“I’m going to carry those words with me because he was a words, not weapons, guy… We’re getting away from that now. I was very frustrated with people in my party throwing rocks at the corpse before he could even be buried. Bl00d still on the widow’s shoes, and people want to post every dumb thing he ever said. He was a 31-year-old kid.”
There were a few individuals who slammed Kirk after he was killed, but very few. And a 31-year old, especially an activist such as Kirk, is a "kid." Still, at times Jones makes a lot of sense.
Van Jones on Abdul El-Sayed ⬇️
— Sarah Gallagher (@sgallz_) September 1, 2026
"These people are incredibly dangerous... I know Abdul, his positions on Israel and foreign policy are INSANE. They're not reasonable reactions to anything."
"Abdul's position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel,… pic.twitter.com/tKuiuDGXNe
Jones, green czar in the Obama Administration before he was prevailed upon to resign, argues that Abdul el-Sayed's
position is a total and complete arms embargo against the State of Israel, including defensive weapons, That's an insane position.
Israel wants to pay for infrastructure to stop a rocket coming from Iran or coming from Hezbollah or coming from Iran. We should deny them the right to buy the interceptors and knock down rocket going into Israel, men, women, children babies?
That's an insane position and by the way, it offends me because Barack Obama was a part of creating that Iron Dome. Barack Obama was a part of creating those interceptors. Barack Obama thought the Israeli people were in such a tough neighborhood, they needed to be able to knock down rockets. So you're telling me you're smarter than Barack Obama? You have better ideas about foreign policy than Barack Obama and you want to deplug an defund and take away Israel- half the world's Jews- ability to defend themselves?
Van Jones has exhibited undying love for, and devotion to Barack Obama through the years. He has a blind spot there and evidently does realize that some people do have better foreign policy ideas than the ex-President. (Crimeans would agree.)
However, Jones is right about President Obama vis-a-vis the Iron Dome. As explained by a guest column published in The Jewish News in 2021 by Doron Levin, the idea for the defensive system was hatched in 2004 as Israel was being bombarded by crude, short-range rockets from Hamas and Hezbollah.
The project received some funding from the Israeli government but the Bush Administration believed Israel should use the USA's own Phalanx Vulcan anti-missile sytem. However, Colin Kahl, who had been cooridinating USA Middle East policy at the Pentagon, sent to Israel in 2009 experts who discovered that Iron Dome was superior to the Phalanx. His office recommended $200 million in aid and
In May 2010, Obama asked Congress to provide $205 million for production and deployment of Iron Dome, which would be manufactured by Israel’s state-owned Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd. The U.S. House of Representatives approved the funding later that month in a 410-4 vote. The measure became part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011, approved by the Senate and signed by Obama on Jan. 7, 2011.
Iron Dome went operational in March 2011 and shot down its first missile a month later. Whether the new missile defense ever would have been built without Obama’s support and U.S. funding is questionable.
President Obama, having taken bold and proper action, later cooled toward the Israeli government. Nonetheless, it appears that Jones was largely correct about Obama's assistance for military defense of Israeli infrastructure and citizens. His observation that el-Sayed opposes defensive aid (all aid) to the Middle East democracy. He is wrong about the reason. El-Sayed is no more "crazy" than the 104 Democrats in the House of Representatives who have voted to cut off all aid to the Netanyahu government.
They had varying reasons to do so, none of them valid I, and presumably Jones, find valid. Unlike some of those Democrats, el-Sayed is actively hostile toward Israel. And in his case, it's not the current government in Jerusalem; it's the very nature and idea of Israel itself. That's not insane, but something else. AIPAC! AIPAC! AIPAC! (Liz Lemon/Tina Fey to Jack Donaghy/Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock: "Jack, just say Jewish, this is taking forever.")
Never missing an opportunity to criticize Barack Obama (one Democrat, somewhere, has to do it sometime), I see a rich irony. You don't have to be James Carville (terrible idea, though, James) to recognize the development of a schism in the Democratic Party over Middle East policy. It is not about Gaza or Palestinians or Netanyahu; it is about Israel. As the Party, and especially the media, contemplate Democratic prospects this November or November two years hence, Israel looms large as an issue which can do (further) major damage to party unity.
Two voices have yet to be heard from. One is Joe Biden, who has cancer and whom nobody wants to hear from anyway- despite a successful presidency- because of how his term ended. The other is Barack Obama who, though idolized only by Van Jones and a large minority of the Party, is nonetheless beloved by most Democrats.
And Barack Obama, exhibiting the boldness which characterized his presidency, has remained silent. It is unsurprising but damaging. He cannot unite the Democratic Party by simply snapping his fingers. However, some individuals, Van Jones and many others, are by speaking out forcefully risking their careers, reputation, or at least popularity. It is time that Barack Obama grab a backbone and do the same. I can survive a fainting spell.
No comments:
Post a Comment