So, what does Barak Obama really say about Israel?
"Those who threaten Israel threaten us."Meanwhile, on the same day Obama made these and other statements President George W. "the-greatest-friend-Israel-has-ever-had" Bush suspended moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem. Remember! Bush was the "good for Israel" candidate for the last two elections, and was the first President to call for an independent Palestinian state.
"I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat, from Gaza to Tehran."
"I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world."
-June 4, 2008 speaking to AIPAC
Below is a clip of Obama talking to AIPAC. The video starts with him talking about Iran then he segues into Israel:
Run time 4:45
This video makes it clear: Obama is a fierce supporter of Israel.
Tomorrow: Obama on the Right of Return
46 comments:
watch his actions, not his words. watch with whom he keeps company, not the politician blather coming out of him.
Bankman has a point.
It's very easy to make pre-election promises. I remember that same day that the western regional director of Aipac came to our shul to talk and he spoke highly of all three candidates, he said something else. He said the president of the US has the hardest job in the world, because the day after he moves into the oval office, many dignitaries from around the world come visit and discuss matters. One of these people is a dignitary from Saudia Arabia, and the president, whom it is, has to basically deal with many pressures from all around.
So yes, he can say alot of things, but what matters is what comes later.
And from what I know, many Israelis here and in Israels love Bush and DO think he is a friend of Israel for basically leaving Israel alone during this second intifada and basically "allowing" Israel to do what it needed to do and not condemn them like the rest of the nations.
>Tomorrow: Obama on the Right of Return
From what I heard, he is against it. Case closed. Next topic :)
If you're only voting on the Israel issue then it is plain to see that McCain is head and shoulders above Obama as far as pro-Israel views go. Even if you take Obama's statements at face value.
bankman,
> watch with whom he keeps company, not the politician blather coming out of him.
Are you talking about Bush or Obama?
image:Bush holding hands
When talking to AIPAC Obama could have easily side stepped the issue of working toward peace with the Palestinians (something Bush is actively working toward) but Obama addressed it. Barack didn't have to combine "Gaza with Teheran", but he did. If Obama is just spouting "blather" he has a funny way of doing it.
Holy Hyrax,
> Aipac came to our shul to talk... said the president of the US has the hardest job in the world, because the day after he moves into the oval office, many dignitaries from around the world come visit and discuss matters. One of these people is a dignitary from Saudia Arabia
So? McCain would be subject to those same pressures. Bush (and his family) have enjoyed a long-term relationship with the Saudis that predates his term in office but he was still "approved" as "good for Israel".
Bush... is a friend of Israel for basically leaving Israel alone during this second intifada and basically "allowing" Israel to do what it needed to do and not condemn them like the rest of the nations.
Has there ever been any condemnation of Israel by a U.S. President that had any meaning?
A quick Google shows even Israel's BFF Bush did it. And let's not forget that Reagan did it when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor!
And what did Israel do while Bush 'left them alone'? They gave up the Golan and Gaza... unilaterally.
This idea that Republican's are quantitatively better for Israel is a myth.
>So? McCain would be subject to those same pressures. Bush (and his family) have enjoyed a long-term relationship with the Saudis that predates his term in office but he was still "approved" as "good for Israel".
That's my point. So it doesn't matter what he says now at AIPAC. What matters is what comes later.
>A quick Google shows even Israel's BFF Bush did it.
I don't think you can even compare that to eight years of condemnation from the Europeans. Israelis like Bush because he basically let them handle the Palestinians during this long Intifada. Now obviously Bush would have to step in from time to time and tell Israel to relax, but on a whole, I believe Israelis have approved of Bush's friendship
>They gave up the Golan and Gaza... unilaterally.
Thats irrelevant. And what do you mean by the Golan?
>And let's not forget that Reagan did it when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor!
And what does this have to do with Bush?
btw
In way do I think Bush was perfect for Israel. I don't think any president will. They have their own issues. I just don't beleive you can say because Obama wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem, that is he immediatly better to Israel.
Orthoprax,
> it is plain to see that McCain is head and shoulders above Obama as far as pro-Israel views go. Even if you take Obama's statements at face value.
McCain's position on Israel is vague at best. He also doesn't have his position on Israel listed on his website. (Obama does, BTW).
In general when McCain talks about Israel he brings up Iran and how they are a threat to Israel's existence. (Obama says the same: Obama's Israel Fact Sheet") McCain talks about the terrorist threat to Israel (so does Obama: Obama's Israel Fact Sheet") And like Obama, McCain talks about making peace with the Palestinians.
