A debate.
I would say he has. Of course, some of his supporters would see nothing wrong with that.
12 thoughts on “Has Obama Betrayed Israel?”
Comments are closed.
A debate.
I would say he has. Of course, some of his supporters would see nothing wrong with that.
Comments are closed.
Yes he’s betrayed Israel. And if China gives him the opportunity, Taiwan will be next.
Why, exactly, is it in our interest to support the expansion of Israeli settlements? The official U.S. position is that there should be a two-state solution. As long as that is the case, it’s crazy to support building settlements on disputed land.
Kirchick wants it both ways. He wants the U.S. and Israel to be seen as ready to accept a Palestinian state in the West Bank, but he also wants U.S. support for settlement expansion efforts that run directly counter to that goal. He should either join Obama in calling for an end to settlement growth, or admit that he does not support a Palestinian state with negotiated borders.
A “betrayal” of Israel implies that somehow the Administration hadn’t made it clear to everyone that they’d throw Israel to the wolves at the earliest opportunity.
At this point it’s tempting to say that for the Administration to support Israel would be an actual betrayal (from the Administration’s POV) of their “discussion partners” elsewhere, but I shall refrain.
Betrayed Israel, of course. (And betrayed US interests in that part of the world.) Not that it’s a surprise to anyone who took a more than superficial look at Obama before the election. What I don’t understand is why so many American Jews supported and continue to support him.
I think a lot of American Jews, and others, don’t equate support for Israel with support for Likud.
“He should either join Obama in calling for an end to settlement growth, or admit that he does not support a Palestinian state with negotiated borders.”
One of these is not like the other. You are taking lessons from Obama on presenting false choices. In your same vein, do you walk to work or take your lunch?
“I think a lot of American Jews, and others, don’t equate support for Israel with support for Likud.”
I think you don’t have a clue and are making stuff up to support your assertions.
As an American Jew, I feel uniquely well qualified to comment on Jim’s ignorant statement. Few Americans (of any ethnicity) have any particular interest in supporting the Likudniks, and many reasonable people (myself included) would like to see some resolution of the I/P conflict that doesn’t require indefinite Israeli occupation (or annexation) of large swaths of someone else’s land.
With that said, it is impossible to absorb any of the rhetoric coming from the Palestinians and honestly believe that there is a viable partner for peace for ANY Israeli government. Since the opening of the second intifada, public opinion in Israel among all but the most extreme on the left has moved towards what would have been considered a hard-line Likud position only a few years earlier. Fatah is careful to limit their frothing at the mouth to Arab language only media (check MEMRI for some transalations), while Hamas doesn’t even bother to hide their positions.
Pretending that this sort of thing can simply be ignored and that absent some real change on the part of the Palestinians that the Israelis would ever negotiate their future with them is delusional at best, and utterly dishonest at worst. Obama is engaging in his usual disingenuousness in arguing for an ‘evenhanded’ approach between these two parties, but then again, that is hardly much of a surprise…
Unfortunately a lot of American progressives are perfectly okay with the idea of saying things while meaning something entirely different; in fact the option of recasting their past statements so as to seem more palatable to a momentary audience is something they value more dearly than almost any principle.
So, if they tell themselves that’s what the Palestinians are doing, they need be neither delusional nor dishonest — only “progressive.”
Of course, progressivism is a delusion, but still…
I wrote:
“He should either join Obama in calling for an end to settlement growth, or admit that he does not support a Palestinian state with negotiated borders.”
Bill Maron replied:
“One of these is not like the other. You are taking lessons from Obama on presenting false choices.”
They are not false choices. If you support both settlement growth and a negotiated territorial settlement you are either assuming the results of the negotiation, or putting people on land from which you will later have to remove them. Either way, you are reducing the odds of successful negotiations, and showing that in fact you do not support a negotiated settlement as much as you support grabbing land.
With that said, it is impossible to absorb any of the rhetoric coming from the Palestinians and honestly believe that there is a viable partner for peace for ANY Israeli government.
Nonetheless, even Netanyahu says he supports a Palestinian state with negotiated borders, which implies that he sees the possibility of a there being a negotiating partner at some point. He should not presume the results of those negotiations by building more settlements.
Obama is engaging in his usual disingenuousness in arguing for an ‘evenhanded’ approach between these two parties, but then again, that is hardly much of a surprise…
The U.S. position is not close to being “evenhanded,” and I don’t expect it ever will be (for good reasons). But it should be internally consistent. Supporting settlement growth is inconsistent with supporting a negotiated settlement.
Netanyahu also attached conditions to his ‘acceptance’ of a Palestinian state (which was likely to have come from intense pressure by the Administration in the first place) that the Arab states explicitly reject, and have rejected for decades. To suggest that this means he is moving towards the administration’s position is laughable, and I suspect that even you know this. Building more settlements is trivial to the outcome of those negotiations compared to the so-called ‘right of return’…
Regarding settlement growth (which, by the way, I also oppose), this has little to do with the Administration’s ‘evenhandedness’ vis a vis the conflict. Let’s be honest, the Palestinians and their enablers deliberately target civilians with weapons explicitly designed to maim and cause damage randomly. They engage in consistent and open calls for the utter obliteration of their ‘enemies’ and have done so for decades without the slightest hint of any accomodation. The Israelis, on the other hand, ask for basic guarantees (a recognition of their right to exist, for instance) and have already made some concessions (the return of Gaza, for instance) as a show of good faith. None of this is acknowleged by Obama, and one might have listened to his Cairo speech and remained unaware of any of this…