|
Banned
|
How Did Pledging Allegiance to Israel Become THE Litmus Test of a US Prez Candidacy?
What is this about? It seems that Obama's support for Israel is already on the extreme side, if the POV of republican President Eisenhower, 56 years ago, is taken into account....but, today Obama's extemism is not even enough, for some. What changed in the past 56 years? Why has much of the country moved so far to the right of Eisenhower's policy on the use of armed force, and on the priority of always putting the best interests of the US, first and foremost?
Would it even be possible, today, for a US president to order the State Dept. to inform the government of Israel ?:
Quote:
|
.....we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn't have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.
|
Why....or why not?
Quote:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpu...republica.html
House Republican Leaders Twist Obama Statement on Israel
May 12, 2008 9:19 PM
.....Nonetheless, House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, who knows better, accused Obama of calling Israel a "constant sore."
"Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a ‘constant sore’ as Barack Obama claims," Boehner said. "Obama’s latest remark, and his commitment to ‘opening a dialogue’ with sponsors of terrorism, echoes past statements by Jimmy Carter who once called Israel an ‘apartheid state.’"
(That's interesting because in that very same interview, Obama rejected Carter's use of the term "apartheid" as applied to Israel. Said Obama: "I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.")
Another member of the GOP House leadership, Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Virginia, also misrepresented what Obama said.
"It is truly disappointing that Senator Obama called Israel a ‘constant wound,’ ‘constant sore,’ and that it ‘infect[s] all of our foreign policy.’ These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel," Cantor said......
Background on Rep. Eric Cantor:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-center
BLOWBACK
Israel’s true friends
Two supporters of Israel in Congress say it isn’t about the lobby.
By Artur Davis and Eric Cantor
» Discuss Article (25 Comments)
John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt are at it again, attempting to poison the well of American politics with their misleading depiction of an Israeli stranglehold on presidential candidates and elected officials like us. In their Op-Ed article, the two professors charge that the so-called Israel lobby, composed of pro-Israel Jews, Christians and their "friends in the media," manipulates American political leaders to act counter to American — and, in their view, Israeli — interests.
Mearsheimer and Walt accuse all of us who support Israel in its struggle to live in peace and security of being Israel's "false friends." The accusation is remarkably disingenuous since it implies that Walt and Mearsheimer are Israel's true friends. These so-called true friends put the entirety of the blame for the failure of the peace process on the Israelis.
What kind of true friends write volumes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and gloss over the thousands of rockets Palestinian terror groups in Gaza launch into Israel? What kind of friend refuses to acknowledge the vicious propaganda machine in the West Bank and Gaza that stokes anti-Semitism and glorifies suicide bombers? Friends do not ask friends to dig their own graves.
But it is the moral flaw and not the stunningly bad research behind Mearsheimer and Walt's arguments that has impelled the two of us, a Black Democrat and a Jewish Republican who disagree on a long trail of international issues, to speak out rather than ignore their toxic contribution.
The pro-Israel lobby is not responsible for congressional support for a strong alliance with Israel. Like the vast majority of Americans, we support Israel for a very basic and obvious reason: America is at its best when we align ourselves with allies that share our values of tolerance, freedom and democracy -- whether those allies are Zionist, European, Asian or African. It is these shared notions of human worth that win Israel bipartisan support in a climate in which ideological common ground is rare.
Yes, America does award points for a democracy maintaining its openness in the face of terrorism — such a high frequency of attacks would paralyze our country. Israel is steadfast in including Arab voting strength in the Knesset, and in delivering first-class medical care to wounded would-be suicide bombers. And our Congress is keenly aware of the great pains Israel has taken to coexist with neighbors whose leaders have pledged Israel's destruction. The signs of forbearance include the 2000 Camp David offer of what former President Clinton described as a dream deal: a Palestinian state comprising Gaza, the vast majority of the West Bank and a capital in East Jerusalem. But the inescapable truth is that the Hamas-led Gaza Strip and heavy pockets of the Palestinian Authority-run West Bank reject a two-state solution. If the Palestinian Authority is powerless to rein in terrorism, and Hamas is committed to the destruction of Israel in Gaza and the West Bank, with whom are the Israelis to broker a peace?
It is uncertain if Mearsheimer and Walt understand that their attack on the "Israel lobby" sounds an ugly tone. One wonders if their outrage over what they patronizingly call the "lobby" extends to American corporations, or unions, or to the evangelical community, or the black community, all of whom vigorously engage the political process in pursuit of their values. If their disdain is as selective as we suspect, what a shameful aspersion on a faith and a nation.
Democratic Rep. Artur Davis represents the 7th District of Alabama. <h3>Republican Rep. Eric Cantor is chief deputy whip and represents the 7th District of Virginia. </h3>
|
This was a mainstream, political view in 1956:
Quote:
http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/pr...ments/2063.cfm
Document #2063; November 2, 1956
To Edward Everett Hazlett, Jr.