In a recent interview for The Atlantic when asked about the settlements rather than show his support McCain dodged the question and talked about the Oslo accords.
People incorrectly label Obama as all style and no substance. But while Obama offers specifics on Israel McCain is nothing but vague talk.
>In a recent interview for The Atlantic when asked about the settlements rather than show his support McCain dodged the question and talked about the Oslo accords.
Did he condemn them?
> it doesn't matter what he says now at AIPAC. What matters is what comes later.
So then how do you evaluate any candidate before they take office?
> I don't think you can even compare that to eight years of condemnation from the Europeans... obviously Bush would have to step in from time to time and tell Israel to relax,
No U.S. President will condemn Israel in the way the Europeans do. It just doesn't happen. There is too much support for Israel here in the US. Like Bush, all U.S. Presidents "step in from time to time and tell Israel to relax" I don't see how you can claim that there will be any substantial difference between Obama or McCain.
>> They gave up the Golan and Gaza... unilaterally.
> Thats irrelevant. And what do you mean by the Golan?
Of course it's relevant. When people vote based on Israel a main concern of theirs is that the President will support giving up land for peace. Under Bush they gave up land without negotiation. My point is that voting in a Republican President doesn't ensure that Israel won't give away land.
My bad on the Golan. I was thinking it was May 2001, but it was May 2000.
>> And let's not forget that Reagan did it when Israel bombed the Iraqi nuclear reactor!
> And what does this have to do with Bush?
Like I mentioned, this has to do with the myth that Republicans are better for Israel.
> I just don't beleive you can say because Obama wants to move the embassy to Jerusalem, that is he immediatly better to Israel.
I didn't say Obama said he would move the embassy to Jerusalem. I said Bush reneged on his promise to do so.
The simple truth is Israel sets Israeli policy. No American President can force Israel to compromise her own security. All U.S. Presidents support Israel on the issues that matter. Quite simply, AIPAC does a very effective job. As an American you are best served voting on domestic issues. All candidates involved have made it clear that they will support and defend Israel. The main difference is Obama has stated his commitment more clearly than McCain has.
>So then how do you evaluate any candidate before they take office?
Obviously, you do the best you can with a realization of what comes afterwards.
>No U.S. President will condemn Israel in the way the Europeans do. It just doesn't happen. There is too much support for Israel here in the US. Like Bush, all U.S. Presidents "step in from time to time and tell Israel to relax" I don't see how you can claim that there will be any substantial difference between Obama or McCain.
I never did. Only responding to the usual "Oh, Bush is SUCH a friend to Israel" remarks.
>Under Bush they gave up land without negotiation. My point is that voting in a Republican President doesn't ensure that Israel won't give away land.
The blame needs to first land on Sharon and Olmert. Do you think Bush would have yelled "no no, please don't give it up?" America has interests as well and I don't think they would have realized Hamas would take over.
> The blame needs to first land on Sharon and Olmert.
Exactly. Israel sets Israeli security policy, not the U.S.
The most a U.S. President can do is get all the parties involved to sit down at a table together (See: Clinton, Bill). In the end Israel will do what is best for Israel regardless of who is in the White House.
LNM,
"People incorrectly label Obama as all style and no substance. But while Obama offers specifics on Israel McCain is nothing but vague talk."
No, that's because McCain doesn't need to campaign on this issue. His past statements and actual actions speak loud and clear. He is extremely pro-Israel.
Zbigniew Brzezinski
Robert Malley
Samantha Power
Jimmy Carter
Jeremiah Wright
David Bonior
Ali Abunimah
Nuff' Said.
You Liberal Democrats always try to ignore the obvious.
Orthoprax,
> No, that's because McCain doesn't need to campaign on this issue. His past statements and actual actions speak loud and clear. He is extremely pro-Israel.
That doesn't make any sense. If his record is so clear, and he has the opportunity to cut into the Democrat's base (Jews), then he should highlight his stance on Israel.
If McCain is known for anything it's his stance on pork funding. But he still highlights this in his Government Reform agenda. By your logic he shouldn't campaign on his past achievements.
His past statements and actual actions speak loud and clear. He is extremely pro-Israel.
Cute. Nice defense for an incompetent orator.
So lets see... I think I should vote for McCain who supports action, i.e. Baseless military invasions. or maybe it's because he incoherently follows the party line regarding Israel. Or maybe because, despite of his reputation for "straight talk" and his inability to read a teleprompter, he can't help but contradict himself over and over again.
