Bernie Sanders as a ‘Jewish’ President?

Not so! Please don’t blame us.

pastedGraphic.png

(Sanders is Jewish by birth only. He has become an apostate Jew – one who deliberately discards his own heritage and instead attacks it in every way possible, attempting to prove he is, in fact, not Jewish) jsk

Redacted from an article by Jerold S. Auerbach

The Jewish News Service (JNS), February 26, 2020

Bernie Sanders may become the first Jewish president of the United States. But what does being a Jew mean to him?

https://israel-commentary.org

Sanders’s youthful Jewish credentials are impeccable. Born to Jewish immigrants from Poland, he grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., where he saw people with numbers tattooed on their arms. Members of his father’s family were murdered in Nazi concentration camps. He developed a strong emotional feeling that “we have got to do everything we can to end this kind of horrific racism and anti-Semitism.”

After college graduation Sanders spent several months on kibbutz Sha’ar Ha’amakim in northern Israel. There he “saw and experienced … many of the progressive values upon which Israel was founded.” In turn, he urged “progressives to acknowledge the enormous achievement of establishing a democratic homeland for the Jewish people after centuries of displacement and persecution.” He subsequently described himself as “proudly Jewish.”

Relocating to Vermont and entering the political arena in a state with a tiny Jewish population, his once enthusiastic embrace of Israel evaporated over time, replaced by unrelenting criticism. 

As early as 1988 he expressed his belief that “it is wrong that the United States provides arms to Israel.” In a Haaretz interview, he stated his wish that the United States would exert more pressure on Israel to resolve the Palestinian conflict.

A decade later, he was the only Jewish member of the U.S. House of Representatives to dissent from a resolution holding Palestinians responsible for suicide bombings and extreme violence during the five years of the Second Intifada (2000-05), when nearly 1,000 Israelis were murdered. 

He subsequently voted against a resolution supporting Israel’s security barrier, built after waves of Palestinian terrorist attacks. He was one of 21 senators who declined to endorse a resolution of support for Israel during the Gaza war in 2014. In a newspaper interview two years later, he asserted that Israel had killed “more than 10,000 innocent people” during “Operation Protective Edge” in the Gaza Strip—a number five times higher than even Hamas claimed.

Sanders’s vitriol towards Israel began to boil over once Benjamin Netanyahu became prime minister. At first merely accusing him of “reactionary policies,” the senator eventually descended into depths of loathing. He would not support the “right-wing, racist government” in Israel, he declared in April 2019. 

At the J Street Conference last October, he claimed: “It is not anti-Semitism to say that the Netanyahu government has been racist; it is a fact.” At a Democratic debate in December, he reiterated: “We must understand that right now in Israel we have leadership under Netanyahu … who, in my view, is a racist.”

Sanders supports the establishment of a Palestinian state in pre-1967 borders, removing biblical Judea and Samaria (the West Bank) from Israeli control. Jewish settlements, now home to more than 400,000 Israelis, would vanish because, Sanders claims, they are illegal according to “international law and multiple United Nations resolutions.”

That is flagrantly incorrect. International law dating back a century to the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine guaranteed to Jews the right of “close settlement” throughout “Palestine,” defined as comprising land east and west of the Jordan River. British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill gifted the land east of the River to King Abdullah; there was no restriction on the right of Jewish settlement west of the River.

All of this raises the question whether American Jews should anticipate with elation or foreboding the prospect of Bernie Sanders as their first Jewish president. For assimilated Jews of a liberal persuasion who are as critical of Israel as Sanders, his election doubtlessly would be cause for celebration. 

But for American Jews who embrace and defend Israel, a Sanders presidency is likely to elicit sour memories of former President Barack Obama, whose disdain for the Jewish state remains a conspicuous legacy of his White House tenure. Based on his own statements, Sanders is likely to compete with his Democratic predecessor for recognition as Israel’s most unrelenting presidential critic since the birth of the Jewish state.

The American presidents who have been most generous in their support for Israel have been Harry S. Truman, the first world leader to recognize the birth of Israel, and Donald Trump, who has announced Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, relocated the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognized Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and indicated his intention to acknowledge Israeli sovereignty over Judea and Samaria—the biblical homeland of the Jewish people stretching from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River.

