Oh, probably not. But such insinuations are the stuff of American politics in 2011.
This particular insinuation is part of the fallout from Obama's speech on the Middle East last week -- that boring, almost content-free speech that in a saner clime would have attracted controversy only because of its unoriginality. But now it's become a kind of Rorschach test for paranoiacs, and in all the frenzied tea-leaf reading of Israel's self-proclaimed defenders, inoffensive Debbie Wasserman Schultz has been outed as a traitor to her people.
Here's how it happened.
At the Blair House on Monday, the Republican Jewish Coalition and the National Jewish Democratic Council sat down with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for a frank discussion, which, according to Politico, broke down rather quickly. Apparently, some of the assembled Democrats called for a "united, bipartisan American conversation on Israel." Congressman Steve Israel, a Democrat, suggested that bipartisan American support of Israel is a "strategic asset" to that country and oughtn't be needlessly squandered. Wasserman Schultz suggested that both the RJC and the NJDC hold a "unity event" showing that they have the ability to put aside their differences.
Which is what you might expect of a bipartisan meeting with Benjamin Netanyahu. Nothing to see here! Right?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Here's how it's been spun:
Matthew Brooks, head of the RJC, is quoted in the Weekly Standard accusing Wasserman Schultz and Israel of trying to "hijack the meeting in order to, in front of the prime minister, put a gag order in effect to prevent [Republicans] from speaking out on Israel."
Brooks also penned an open letter to Debbie Wasserman Schultz, which has been widely disseminated, in which he wrote that Wasserman Schultz "appealed to us, in front of the leader of a foreign nation, to pledge to refrain from any debate about [Israel]."
I recognize that now, as the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee, you are in a position where you must support candidates whose positions on Israel are different from yours.
To that end, I understand why you would like to shield and provide political amnesty to those Democrats whose positions undermine Israel's security.
In other words: Debbie, you're a hypocrite who'd sell out your own people for a political party -- but you have my sympathies!
Having made this remarkable accusation, Matt Brooks gives three examples of what he means by "positions" that "undermine Israel's security." They are:
1. Democrats are about to nominate a signatory of the "Gaza 54" letter to a Senate seat in Wisconsin.
2. Democrats are about to nominate to the House of Representatives a New Mexican who failed to condemn the Goldstone Report.
3. Democrats in Connecticut are about to nominate a congressman who's taken contributions from J Street.
J Street and Goldstone and Gaza, oh my! Those must be terrible things! Click through to Part Deux to learn just how terrible they are!