- BIG NEWS:
- Health Care
- |
- Iraq
- |
- Bill Clinton
- |
- Michele Bachmann
- |
 |
||
President Barack Obama and his administration have undertaken an unprecedented effort to reach out to the Jewish community. The president has made moving the Middle East toward peace a priority and has spoken of the "unbreakable" bond we share with Israel. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons "futile" and this week Obama had some of the most senior foreign policy figures in his administration meet with top Israeli officials -- in Israel. Yet, there are still those in our community who leap at any chance to attack the president, including an op-ed in this week's New York Times, "Why Won't Obama Talk to Israel?" by Aluf Benn.
First, it is important to bring perspective to the distinct minority, albeit vocal, group of individuals in our community who remain unhappy with our president. Despite this group's extraordinary efforts to smear Obama in the Jewish community during last year's campaign, the president received 78% of the Jewish vote. The media has much experience over-hyping the man-bites-dog Obama-has-a-Jewish-problem story, but at some point Obama's actual record ought to beat out salacious copy.
The small anti-Obama wing of the Jewish community has long found refuge in websites like American Thinker where their fictional understanding of the Obama presidency is confirmed (a representative title: "Obama's hostility to Israel is clear"). But there are some times when elements of their argument spill into more respectable platforms such as the opinion pages of the New York Times and Washington Post.
One cannot get past the title of Benn's op-ed in the Times without being struck by the question he poses: "Why Won't Obama Talk to Israel?" Benn asserts, "neither the president nor any senior administration official has given a speech or an interview aimed at an Israeli audience." He then dramatically writes, "The Arabs got the Cairo speech; we [Israel] got silence."
Beyond the notion that Obama happened to be standing in front of an Arab audience, it is hard to understand how Benn misses the fact that Obama was not only speaking to the people in the room. In this digital world with the power of Internet and a 24/7 news cycle, the president was addressing all of us -- including Israel. This was especially true when the president spoke clearly and powerfully about America's unbreakable bond with Israel in front of that Arab audience. The message to Israelis from the Cairo speech was clear: you do your part for peace and I'll pressure the Arab states to do the same. Meaning, Obama is not going to rely on the political playbook of platitudes when dealing with Israel and her neighbors; the president is interested in rolling up his sleeves and moving the process forward.
If Benn did not hear that Obama aimed elements of his Cairo speech to Israelis, he was not listening.
What may speak louder than Obama's words are his actions. This week, as the ink of Benn's op-ed was still drying, the president sent Robert Gates, Secretary of Defense; General Jim Jones, National Security Advisor; and George Mitchell, Middle East Special Envoy to talk with their Israeli counterparts. They spoke about important issues ranging from the U.S. policy against Iranian nuclear proliferation to the continuing strategic partnership between our two governments. We now see numerous media reports reflecting the reality that this administration will couple any settlement deal with sharp pressure on the Arab world to normalize relations with the Jewish state. The fact is that the Obama administration is not only talking with Israelis, they are intensely collaborating and communicating in person.
No one can credibly claim that Obama and his administration are not talking with Israel. In fact, Obama spoke with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu face-to-face about settlement growth. This administration is talking with Israel about the wide range of policies on which we agree -- and also including those precious few areas on which we disagree.
Benn also attacked some of Obama's most senior advisors, who also happen to be Jewish. "[T]he president has fallen under the influence of top aides -- in this case Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod -- whom the prime minister has called 'self-hating Jews,'" he wrote. That may be a compelling anecdote, especially since the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, for which Benn is the Editor at Large, broke that story. The only problem is that it isn't true. Netanyahu's spokesman had to correct the record when he denied those remarks and said, "The prime minister never spoke those words."
I understand that we in the Jewish community can be a bit paranoid at times, but to say this administration does not support and communicate with one of our closest allies is to disregard reality. Obama, his pro-Israel policies, and the president's pro-Israel advisers continue to receive strong support in the Jewish community. This administration has made an unprecedented effort to engage this community and has placed the pursuit of Middle East peace high on the agenda.
