Shutdown Over: Did Democrats Cave or Compromise?
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is under scrutiny from his own base after Monday’s vote to reopen the government after three days of bipartisan stalemate and government shutdown. Some are applauding Schumer’s compromise but others think the move could jeopardize the Democrats’ chance of getting a deal for DACA “Dreamers.”
Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s impasse-breaking concession on DACA was a promise to take up the issue down the line, buying lawmakers until February 8th to come to an agreement on immigrations issues or else shut down again. More at Time.
If Democrats don’t get a deal and they shut the government back down in three weeks, it’s hard to see what was lost here.
Democratic opponents of the deal believe that an extended shutdown increases the likelihood of a DREAMer compromise. But does it? That is to say that an extended shutdown will cause Trump so much political or personal pain that he will accept one of the immigration compromises he has thus far rejected. Neither dynamic is obvious to me.
The energy of the progressive grass roots should be seen as a valuable resource for Democrats. If Donald Trump’s election taught us anything beyond the salience of white nationalism among our fellow citizens, it’s that passion matters, and that people respond when they see a leader who is willing to champion them even when it’s risky. That’s why it was so infuriating to see the Senate Democratic leadership sell the Dreamers out.
Schumer was losing support from his most vulnerable members. So, he cut bait. It’s a reminder that for all of the talk about the anti-Trump sentiment among Democratic senators looking at running for president, being opposed to Trump at all times is not good politics for everyone in the Democratic caucus — especially those 10 senators running in Trump country in November.
How is “America First” Working Out?
In the wake of his withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accords, and with his sights set on the North American Free Trade Agreement and the Iran Deal, many are worried that Trump’s “America First” policies have gone too far. But in light of compromises on immigration and surprising expansion of overseas military operations, perhaps “America First” was only a slogan.
Speaking at the UN, Trump himself identified the sovereignty, security, and prosperity of the American people as his sole objectives. But congressional mandates and the sheer inertia of previous policies got in the way of “America first.” And so human rights violators were still sanctioned, the United States agreed to ship antitank missiles to Ukraine, and relations with Mexico were uneasily patched up. The executive branch predominates in foreign policy, but Congress set limits, particularly with regard to Russia, and the courts had their say, blocking Trump’s attempt to rewrite U.S. immigration law by executive fiat.
In many ways, the fears of a broad American pullback have proved overblown, at least for now. Despite periodic complaints by Mr. Trump that the U.S. is doing too much global security work that should be left to others, Pentagon data show that the deployment of American troops overseas actually has gone up rather than down over the past year. Troop levels are up in Afghanistan, Iraq and Japan, among other places.
The “America first” approach has also left the United States far more isolated. The overall impact of the policy, say diplomats, politicians and analysts interviewed around the world, has been a clear retrenchment of U.S. power — and an opportunity for U.S. adversaries such as China and Russia…
Foreign-policy players, however, say they see something different now: a disorderly U.S. transformation from a global leader working with partners to try to shape the world to an inwardly focused superpower that defines its international role more narrowly.
Pence in Jerusalem: What Does It Mean to be Pro-Israel?
Vice President Mike Pence’s speech to the Knesset on Monday got off to a rocky start as Arab lawmakers from the Joint List lifted signs reading “Jerusalem is the Capital of Palestine.” After they were removed from the session, however, Pence was met only with applause.
His love of Israel and support of pro-Israel policies was made clear throughout his speech, and Pence has been praised by Netanyahu for his commitment to the Jewish people. Some are worried, however, that pro-Israeli policies, if they estrange Palestinian leadership, will do little for Israel. More at Reuters.
Within a foreign policy otherwise characterized by its haphazardness, the Trump administration has pursued one issue with single-minded intentionality: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
President Trump’s actions have consistently expressed a particularly American notion of being “pro-Israel.” But it is one rooted less in the conflict itself than in the United States’ own culture wars.
Bitter debates over terrorism and tolerance, polarized along demographic and partisan lines, have primed a faction of Americans to express their identity in part through solidarity with Israelis and opposition to Palestinians.
When asked about the dispute between Israel and the Palestinians, 46% of Americans say they sympathize more with the Israelis, 16% say they sympathize more with the Palestinians and about four-in-ten (38%) either volunteer that their sympathies are with both (5%), neither (14%) or that they do not know (19%)… the partisan divide has widened considerably… Nearly eight-in-ten Republicans (79%) sympathize more with Israel… Currently, 27% of Democrats say they sympathize more with Israel, while 25% say they sympathize more with the Palestinians…
In the Bush and Obama years it became a habit of smartass pundits to debate the meaning of “pro-Israel”. But this was truly a trick – a way for people to support pushing Israel around while still wearing the pro-Israel mantle (you know the drill: we are only pushing Israel around to save it from itself).
