Score once more for team Kramer. What was Forman thinking, did he actually believe that he would stop Middle East scholar and analyst, Martin Kramer with “that move“? *L* KGS
Forman: “Martin Kramer’s tawdry political stunt”:
“Perhaps the biggest discernable difference in Kramer’s eyes is that Clinton’s comments were made by a Democrat – and political foe – while Rice’s were made by a Republican political ally. Mr. Kramer is a member of Rudy Giuliani’s foreign policy team. To attempt to demagogue the Israel issue, as Kramer has done in his piece about Senator Clinton, is counterproductive to all of us who care about the future of the US-Israel relationship. This type of tawdry political stunt serves only to cheapen the political discourse. The true best interests of Israel have been, are, and will continue to be best served through a strong, bipartisan consensus.
Martin Kramer: “I whack-a-hack back…”
“Ira N. Forman, executive director of the
National Jewish Democratic Council, has taken a whack at my recent op-ed on Hillary Clinton’s Foreign Affairs essay. In that piece, I examined Hillary’s text, I decoded its message on Israel and the Palestinians, and I suggested that it deviated from pronouncements she’s made elsewhere. Forman calls my exegesis a “tawdry political stunt… filled with shaky logic and intellectual dishonesty.” But he doesn’t attempt to refute my exegesis of her essay, which seems to echo the pressure-Israel-and-push-for-Palestine preferences of the foreign policy establishment.
[…]
Well, Mr. Forman, you obviously haven’t been a big reader of mine, or you’d know that I’m not a party man, and that I haven’t hesitated to criticize the Bush Administration when I’ve deemed it to be wrong-headed. Four years ago, I dissented from Bush’s first big democracy speech, and compared him to Jimmy Carter. I did it again after Hamas won Palestinian elections in January of last year. Last June, I appeared at a conference in Prague hours before the President did, and challenged him on the same issue. In a profile over the summer, I was quoted (accurately) as saying: “I saw myself in a debate mode with President Bush” over democracy promotion. So I’ve called them as I’ve seen them all along.
[…]
I provide input to the Giuliani campaign, not output, so I speak only for myself when I say that Annapolis seems to me a textbook case of how not to move forward. My critic, Ira Forman, is a professional party hack, so he’s written the only thing he could have written. I’d urge voters, especially those with a keen interest in Israel, to do what I’ve done: think independently, judge the policies offered by candidates for their cogency and consistency, and make a choice without regard to party. It’s the American way.
Perhaps this is a bit off-topic but the display of partisanship is a bit amusing at times. You see, in America, Democrats and Republicans fight like cats and dogs. But just utter the word “ISRAEL!” and most everybody makes nice and shakes hands.
In Israel, the political parties bicker in a 3-ring circus. Ruling coalitions are hardly harmonious. But just mention the words “UNITED STATES!” and most everybody makes nice and shakes hands.
There’s only one reason for this: The ties between the two countries are deeper than the politicians’.
Excellent point TINSC.
I also believe that your point goes well Kramers, relations with Israel aren’t built along party loyalities, it goes much deeper than that. It is also a product of the US’s strong self interests, that place Israel as a key component.