On the eve of Mitt Romney’s foreign tour that will take him to Britain, Poland and Israel, the Obama campaign made a classic mistake. Rightly sensing that Romney’s visit to the Jewish state would highlight not just the fact that the president had never gone there during his four years in office but the fights he had picked with Israel, the Democrats responded by pledging that some time during the next four years Obama would find a few days to go there himself. But rather than one-upping the GOP nominee, the promise merely worsened his difficulties with Jewish and pro-Israel voters. Having conspicuously avoided Israel throughout his first term even while feeling the need to go to Egypt and other places in the region, Obama’s vow is a lame rejoinder to Romney. He would have been far better off merely trying to ignore the Republican. Instead, by saying that if he’s re-elected he’ll deign to go there he’s admitted there’s a problem.
Obama’s supporters are right to respond that visits are symbolic and that the substance of the U.S.-Israel relationship transcends photo opportunities. But their problem is the Romney visit is a reminder this administration set out from its first moments in office to distance itself from Israel as part of its rejection of everything it associated with George W. Bush. Because Bush was close to Israel, they wanted more daylight between the two countries and quickly achieved their goal. Had President Obama not spent his first three years picking fights with Israel over the status of Jerusalem, settlements and the 1967 borders and relentlessly pressuring it to make concessions to a Palestinian Authority that had no interest in peace, it wouldn’t matter if Mitt Romney spent the whole summer touring the country.
It’s true, as the Democrats point out, that the president has not torpedoed the entire alliance. The security relationship between the two countries set in place by his predecessors has been maintained. But to claim he deserves the support of pro-Israel voters because he refrained from destroying the alliance infrastructure is hardly a compelling argument.
Only partisans and those committed to a policy of opposing Israel’s democratically-elected government can pretend that the years prior to the commencement of Obama’s election-year Jewish charm offensive were not primarily characterized by the administration’s determination to tilt the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians. Though his defenders claim there was nothing new about what he did, Obama’s stands on settlements and Jerusalem did more to undermine Israel’s position than any of his predecessors. But the Palestinians not only did not take advantage of Obama’s gifts but predictably, were encouraged by the rift between Israel and the U.S. to avoid negotiations altogether. The result was that Obama took an already bad situation and found a way to make it worse.
The interesting thing about Obama’s worries about pro-Israel voters is that it wouldn’t have taken much from him to convince them he was Israel’s friend. A visit would have helped, but a stopover in Israel would have contradicted the signals he was trying to send to the Arab and Muslim world that he was more open to them than Bush. An avoidance of needless squabbles about settlements, Jerusalem and borders would have cost him nothing, especially as turning these points into major fights didn’t convince the Palestinians to even return to negotiations or win him the friends he wanted in the Muslim world. If the transition to the charm offensive after three years of battles with Israel seemed effortless, it was because there was never any strategic rationale for Obama’s obsession with downgrading the alliance with Israel.
If the president does go to Israel during his second term, he will be welcomed there as any American president would be. But there is no reason to think a belated attempt to rectify the problems he created will be fixed by such a promise. If Romney benefits from his visit, it is because of Obama’s policies, not just because the president has stayed away.
Even if he's reelected he won't go, but he hopes saying he will can win some votes in Boca Raton.
I suggest a reset of relation with Israel. Let's start by dropping aid to Israel and the Palestinians. Let them pay the billions we give them for defense and development out of their own pockets, rather than the pockets of the American taxpayer. n nThen if either wants a productive relationship with the US, let them propose what they will bring to the table that is in the US interest.
I remain completely frustrated with my fellow American Jews who remain stubbornly loyal to this president no matter how much he does to erode Israeli security. Again this past week the White House had the audacity (small pun) to call the attack on Israeli tourists in Bulgaria by Iranian surrogate terrorists as just a tit for tat reprisal.
The "space" between the U.S. and Israel that President Obama felt it so necessary to open may become much wider in the next few weeks, as an increasingly desperate Syrian dictator clings ever closer to his Iranian defenders. Look for some sort of provocation designed to deflect world attention away from Assad's acts of genocide and move it back to where the U.N. feels it rightfully belongs: Israel. If Obama's reaction to Assad's crude threats to use chemical weapons — calling their possible use a "tragic mistake" rather than a crime against humanity — is any indication, Israelis had better not rely on strong U.S. backing if Assad tries to draw them into the conflict.
Ed, a tragic mistake is using chemical weapons to murder masses of innocent people (unless they are Jews; then it may be something less). A crime against humanity is letting Jews build homes on land that they have lawfully purchased in areas where the neighbors have declared it a capital crime to be Jewish. It would be nice to have a president and a state department who do not see things that way.
I disagree that "Only partisans and those committed to a policy of opposing Israel’s democratically-elected government can pretend that the years prior to the commencement of Obama’s election-year Jewish charm offensive were not primarily characterized by the administration’s determination to tilt the diplomatic playing field in the direction of the Palestinians. " n nSo can the profoundly ignorant, people who favor wishful thinking over reality, and the terminally stupid.
However American jews will march again like lemmings and vote for their favorite socialist: 0bama. It is really hard to believe, but its the truth. I dont understand them, how can they not care about Israel. nWell, 0bama is safe with them, and a lot of jews in the US, incl. Hollywood are very rich, so money too is flowing his way. They are their own worst enemy.
I do not agree that the administration has treated Israel poorly "as part of its rejection of everything it associated with George W. Bush." n nI think the reasons are the fundamental and deeply-held beliefs of the administration's policy-makers. They mistakenly think of Israel as an extension of Western colonialism, and, quite simply, hate Israel and Jews. n nA second term would most likely be worse than the first, since Obama would have much more "flexibility," to use his term. n
So O's aids say that sometime in his 2nd term (if he's re-elected) he'll visit Israel. Sure! One thing that's been clearly shown in four years is that EVERYTHING he says is a lie. I don't remember about whom this was first used, but it fits O exactly: How do you tell if he's lying? If his mouth is open.