For all the Israel firsters…

…and by Israel firsters, I don’t mean people who believe in Israel, above all (there are fewer of these outside Israel than you would think) … I  mean the people who think people who think that way control events.

Here’s an excellent analysis of the lame duck Congress, the Obama administration and the DREAM Act by Mickey Kaus. Note this: Kaus opposes the DREAM act, which offers a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants who came here as children. 

I’m not endorsing his opposition, or opposing it, but he gets the politics of it right:

In the post-election "lame duck" session of Congress, Obama and the Democrats will focus on jobs, jobs, jobs. … Oh wait, no. They’ll focus on passing a big amnesty for illegal immigrants, in order to reward their Latino "base–which was only 8 percent of the national vote but supposedly cares with something approaching monomania about amnesty (despite evidence that Hispanic American opinion is shifting against illegal immigrantion). … When did the Democrats’ African American base–11 percent of the vote–get that kind of service? …

In this earlier post, Kaus also refers to the DREAM act as "pandering."

So does this sound familiar? An ethnic group with a single digit percentage vote, whose dedication to an overarching cause may be overstated, yet wielding enough influence to get a government to "pander" and to change the course of history…

Meaning it’s par for the course for America. Sub in Jews, Cubans, Greeks, Irish and it adds up to the same thing: This country (more than many, if not all others) shapes its policies according to confessional and ethnic politics — and has done so since the 1840s. Furthermore, the political leadership of said groups often shows dedication to a cause not wholly reflected in the rank and file.

The dedication of the leadership of these communities to these causes does not mean the causes should pass without criticism. Kaus has every right to pick apart the Dream Act (he’s actually more conflicted-leaning-opposed than absolutely opposed), critics of pro-Israelism have every right to kick up against it.

My objection is when it’s made to sound sui generis, that being pro-Israel affords one protections denied to any other ethnic group.

That’s pretty much what Mark Perry does in this piece in Foreign Policy. The straw breaking Perry’s back is the $3 billion in defense assistance the United States has reportedly offered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in exchange for a 90 day extension on a partial freeze on settlement building.

Here’s where Perry really goes off the reservation:

When Elena Kagan testified during her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she cited Israel jurist Aharon Barak as her model, because he was the "John Marshall of the State of Israel." Kagan might well be a brilliant justice, but I would have thought she would cite Marshall as her model. Reminded that Barak was a judicial activist (and therefore not necessarily acceptable for some committee members), Kagan gave a ready explanation: "Israel means a lot to me," she explained. Enough said.

Oh please. I mean, tear-my-hair-out PLEASE.

It’s not just that Kagan did not bring up Barak — her critics brought up her praise of Barak years earlier, she was defending it, naturally enough; It’s not just that Perry totally mischaracterizes her defense against attacks on Barak’s "judicial activism" to the extent that if he had reported her actual reaction, his case would have been undermined — because Kagan said Barak’s activism was appropriate for a state with a nascent constitution, but not for the United States.

No. That just makes him meanspirited.

No, what kills me about this is that every time I stroll from my office up Massachusetts Avenue to some think-tankfest I pass a statue of Mahatma Gandhi. That there are busts of Winston Churchill popping up around this town like hydrangeas. That Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, keeps a photo of the protesters in Tiananmen Square in her office as a foremost reminder of why she strives for leadership. That I can’t count the times that Republicans have invoked Margaret Thatcher as Western Civilization’s gift to the eternities. That I can’t count the times Democrats have said the same about Nelson Mandela. That I can’t count the times that Ellen Johnson Sirleaf has been cited by members of both parties as a signal of hope. That the list of congressional resolutions and places named for heros of overseas nations who happen to have U.S. constituencies is too long even to begin. (Bolivar, Mo. anyone?)

It is entirely normative to seek and embrace examples of courage from beyond our borders. It is even more so when we happen to share a heritage with same. What’s exceptional is when the likes of Perry try to make it exceptional.