Obama knows how to talk, does not dodge the issues, is young and charismatic, and has the trust and support of the majority of the democratic party despite his "inexperience" and against one of the most loved, respected and experienced democratic politicians. What exactly do you expect out of a young presidential candidate? He's only about 45... I suppose he should have 35 years of political experience by now? His words and actions have been nothing but admirable, and his rocket political career to democratic nomination for the president of the United States of America should give you the message. This guy is gonna go down in history as the first black president, and one of the most loved, most praised, and one that turned a nation embarrassed of an illiterate, war-mongering president into a nation to be proud of again.
LNM,
"That doesn't make any sense. If his record is so clear, and he has the opportunity to cut into the Democrat's base (Jews), then he should highlight his stance on Israel."
Ok, so write him a letter. His staunchly pro-Israel views are well known and not doubted. If this is the issue why people vote he is going to get their vote.
"If McCain is known for anything it's his stance on pork funding. But he still highlights this in his Government Reform agenda. By your logic he shouldn't campaign on his past achievements."
Clearly that doesn't invoke a special interest group.
Fed,
"Cute. Nice defense for an incompetent orator."
Hum? I wasn't referring to his speaking skills. I have no problem admitting that Obama is a much better speaker than McCain.
Hey anonymous, What about these people?
Cpl. Roberto Abad, Cmdr. Joseph Acevedo, Sgt. 1st Class, Sgt. Michael D. Acklin II,Spc., Genaro Acosta, Pfc. Steven Acosta, Spc. James L. Adair, Capt. James F. Adamouski, Pvt. Algernon Adams, Sgt. Brandon E. Adams, Sgt. 1st Class Brent A. Adams, Spc. Clarence Adams III, Sgt. Leonard W. Adams, Sgt. Mark P. Adams, 1st Lt. Michael R. Adams, Pfc. Michael S. Adams, Lt. Thomas Mullen Adams, Sgt. Shawn G. Adams, Capt. Shane T. Adcock, Spc. Jamaal R. Addison, Spc. Dustin M. Adkins, Lance Cpl. Patrick R. Adle, Pfc. Christopher S. Adlesperger, Pfc. Daniel J. Agami, Cpl. Andres Aguilar Jr.
and the rest of the 4,405 coalition deaths, 4,092 of which were Americans. George Bush and John McCain might keep good company. BUT THEY SEND THEM OFF TO DIE!
Orthoprax,
> His staunchly pro-Israel views are well known and not doubted.
Sure, that's the impression that people have. But where exactly does he stand on the specifics? McCain is curiously quiet on this issue. McCain has no specific policy on Israel beyond the simple "Pro".
>> pork funding
> Clearly that doesn't invoke a special interest group.
You really don't know what you are talking about. The Citizens Against Government Waste is one of the better known lobbyist groups in Washington.
>is young and charismatic
Yes he is, which is why I believe most Americans love the guy, regardless of policy.
LNM,
"Sure, that's the impression that people have. But where exactly does he stand on the specifics? McCain is curiously quiet on this issue. McCain has no specific policy on Israel beyond the simple "Pro"."
What specifics? He strongly denounces Hamas, stridently supports Israel's right to defend itself, vows to increase foreign aid to Israel and says that he doesn't believe anyone should pressure Israel into concessions which it isn't prepared. He constantly says nice things about Israel and Zionism and I don't think he's ever publically criticized anything about it.
I actually find it hard to believe that this is something we're debating.
"You really don't know what you are talking about. The Citizens Against Government Waste is one of the better known lobbyist groups in Washington."
Are you seriously proposing that fiscal responsibility is a special interest?
I don't understand why you guys are turning into jerks about politics. Our discussions were much more civil when it came to religion.
Once again, the Obama defenders ignore the obvious.
Until he ran for public office his closest confidantes and community were viciously anti-Israel and even now that he is running he surrounds himself with Israel haters. I listed them above.
By his actions shall ye know him. Words are just bluster.
Orthoprax,
> He strongly denounces Hamas, stridently supports Israel's right to defend itself, vows to increase foreign aid to Israel and says that he doesn't believe anyone should pressure Israel into concessions which it isn't prepared. He constantly says nice things about Israel and Zionism and I don't think he's ever publically criticized anything about it.
None of this makes him substantially different from Obama.
> Are you seriously proposing that fiscal responsibility is a special interest?
