Right Web

Tracking militarists’ efforts to influence U.S. foreign policy

Another Likud Republican: Jeb Bush Pledges “Unwavering” Support for Bibi

Jeb Bush, presumptive 2016 Republican presidential candidate, says that his “support for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu is unwavering,” thereby helping confirm that multi-billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has effectively gained control of the Republican Party leadership.

LobeLog

More evidence that multi-billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson has effectively gained control of the Republican Party leadership came today with Florida Gov. Jeb Bush’s assertion that his “support for Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu is unwavering…” (Emphasis added)

This truly remarkable affirmation, which came through a spokeswoman, was part of a longer written statement in which he denounced remarks delivered Monday night by former Secretary of State (and Republican hero Ronald Reagan’s Chief of Staff) James Baker to the concluding dinner of the annual J Street conference.

As noted in the neocon Weekly Standard, Baker had criticized Bibi for “diplomatic missteps and political gamesmanship.” He also expressed support for a nuclear deal with Iran—a framework agreement for which could be announced this weekend, according to well-informed sources—as well as a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a baseline position for both J Street and the Obama administration.

“Governor Bush consults a wide range of advisors on foreign policy,” Bush spokeswoman Kristi Campbell said. “While he respects Secretary Baker, he disagrees with the sentiments he expressed last night and opposes J Street’s advocacy.” The statement then went on to pledge the putative candidate’s “unwavering” support for both Israel and Bibi as if, presumably, Bibi somehow represents the very embodiment of Israel.

So does this mean that Bush will support Bibi no matter what the Israeli leader says or does? (This is reminiscent of Lindsey Graham’s vow to Netanyahu in Jerusalem last December: “I’m here to tell you, Mr. Prime Minister, that the Congress will follow your lead [on Iran].”)

Does it mean that Bush does not support a two-state solution despite his own right-wing brother’s endorsement of it? Is Jeb actually to the right of Dubya on Israel??? Is he renouncing nearly five decades of bipartisan opposition to Israeli settlements on Palestinian territory? Would Jeb as president defer to Bibi on all matters that might affect Israel or Bibi’s political fortunes? Would he join with Israel in a military attack on Iran? And if Bibi (or Adelson) now demands that Baker be dropped from the list of Bush’s foreign policy advisers, will Jeb comply?

“Unwavering” is a hell of a word to apply to support for a mere mortal, especially when you consider that this statement wasn’t made off the cuff (like Romney’s “47%”). It came in a prepared statement, presumably vetted by his top campaign staff.

Now, it may be that Bush feels he has to say such things in order to appeal to the Republican base constituencies, including ardent Christian Zionists who are most likely to vote in the party’s presidential primaries. But I sense that this is more about campaign finance and wooing Adelson and very wealthy colleagues, such as Paul Singer, in the Republican Jewish Coalition. Readers of this blog, of course, remember last year’s so-called “Sheldon Primary” at Adelson’s Venetian casino resort in Las Vegas where a sizable number of presidential hopefuls “kissed the ring” of a man who probably contributed more money to defeating Obama in 2012 than any other. It was also where Chris Christie, that tough guy from New Jersey, felt obliged to personally apologize to Adelson for referring to the West Bank as “occupied territories.” It was at that same event that Jeb Bush himself was the featured speaker at an exclusive dinner at his company’s private airplane hangar at the Las Vegas airport.

Of course, Adelson and his Israeli wife, Miriam, have also long supported Netanyahu. At the Israeli leader’s speech before Congress earlier this month, the couple was seated as House Speaker Boehner’s guests of honor in the front row of the House gallery. Later that night, Adelson co-hosted a fund-raiser for Graham, who, as noted above, had already vowed to follow Bibi wherever he may lead. Indeed, Graham, whose hawkishness on Iran has never flagged, could well emerge as the Newt Gingrich of the 2016 presidential race. Gingrich, whose 2012 presidential campaign was virtually singlehandedly kept afloat by some $15 million contributed to it by the Adelsons, made it clear that, for Adelson, Israel was priority number one.