Series: EM, AWF, Name Series ; Category: Personal
The Papers of Dwight David Eisenhower, Volume XVII - The Presidency: The Middle Way
Part XI: The free world's "sad mess"; October 1956 to January 1957
Chapter 22: On Suez "we do not see eye to eye"
......The Mid East thing is a terrible mess. Ever since July twenty-sixth, when Nasser took over the Canal, I have argued for a negotiated settlement.8 It does not seem to me that there is present in the case anything that justifies the action that Britain, France and Israel apparently concerted among themselves and have initiated.
The 1888 Treaty says nothing at all as to how the Canal is to be operated, although it did recognize the existence of the "Concession" dating, I believe, from 1868. I think, therefore, that no one could question the legal right of Egypt to nationalize the Canal Company. And what really became the apparent or legal bone of contention was, "Shall the world's users of the Canal, which is guaranteed as an international waterway in perpetuity, be privileged to use the Canal only on the sufferance of a single nation?"9 Even this, in my opinion, is not the real heart of the matter.
The real point is that Britain, France and Israel had come to believe--probably correctly--that Nasser was their worst enemy in the Mid East and that until he was removed or deflated, they would have no peace. I do not quarrel with the idea that there is justification for such fears, <h2>but I have insisted long and earnestly that you cannot resort to force in international relationships because of your fear of what might happen in the future.</h2> In short, I think the British and French seized upon a very poor vehicle to use in bringing Nasser to terms.
Of course, nothing in the region would be so difficult to solve except for the underlying cause of the unrest and dissension that exists there--that is, the Arab-Israel quarrel. This quarrel seems to have no limit in either intensity or in scope. Everybody in the Moslem and Jewish worlds is affected by it. It is so intense that the second any action is taken against one Arab state, by an outsider, all the other Arab and Moslem states seem to regard it as a Jewish plot and react violently. All this complicates the situation enormously.
As we began to uncover evidence that something was building up in Israel, we demanded pledges from Ben-Gurion that he would keep the peace.10 We realized that he might think he could take advantage of this country because of the approaching election and because of the importance that so many politicians in the past have attached to our Jewish vote. <h3>I gave strict orders to the State Department that they should inform Israel that we would handle our affairs exactly as though we didn't have a Jew in America. The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated.11 .....</h3>
11 At this point in the original draft Eisenhower deleted this sentence: "The trouble is to say this is easy enough, <h3>but if we are really trying to get the world accustomed to foregoing [giving up] the use of force in the settlement of quarrels, it takes almost more patience than I possess."</h3>
|
What was wrong with President Eisenhowers two major foreign policy principles.....no resorting to use of force because of what you fear might happen in the future, and "The welfare and best interests of our own country were to be the sole criteria on which we operated." ?
Quote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/13/us...gewanted=print
May 13, 2008
Confronting Questions, Obama Assures Jews of His Support
By LARRY ROHTER
Faced with doubts about his support for Israel and American Jews, Senator Barack Obama has stepped up his efforts to reach out to the Jewish community over the past month, giving speeches and granting interviews to confront questions about the militant Palestinian group Hamas and his commitment to Jewish causes and values.
The efforts are part of “a very strong counteraction” against what the Obama campaign considers misinformation about the candidate, said Representative Robert Wexler, a Democrat from South Florida who often speaks on Jewish issues for the Obama campaign.
“We’re going to continue to keep making this case with initiatives to make it clear that his support for Israel could not be more unequivocal,” Mr. Wexler said.
Since the beginning of his campaign for president, Mr. Obama has combated rumors and e-mail campaigns suggesting that he was a Muslim or was hostile to Israel, a problem exacerbated by pro-Palestinian remarks made by his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. But several other developments, here and abroad, have also played a role in the outreach effort.
In an interview made available on Monday on the Web site of the magazine The Atlantic, Mr. Obama responded to a statement made last month by an official of Hamas, which the State Department classifies as a terrorist organization. The official, Ahmed Yousef, said that “we like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”
Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has seized on the Hamas comments to imply that Mr. Obama is soft on terrorism and so inexperienced in foreign affairs that he would damage the security interests of the United States and Israel. But in the Atlantic interview, with the writer Jeffrey Goldberg, Mr. Obama presented himself as an unwavering supporter of Israel.
“I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism,” Mr. Obama said in the interview. “That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel.”
But, Mr. Obama continued, “the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.”
Asked if he thought Israel was a "drag on America's reputation overseas," he said it was not. But he said: "What I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions." (Campaign aides said later he was clearly talking about tensions in the Middle East, not about Israel.)