If elected, Bernie Sanders surely would not follow in their footsteps.

Sanders could likely surpass Obama as the U.S. president who would be most remembered by Jews for his hostility to the State of Israel.

Jerold S. Auerbach is the author of “Print to Fit: The New York Times, Zionism and Israel 1896-2016,” which was recently selected for Mosaic by Ruth Wisse and Martin Kramer as a “Best Book” for 2019.

To join:    https://israel-commentary.org

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

And Congress Shall Be King — According to Pelosi/Nadler/Schiff

Political News and Analysis 

The House claims it, and only it, can define executive privilege.

By The Editorial Board – Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2020

Democratic Rep. Jerrold Nadler on Thursday summed up the case for ousting President Trump this way: “Simply stated, impeachment is the Constitution’s final answer to a President who mistakes himself for a king.” 

Which brings us to the case Democrats made Friday for their second article of impeachment charging “obstruction of Congress.” This would make Congress a king. He cited executive privilege to direct nine “vital” Administration officials not to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry.

“President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the ‘sole Power of Impeachment’ vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives,” the House declares in its impeachment resolution.

Shorter version: The House has the unilateral power to define executive privilege, and a President has no constitutional authority to resist. If he does resist, the House can throw him out of office.

This is contrary to the design and intention of the Constitution’s separation of powers, which establishes three co-equal branches. It is contrary to any previous understanding of Congressional subpoena power and the ability of a President to protect his power to deliberate with advisers. And it is contrary to Supreme Court precedents on the tension between Congress and the executive.

Start with U.S. v. Nixon, which Democrats like to cite as their main justification for impeaching this President. In that case the Supreme Court rejected President Nixon’s sweeping claims of privilege and ordered that the White House tapes be delivered to Congress. Nixon then resigned.

But the Court also said explicitly in that case that a narrower claim of privilege might well be justified. The unanimous opinion said that a “President and those who assist him must be free to explore alternatives in the process of shaping policies and making decisions and to do so in a way many would be unwilling to express except privately. These are the considerations justifying a presumptive privilege for Presidential communications.”

As a letter from 21 GOP state attorneys general to the Senate this week adds, the Nixon Court also noted that communications involving “military, diplomatic or sensitive national security secrets” might be entitled to even more protection from Congressional or public exposure.

The communications Mr. Trump is trying to protect relate to Ukraine, which is precisely in this more protected category of military aid, diplomacy and national security.

The proper path for the House would have been to seek documents, and the testimony of individuals, by challenging Mr. Trump’s privilege claims in court. That’s what the House did in the Nixon case, and it won. That’s also what independent counsel Ken Starr did in the Bill Clinton case, and he won.

The House might well have won some of its claims in this case too, especially for lower-level aides who might not have interacted closely with Mr. Trump. If Mr. Trump had then resisted a court order—something he hasn’t done as President—the House would have had adequate grounds to impeach.

On the other hand, the House probably would have lost an attempt to call John Bolton, the former national security adviser, or Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. That may be why the House never formally sought their testimony, and why it withdrew its subpoena to call Mr. Bolton’s deputy. None of those names appear on the list of nine officials in the House’s second impeachment article.

Instead, the House asserted that it alone can determine what is privileged and what isn’t. And now Democrats are demanding that the Senate call Mr. Bolton as a trial witness when the House refused to do it. But Mr. Trump’s privilege claims don’t vanish simply because the House has impeached him.

We recount all this because impeachments set precedents even when they result in Senate acquittal, as this one likely will. If the Democratic House prevails in its claim of unilateral power to define executive privilege, then that privilege is essentially dead. Any President who invokes it will risk impeachment, especially Presidents who are down in the polls or loathed by the opposition party.

The President becomes a vassal of king Congress. This is another reason for the Senate to repudiate this House impeachment as its own abuse of power.

https://israel-commentary.org

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment  2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Newt Gingrich on the ABC’s of Free Health Care

Newt Gingrich explains Free Health Care.

