All week I've been arguing in the comment section that there is no significant difference between Bush, Obama and McCain on the issue of Israel. My theory on voting based on Israel is this:
Regardless of which party inhabits the White House the President of the United States will support Israel. AIPAC is very effective, and they work to keep this true.
Additionally, and more importantly, Israel determines Israeli national security, not the United States. An American President can not force Israel to compromise its own national security. The most our President can do is pressure Israeli leaders to meet with the Palestinian leaders. But again, the President can't force Israel to make a deal it doesn't want. I think the best example of this is the 2000 Camp David Summit. If Clinton could have, he would have forced Barak and Arafat to sign a peace deal. But he couldn't. At the end of the day it was up to Israel and the Palestinians.
Is there a difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates?
Not in any real substantial way. In the past Presidents of both parties have condemned the Palestinians and praised/condemned Israel. Obama's stance on Israel is not all that different from George W.'s. Obama and Bush are both open to making peace, condemn terror, and with Iran "leave the military option on the table". Are the Democrats open to making peace? Yes. And so are the Republicans and the Israeli government. Sure, there are stylistic differences between the Democrats and Republicans. But at the end of the day there is no real, practical difference between the parties, or these Presidential candidates.
Today's editorial from the Washington Post supports my theory:
Mr. Obama's Middle East: After all, he doesn't see the region much differently than President Bush does.
Support for Israel is a bipartisan issue in Washington. This isn't going to change anytime soon. Further, the State of Israel ultimately determines Israeli national security, not the US. You are best served casting your vote for issues that haven't already been decided. If you are a Democrat vote for Obama this November. Voting for the Republicans won't make Israel any safer.
---
This post concludes "Obama Week" here at LNM. We now return you to your regularly scheduled kafira. :)
25 comments:
I too believe that Americans (Jews or otherwise) should choose their president based on what he'll do for America, not Israel. If anyone wants a say in what happens in Israel, they should make aliya and vote there.
The HI-larious thing about Israel is that (like abortion) the eventual Nash-equilibrium compromise is blindingly obvious. We'll eventually see a two-state solution with Jerusalem as co-capital. It's only a matter of time. So why not just do it already?
Or we could waste another ten years debating it...
"If Clinton could have, he would have forced Barak and Arafat to sign a peace deal."
He forced Barack. The United States has been very effective in forcing Israel to go against its interests. Arafat was the stubborn guy and so the peace deal was not signed.
"We'll eventually see a two-state solution with Jerusalem as co-capital. It's only a matter of time. So why not just do it already?"
It takes two to do that. Where have you been that you haven't seen the Palestinians reject Israeli deals for a two state solution? What is Israel to do? Israel yet left Gaza as the UN certified and yet Gaza refuses to acknowledge it as it wants to have Israel be labled the occupier. You just refuse to see reality. You should be pressuring the Palestinain side to accept if you want more of a constructive strategy.
The Camp David Summit didn't go through because Arafat walked out of the meeting with Madeline Albright running after him, begging him to return. If Arafat had gotten all that there would have been nothing for him to do.
The difference in the Presidents should be shown by how LBJ and Nixon differed in times of war. When the 1967 war imminent, LBJ told Golda Israel had to take the first strike and promised Israel no support. During the 1973 war, Nixon ordered, over Kissinger's pleas to the contrary, that an airlift be given to Israel of arms and support. His action singlehandedly saved the country. And this from a guy who was convinced the Jews were controlling the media and called Kissinger "my little jewboy".
And if you think there is no difference please remember that Bill Clinton had Arafat over the White House about 8 times....he had his own closet. And of course, the Nobel Prize winning ex-president Jimmy Carter recently met with Hamas concluding that Israel, as an aparteid state, must deal with Hamas as it's future depended on it.
Tell me again, that it doesn't matter who is in office? George W refused to speak to Arafat and was the first sitting American president to visit Israel. But we could get B. Hussein Obama who wants to speak to the Iranian President without preconditions. I'm sure his negotiating skills should settle that problem.
>Israel determines Israeli national security, not the United States. An American President can not force Israel to compromise its own national security.
What about the Persian Gulf war?
>If anyone wants a say in what happens in Israel, they should make aliya and vote there.
Thats ridiculous. Nobody here is demanding anything of Israel (or shouldn't), what they are doing is meeting with leaders in this country to maintain good relations and support for Israel.
>AIPAC is very effective, and they work to keep this true.
My friend just came back from the AIPAC conference and I asked him who do most of the high ranking people up there support. He told me officially they don't endorce either one and both have good track records. Off the record, he told me they don't quite trust Obama. When i asked him why, he told me just because of certain people that he has around him.
Asher,
> LBJ told Golda Israel had to take the first strike and promised Israel no support.
