I wrote an op-ed supporting the president's reelection, which appeared in one of Florida's most important newspapers, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. I thought that you would like to see it. What do you think of my comments?
When Democrats say Romney is "anti-Israel" or Republicans say Obama is, don't believe them. If "pro-Israel" means following Binyamin Netanyahu's lead on all matters relating to the Middle East, they are one and the same. And that is the pity.
The big question about the Romney visit is whether he will attack the president while on foreign soil. Traditionally, American politicians avoid that, adhering to the customary view that "politics stop at the water's edge."
America under Barack Obama has begun the big geopolitical pivot from its fateful over-engagement with the Islamic world of the Middle East and Central Asia to greater engagement with Asia and the Pacific. But this week showed that the transition is going to be anything but smooth.
Yes, Obama's numbers are down among Jewish voters. But why wouldn't they be? Obama's numbers have dropped among Americans in general which is why not even the most optimistic Democrat is predicting anything like the Obama landslide of 2008.
As President Obama struggles to find a diplomatic solution to the Iran crisis and remain a friend of Israel, he would do well to look at what another Democratic president, Harry Truman, did in 1948 while seeking reelection and dealing with the birth of Israel.
I have argued against the one state solution time and again; both in the version of the greater Land of Israel propagated by Israel's right, and in the version advocated by many Palestinian intellectuals and activists and some Jewish intellectuals on the far left.
If your Jewish family is anything like mine, a common ritual is to draw parallels between the Israelites' exodus from Egypt and Jewish current events. If an uncle brings up our 'anti-Israel' president, here's how you can respectfully correct him.
The bribery of Israel consists of guns: more weapons to add to the disgraceful arms race in the region. And what we get in return is a dubious pledge that Israel will not attack Iran for the next 12 months.
If we take President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu at their word, the U.S. and Israel are aligned, despite the best efforts of whose who want to remove Obama from office so badly that they are willing to sacrifice the U.S.-Israel relationship on the altar of political expediency.
The threat of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon is real -- the goal of preventing Iran from doing so is of utmost importance and the consequences of failure are dire. But the consequences of capricious war, of giving up on diplomatic solutions when not all have been exhausted, are equally grave.
Now, President Obama assures Israel he "has their back." Well, thanks to President Obama, Israel's back is to the wall. Hamas, Hezbollah, and some new regional players are also at Israel's back. It's getting a bit crowded back there.
Barack Obama has tried and largely failed to rein in Israel's aggression against the Palestinians while he has been in office. But the president is finding that Israel's belligerence toward Iran is a far more serious problem that may require a much firmer hand.
Yes, boycott the occupation -- the settlers, the politicians who support them, and the businesses that sustain them. But not Israel itself, unless you think that it is a society beyond redemption. It isn't -- no more than we are.
It will be impossible for us to control or insulate ourselves from events in the Middle East as long as we remain dependent on oil from the region and committed to honor our military defense of Israel.