Political News Opinion and Analysis

https://israel-commentary.org

Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.org

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment    2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

 

Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump by Alan Dershowitz

Political News and Analysis

Trump and Netanyahu: Both Being Investigated for Made-Up Crimes

by Alan M. Dershowitz

 

November 27, 2019 at 5:00 am

Image result for Netanyahu Trump pictures

Trump and Netanyahu at a joint press conference in Washington, D.C. on February 15, 2017. (Image source: The White House)

 

There are striking similarities, as well as important differences, between the investigations being conducted against American President Donald J. Trump by the US Congress, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was just indicted.

 

 

The most striking similarity is that both are being investigated for actions that their legislatures have not explicitly made criminal. Moreover, no legislature in any country governed by the rule of law would ever enact a general statute criminalizing such conduct.

 

 

The investigations of these two controversial leaders are based on using general laws that have never previously been deemed to apply to the conduct at issue and stretching them to target specific political figures.

 

 

Netanyahu has been indicted for bribery on the ground that he allegedly agreed to help a media company in exchange for more positive coverage and/or less negative coverage. There are disputes about the facts, but even if they are viewed in the light least favorable to Netanyahu, they do not constitute the crime of bribery.

 

 

Nor would the Knesset ever enact a statute making it a crime for a member of Knesset to cast a vote in order to get good media coverage. If such a law was ever passed, the entire Knesset would be in prison.

 

 

Politicians always seek good coverage and many vote with that in mind. Some even negotiate good coverage in advance of voting. That is why they have press secretaries and media consultants.

 

 

Nor could a reasonable statute be drafted that covered Netanyahu’s alleged conduct, but not that of other Knesset members who bartered their votes for good coverage. That is why no legislature in a country governed by the rule of law has ever made positive media coverage the “quid” or “quo” necessary for a bribery conviction, and that is why the bribery indictment of Netanyahu should not be upheld by the courts.

 

 

Upholding a conviction based on positive media coverage would endanger both the freedom of the press and democratic processes of governance.

 

 

Prosecutors should stay out of the interactions between politicians and the media unless specifically defined crimes, as distinguished from arguable political sins, are committed, and no one should ever be prosecuted for actions that were never made criminal, and would never be made criminal, by the legislature.

 

 

President Trump is also being investigated for alleged bribery. Originally the Democrats thought they could impeach him for non-criminal conduct, such as alleged maladministration, abuse of office or immoral conduct.

 

 

I think they have now been convinced by me and others that no impeachment would be constitutional unless the President were found guilty of the crimes specified in the Constitution, namely, “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

 

 

So the Democratic leadership has now settled on bribery as an offence for which they can impeach President Trump. The problem with that approach — similar to the problem with the Israeli approach against Netanyahu — is that it is simply not a crime for a President to use his power over foreign policy for political, partisan or even personal advantage.

 

 

Imagine Congress trying to pass a law defining what would constitute a criminal abuse of the foreign policy power, as distinguished from a political or moral abuse.

 

 

Presidents have even engaged in military actions for political gain. They have given aid to foreign countries to help themselves get elected. They have appointed ambassadors based not on competence but on past and anticipated future political contributions.

 

 

None of these has ever been deemed criminal, and Congress would never dream of enacting a criminal statute that sought to cover such actions.

 

Could it carve out a specific crime based on seeking personal political advantage rather than partisan political advantage? I doubt it. But even if it could parse such a statute, it has not done so. And if it has not done so, neither Congress nor prosecutors can seek to criminalize the exercise of a President’s foreign policy power on the ground that they do not like the way he used it or even if he abused it.

 

 

The central aspect of the rule of law is that no one may be investigated, prosecuted or impeached unless his conduct violates pre-existing and unambiguous prohibitions. Neither Congress nor prosecutors can make it up as they go along, because they, too, are not above the law.

 

 

Now to the differences. Israel is a parliamentary democracy in which the Prime Minister can be removed by a simple vote of no confidence. There is no requirement of, or need for, an impeachment mechanism.

 

 

The United States, on the other hand, is a Republic with separation of powers and checks and balances. The Framers, led by James Madison, saw the impeachment power as central to preserving our Republic and not turning it into a parliamentary democracy.

 

 

That is why they rejected a proposal that would have permitted impeachment on the ground of “maladministration.” Such an open-ended criteria, according to Madison, would have resulted in a situation in which the President served at the will of Congress.

