They falsely painted Levin as having mainstream positions in the American Jewish community.

The truth is quite the opposite, and it shows J-Street's extremism.

In their message after the race, J-Street wrote:

It is alarming that this race, like many other Democratic primaries this cycle, was heavily impacted by the aggressive outside spending of AIPAC and its SuperPAC, the United Democracy Project. They spent nearly $5 million to target and defeat Levin, far more than was spent by any other group. While Rep. Levin is a proudly pro-Israel Jewish-American, AIPAC smeared him as “anti-Israel,” “fringe” and “hostile.” They targeted him for holding principled, mainstream views about US diplomatic leadership in the Middle East, and for proposing legislation to help uphold Palestinian rights and secure Israel’s future as a democratic homeland for the Jewish people.

...

With their overwhelming spending, AIPAC hopes to send an intimidating message to others: Cross our red lines, and you could be next. While political space for open and healthy debate over US foreign policy has opened up considerably in recent years, they appear determined to close it down. Instead of building sustainable bipartisan support for Israel, AIPAC has harmfully turned Israel into one of the sharpest wedge issues in American politics.

To respond to this new challenge, Democratic Party leaders should make absolutely clear just how harmful and unwelcome AIPAC’s interventions in its primary contests are. Candidates in future primaries should disavow and decline the support of AIPAC and its SuperPAC – which have come as a surprise to at least some of them.

J Street remains committed to doing all that we can to represent the views of the majority of Jewish Americans and American voters. We will keep up our work to ensure that our national political and policy debate about foreign policy and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is rooted in honest fact, shared democratic values, and a commitment to lasting peace.

The hypocrisy shown here is off the charts.

Levin's positions are not mainstream in the Jewish community. His centerpiece "Two State Solution Act" has no traction and zero co-sponsors because it is abhorrent to pro-Israel Americans. It makes demands on Israel and none on Palestinians. It defines the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall as "occupied territory." It also defines Gaza as "occupied" even though no Jews have lived there in nearly two decades. 

J-Street's hand wringing over AIPAC's spending is also hypocritical because before AIPAC created their superPAC, the largest Jewish political PAC was JStreetPAC - by far.

But far more telling is what Haley Stevens positions on Israel are that J-Street opposes. From her campaign website section on Israel:

Chief among my priorities are safety and security, both here in the U.S. and abroad, and I believe that our strong and enduring partnership with the State of Israel is a cornerstone of maintaining these goals. The United States and Israel have maintained a steadfast partnership for over seven decades, bound by our shared commitment to common values. The U.S.-Israel partnership is one that must continue to thrive – and importantly, cannot become a partisan issue. I stand firm in my commitment to the U.S.-Israel alliance and will continue working in Congress to support policies that strengthen our strategic alliance. 

I had the opportunity to visit Israel for the first time in 2019, where I experienced its deep history, cultures, and natural beauty. I was also able to learn more about the innovative technologies Israel has created that Americans depend upon for agriculture, energy, healthcare, commerce, transportation, and national security, among many others. I look forward to finding new ways to develop strategic plans to build on these technological successes. 

I stand alongside Israel against the BDS movement, which seeks to undermine Israel’s economy and legitimacy. Its main goal is to delegitimize Israel’s existence and inflame tensions in communities and on college campuses, which undermines the prospects for peace. At a time when anti-Israel boycotts are prevalent around the country and globe, and the Anti-Defamation League is reporting a dramatic uptick in anti-Semitic hate crimes, it is now more important than ever to stand beside Israel and oppose state-sponsored BDS. 

I believe in Israel’s fundamental right to self-defense. As the only democracy in the Middle East and our strongest ally in the region, Israel’s safety is paramount to our interests at home and abroad. Congress must continue to unconditionally support critical programs that help Israel upgrade its fleets in air, land, and sea, enhance the mobility of its ground forces, and continue to strengthen its missile defense capabilities. The landmark Memorandum of Understanding reached under the Obama Administration provided Israel with robust funding to accomplish these goals, and I will continue to support funding from this historic agreement, as I have each year. We must prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and further destabilizing the region. Diplomacy must be the first option and is the best solution but all options must remain on the table. 