Are you seriously unfamiliar with the U.S. debt? It's currently at about 9.3 trillion dollars. Yes, fiscal responsibility is most defiantly a special interest. No, I am not making a joke.
> I don't understand why you guys are turning into jerks about politics. Our discussions were much more civil when it came to religion.
Please tell me you're kidding. Are you taking my analysis of McCain's alleged superior position on Israel personally? Or are you suddenly thin skinned when I call you out on a topic you clearly don't know very well?
bankman,
> Mccain would wipe Iran off the face of the map, without batting an eyelash.
If you like simplistic foreign policy that can be sung to a Beach Boys tune then McCain is the man for you.
McCain: BOMB BOMB BOMB IRAN
If you're looking for a nuanced foreign policy that includes the option of attacking Iran militarily then you should vote for Obama.
Obama: Iran threatens all of us
Bankman said, Mccain would wipe Iran off the face of the map, without batting an eyelash...We need a president that will push the red button when/if necessary (god forbid)
Three cheers for the destruction of the planet as we all go up in a nuclear fog of destruction!
Yeah! Yeah! Yeah!
Now that's change we can believe in!
LNM,
"None of this makes him substantially different from Obama."
Obama has publically sympathized with the Palestinian plight and surrounds himself with ME advisors who are often critical of Israel. I didn't say that Obama was anti-Israel or anything like that, but McCain is unadulterated, pro-Israel to the core. McCain is enthusiaatic about Israel when Obama sounds like he's reading from a script.
"Are you seriously unfamiliar with the U.S. debt? It's currently at about 9.3 trillion dollars. Yes, fiscal responsibility is most defiantly a special interest. No, I am not making a joke."
Not in terms of rhetoric, which is all campaign promises amount to. Theoretically a ideological core of the Republican party is fiscal responsibility.
The point is that McCain's focusing on fiscal responsibility is appealing to a lot of people - not just special interests. Even if that doesn't pan out into regular politics the campaigning is towards a wide audience and not just "The Citizens Against Government Waste."
In comparison, clearly, campaigning on Israel is a special interest.
"Please tell me you're kidding. Are you taking my analysis of McCain's alleged superior position on Israel personally? Or are you suddenly thin skinned when I call you out on a topic you clearly don't know very well?"
No, it was your attitude that 'I really don't know what I'm talking about.' It was just a rude thing to say. If you think I'm wrong about something then present your view educationally rather than as a put down. That and Fed's recent emotional explosion was why I wrote what I wrote.
Even if you think your knowledge is so much superior to my own - which I contest - there's no reason to be rude.
I'd just like to put this out there once and for all: I'm really pro a two-state solution. It would solve so many of ISRAEL'S problems. The thing si though, it would solve none of the Palistinian't problems - which is exactly why the Palistinians don't want a two-state solution, and have never once taken that offer when it was offered. They know they're better off if Hammas isn't the only one in charge. As a matter of fact, so does Hammas. Also, the Palistinian goal isn't to have their own state - it's to have all of israel as a Muslim state, preferably with no Jews around. So as much as I would theoretically be very happy to see a two-state solution, I don't think it's gonna happen.
sorry that that was irrelevant in terms of the actual discussion going on. I didn't really have time to read through all the comments, and this was based on the video of Obama speaking.
Obama said in front of AIPAC, to rousing applause that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." The next day on CNN, he said he was misunderstood. "Well," Obama explained, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."
Obama's adviser for the Middle East, Daniel Kurtzer, in May told the Haaretz, that his campaign considers it "impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."
Hooray! I’m voting for obama
Get used to this
> The point is that McCain's focusing on fiscal responsibility is appealing to a lot of people - not just special interests. Even if that doesn't pan out into regular politics the campaigning is towards a wide audience and not just "The Citizens Against Government Waste."
In comparison, clearly, campaigning on Israel is a special interest.
Israel appeals to a lot of people, not just Jews. It's a key part of our foreign policy. They are a dependable ally in the Middle East and they are Democracy. Supporting Democracies across the globe has been a key part of U.S. foreign policy in general, and GOP policy in particular.
Compared to the contentious special interests of "Abortion or "Gun Rights" Israel doesn't even rank. Israel is a bipartisan issue. On the other hand an issue like "pork barrel spending" has basically no support at all in Washington.
You can't point to McCain's website and say he is only campaigning on "wide audience" issues. He is appealing to special interests, and the party line. He talks about both issues he is known for "Climate Change", and issues he's not known for "Space Program". No clear pattern emerges.