Actually at the time LBJ was the most supportive President Israel ever had. I don't really see your point. Reagan criticized Israel too but like LBJ at the end of the day gave Israel the support they needed.
> Nixon
Are you actually arguing that a paranoid anti-Semite President who believes "the Jews were controlling the media" (your words not mine) is the best thing for Jews and Israel? Really?
> Bill Clinton had Arafat over the White House about 8 times
And what's the problem with this exactly? Clinton was trying to get Arafat to make peace with Israel. Something Israel wanted. Diplomacy requires getting to know people and developing a relationship. Not sure how you do that without meeting with the other side.
> Jimmy Carter recently...
"Recently" is exactly the word. When Carter was a sitting President he helped Israel make a land for peace deal that, like it or not, has resulted in 30 years of peace with Egypt. Additionally part of that deal has ensured that the U.S. gives Israel billions in aid every year. Again, Israel wanted this deal. Carter didn't force it on them. What he does now (as an elderly man) is irrelevant to his work as President.
> George W refused to speak to Arafat
This is true, after Bill Clinton warned him not to trust Arafat (because of the botched 2000 deal). Arafat already proved he was an unwilling partner. It must have been pretty easy for Bush to write him off. Don't forget that as soon as the Palestinian's had a leader who was interested in working toward peace (Abbas) Bush was all over the guy.
> Obama who wants to speak to the Iranian President without preconditions.
Actually what Obama says is the U.S. would talk to "the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States"
You need to recognize that U.S. foreign policy, especially toward Israel, is much more nuanced than Rush, Drudge and FOX News would have you believe.
HH,
> What about the Persian Gulf war?
What in particular about that Republican policy are you referring to?
> friend just came back from the AIPAC conference... Off the record, he told me they don't quite trust Obama. When i asked him why, he told me just because of certain people that he has around him.
That is the vaguest non-endorsment I have ever heard.
"> Nixon
Are you actually arguing that a paranoid anti-Semite President who believes "the Jews were controlling the media" (your words not mine) is the best thing for Jews and Israel? Really?"
He was there when Israel needed him.
"> Bill Clinton had Arafat over the White House about 8 times
And what's the problem with this exactly? Clinton was trying to get Arafat to make peace with Israel. Something Israel wanted. Diplomacy requires getting to know people and developing a relationship. Not sure how you do that without meeting with the other side."
Well banging yours and Israel's head against the wall when Arafat was not giving in was not helpful.
"> Jimmy Carter recently...
"Recently" is exactly the word. When Carter was a sitting President he helped Israel make a land for peace deal that, like it or not, has resulted in 30 years of peace with Egypt. Additionally part of that deal has ensured that the U.S. gives Israel billions in aid every year. Again, Israel wanted this deal. Carter didn't force it on them."
Yes he did force it on Israel in the form it took.
"What he does now (as an elderly man) is irrelevant to his work as President."
It is not like he became so biased with Israel now.
"> George W refused to speak to Arafat
This is true, after Bill Clinton warned him not to trust Arafat (because of the botched 2000 deal).Arafat already proved he was an unwilling partner. It must have been pretty easy for Bush to write him off."
So why was it brilliant for Clinton to continually allow Arafat to lie to him again and again?
"Don't forget that as soon as the Palestinian's had a leader who was interested in working toward peace (Abbas) Bush was all over the guy."
Which was dumb because that guy is not interested in peace but is a loser who lost Gaza.
@RG
"We'll eventually see a two-state solution with Jerusalem as co-capital. It's only a matter of time. So why not just do it already?"
It takes two to do that. Where have you been that you haven't seen the Palestinians reject Israeli deals for a two state solution? What is Israel to do?
Israel's policy since the start of the second intifada has been not to negotiate on any final settlement. I remember quite clearly being in Israel when Sharon was running against Amram Mitzna. Mitzna was basically skewered for his policy of "negotiation under fire." Five years later, nothing's changed, and suddenly Mitzna's 'horrible idea' of negotiation is mainstream in Israel.
What is Israel to do?
I think an apology of some kind, or just a show of mutual respect, might go a long way. One of the problems with the situation is that the US and Israel have been going about this from a very sterile, facts-on-the-ground sort of mindset. It's about more than just inches of land. It's about respect.
"Israel's policy since the start of the second intifada has been not to negotiate on any final settlement. I remember quite clearly being in Israel when Sharon was running against Amram Mitzna. Mitzna was basically skewered for his policy of "negotiation under fire." Five years later, nothing's changed, and suddenly Mitzna's 'horrible idea' of negotiation is mainstream in Israel."