Jeb’s latest statement of devotion, of course, comes on the eve of Boehner’s trip to Israel, a gracious “thank you” from Bibi for the speaker’s cooperation (possibly lubricated by Adelson’s promises for more campaign funding for Republicans?) in arranging Netanyahu’s address to Congress. It’s yet another rather dramatic illustration of Republican fealty to Bibi. It also reveals that the GOP leadership and its presidential hopefuls— even so-called moderates whose family history with right-wing Israeli leaders has not been particularly smooth—have effectively become fused with Likud.

Share RightWeb

Featured Profiles

Bernard Lewis was a renowned historian of Islam and the Middle East who stirred controversy with his often chauvinistic attitude towards the Muslim world and his associations with high-profile neoconservatives and foreign policy hawks.


John Bolton, the controversial former U.S. ambassador to the UN and dyed-in the-wool foreign policy hawk, is President Trump’s National Security Adviser McMaster, reflecting a sharp move to the hawkish extreme by the administration.


Michael Joyce, who passed away in 2006, was once described by neoconservative guru Irving Kristol as the “godfather of modern philanthropy.”


Mike Pompeo, the Trump administration’s second secretary of state, is a long time foreign policy hawk and has led the public charge for an aggressive policy toward Iran.


Max Boot, neoconservative military historian at the Council on Foreign Relations, on Trump and Russia: “At every turn Trump is undercutting the ‘get tough on Russia’ message because he just can’t help himself, he just loves Putin too much.”


Michael Flynn is a former Trump administration National Security Advisor who was forced to step down only weeks on the job because of his controversial contacts with Russian officials before Trump took office.


Since taking office Donald Trump has revealed an erratic and extremely hawkish approach to U.S. foreign affairs, which has been marked by controversial actions like dropping out of the Iran nuclear agreement that have raised tensions across much of the world and threatened relations with key allies.


For media inquiries,
email rightwebproject@gmail.com

From the Wires

Soon after a Saudi-led coalition strike on a bus killed 40 children on August 9, a CENTCOM spokesperson stated to Vox, “We may never know if the munition [used] was one that the U.S. sold to them.”


The West has dominated the post-war narrative with its doctrine of liberal values, arguing that not only were they right in themselves but that economic success itself depended on their application. Two developments have challenged those claims. The first was the West’s own betrayal of its principles: on too many occasions the self interest of the powerful, and disdain for the victims of collateral damage, has showed through. The second dates from more recently: the growth of Chinese capitalism owes nothing to a democratic system of government, let alone liberal values.


Falsely demonizing all Muslims, their beliefs, and their institutions is exactly the wrong way to make Americans safer, because the more we scare ourselves with imaginary enemies, the harder it will be to find and protect ourselves from real ones.


Division in the ranks of the conservative movement is a critical sign that a war with Iran isn’t inevitable.


Donald Trump stole the headlines, but the declaration from the recent NATO summit suggests the odds of an unnecessary conflict are rising. Instead of inviting a dialogue, the document boasts that the Alliance has “suspended all practical civilian and military cooperation between NATO and Russia.” The fact is, NATO was a child of the Cold War, when the West believed that the Soviets were a threat. But Russia today is not the Soviet Union, and there’s no way Moscow would be stupid enough to attack a superior military force.


War with Iran may not be imminent, but neither was war with Iraq in late 2001.


Donald Trump was one of the many bets the Russians routinely place, recognizing that while most such bets will never pay off a few will, often in unpredictable ways. Trump’s actions since taking office provide the strongest evidence that this one bet is paying off handsomely for the Russians. Putin could hardly have made the script for Trump’s conduct at the recent NATO meeting any more to his liking—and any better designed to foment division and distrust within the Western alliance—than the way Trump actually behaved.


RightWeb
share