The long-term security of Israel will only be fully ensured if peace is achieved. The president has made clear that the road to peace is difficult, but Obama is working hard to make that day come. However, there will still be those who have the undying chutzpah to attack the president for not being engaged or sufficiently supportive of Israel. I urge them to actually listen to what the president is saying and watch what he is doing -- they might be surprised.
Follow Marc R. Stanley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NJDC
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Excuse me, don't you DARE call yourself a friend of Israel. You are advocating a policy to break up Jerusalem. You can spin it any way you want, but there isn't really any excuse for that.
I'm being unfair? OK, then I want to see you issue a public, binding statement specifically defining at what point you would oppose Obama on Israel. Would you speak against Obama if he sent American military forces to forcibly overthrow the government of Israel? You are mistaken if you think everyone believes you are not extreme enough for that.
when will this madness end?ENOUGH.
It is time for a president to adopt a balanced policy towards the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, Obama has not yet been this president. He has gone from one extreme (Bush and his pro-Israeli view) towards a chilly, cold stance towards Israel. He has made many valid declarations intending to stop the building of settlements, which is a major obstacle to peace. However, he has not engaged the other side the same way. I have not yet seen him making equal pressure on Hamas to disarm and recognize Israel. Once he puts equal pressure on both sides to cede in critical issues, maybe he will be succesful.
Now, he just seems a bit biased.
Plus, Israel cannot depend on the US to protect itself. Once Israel withdraws from the West Bank, the only international airport of Israel, the Knesset, the prime minister's house will all be less than 5 km away from Palestinians. There must be very tangible security guarantees. Otherwise, strategic depth is still the only solution. No defense umbrella can defend against a home made rocket shot from a few miles. Gaza is living proof.
Hamas is - and has been - maintaining it's ceasefire, which is the position analogous to a settlement freeze. It's totally unreasonable to demand a permanent change (which disarming and recognising Israel both are) in exchange for a temporary cessation like a settlement freeze. Particularly as Israel hasn't kept ANY of it's multiple pledges to freeze settlements dating back to at least 1992.
As far as reasons for breaking it's word go, the latest ("we had a secret side deal with Bush that we didn't have to keep this promise when we made it") is unlikely to inspire the confidence of Israel's negotiating partners, is it?
Hamas is not maintaining a ceasefire out of a commitment to peace. Operation Cast Lead brought this "ceasefire", which by the way, Israel also respects as it would even before January if there was no rocket shower.
Recognizing Israel is not a bargain chip. If you want to talk to someone, the requirement is for you to consider the other person real.
Regarding disarmament, I did not say the solution is a demilitarized Palestine. All I'm saying is it will still take major steps from both sides in order to satisfy Israel's valid security concerns.
Again, I agree that settlements must be frozen as I said before. However, it is naive to think that's the solution to all the problems. What about Palestinians? Have they kept their word?
That's what I'm saying. Pressure BOTH.
Why do you people refuse to ask those critics a simple question; are you loyal to America or Israel?
I suspect that many Americans know the answer and so do those critics but everyone is afraid of the response either from AIPAC or if they become to vocal and successful MOSSAD.
Ever asked this question of Cuban Americans?
Ever asked this question of young Muslims in U.S. whose large percentage support anti American Jihadism. How about those who send their zakkat to support Taliban?
Why not.
Guess you are placing Jewish Americans in that subculture with Cuban Americans and young Muslims who are dedicated to the past, rather than the present. Good to know.
At the end of his article Mr. Aluf Benn suggests:
"Perhaps there are good reasons behind Mr. Obama’s Middle East policy. Perhaps the settlement freeze is in Israel’s best interest. Perhaps the president is truly committed to Israel’s long-term security and well-being. Perhaps his popularity in the Arab street is the missing ingredient of peacemaking.
But until the president talks to us, we won’t know. Next time you’re in the neighborhood, Mr. President, speak to us directly. We will surely listen."
This is an opinion from a liberal Israeli. He suggests that talking to Israeli electorate is preferable to sending ultimatums with low level emissaries. Obviously Obama disagrees.
If Obama is smart, he will stay away from Israel. Even the US Travel Advisory tells us to do so.
Candidate Obama had no problem going to Israel to collect donations. I guess we'll have to wait for His visit when he needs to run for a second term., obviously.