Of course the best analogy to "Israel the issue" is "Cuba". Though, like Israel, he doesn't talk about Cuba on his website but, McCain does make specific policy recommendations about how he will treat the Communist nation when talking to groups.
My original critique still stands: Why doesn't McCain discuss his foreign policy in general, and Israel in particular?
FYI, I brought up "The Citizens Against Government Waste" to counter your claim that pork barrel spending doesn't invoke a special interest group. Israel may be considered a special interest issue but unlike government waste Israel has support from most politicians.
> It was just a rude thing to say.
You of all people are lecturing about being rude? Simply hilarious.
bankman,
> Obama on a possible divided Jerusalem
Obama's position is consistent with the Bush administration (that the status of Jerusalem must be decided by the parties). And they share this opinion with the Prime Minister of Israel.
I'd love to her McCain's stance but he is suspiciously silent on the issue.
my point: get used to Obama saying one thing and doing another. Or more precisely, saying one thing to one consituent and the exact opposite to another.
you keep citing what he says - or what is written on his website. i am trying to point out that those things are meaningless. its hot air. he says whatever he needs to in front of whatever audience he faces. typical.
bankman,
> get used to Obama saying one thing and doing another. Or more precisely, saying one thing to one consituent and the exact opposite to another.
Clarifying a position to CNN is hardly saying one thing and doing another. Again, Obama's clarified position is consistent with the current U.S. and Israeli positions.
Does McCain disagree? If McCain is different why isn't he publicizing it?
>Clarifying a position to CNN is hardly saying one thing and doing another. Again, Obama's clarified position is consistent with the current U.S. and Israeli positions.
Then whats the point of saying Jerusalem needs to remain undivided? Doesn't that sound like just pandering to what they want to hear? Why not just say from the get go that whatever the future of Jerusalem is, its up to the parties from the start?
HH,
> Why not just say from the get go that whatever the future of Jerusalem is, its up to the parties from the start?
Fair enough. But, if McCain has a different position on Jerusalem than this matters. Otherwise its a moot point.
LNM,
"Israel appeals to a lot of people, not just Jews."
And for those who care about it, McCain's record is very clear. The point is that it is a peripheral issue and not one that serves his interests to harp on.
"You can't point to McCain's website and say he is only campaigning on "wide audience" issues."
I haven't. What I said was that he doesn't need to build up his credentials on that special interest issue. Whereas he has an interest in presenting himself as a fiscally responsible figure. It's a campaign issue.
"My original critique still stands: Why doesn't McCain discuss his foreign policy in general, and Israel in particular?"
He does - constantly. Maybe he has his reasons for not putting everything up on a website but he's not secretive about what he thinks or intends to do.
"FYI, I brought up "The Citizens Against Government Waste" to counter your claim that pork barrel spending doesn't invoke a special interest group. Israel may be considered a special interest issue but unlike government waste Israel has support from most politicians."
Every issue has it's own cheerleading lobby in Washington. That wasn't my point. My point was that as a campaign issue, those who'll vote one way or the other based on Israel support is a special interest contingent. And one to which he doesn't need to sell himself.
But a lot of regular people care about government spending and his message is meant to appeal to them.
People Power Granny is already disappointed with Barack Obama's position of promising to not negotiate with Hamas in the Middle East, if he is elected president. Do you think that Hamas should be negotiated with, as former President Carter has done? Vote in my poll at my blog so I know what you think.
Orthoprax,
> The point is that [Israel] is a peripheral issue and not one that serves his interests to harp on.
Israel is not a peripheral issue. Israel is the one reliable U.S. ally in the Middle East. Because of the U.S. presence in Middle East (Iraq and Afghanistan) that relationship is all the more important. Further, a possible nuclear strike on Israel from Iran raises the importance of Israel since such an attack could warrant a similar response from the US. More than ever Israel is a relevant campaign issue. They come up almost every time Iran is discussed.
But even if Israel was a peripheral issue McCain's approach is off. You win elections by highlighting and bringing attention to the issues that will win you votes. Assuming that people know where you stand and letting them draw their own conclusions is how you lose a race.
> Maybe he has his reasons for not putting everything up on a website but he's not secretive about what he thinks or intends to do.
That's exactly it. He is secretive about where he stands on the specifics. What is McCain's position on a divided Jerusalem, West Bank settlements, a Palestinian State? He specifically talks in generalities so as not to degrade his support on this issue.