I believe in the worth and value of every Palestinian and every Israeli and will work to support a negotiated solution resulting in two states—a democratic Jewish State of Israel, and a viable, democratic Palestinian state—living side-by-side in peace, security, and mutual recognition. This peace process should be settled by the parties directly. 

Our countries share a commitment to justice and equality for all. From standing up for women’s rights to affirming our support for the worldwide LGBT community, our common values are what unite us. That deep sense of justice – born out of a shared commitment to repairing the world – is why we can always count on each other.

This statement says more positive things about Israel than J-Street has during its entire existence. Moreover, it is clearly within the mainstream of the American Jewish community - supporting a two state solution, supporting a strong US-Israel relationship, supporting Israel's right to self-defense, supporting Israel's liberal values, and opposing BDS.

These position are what J-Street opposes. Which makes J-Street an extremist group, not a moderate pro-Israel group.

One other Stevens statement:

I am deeply concerned by the persistent and growing effort to demonize Israel, the world's only Jewish state and a close American ally, on the international stage. Whether through the chronic bias displayed by the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) or accusations put out by groups like Amnesty International, I stand opposed to efforts to unjustifiably brand Israel as an "apartheid state," and I will always work to mitigate the threat of delegitimization against our closest friends in the Middle East. Since its inception in 2006, the UNHRC has created 33 Commissions of Inquiry, out of which nine have dealt with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There have been no UNHRC commissions of inquiry into Iranian or Chinese human rights violations. Israeli Arabs are represented in the Israeli Knesset, Supreme Court, Governing Coalition, and Defense Forces, in short. Instead of holding the world’s only Jewish state to a double standard, we should investigate why its adversaries are so keen on finding new methods to undercut its legitimacy as a vibrant, multi-ethnic democracy. This disastrous characterization of Israel will not serve to end the conflict and suffering in the region but will rather serve to incite violence and hatred toward the world's largest hub of Jewish life amid a time of overwhelming concern for the international Jewish community. I support good faith efforts to address the underlying causes of recurrent tensions and instability in the region in pursuit of peace, but I fervently condemn this campaign to vilify our close American ally with these displays of hateful discrimination.”

This is mainstream American Zionist and Jewish opinion. But I cannot find a single J-Street statement opposing the UN Commission of Inquiry.They issued no condemnation of the antisemitic statements of its member  Miloon Kothari that the "Jewish lobby" controls social media. 

J-Street's opposition to Stevens proves that they are not pro-Israel at all.

Moreover, I cannot find a single statement from Andy Levin decrying those who call Israel an "apartheid state." His silence is tacit support. J-Street says it is against that specific term - but they fully support the anti-Israel reports from HRW and Amnesty that make that accusation. 

There is a further hypocrisy from J-Street in their letter. They pretend to be upset that AIPAC is turning Israel into a wedge issue - yet that is J-Street's entire purpose, to divide the American Jewish community and to promote the ideas and candidates whose opinions are anathema to most American Jews.

And their self-righteous posturing that billionaire money corrupts democracy is even more hypocritical.  J-Street was formed with the early support (within six months of its founding) of billionaire George Soros, a fact that they tried to hide.

All you need to know about J-Street can be seen in this one campaign. And it proves that J-Street holds fringe opinions on Israel that they try to obscure behind their mantras of "pro-Israel, pro-peace, two states."

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

IfNotNow says Judaism has no intrinsic meaning. Which is pretty much the definition of antisemitism.

Yesterday, IfNotNow published a "havdalah service" for people who were campaigning for Andy Levin in Michigan - "Jews for Andy."

Havdalah is meant to separate the Sabbath from the weekday, but for these people, it was done in broad daylight, which is something we have seen anti-Israel groups do before. 

This was also done in a "Jews for Rashida" "Passover seder" held in 2020 where the entire idea of a seder was subverted and perverted for political ends. 

In this case, though, IfNotNow tried to pre-empt any criticism with this tweet:

To all the trolls ready to dunk on a Havdalah ceremony while there’s still light out — you’re just telling on yourself when you police others’ Jewish practices.

There’s no right or wrong way to be Jewish. 