The Israelis insult our president and I for one and sick of it. We feed Israel, we make it, we keep it with our blood. sweat and tears. If it weren't for us, Israel would be a third world, poverty stricken cesspit. It is about time they thought about American interests as well as their own.
We need to pull out of Israel and leave them to their own self destructive behavior.
it is so nice that you advise thinking ... how about thinking what would have been happening in the first gulf war if israel would not have not taken out the Iraqui nuclear reactor ... there are no real friendships in international politics only shared interests.
"... President Obama has spoken to Arabs, Muslims, Iranians, Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans, Russians and Africans. His words have stirred emotions and been well received everywhere.
But he hasn’t bothered to speak directly to Israelis."
Which part of this statement is not true?
Niether President nor VP nor Secretary of State visited Israel, Despite having time to visit and kibbitrz many countries from important to utterly insignificant. But not Israel.
Clinton is about to visit Angola. Angola? Obama went to Ghana. VP went to Ukraine. Not Israel.
Those who don't see this as intentional snub do not understand politics.
Another possibility-- Israel/Arab process is not important enough for current U.S. administration to leave it to third level parties.
All of those possibilities may be true. Live with it.
Israel has absolutely no problem "living with" it. It is a dominant economic and military power in the Middle East. I thought it was Palestinains oppressed by their Muslims brothers in Lebanon and ethnically cleansed out of Kuwait that don't want to wait. Maybe I was wrong. They prefer the fate of Kurds. No problem.
Just like all the other right wing Obama critics, they are attacking Obama based on lies. People in the right should not be listened to anymore. They usually lie.
Marc i think you may be confused, in the U.S we who have freedom of the press don't think that criticism is something that should be disallowed, in fact power needs to be kept in check, OBAMA made many promises before the elections however some of his actions contradicts his promises, we as voters have the right to hold the feet of our leaders to the fire, be it if we support their party or not - i disagree with your views
I don't know why Jews wouldn't like Obama or fear him as they were in the forefront of the Communist and Socialist uprising in the 1900's. Obama's programs should remind them of the "old days".
And the matter of the Middle East and Israel, with a middle name like Hussein, what were you thinking?
You voted for "The Chosen One", maybe Jews were confused just like in Florida with Bush/Gore election.
Marc, while I do support your group, the fact is Obama is not perfect, nor is he a God. Many Jewish Democrats DO worry about how he talks at Israel, and hasn't been there once since his Presidency, but to numerous Muslim countries.
When someone gives as much financial support as the US does to Israel, you can talk at them. Israel is reminiscent of confederacy and too many of our representatives stand beside this state (please don't call it she, it is an insult to females). For the sake of many who look for peace, I hope war is not imminent and those who govern realize the tragedy of their actions.
It is time for Jewish Democrats to worry about how things are working out in their own country. Jewish Democrats SHOULD be worrying about that. As a Portuguese American, I do not worry whether Obama has recently visited Lisbon; I am much more concerned that he is making decisions in the best interest of the US.
Are your comments part of an IDF assignment?
But you are Portuguese
It's good cop bad cop, this time Israel playing bad cop...anyo
I concur.
I thought it was ploy to gain more concessions from the US.
After a long time some one talking sense.
Every time I read a negative article about the President's support for Israel, I simply say look at the two top advisors to the President. I dont think they would advise the president to do anything negative to Israel They would be very practical and seek fair solutions to protect Israel and the rest of the Midlle East. They know that the Middle East is ready to explode and destroy itself That will not happen under this administration.
Destroy itself??? Look in the mirror.
Let me get this straight -
Obama is telling Israel that if they end the expansion of settlements, (which will probably be temporary) he will convince Arab nations to normalize relations with Israel.
Such a deal.
The pro-Zionist and pro-military lobby in the USA and Israel are revealing their bankrupt moral and intellectual stand. Their legal, moral, and philosophical arguments are hollow. One does not have to be a rocket scientist to see that. The real clout of this minority group is not their shrill and paranoid claims, but their financial clout at lobbying the politicians in both countries.
Kudos to the Peace Now movement in Israel and in the USA. May your tribe multiply.
Aye to that!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