> But a lot of regular people care about government spending and his message is meant to appeal to them.
Yes, but in an election you try to appeal to ALL the groups you have an ideological connection with. You try to create a larger narrative but you also target the voting blocks that you think might support you. For example, McCain is no more a pro-life warrior than he is an Israel defender but he devotes a section of his website to abortion because he needs the support of the people who care about the issue. As a Republican his position on abortion (relative to the Democrats) is obvious but he spends time on pro-life issues because he needs win over that segment of the electorate.
I think there are a couple of reasonable explanations for why McCain isn't talking about Israel:
1) His actual position is closer to Obama's than you think. He actually supports a Palestinian State and wants to work toward making that a reality. Therefore he doesn't get into the specifics of his position because it will only hurt him.
2) The large groups of Israel supporters, Jews and religious Christians, live in Blue states or can be won over with "values" issues respectively so he isn't wasting time on an issue that in the end doesn't matter to him electorally.
3) He isn't running as effective a campaign as he could. This seems to be the case in other areas (see: funding). For Obama's sake I hope this is the case.
LNM,
"But even if Israel was a peripheral issue McCain's approach is off. You win elections by highlighting and bringing attention to the issues that will win you votes."
Do you think he's losing votes on the Israel issue? I don't. I think he's doing just fine there.
"That's exactly it. He is secretive about where he stands on the specifics. What is McCain's position on a divided Jerusalem, West Bank settlements, a Palestinian State? He specifically talks in generalities so as not to degrade his support on this issue."
He has said that he supports moving the US embassy to Jerusalem but beyond that he has no interest in telling Israel how to run their affairs. His interest is in Israel's security - which he has made extremely clear - not about the specific conditions of any peace negotiation.
McCain may believe settlements are a problem, but he isn't interested in telling Israel what to do about them so why should he go on about his personal views which will stir up controversy and never turn into policy? He talks in generalities because he has no interest in the specifics. The impression is that he supports letting Israel do what Israel thinks it ought to do.
Obama though, for example, does have an issue with settlements and the given impression is that he will pressure Israel on them. And indeed, those who prefer that Israel be pressured are likely to vote Obama.
This, I believe, is the main difference in their Israel policies. McCain is for hands-off support. Obama is for pressure towards peace. So obviously if you're going to apply pressure you need to stake out a vision of what you're pressing towards.
"As a Republican his position on abortion (relative to the Democrats) is obvious but he spends time on pro-life issues because he needs win over that segment of the electorate."
It's not obvious at all. He's a maverick after all and his social policies are sometimes very different from the party line.
> Do you think he's losing votes on the Israel issue?
Israel as an issue has the most pull with Jewish voters. Traditionally, (since FDR) Jews vote Democratic. Bush has made some in-roads by specifically working the Israel issue. If McCain wants to win this election he needs to keep those Bush voters, appeal to independents and undercut Obama's Democratic support. Reaching out to the Jews on the issue of Israel is an easy way to do that. Obama has gone out of his way to stake a hawkish position on Israel and shore up his Jewish votes. By this metric McCain is losing potential votes when he should be leveraging Israel to broaden his support.
> He has said that he supports moving the US embassy to Jerusalem but beyond that he has no interest in telling Israel how to run their affairs.
Bush and Clinton both claimed to support moving the embassy to Jerusalem. It's still in Tel Aviv. If you really buy McCain's pandering on the embassy issue then I have a bridge in Brooklyn you might want to buy. This is one of the most common forms of pandering on the Israel issue.
As far as McCain claiming no interest in telling Israel how to run their affairs I don't buy it. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II all drew up peace plans and held meetings to try and make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. W. Bush also claimed a "hand-off" approach. Why do you believe McCain will be any different? In fact he's suggested the roadmap is an avenue to be followed.
>> McCain on abortion
> It's not obvious at all. He's a maverick after all and his social policies are sometimes very different from the party line.
NARAL Gives John McCain 96% Pro-Life Voting Record according to your logic, like Israel, he shouldn't need to sell himself on this issue. Why would Jews assume he's not a maverick on Israel but values voters would assume he IS a maverick on abortion? It's inconsistent.
LNM,
"Israel as an issue has the most pull with Jewish voters. Traditionally, (since FDR) Jews vote Democratic...By this metric McCain is losing potential votes when he should be leveraging Israel to broaden his support."
Maybe, maybe not. Generally the Jews who vote based on Israel are not the Jews who vote Democratic. I don't believe he's losing the Israel vote, but you may be right that he could get more votes by pressing the Israel issue. Maybe when he makes speeches in Florida he'll bring it up.