 

 

That is why Madison insisted on the specific criteria for impeachment that the Framers ultimately accepted.

 

 

Although the differences between Israel and the United States are significant, they share in common the rule of law. Under the rule of law, properly applied, neither Netanyahu nor Trump should be deemed guilty of bribery.

 

 

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law Emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of The Case Against the Democratic House Impeaching Trump, Skyhorse Publishing, 2019, and Guilt by Accusation, Skyhorse publishing, 2019

https://israel-commentary.org

Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.org

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment    2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)

Sec.Pompeo Busts Settlements Judea Samaria ‘Occupation’ Myth

Political News Opinion and Analysis

Sec. of State Pompeo Busts  Judea Samaria ‘Occupation’ Myth

https://www.wsj.com/articles/pompeo-busts-the-occupation-myth-11574207220

The Claim that Israeli settlements are illegal was flimsy in 1978 and ridiculous in 2019.

Map below of Biblical Israel showing the homeland of the Jews on both sides of  Jordan River extending all the way to Euphrates River in present day Iraq!  

There was never a country of Jordan until the League of Nations arbitrarily created it after WWI!

By Eugene Kontorovich

The Wall Street Journal  Nov. 19, 2019

Israeli settlements  West Bank do not violate international law. That is now America’s official view, announced Monday by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. The historic decision repudiates conclusions of  1978 State Department memorandum.

For decades, Israel’s detractors have appealed to consensus, asserting that settlements are illegal because the entire international community agrees they are illegal. As with Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the Trump administration has refused to be cowed by a hollow consensus. By dissenting, the U.S. has destroyed both the consensus and the frail arguments that relied on it.

The four-page 1978 memo, written by legal adviser Herbert Hansell, was hardly a thorough study. It painted with broad strokes across several issues and cited no precedent for its key conclusions. Most important, its legal analysis of occupation and settlements has never been applied, by the U.S. or anyone else, to any other comparable situation.

Hansell’s memo took two analytic steps. First, it concluded that Israel was an “occupying power” in the West Bank. Next, it invoked an obscure provision of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which says the “Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its civilian population into the territory it occupies.” Hansell concluded that Jews who have moved past the Green Line into disputed territory have somehow been “deported or transferred” there by the state of Israel.

Under international law, occupation occurs when a country takes over the sovereign territory of another country. But the West Bank was never part of Jordan, which seized it in 1949 and ethnically cleansed its entire Jewish population. Nor was it ever the site of an Arab Palestinian state.

Moreover, a country cannot occupy territory to which it has sovereign title, and Israel has the strongest claim to the land. International law holds that a new country inherits the borders of the prior geopolitical unit in that territory. Israel was preceded by the League of Nations Mandate for Palestine, whose borders included the West Bank. Hansell’s memo fails to discuss this principle for determining borders, which has been applied everywhere from Syria and Lebanon to post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine.

Even on its own terms, the memo’s conclusions no longer apply. Because occupation is part of the law of war, Hansell wrote, the state of occupation would end if Israel entered into a peace treaty with Jordan. In 1994 Jerusalem and Amman signed a full and unconditional peace treaty, but the State Department neglected to update the memo.

Even if there were an occupation, the notion that it creates an impermeable demographic bubble around the territory—no Jew can move in—has no basis in the history or application of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Almost every prolonged occupation since 1949—from the Allies’ 40-year administration of West Berlin to Turkey’s 2016 occupation of northern Syria—has seen population movement into the occupied territory. In none of these cases has the U.S., or the United Nations, ever claimed a violation of this Geneva Convention provision.

Mr. Pompeo’s action shows the U.S. understands that we can’t have one international law for one country and another for the rest of the world.

Mr. Kontorovich is professor at George Mason University Scalia Law School.

Also view:   Eugene Rostow:

Jun 14, 2019 – For those under gross misconception Israelis are “on Arab land“. “Nothing could be further from the truth. …
and primary producer UN Resolution 242 lsraeli Settlements Judea, Samaria, Gaza www.israelcommentary.org.

 

Subscribe:  www.israel-commentary.org

Facebook: 1) Israel Commentary 2) Jerome S. Kaufman

Twitter: 1) @israelcomment    2) @schmice (Jerry Kaufman)