If Israel negotiates on a final settlement what happens? When Israel negotiates slowly what happens? You are refusing to see that the Palestinians have sought Israel's destruction and so have rejected peace and made the issue of a final settlement scary. Rabin also refused to deal with a final settlement, leaving it for later. When a final settlement was offered Israel got the second intifada and you want Israel to negotiate. When Israel does it doesn't help. You blame Israel instead of the Palestinians.
"What is Israel to do?
I think an apology of some kind, or just a show of mutual respect, might go a long way. One of the problems with the situation is that the US and Israel have been going about this from a very sterile, facts-on-the-ground sort of mindset. It's about more than just inches of land. It's about respect."
They don't want respect. If Israel apologizes it will get even less. It's about the Palestinian side not respecting Israel. They want Israel destroyed. How about the Palestinians giving an apology and respect?
Lubav,
Nothing like having it both ways. Clinton had Arafat over 8 times and then told Bush it was no use dealing with him. I suppose he figured that out on the 7th visit after Arafat stole the silverware.
However, you have to hand it to Obama, or should I say B. Hussein Obama. First Jerusalem shall always remain undivided (when he is before APAC)..now he's not sure if it would be part of a deal.
And then he comes up with his usual, "This is the type of crappy solutions this administration has come been using for too long". He never gives any alternative, or even anything resembling an idea. I think the last time we had a demogague talk like Obama was this austrian dictator who failed his entrance exam to art school. Obama talks in platitudes that say nothing. It's just really sad that he has gotten as far as he has based on total nothing.
Secondly, and you should really think about this...when was the last time a "two state solution" ever worked. I mean, I'll limit you to the history of civilization. Last I looked they had to create Pakistan out of India because of the lack of peace between Muslims and Hindus. Those were seperate states. The "palestinians" are not interested in a state of their own. They just want a certain jewish state not to exist. But if this isn't obvious to you, you can still vote for Al Franken for senator.
If Israel is allowed to exist Palestinian nationalism is replaced with clan rivarly and clan murder.
CM,
"I think an apology of some kind, or just a show of mutual respect, might go a long way. One of the problems with the situation is that the US and Israel have been going about this from a very sterile, facts-on-the-ground sort of mindset. It's about more than just inches of land. It's about respect."
Respect? Apology? What would work wonders for peace is putting holes into every Hamas member in the WB and Gaza.
>What in particular about that Republican policy are you referring to?
Come on, you know what I am talking about. As much as Israel was being bombarded, Israel was told not to interfere.
>That is the vaguest non-endorsment I have ever heard.
It's pretty straight forward what they mean.
>When Carter was a sitting President he helped Israel make a land for peace deal that, like it or not, has resulted in 30 years of peace with Egypt.
I think what helped was also 30 years of kicking their ass until they finally realized Israel is going nowhere.
asher
> Nothing like having it both ways. Clinton had Arafat over 8 times and then told Bush it was no use dealing with him. I suppose he figured that out on the 7th visit
You're wasting my time. Obviously it was at the Camp David meeting, at the end of his term, that Clinton saw that Arafat was an unwilling partner. He didn't have Arafat over after that.
> However, you have to hand it to Obama, or should I say B. Hussein Obama.
Your tactic of harping on Obama's middle name as if it means something is pretty lame. You're like MoveOn.org which tried to make the case that Gen. Petraeus couldn't be trusted because his name rhymed with "betray us". How long till you just call him "Hussein Osama" [sic]?
> I think the last time we had a demogague talk like Obama was this austrian dictator who failed his entrance exam to art school.
Are you actually comparing Obama to Hitler and expecting me to take you seriously?
> when was the last time a "two state solution" ever worked. I mean, I'll limit you to the history of civilization.
History is nothing but "two state solutions". Two peoples fight over land, one side wins (or the two sides forge a treaty), they draw up a boundary and now you have two states. The British empire once was so large "the sun never set" on it. Then, one "two state solution" at a time, they gave it all to the people who lived there. The "two state solution" is nothing new.
Holy Hyrax
> As much as Israel was being bombarded, Israel was told not to interfere.
The Persian Gulf War wasn't about Israel. It was about the U.S. and an international coalition defending an ally. Don't confuse this with asking Israel to compromise her national security. Saddam made Israel a target and brought them into the conflict. And in return the U.S. provided defenses to Israel in the way of bombing runs on Iraq and the Patriot missiles. When Bush II invaded Iraq for the second time he put Israel in the same kind of risk.
So, if you want I can modify my statement to:
The U.S. can't force Israel to compromise its national security but in the past Republicans have been known to take military action in the Middle East which put Israel at risk.
McCain's commitment to stay in Iraq as long as necessary seems in keeping with the Bushes policies.
>> That is the vaguest non-endorsment I have ever heard.
