Trump son-in-law's family donated to Israeli settler groups

[Morch]

7 hours ago, dexterm said:

As mentioned in the OP, one of the beneficiaries of Trump's son-in-law's Kushner family tax free gifts is the American Friends of Bet El Yeshiva, currently being sued by Palestinians for $34.5 billion.

"The lawsuit argues that directly supporting Israeli settlements with tax-exempt charitable funds amounts to money laundering and tax fraud and aids and abets crimes including theft of Palestinian property, home demolitions, maiming, murder, ethnic cleansing and even genocide."

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/ali-abunimah/group-headed-trumps-israel-envoy-pick-sued-war-crimes

 

This is hardly a qualification for the impartial peace broker that Trump suggests his son-in-law could become.

 

If I remember correctly, the lawsuit mentioned is not solely directed at the Kushner family, but at a bunch of American Jewish donors, most "heavier weight" in terms of donations. As with similar lawsuits in the past, little change it would go beyond headlines, perhaps a fine (which will no doubt be celebrated as a major success) - the bogus genocide claim would probably be counter-productive, other for the attached media exposure value. If they were actually doing their homework, they could have gone straight for Trump himself:

 

Trump Donated $10,000 to West Bank Settlement

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.759738

 

I don't think Trump suggested his son-in-law would be "impartial".

[onthesoi]

27 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Dude you're simply spouting leftist talking points.

 

Enough irony there to start a scrap metal business...

[Morch]

7 hours ago, DeaconJohn said:

That Jared Kushner's family foundation supports illegal settlements in the West Bank shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

There is outright war among Jewish groups over what is good for Israel and what is good for America. You need a score card to keep track these days. The Jewish Federations refused to attend the Conference of Presidents Hanukkah party at a Trump hotel, and so did all the liberal Zionists. The Anti Defamation League is squabbling on its right with Sheldon Adelson's ZOA and on its left with J Street. Jewish Voice for Peace, a non-Zionist group gains prestige and Israel is becoming such a controversial issue that even some Jewish Federations are running away from it. And young Jews of IfNotNow are shaming the leaders.

There's a growing sense among politicians that if a Democrat blows off Haim Saban or if Republicans turn their back on Sheldon Adelson, they can find someone else in the Jewish community.

Now that Trump is telling the Zionists, you can have the West Bank and East Jerusalem, there is going to be open opposition at last from major segments of the Jewish establishment over what is good for American Jews.

This is going to get a lot more interesting.

 

There are, as you mention, disagreements and different views among Jews (American or Israeli) with regard to support of the illegal settlement effort and Israeli government policy related to the conflict with the Palestinians. An observation made on one of the earliest international Zionist conventions may serve as an apt anecdote - "there were three opinions for every two delegates".

 

And then, driven by the usual stance, you mangle your own post: "Now that Trump is telling Zionists....". Whereas earlier in the post it was implied that there are various opinions withing Zionism - "...all the liberal Zionists". Can't have it both ways. Trump, his son-in-law and the newly announced ambassador are supportive of one school of thought within Zionism, sadly that being the right wing religious messianic one.

[Morch]

3 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Interesting to whom? Don't be snookered by the Israel demonization agenda. The vast majority of American Jews are politically liberal, anti trump bigly, supportive of Israel's right to exist and defend herself, and not supportive of expanding West bank settlements. That is a broad generalization of course but there is less division on that than some people are hyping.

 

 

As addressed on previous topics, the demographics of American Jews are changing. The numbers of Liberal, secular or even moderately religious Jews are in decline, both due to lower birth rates and assimilation. On the other hand, similar figures regarding conservative and orthodox Jews are on the rise - for the exact opposite reasons. Traditionally, the latter group was relatively less involved in either Israeli or US politics, but there are growing signs indicating that may change. In general, this group is more supportive of right wing views (more so with regard to Israel). It may take time for these changes to come to their own and assert a similar influence to that the former group currently wields. Trump's victory, and relevant appointments might speed the process some.

[Jingthing]

Morch -- over 70 percent of American Jewish people voted for Clinton over trump. So this American Jewish lurch to the right, it sure ain't happening all that fast, is it? 

 

 As you well know, the vast majority of American Jews don't vote on Israel policy alone. Of course, this time trump's Israel policy was as unpredictable as his policies on pretty much everything else, given the man is a demagogic mental case that changes positions with the twitter winds. I don't think anyone could have predicted how right wing trump would have gone with his ambassador pick before he actually picked him. To the right of Netanyahu ... that takes some doing.  The pick seems actually more about cronyism than ideology ... the bankruptcy lawyer helped him out a lot. Things are often so very personal with trump. Not a normal president. 

Of course, it's not as if Hillary Clinton is hostile to Israel. It's well understood she was positioned to the right of Obama on Israel policy. 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Jingthing

[Morch]

46 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Morch -- over 70 percent of American Jewish people voted for Clinton over trump. So this American Jewish lurch to the right, it sure ain't happening all that fast, is it? 

 

 As you well know, the vast majority of American Jews don't vote on Israel policy alone. Of course, this time trump's Israel policy was as unpredictable as his policies on pretty much everything else, given the man is a demagogic mental case that changes positions with the twitter winds. I don't think anyone could have predicted how right wing trump would have gone with his ambassador pick before he actually picked him. To the right of Netanyahu ... that takes some doing.  The pick seems actually more about cronyism than ideology ... the bankruptcy lawyer helped him out a lot. Things are often so very personal with trump. Not a normal president. 

Of course, it's not as if Hillary Clinton is hostile to Israel. It's well understood she was positioned to the right of Obama on Israel policy. 

 

Demographic changes are usually slow, yes. Bur on the other hand, there are two directly opposite trends involved, hence possibly faster outcomes. Also, orthodox Jews, like some other religious groups tend to practice block voting according to religious leaders instruction. I'm not sure how they compare with the general US population in term of exercising their voting rights, but considering that they tend to live in very localized communities, these factors could potentially make their vote more effective.

 

With regard to Israeli politics, potentially even more significant, as technically they can get citizenship and voting rights quite easily (cue the usual agenda from the usual suspects...). Actually exercising these rights is dependent on different views within Orthodox Jewry - some advocating it, and some prohibiting it, mostly to do with theological positions. Relevant to this is a long standing debate within Israel on permitting general away voting.

 

Friedman was mentioned as a potential candidate before Trump's victory, or at the very least as one of his top advisors on all matters Israeli. Of course, his son-in-law was always in the mix. I think the choice is not so much about cronyism as such - leaders all over the world often choose ambassadors and representatives to important (or hot spot) countries based on loyalty and familiarity, and there's some sense to it. It doesn't, of course, make Friedman a good choice, but that's less to do with his ties to Trump and more to do with his own ideological leanings.

 

As discussed on many occasions - Netanyahu is both more opportunistic and pragmatic than people assume, and he is by no means anywhere near the right most marker of Israeli politics. If the opposition was in power, than the same could have been said on the current ambassador - being somewhat to the left of the hypothetical prime minister.

Edited December 19, 2016 by Morch

[Prbkk]

Just to clarify: this guy stole from taxpayers and was sent to prison. But some people think it's ok to give the stolen money to fund illegal settlements on stolen land? Beyond weird. And the son has the ear of Trump. Scary.