The magazine interview follows recent speeches in which Mr. Obama has affirmed his support for Israel, most notably last week at an event marking the 60th anniversary of the founding of Israel sponsored by the Israeli Embassy in Washington. On Sunday, he contributed an op-ed article to the daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth, the largest paper in Israel.
In a Gallup poll released last week, 61 percent of Jewish voters surveyed said they would vote for Mr. Obama if he became the Democratic nominee. In several recent elections, nearly 80 percent of Jews voted Democratic, and Mr. Wexler, the Florida congressman, said he thought Mr. Obama could approach those levels “once the Democratic Party is unified.”
Contributing to Jewish discomfort is a trip that former President Jimmy Carter made last month to Egypt, Syria and Israel. Over the objections of the Bush administration and the Israeli government, Mr. Carter met in Damascus with the leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshal, and the president of Syria, Bashar al-Assad.
Mr. Obama has sought to distance himself from the diplomacy of Mr. Carter. The former president, who has called Mr. Obama’s candidacy “extraordinary” but has stopped short of endorsing him, has also angered Jewish leaders by using the word “apartheid” to refer to some of Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians.
“I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and his decision to meet with Hamas,” Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to Jewish leaders in Philadelphia. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction.”
On Friday, Robert Malley, who was a special adviser on Arab-Israeli affairs to President Bill Clinton, severed his ties to the Obama campaign after he learned that The Times of London was preparing to publish an article disclosing direct contacts he had with Hamas. Mr. Malley is an official of the International Crisis Group, an independent nonprofit entity whose activities include gathering information on terrorist groups and conflicts.
Mr. Malley said he had been an informal adviser to the campaign. Tommy Vietor, a spokesman for the Obama campaign, said that description applied to “literally hundreds of people.”
“He has no formal role in the campaign and will not play one in the future,” Mr. Vietor said.
A senior foreign policy adviser to Mr. Obama said Mr. Malley had contributed “one paper to one of our policy teams several months ago, and that was the extent of it.”
Jewish voters make up a small but important constituency in several states rich in electoral votes, like California, Florida, New York and Mr. Obama’s home state, Illinois. When Mr. Goldberg, of The Atlantic, suggested to Mr. Obama that “there seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it,” Mr. Obama expressed puzzlement at that perception, saying that in the black community in Chicago he had been accused of being “too close to the Jews.”
“I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends,” Mr. Obama said, “so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious.”
|
<h3>The Obama interview where he is accused of insulting Israel:</h3>
Quote:
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.c..._and_hamas.php
Obama on Zionism and Hamas
12 May 2008 11:58 am
The Hamas leader Ahmed Yousef did Barack Obama no favor recently when he said: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.” John McCain jumped on this statement, calling it a “legitimate point of discussion,” and tied it to Obama’s putative softness on Iran, whose ever-charming president last week called Israel a “stinking corpse” and predicted its “annihilation.”
The Hamas episode won’t help Obama’s attempts to win over Jewish voters, particularly those in such places as –- to pull an example from the air –- Palm Beach County, Florida, whose Jewish residents tend to appreciate robust American support for Israel, and worry about whether presidential candidates feel the importance of Israel in their kishkes, or guts.
Obama and I spoke over the weekend about Hamas, about Jimmy Carter, and about the future of Jewish settlements on the West Bank. He seemed eager to talk about his ties to the Jewish community, and about the influence Jews have had on his life. Among other things, he told me that he learned the art of moral anguish from Jews. We spoke as well about my Atlantic cover story on Israel’s future. He mentioned his interest in the opinions of the writer David Grossman, who is featured in the article. “I remember reading The Yellow Wind when it came out, and reading about Grossman now is powerful, painful stuff.” And, speaking in a kind of code Jews readily understand, Obama also made sure to mention that he was fond of the writer Leon Uris, the author of Exodus.
Here are excerpts from our conversation:
JEFFREY GOLDBERG: I’m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?
BARACK OBAMA: You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel.
And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.
JG: You’ve talked about the role of Jews in the development of your thinking
BO: I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience.
One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate.
JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?
BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.
That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.
JG: Go to the kishke question, the gut question: the idea that if Jews know that you love them, then you can say whatever you want about Israel, but if we don’t know you –- Jim Baker, Zbigniew Brzezinski –- then everything is suspect. There seems to be in some quarters, in Florida and other places, a sense that you don’t feel Jewish worry the way a senator from New York would feel it.
BO: I find that really interesting. I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions.
Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations.
The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I’m University of Chicago, I’ve got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious.
JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?
BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.
JG: Were you flummoxed by it?
BO: I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.
When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.
When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.
JG: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?
BO: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.
JG: If you become President, will you denounce settlements publicly?
BO: What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.
I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article.
The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.
|
Last edited by host; 05-13-2008 at 12:05 PM..
|
05-13-2008, 11:52 AM