"Bush and Clinton both claimed to support moving the embassy to Jerusalem. It's still in Tel Aviv."
Yes, I know that. Hopefully we'll see if McCain carries through.
"As far as McCain claiming no interest in telling Israel how to run their affairs I don't buy it. Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II all drew up peace plans and held meetings to try and make a deal between Israel and the Palestinians. W. Bush also claimed a "hand-off" approach. Why do you believe McCain will be any different? In fact he's suggested the roadmap is an avenue to be followed."
Yes, Bush II was basically hands-off. Drawing up plans and making meetings is not the same as putting pressure on Israel. If McCain is the same as Bush as far as Israel goes I'd be happy with it. And Israel would be happy too. They love Bush there.
In comparison, Clinton was decent but pushed Israel into offering bad deals to bad partners and Bush Sr. actually threatened to withhold loan guarantees if Israel didn't follow his directions.
"NARAL Gives John McCain 96% Pro-Life Voting Record according to your logic, like Israel, he shouldn't need to sell himself on this issue. Why would Jews assume he's not a maverick on Israel but values voters would assume he IS a maverick on abortion? It's inconsistent."
Because he hasn't been a maverick on Israel, his views have been entirely consistent throughout his entire political career. His views on social issues, including abortion, are more nuanced and people may not know where he stands. Indeed, he's said a number of conflicting things about abortion over the years.
Orthoprax,
> Generally the Jews who vote based on Israel are not the Jews who vote Democratic.
I think many Modern Orthodox and Tzioni Jews, who otherwise vote for Democrats, have been voting for Republicans because they have been led to believe that, with regard to Israel, it makes a difference who is President. These people can be brought back over. I don't expect Flatbush to hear my argument.
> Maybe when he makes speeches in Florida he'll bring it up.
Personally, I think McCain will win Florida. A large part of the Democratic voting bloc down there are old Jews who IMHO will have great difficulty voting for a schvartze.
> Yes, Bush II was basically hands-off. Drawing up plans and making meetings is not the same as putting pressure on Israel. If McCain is the same as Bush as far as Israel goes I'd be happy with it.
It could very well be that previous Democrats pressured Israel to try to make peace. But let's look at the current candidate.
"[The United States] must never force Israel to the negotiating table." -Obama to AIPAC 6/4/08
Once again Obama is in line with Bush policy on Israel.
> he hasn't been a maverick on Israel, his views have been entirely consistent throughout his entire political career. His views on social issues, including abortion, are more nuanced and people may not know where he stands. Indeed, he's said a number of conflicting things about abortion over the years.
I don't believe that McCain is assuming that people know which issues he is a maverick on and which ones he isn't. If anything the title "Maverick" implies that McCain is willing to compromise (in the good way) on any issue.
Look, you could be right. It just seems to me like McCain's approach is either a way to leave the door open to being a maverick on the Israel issue or it is a very ineffective strategy to convince people to vote for him.
LNM,
"Personally, I think McCain will win Florida. A large part of the Democratic voting bloc down there are old Jews who IMHO will have great difficulty voting for a schvartze."
Then what Jewish/Zionist bloc do you think McCain needs to get on his side? NY, Cali? I'd be surprised if McCain even bothers to make a pit stop in those states.
"It could very well be that previous Democrats pressured Israel to try to make peace. But let's look at the current candidate."
It wasn't just Democrats. Of recent presidents I think Bush Sr. was the most strong armed of the bunch.
"[The United States] must never force Israel to the negotiating table." -Obama to AIPAC 6/4/08"
Yes, that's what he says. But as you know, he's also said a number of supportive things about the Palestinians and you surely know how he's favored in the Arab world. It's very likely that he'll be an 'even-handed' broker.
So let's flip the question, ok? If you were a Palestinian sympathizer who would you vote for? Or you could just ask the sympathizers: who do you think they're supporting?
"I don't believe that McCain is assuming that people know which issues he is a maverick on and which ones he isn't."
If you're a social conservative who follows politics then you know that McCain has a variable - if not outright self-conflicting - record. This is mainly from where he gets his 'maverick' ranking.
"Look, you could be right. It just seems to me like McCain's approach is either a way to leave the door open to being a maverick on the Israel issue or it is a very ineffective strategy to convince people to vote for him."
I just don't see any sign from throughout his whole political career that he considers Israel in any way other than an ally in search for national security - and especially now, against a common enemy to America.