I think it is time to declare this debate dead. The days of I-am-against-Israel-and-therefore-I-am-for-it are over. You want a straightforward, no complication, no sophistry definition of a pro-Israel position? Read VP Pence’s speech to the Knesset.
Will Abbas Find His Way Back to the Negotiating Table?
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is frustrated and he isn’t hiding it. In response to President Trump’s pro-Israel stance on Jerusalem, Abbas denounced the U.S. and is seeking instead recognition from the European Union. While Abbas got some sympathy from the EU, as well as some support from Slovenia, EU recognition of Palestine is not likely to follow. More at Reuters.
Frustration, it seems, has led Abbas to reveal his true colors. In recent years, he’s accused Israeli rabbis of supporting the poisoning of Palestinian water wells, claimed Jews had “fabricated” history, and insisted he would “never recognize the Jewishness of the state of Israel.”
…Abbas—the man who became president on the pledge to finally make a deal with the Israelis through public diplomacy and nonviolence—has morphed into Arafat, the very figure he pledged not to become. It’s a remarkable fall from grace for a leader who started with such potential.
When it comes to Israel and Palestine, the EU has a two-state solution: No, and no.
First, it was “no” to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who last month asked the EU to follow Donald Trump and declare Jerusalem as Israel’s capital.
And on Monday it was “no” to Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who asked EU member countries to recognize the Palestinian state.
The President’s team seems to be driven more by interest-based policy considerations than by the value-based precepts that have been championed by much of the international community and previous administrations. Their efforts seem to be anchored in a forward-looking, problem-solving perspective designed to further US regional interests, rather than in a value-driven effort to find idealistic solutions…
…the administration has embarked on a number of steps designed to underscore to the Palestinian leadership that this is a new ball game in which the Palestinians will forfeit from the continued stalemate, while Israel gains.
Can Trump Take Credit for a Booming Economy?
Trump is the first president since Clinton to attend the annual World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, and his speech to the gathered billionaires, investors, and world leaders is highly anticipated. Trump is expected to tout economic growth in the States, but analysts are wondering if Trump’s policies actually deserve credit for the state of the economy. More at Reuters.
…attention [at Davos] will focus on whether the president projects a commitment to internationalist values or reiterates his truculent nationalism in the name of making America “great again.” Attention will also focus on the durability of the current economic and market upswing…
While Trump will probably try to take credit for all the economic good news, it is unlikely that he deserves it. He is president of the United States, not the world. And the economic surprises in the rest of the world have been more favorable than those in America.
By their fruits you should know them indeed. Voters will take notice that Democrats were wrong about tax reform and Trump’s deregulation. Remember Hillary Clinton campaigning against coal miner jobs? Remember that not one Democrat voted for tax reform.
Unlike President Kennedy, Democrats today don’t understand economic growth. That is why they can’t adequately represent the interests of blue collar workers and the middle class.
The poll, released Sunday, found that 50 percent of voters believe the Obama administration deserves credit for the U.S. economy, compared to 38 percent who said the same of the Trump administration.
Overall, 58 percent of respondents said that the economy is in good shape, the highest number in 17 years, according to the poll.
Trump has repeatedly taken credit for the state of the U.S. economy, lauding records set by the Dow Jones industrial average since he took office, along with lower unemployment numbers.
Are LGBTQ Americans Safe in Today’s America?
According to a new report from the National Coalition of Anti-Violence, 2017 saw a major spike in hate-crimes against LGBTQ individuals. In 2017 there were 52 LGBTQ homicides – a rise of 86% from 2016, marking the worst year for LGBTQ homicides since the coalition began tracking the data twenty years ago, and many are wondering if Trump’s presidency has anything to do with the change in climate. More at The Advocate.
The National Coalition of Anti-Violence Programs, a coalition of 40 community-based anti-violence groups, noted the escalation toward the end of the presidential election cycle, and it shows no signs of slowing, according to Beverly Tillery, executive director of the project.
President Donald “Trump won the election by saying it was time to take back America for people feeling pushed out by LGBTQ people, immigrants and people of color,” Tillery told HuffPost.
“It was a tactical move to attack those communities,” she added. “It worked, and there are more instances of violence because the climate in the country has changed…”
As someone from liberal New York, [Trump] signaled that he would be the person to finally move his political party on LGBTQ issues.
