Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

thescroll_header

GOP Israel Group Casts Obama as Out-of-Step

Emergency Committee for Israel cites bipartisan support, contrasts with president

Print Email

The new ad (viewable below) from Bill Kristol’s Emergency Committee for Israel indicates that the Republican strategy to turn President Obama’s Israel diplomacy against him is nuanced: Single him out by noting all the members of his own party (as well as Republicans) whose stances are ostensibly more pro-Israel than his. The strategy is valid: Those aren’t doctored tapes of Democratic congressional leaders Harry Reid and Steny Hoyer rebuking the president at the AIPAC Conference—that really did happen.

A defense of the president would note that presidents are always to the left of Congress on Israel and other issues like it, since senators and especially representatives have the luxury of not actually dictating U.S. foreign policy and can gear what they say purely toward domestic political considerations. But ECI’s response would note that this truism proves that the vast majority of the country is pro-Israel, and that should be reflected in the president’s rhetoric and policies.

Which is why the real defense of the president is that (for the umpteenth time) he did not “throw Israel under the bus”—did not, as the false headline that begins the ad reads, “Embrace[] Palestine Borders.” On nine-tenths of the issues, he took positions identical to Prime Minister Netanyahu’s; and on 1967 borders, he said explicitly what has long been assumed by several Israeli prime ministers and American presidents (including George W. Bush, another U.S. chief executive who by necessity was to the left of much of Congress on this issue). As one commentator put it during Obama’s now-controversial speech, “Obama’s line on Israel/Palestine borders is basically identical to Bush admin. Nothing new there.” This commentator added, “I don’t think there’s anything in this speech that Netanyahu will find surprising or even disagreeable.” The commentator in question is ECI spokesperson Noah Pollak.

Israel and 2012 [Ben Smith]
The Emergency Committee For Israel Was For The ’67 Borders Before It Was Against Them [Think Progress Security]
Earlier: Will Israel-Based GOP Attacks Get Through?
Bibi Gets What He Wants, Replies With Scorn

Print Email
Hershel (Heshy) Ginsburg says:

A simple question:

If Obama’s policy on Israel is basically the same as Bush the Son’s, then why did the Obamanoids find it necessary to repudiate the all important Bush letter to Ariel Sharon from 2004, despite the fact that both the then jr. senator from NY one Hillary Clinton and a Representative from Chicago, one Rahm Emmanuel both voted in the affirmative in Sense of the Senate and Sense of the House resolutions respectively IN FAVOR of said Bush letter? Methinks you are engaging in left-wing revisionism once again.

Obama’s repudiation of the Bush letter began the downward spiral of his popularity (or lack thereof) among Israelis which the most recent polls put at ~12% (which is actually an improvement over previous polls).

BTW, the only Israeli PM who negotiated on the basis of ’67 with 1:1 land swaps was Olmert. Barak did not at Camp David & it’s clear from the Bush letter & the Obamanoids’ repudiation of the Bush letter that that was not in the cards for Ariel Sharon, especially regarding the Jordan Valley.

As far as Rabin goes, check out his last speech to the Knesset, given within a few weeks of his being murdered, in which he lays out his vision for a final settlement of the I-P conflict and you’ll see that it is well to the **RIGHT** of Bibi’s recent speeches to the Knesset, AIPAC & Congress.

Aside from insisting on an undivided Jerusalem, and keeping all of the major (and some minor) communities over the Green Line Rabin also insisted on retaining Israeli **SOVEREIGNTY** in the Jordan Valley and keeping all the Israeli communities there. Rabin also did not mention a word about land swaps, let alone 1:1 swaps.

Clearly you will say whatever it takes to delude yourself into thinking that Obama is in any sense “pro-Israel”. The cognitive dissonance must really be tough to live with. And just as clearly, most Israelis long think that Obama has thrown Israel under the bus, even if it is not PC to say so.

hg
Jerusalem / Efrata.

Barry says:

Why would you defend Obama?

This gentleman spent twenty years in the pews of the satanic Rev. Wright.

To do so you need a malevolent heart and a wicked soul.

How can you possibly defend him when he pursues such a Wright-ian set of policies?

fred lapides says:

Barry, dear heart–at least you do not charge Obama with being a Muslim.
Easy to attack Obama and use it for political purposes, but then why not address what top Israeli leaders from Mossad and Shin Bet say about Bibi and the peace process?
the simple fact is (as Obama noted)Israel and the Palestinians are the ones who will make a peace agreement. It can not be imposed upon them.

My thing is God dont like ugly, Republicans just need to stop their lying on this issue by accusing this president of not being on Isreal side he is just as much supportive of Isreal as they claim they are. Im a Christian also Rick Perry and i dont know everything about the bible but i do know this you donot mess with Isreal. They are Gods chosen.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

GOP Israel Group Casts Obama as Out-of-Step

Emergency Committee for Israel cites bipartisan support, contrasts with president

More on Tablet:

Watch Hillary Clinton vs. Jon Stewart on Gaza

By Yair Rosenberg — The former Secretary of State places blame for conflict squarely on Hamas