It didn't work out for them. As of this writing, this tweet has been "ratioed" 3-1, one of the relatively rare cases where far more people comment negatively to a tweet than click on "Like." My comment was, "So I can light a Christmas tree and call it a Chanukah menorah? I can have a Yom Kippur feast and call it a fast? I can replace a shofar with a kazoo?"

Yet the tweet says a great deal about the Israel haters who claim Jewish legitimacy and their relationship with Judaism. 

To these "progressives," anyone can declare themselves to be anything and this must be respected because it is "their truth." But that cheapens and ultimately makes worthless the religion they claim to respect. If there are no rules, then being Jewish means nothing. It is as absurd as saying that there is no right or wrong way to be a vegan, or no right or wrong way to play soccer, or no right or wrong color of a stoplight to decide to go. 

But Judaism isn't completely worthless to these "progressives." To them, it is a prop - declare themselves Jewish, do something that vaguely resembles a Jewish tradition, tie it to a political cause and then discard it. 

This isn't "pick and choose" Judaism. This is claiming that Judaism simply has no value or meaning except for selfish political reasons. 

And if you proclaim that Judaism has no intrinsic value, then you are an antisemite.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More

Of course the media obsession with AIPAC is antisemitic

The Israel Lobby is in the news again, as left-wing media has become obsessed with AIPAC's spending to promote pro-Israel candidates for Congress.

Rep. Andy Levin is a scion of a powerhouse Michigan political family. His father Sander was a member of Congress for 36 years and was twice the Democratic candidate for governor of Michigan. His uncle Carl Levin was a powerful senator for Michigan for 36 years as well. 

He is one powerful Jew.

Yet he is portraying himself as a victim of the evil, all powerful, Israel lobby, whining on MSNBC that "AIPAC can't stand the idea that I am the strongest Jewish voice in Congress standing for... human rights for the Palestinian people." He's saying this behind a graphic warning about "DC's Dark Money."

Left unsaid, of course, is that Levin introduced a bill to consider the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall and all the Jewish holy spots in Jerusalem as "occupied Palestinian territory." The bill has no other sponsors and has garnered zero support from his fellow members of Congress, proving that Levin's ideas are an outlier and his ideas are extreme. AIPAC isn't opposing him because he is pro-Palestinian - they are opposing him because he wants to rip Jerusalem away from the Jewish state, something no "pro-Israel" politician would ever demand.

AIPAC's new PAC is indeed spending millions - $22 million so far this election cycle, more of it to promote pro-Israel candidates than to oppose anti-Israel candidates. This is only about 4% of all outside spending for this election cycle. It is virtually the same amount spent by the Protect Our Future liberal SuperPAC. 

But only AIPAC is being singled out for doing what every single other political lobby does by definition - spend money to influence the government. 

If you look at the major lobbyists in Washington, AIPAC and its UDP SuperPAC are powerful but hardly unique. The media attention given to them is definitely unique. Because the meme of powerful Jews controlling who gets elected is as irresistible to modern antisemites as it is to classic antisemites. 

Also interesting is what doesn't get reported. 

The Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) requires any country that spends money to influence Americans politically (or even to encourage tourism) to report how much it is spending. 

In 2018, the State of Israel was the top spender of any government, spending $35 million directly in the US according to FARA filings with another $15 million from the World Zionist Organization and the Jewish Agency for Israel.

That number has plummeted to practically nothing - $16 million in 2019, $2 million in 2020, $600,000 in 2021 and a mere $263,000 so far this year from the government of Israel.

The literal Israel lobby spending has gone practically to zero. But the media won't report that, because it doesn't fit the narrative of Israel controlling the US. 

Now, how much do you hear about how much these countries spend to influence US policies last year?

Country	2021 Spending
China	$84,376,408
Qatar	$46,687,439
Japan	$46,426,178
Russia	$36,657,417
South Korea	$33,694,710
United Arab Emirates	$31,544,866
Marshall Islands	$30,032,779
Liberia	$29,868,477
Canada	$26,721,869
Saudi Arabia	$25,006,629

The obsession we are seeing with the Israel lobby cannot be explained by its actual influence. It can only be explained by wanting to convince people that powerful Jews are controlling American politics. 

There's a name for that.

---

---

Buy the EoZ book, PROTOCOLS: Exposing Modern Antisemitism  today at Amazon! Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424.  Read all about it here!

 

Read More