Many Americans, and particularly Jews, are starting to receive mailings encouraging them to vote for or donate to the reelection campaign of President Barack Obama by arguing that he is pro-Israel. Several readers have asked me to provide them with responses. Here is a brief answer.
These emails and mailings, though designed to look as if they were written by concerned individuals, clearly draw their texts from talking points posted on the Obama reelection site. The arguments are very thin and selective but are presented as if they represent the totality of Obama policy.
The main arguments are:
1. Obama says he likes Israel.
That’s nice but so what? Of course it is good when he says nice things (by coincidence, no doubt, usually to Jewish audiences) but one can also find a lot of nasty remarks by him, his advisers, and various officials appointed by him. Every president for the last half-century has said similar nice things; not all the presidents put together during this period have said or done so many hostile things. While it is a great exaggeration to say that Obama hates Israel or wants to destroy it, I think it is fair to say that no president (including Jimmy Carter when in office) has been so cold toward Israel and basically failed to understand its nature and interests.
2. Israeli leaders say Obama is great.
Yes, that’s nice but it’s not what they say in private. I can tell you authoritatively that not a single Israeli leader in any party has a high opinion of Obama with regard to Israel and its interests. But it is their job to lavish praise on America’s president. Their task is not to defeat Obama or to critique him but to get along with him as well as possible in order to protect Israel’s long-term alliance with the United States without sacrificing any of Israel’s vital interests. They’ve done it well. The one moment the truth emerged was when Obama betrayed Israel, on the diplomatic level, by announcing, without consultation, a new policy on peace terms while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was flying to Washington. You think Israeli leaders (and this is not ideological, not a matter of left or right) have a high regard for Obama? Read Netanyahu’s speech to the joint session of Congress.
Perhaps the equation can be summarized as follows: Obama just gave Israeli President Shimon Peres a presidential medal of freedom. He also has just helped give Israel a second Muslim Brotherhood-dominated regime next door and insists that this is a good thing.
3. US-Israel bilateral relations are good especially with regard to military aid
That’s true but only a small part of that relates to Obama’s benevolence. Why?
a. Congress supports Israel. There was more push-back against Obama from Democratic members on this issue than on any other, foreign or domestic. Thus, Israel is the only “target” of Obama whose constituency has vocal defenders within his own party that raise the cost of his actions against it, at least during his first term. (Note that last phrase.)
b. The same applies to public opinion, which is strongly pro-Israel. This factor also inhibits Obama, at least during his first term. (Note that last phrase.)
c. . Regarding military relations, the U.S. armed forces are generally quite pro-Israel and want these programs. Many of them are based on previous commitments which Obama merely continues.
An especially important reason why Obama’s Administration hasn’t been far more hostile to Israel in practice is that the Arabs and Iran shafted it. Remember that Obama offered to support the Palestinians, pressure Israel, and accelerate talks if only the Arab states and Palestinian Authority showed some flexibility. They repeatedly rejected his efforts—refusing even to talk–giving him no opportunity or incentive to press Israel for concessions. Note, too, though, that the repeated humiliations handed him by the Arabs never made him criticize them publicly, change his general line, or back Israel more enthusiastically.
Finally, there’s the most important factor of all. The damage Obama has done to Israeli security is not on bilateral relations or the peace process but regarding his regional policy. This includes his:
–Soft line toward antisemitic, anti-Israel, and also anti-American Islamism.
–Support for overturning the Mubarak regime and encouragement for a Muslim Brotherhood takeover there. During the 2011 crisis, Obama never even consulted Israel. The outspoken antisemitism, calls for genocide against Israel’s citizens, and support for anti-Israel terrorism by the Muslim Brotherhood have had no effect on Obama’s policy and brought no criticism by the U.S. government of that movement.
This point must be underlined. Do not forget for one moment that the Brotherhood is an explicitly antisemitic movement that calls for genocide against Jews in and often outside of Israel. It has never to the tiniest degree criticized or repented for its strong support for Nazi Germany. It is in fact that most important antisemitic movement in the world today. Anyone who claims that this movement is in fact moderate, denying its antisemitism and genocidal intentions, and helps it to achieve power is acting profoundly against the interests of Israel and of the Jewish people. Period.
–His soft line toward Hizballah in Lebanon, including breaking promises made to Israel to keep terrorists out of south Lebanon.
–Pressure on Israel to reduce sanctions on the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip greatly empowered that radical antisemitic movement.
–The Obama Administration has been passive about the Fatah-Hamas merger and has virtually never criticized or pressured the Palestinian Authority.
–By distancing himself from Israel (something that everyone in the world knows except about 60 percent of American Jews) he has encouraged Israel’s enemies to be bolder and bystanders to themselves move away from Israel.
–One of his worst actions has been to come close to worshipping Turkey’s Islamist regime despite its tremendous hostility toward Israel. Obama’s passivity has helped turn the Turkish-Israel alliance into something verging on cold war. Since the Turkish regime continues to be rewarded by Obama despite doing things like getting Israel barred from the NATO meeting and indicting Israeli officers over the Gaza flotilla confrontation, Ankara has no incentive to stop or reduce its enmity.
–In Syria he has supported the installation of an Islamist leadership for the opposition movement, posing a tremendous potential future danger for Israel.
–Regarding Iran, Obama was very slow to take up the battle against the nuclear weapons campaign. Despite the relatively high level of sanctions (for which Congress deserves a lot of the credit) one can well doubt his future determination to battle Tehran. He also failed to support the Iranian opposition.
–And by weakening American credibility and alliances, Obama has undermined the U.S. ability to protect its own interests which, in turn, hurts Israel’s security.
There’s a lot more and each of the factors above can be amplified with lots of examples and documentation. All of this far overwhelms the very short “pro-Obama” list.
Did I mention that during a second term he won’t need to worry about fundraising or running for election again?
A second term president all the same wants to be followed by somebody from his party qv Reagan and Nixon and the rest.
The balance of this piece implies Israel should support Assad as everything else accounted for he is as near as the Arab world gets to anti-clerical heirs of the Enlightenment. That all the same leaves the clash with the clerical fascists of Iran and Hizbullah who in the current circumstances might not be sorry to see the Assad clan and constituency go.
Returning to the US electorate voting primarily for its pocket stateside and not for any overseas client the present problem is that the Democrats have always had a better American economic positive policy than the Republicans who being for light government get away with it in good times – but the times are not good.
Next presidents like the British in the 30’s or even at the Washington naval conference in 1920 have to fine down their priorities as the rise of the BRIC’s especially China and the return of Russia mean they can not play all the games they could till a decade ago.