Home

Which side is he on?

Douglas Bloomfield's column, "Making shalom at the White House" might make some people wonder which side Bloomfield is on. He criticizes Netanyahu for not taking a "daring and assertive political initiative" to Washington, damns Netanyahu with faint praise for "revising the Gaza blockade" (it was too late), and demanding that Netanyahu stop Nir Barkat, the mayor of Jerusalem, from demolishing 22 Arab homes to make way for a new tourism center. Bloomfield provides a valid reason (from his point of view) for Netanyahu to do all this: "U.S. support for Israel is a crucial issue in some House and Senate races this fall and progress on the peace front (sic) could help Democrats in fund-raising and vote-getting, and allow Obama to show that his policies are working and good for Israel."

From a historical perspective (a point of view that Bloomfield deliberately ignores), we know that the actions like those proposed by Bloomfield will encourage the Arabs to demand more and commit greater acts of terrorism to get more. Why then, does Bloomfield propose these actions? Is re-electing Democrats or making Obama look good more important than the lives of Jewish Israelis? Obviously, to some the answer is "yes."

While others might wonder which side Bloomfield is on, I have no doubt. Although he's a former "chief lobbyist" for AIPAC (with someone like this working for a "pro-Israel" organization, who needs J Street?), he is on the side of Obama and the Democratic Party. Israel, and those who truly love her, will suffer greatly if Bloomfield's advice is followed. To us, more than enough Jewish lives have been sacrificed for "peace." It's time to try something else.

Ben Feigenbaum
East Brunswick