> It's pretty straight forward what they mean.
Yeah, they mean "we like the other guy" but their reasoning doesn't really resemble an argument.
> I think what helped was also 30 years of kicking their ass until they finally realized Israel is going nowhere.
By that logic the Palestinians should be ripe for making an Egypt-like peace deal.
Lubav,
It's always good to have a political dicussion on Shavout when we should be chowing down on cheesecake....and why do we eat dairy on shavout?
No, the world is not a two state solution because as I pointed out,
IT HAS NEVER WORKED. The Brits left India, South Africa, Israel,
and Rhodisia...there was no sharing with Mother England. I asked you to give me one example of a side by side solution and you couldn't come up with a single one. Thanks for proving my point.
Actually this two state idea was entertained back in 1947, perhaps you heard of it. It was proposed at the UN and the Arab delegation refused to even consider it. But you think this can be accomplished. You know better.
Also, Change we can live with, ends in a preposition. It should be Change with which we can live. So much for Harvard grammar. In addition, Obama's constant rant,
"Yes we can" sounds too much like Bob the Builder talking to his trucks and equipment. If you have small kids you'd know this one.
Israel and the US are joined at the hip. When Begin reluctantly gave in to Kissinger's idiotic ideas he made a point of saying,
"Yes, he went over every word, every letter" indicating that Israel only gave in cause they had to. However, despite these 30 years of "peace" between Israel and Egypt, the best selling song in Egypt for the past few years has been a little ditty called "I hate Israel" which was so popular folks are suing over the rights to who actually wrote it. When Egypt has no problem supplying those citizens of Gaza with arms through their underground tunnels you really wonder how much peace there is. It would be better to call it a 'non-beligerency' understanding.
Egypt has yet to recognize Israel and has never sent any diplomats there.
There will always be a state of tension between the State of Israel and a band of terrorists who refuse to either become citizens of Israel or even recognize it's existence.
To prove the point, in all of these "deals" made the the PLO or the PA, what part of their side of the "bargain" did they ever abide by. The joke is, the best Israel could ever get out of them was that they'd only refrain from sending suicide bombers in on alternate Tuesdays in months with the letter A in it.
Asher,
> No, the world is not a two state solution because as I pointed out, IT HAS NEVER WORKED. The Brits left India, South Africa, Israel,and Rhodisia...there was no sharing with Mother England.
I think you're confusing the "two state solution" with the "binational solution". The two state solution that President Bush has discussed is two independent nations. Not some sort of shared soverginty.
> Also, Change we can live with, ends in a preposition. It should be Change with which we can live.
Is this why you're voting for McCain?
> However, despite these 30 years of "peace" between Israel and Egypt, the best selling song in Egypt for the past few years has been a little ditty called "I hate Israel"
Good grief. No one is claiming Israel and Egypt are best friends. Just like no one thinks Israel and the Palestinians will be buddies if/when they make peace.
But you're conveniently ignoring that Israel does have some diplomatic relations with Egypt. Look at the Israel-Egypt-Hamas negotiations for example. Sure there are (many) Egyptians who don't like Israel. So what? The point is the nations aren't at war. Israel hasn't made a bombing run on Egypt in decades.
Are Palestinians making peace with Israel? Talk to them.
The Palestinians rejected peace offers. They have been rejectionist despite Israeli offers that were two state solutions. They responded with war and their nationalism was created in response to Israel. It is not like Egypt which has a nationalism that is independent of Israel's destruction.
My comment still stands:
Please give me one example of a side by side solution working. I'll limit you to human history.
Pakistan, India and Bangledesh should be good examples.
My comment still stands:
Please give me one example of what part of any agreement the PLO or the PA have complied with. They have a problem recognizing Israel or ending violence. Sounds like a good start for any negotiation,
right?
Pat Buchanan's new book goes on to state that WWII didn't need to be fought. Hitler "only" wanted to peacefully decide the Danzig problem and England erroneously sided with Poland to fight in case it was invaded. Buchanan is convinced that the entire episode, which caused the deaths of 50 million people, could have been avoided by simply talking to the leader of the Third Reich. I'm sorry; does this idea sound like something Obama has advocated? Is this your reason to vote for him?
Could something be said to Iran to change their leader's idea that Israel is a festering corpse that should be eliminated since the Holocaust never happened. And surely, this same type of political view would work with Hamas, Al Fatah, the Black September Group, and other peace loving partners surrounding Israel?
And when they poll Palestinians, what percentage of them would ever recognize a Jewish state called Israel?
Take off the pink glasses. Reality is reality.
I liked all of this post, especially the "regularly scheduled kefira" part! =)
honey, what exactly is it that ur avoiding?
esther,
You talking to me?
Post a Comment