Obama argues his policies are pro-Israel

T. Belman. American Jews may swallow this hogwash, I don’t.

President says in Atlantic interview he cares so deeply about Israel that he’s motivated to criticize continued settlement activity and comments from Netanyahu.

By Michael Wilner, JPOST

US President Barack Obama (L) and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu

Political forces” in Washington seek to provide the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a rubber stamp for its policies, US President Barack Obama said this week in an interview with the Atlantic magazine.

The interview, with the outlet’s Jeffrey Goldberg, was published one day before the president is scheduled to address Congregation Adas Israel in Washington, where he is expected to outline his administration’s plans to combat a rising tide of anti-Semitism across Europe.

The discussion ranged from the US-led campaign against Islamic State to the president’s attitudes toward the new Israeli government. Obama also discussed the emerging nuclear deal with Iran, and why such a deal was in the interests of the Jewish state.

Noting the support he has received at the ballot box from the Jewish American community, Obama said that he cares “so deeply about the state of Israel” that he’s motivated to criticize continued settlement activity, and comments from Netanyahu that run contrary to the spirit of Israel’s constitution— namely, disparaging comments against Israel’s Arab community.

But “there has been a very concerted effort on the part of some political forces to equate being pro-Israel, and hence being supportive of the Jewish people, with a rubber stamp on a particular set of policies coming out of the Israeli government,” Obama said.

“So if you are questioning settlement policy, that indicates you’re anti-Israeli, or that indicates you’re anti-Jewish. If you express compassion or empathy towards Palestinian youth, who are dealing with checkpoints or restrictions on their ability to travel, then you are suspect in terms of your support of Israel.”

His devotion to Israel’s security, and its right to exist, was a repeated theme in the interview; But he rejected that dealing with the Islamic Republic in Iran undermined that commitment, questioning instead the alternatives proposed by the Netanyahu government.

Obama also rejected the notion that anti-Semitism at the highest levels of Iran’s leadership proves their government is irrational.

“The fact that you are anti-Semitic, or racist, doesn’t preclude you from being interested in survival,” Obama said, speaking of Tehran’s leadership. “It doesn’t preclude you from being rational about the need to keep your economy afloat; it doesn’t preclude you from making strategic decisions about how you stay in power; and so the fact that the supreme leader is anti-Semitic doesn’t mean that this overrides all of his other considerations.”

He said that, historically, anti-Semitic policies have been executed by governments across Europe and the Middle East at a “low cost.” His policy is to make clear to the Iranians that the cost is high, he said.

“Look, 20 years from now, I’m still going to be around, God willing. If Iran has a nuclear weapon, it’s my name on this,” he said. “I think it’s fair to say that in addition to our profound national security interests, I have a personal interest in locking this down.”

May 21, 2015 | 5 Comments »

Leave a Reply

5 Comments / 5 Comments

  1. @ yamit82:
    US Pressing Israel to Lose Its Nukes. I can see it happening. WHEN THE PIGS GROW WINGS. Hypocritical Pinocchio. He can dream about it.

  2. I AM QUOTING Michael Doran: One of the more striking aspects of the current situation is the dearth of genuine enthusiasm for the deal—anywhere. Among Democrats on Capitol Hill, it is common to hear rumblings of doubt even from the staffers of senators and congressmen who are publicly supportive of the president. Among allies, European as well as Asian, it is common to encounter officials who behind closed doors will express deep dismay at the seemingly unstoppable flow of American concessions.

    For a taste of what some of America’s staunchest traditional allies are actually saying among themselves, one can do no better than to read Greg Sheridan, Australia’s leading foreign-affairs columnist. Sheridan writes in his own voice, but he is close to the government of Prime Minister Tony Abbott, and what he has to say about the Iran deal certainly reflects the thinking of Australian officials who dare not express their views openly because they need Obama’s support in Asia. “This agreement,” Sheridan writes bluntly, “guarantees [emphasis added] Iran will acquire nuclear weapons eventually.” He adds: “Perhaps the key analytical question is this: is the fecklessness of present American policy entirely the fault of Obama, or does it reflect a deeper malaise in the U.S. and in Western civilization generally?”

    Sheridan’s question is apt. That it has to be asked says bad things about us, who have gone so far as to allow our president to blur the distinction between foreign policy and creative fiction.