> Then what Jewish/Zionist bloc do you think McCain needs to get on his side? NY, Cali? I'd be surprised if McCain even bothers to make a pit stop in those states.
Like I said before he needs to pick up independents and swing voters. Ohio and Pennsylvania both have multiple large Jewish communities.
>>"[The United States] must never force Israel to the negotiating table." -Obama to AIPAC 6/4/08"
> Yes, that's what he says.
And if he doesn't mean it then why hasn't he retracted this comment ala his 'undivided Jerusalem' statement? I don't buy that he was simply pandering.
> But as you know, he's also said a number of supportive things about the Palestinians and you surely know how he's favored in the Arab world.
Saying supportive things about the Palestinians is not an indictment unless you believe that the Palestinian people are pure evil, or that they have no valid complaints. Which Obama statements in particular do you take offense to?
Yes, a big deal was made when Hamas "endorsed" Obama. But more recently they've retracted that "endorsement" after hearing more from Barack and seeing that he really isn't different from any other American President/Presidential candidate. Link: Hamas hits out at Obama
> It's very likely that he'll be an 'even-handed' broker.
By "even handed" I'm guessing you mean he will favor the Palestinians. I haven't seen any evidence to support that idea.
> So let's flip the question, ok? If you were a Palestinian sympathizer who would you vote for? Or you could just ask the sympathizers: who do you think they're supporting?
I'm sure Palestinian sympathizers would love to vote for Kucinich, or Nader, or some other bozo. If you restrict the question to the remaining viable candidates then the question isn't fair because you know they would never vote for a Republican. I think if you actually showed them Obama's position on Israel the typical Palestinian sympathizer would not be happy.
>>Maverick McCain
> If you're a social conservative who follows politics then you know that McCain has a variable - if not outright self-conflicting - record. This is mainly from where he gets his 'maverick' ranking.
McCain didn't earn his "maverick" nickname on values issues. He got it from bucking the Republican party. He's better known for his maverick work on issues like Climate Change (McCain-Lieberman) , Campaign Finance Reform (McCain-Feingold), and Immigration than for any social issue.
> I just don't see any sign from throughout his whole political career that he considers Israel in any way other than an ally in search for national security - and especially now, against a common enemy to America.
To be a "maverick" on Israel McCain doesn't have to turn Israel into an enemy. McCain could call for the dismantling of settlements, believe Israel should do it, and still support Israel as a national security ally.
LNM,
"And if he doesn't mean it then why hasn't he retracted this comment ala his 'undivided Jerusalem' statement?"
Because he wasn't called on it?
I don't think he'll force Israel to the table, but will be push for certain conditions once Israel gets there? Probably.
"By "even handed" I'm guessing you mean he will favor the Palestinians. I haven't seen any evidence to support that idea."
No, it just means he won't favor Israel. For example, you don't think Obama might provoke Israel to lighten the load on the Palestinians for humanitarian concerns even though the act might damage Israel's security? I don't think McCain would do something like that.
"If you restrict the question to the remaining viable candidates then the question isn't fair because you know they would never vote for a Republican."
How come? What is it about Obama that you think they'd prefer?
I don't think Obama is anti-Israel - far from it. But I think he's more prepared to make compromises in the name of peace - at Israel's expense - than would the likes of McCain.
"McCain didn't earn his "maverick" nickname on values issues. He got it from bucking the Republican party."
Ok, fair enough.
"To be a "maverick" on Israel McCain doesn't have to turn Israel into an enemy."
I didn't say he would!
"McCain could call for the dismantling of settlements, believe Israel should do it, and still support Israel as a national security ally."
I don't think he'd do that since it doesn't serve Israel's security concerns as far as he's concerned.
Orthoprax,
> I don't think he'll force Israel to the table, but will be push for certain conditions once Israel gets there? Probably.
> you don't think Obama might provoke Israel to lighten the load on the Palestinians for humanitarian concerns even though the act might damage Israel's security?
> I think he's more prepared to make compromises in the name of peace - at Israel's expense - than would the likes of McCain.
I'm hearing a lot of personal opinions here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not telling you you can't vote based on your personal opinion. I'm just saying at the end of the day there isn't any good evidence to say that Obama is going to be substantially different from Bush, or McCain on Israel.
> What is it about Obama that you think [Palestinian sympathizers would] prefer?
If they actually knew Obama's positions? I don't think they would like Obama very much on the issue of Israel.
Post a Comment