But Trump’s administration, based on its first year, has been anything but LGBTQ-friendly…
The Trump administration has tried to reinstate a ban on transgender people in the military. It has nominated multiple people to the courts and elsewhere who have anti-LGBTQ records. It has directed its army of federal lawyers to take the anti-LGBTQ side in court cases. And it has done some extraordinarily petty things, like refusing to recognize Pride Month.
The number of hate crimes in major U.S. cities rose for the third consecutive year last year, driven by attacks on Jews, Muslims, blacks and LGBT people, preliminary police data exclusively provided to VOA show.
At least 1,056 hate crimes were committed in nine of nation’s largest cities in 2017, an increase of 18 percent from 2016 levels…
Several major metropolitan areas, such as Washington, Philadelphia, Seattle and Phoenix, reported double-digit increases in hate-based crimes, extending a trend that started in 2015 and accelerated during the contentious presidential election campaign in 2016.
Is Qatar “the Israel” of the Gulf?
Qatar, a tiny Gulf state rich from oil, is increasingly isolated from its neighbors, most notably Saudi Arabia, who has led the region in the strict boycott of Qatar over its relationship with terrorist bodies, including Hamas. In response, Qatar has denied its neighbors’ demands, but has ramped up PR efforts, including bringing famed attorney and defender of Israel, Alan Dershowitz, to Qatar for a visit. More at BBC.
I observed that Qatar is quickly becoming the Israel of the Gulf States, surrounded by enemies, subject to boycotts and unrealistic demands, and struggling for its survival. I heard a lot of positive statements regarding Israel from Qatari leaders as well as hints of commercial relationships between these isolated nations.
The Qataris would like to re-establish normal relationships with the surrounding states and have asked the White House to convene a meeting to be attended by all the Gulf States. That seems like a good idea.
Qatar’s foes accuse it of financing terrorism, cozying up to Iran and harboring fugitive dissidents. They detest Al Jazeera, Qatar’s rambunctious and highly influential satellite network. And — although few say it openly — they appear intent on ousting Qatar’s young leader, Tamim, from his throne…
They don’t like our independence,” he said in an interview in New York in September. “They see it as a threat.”
The boycott turned out to be the first strike of a sweeping campaign by the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, that has electrified the Middle East.
By far the most outrageous comment Alan made, however, was that “Qatar is quickly becoming the Israel of the Gulf States, surrounded by enemies, subject to boycotts and unrealistic demands, and struggling for its survival.”
…He compares the boycott of Qatar, which is only maintained by its neighbor Gulf States based on their unhappiness with the emirate’s policies and support of terrorism, with the international antisemitic campaign to boycott Israel based on its sheer Jewish existence.
Can Ahed Tamimi Be Compared to Anne Frank?
Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman has called for a radio ban on songs written by the 70-year-old Yonatan Geffen. Geffen is an Israeli songwriter, columnist, author, and playwright, responsible for many classic hit songs like “The Prettiest Girl at the preschool.” He has also translated into Hebrew classic Bob Dylan songs such as the “Girl from the North Country.”
The call for a ban on Geffen comes after he posted a poem on Facebook in which he compares Ahed Tamimi, the Palestinian youth who slapped an Israeli soldier last month, to Anne Frank, Hannah Senesh, and David (of David and Goliath). More at YNET.
A pretty girl, 17 years old, did a terrible thing. When a proud Israeli soldier again invaded her home, she slapped him. She was born into this, and in that slap were fifty years of occupation and humiliation. And on the day that the story of the struggle will be told, you, Ahed Tamimi, the redhead, like David who slapped Goliath, will be in the same ranks as Joan of Arc, Hannah Senesh, and Anne Frank.
The Israeli political arena was in a tizzy Tuesday after Defense Minister Avigdor Liberman said he would ban the songs of a prominent poet from being played on Army Radio because the poet had compared a Palestinian teenager who was filmed slapping IDF soldiers to Anne Frank.
Opposition members slammed Liberman and branded him a “commissar” for saying he was prohibiting the public radio station from interviewing or playing songs by Yehonatan Geffen. However, the attorney general quickly weighed in to say the instruction carried no legal weight.
Artist Yonatan Geffen is at his best when he steers clear of politics. When he insists on sharing his juvenile political outbursts, it is best to ignore him. Not every artist is also a great political thinker.
Minister Avigdor Lieberman is also at his best when he steers clear of politics. Alas, as a politician, he cannot avoid his craft, and hence, he occasionally does what politicians do: cynically getting into an ugly spectacle he cannot win, to gain popularity.
Which of the two is worse? Infantile provocateurs should be judged by the public, not the government. And this is true for both distinguished artists and senior ministers.