The overall tone of the foreign policy debate portrayed President Obama’s insecurity about the race as he swung away at Mitt Romney as if he was the challenger rather than the incumbent. But if there was any particular element of the electorate about which he seemed concerned, it has to be the Jewish vote. President Obama’s all-out effort to portray himself as Israel’s best friend and Iran’s most ardent foe showed just how desperate he is about the possibility that he will lose Jewish votes as a result of spending the first three years of his administration constantly picking fights with the state of Israel and attempting to establish daylight between its positions and those of the United States.
That the president would so emphasize Israel in the debate spoke volumes about Democrat fears about his vulnerability. Even more interestingly, he found himself staking out a position on Iran’s nuclear program that had to alarm those advocating a compromise on the issue as well as his European negotiating partners in the P5+1 process. The president didn’t endorse Israel’s calls for “red lines” about Iran’s nuclear capability as did Romney, but he did say that the only solution to the standoff involved a stand that would make the sort of compromise that realists and foreign policy establishment types approve impossible:
And we hope that their leadership takes the right decision, but the deal we’ll accept is they end their nuclear program. It’s very straightforward.
The deal that the compromisers want and which seems to be in the cards if the direct talks between the U.S. and Iran that the New York Times reported over the weekend would commence after the elections would involve an agreement that would leave the Iranian nuclear program in place but have their enriched fuel shipped abroad.
Critics rightly point out that even if the Iranians went along with this, it would mean a situation that would be a standing invitation for Tehran to cheat its way to a nuclear weapon. Their model would follow the way North Korea hoodwinked the Clinton and Bush administrations when it was assumed that the deals they signed with Pyongyang precluded that rogue nation going nuclear.
But the president has closed off that option. He is now committed to a position that is incompatible with Iran having any sort of nuclear program. His statement also makes the Iran talks that some senior officials in his administration thought were a done deal impossible. If the president is to keep his vow to prevent Iran from going nuclear, it is clear that he is now more or less forced to accept Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s position on “red lines,” since the terms of the negotiations that the Europeans have pushed in the P5+1 talks have now been ruled unacceptable.
While many in the audience focused on his bragging about a 2008 visit to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust museum (as if Romney hadn’t been there himself on his various tours of the country) and to the town of Sderot, the real news is the way the president has now ruled out any compromise on Iran.
It isn’t clear whether these pledges will erase the memory of his ongoing fights with Netanyahu over borders, settlements and Jerusalem in the minds of Jewish voters. Romney’s passionate support of Israel and his pointed reminder that the world noted that the president avoided Israel when he visited the Middle East will likely win the GOP more Jewish votes than it has won in a generation. But it’s a given that Iran was sent a signal in Boca Raton that a second term sellout of Israel on the nuclear issue was just made a lot more difficult.
I'll always remember how BHO treated Netanyahu these past few years. Kind of like the way he treats all those who disagree with him: a nastiness in his voice and mannerisms that is entirely unpresidential and it's his way or the highway. Kind of like how he treated Romney last night. This arrogance and narcissism as I always say are the two most dangerous personality flaws any president could have. If anyone thinks this man would work "across the aisle" or with our foreign friends these next four years is deluding themselves.
I think that it's a travesty the way that Obama has treated Netanyahu, there is no excuse for this.
Yad Vashem includes a museum, but calling it a museum for lack of a more accurate, wait for it, word: Memorial, well, I had my strongest negative reaction to that. nD.C. has a Holocaust Museum; maybe that confused Obama. n nOf course, by that time, Obama had said Israel so many times, I assume even a few Saudi princes watching probably realized Obama's internal polls show a big problem. n nToo bad Schieffer's question on an official status of mutual defense was not directly answered by either, but glad Schieffer used Japan as the example.
Sycophancy contest. How embarrassing for all concerned.
Piss off. You've been outed as a Jew hater.
yes, he is a relic of Spengler forum n nnasty sos n nploome/Charleston
Ploomie!
Too bad. Next time there's a political debate or discussion, just stick with your particular quality favorite programming, re-runs of Honey Boo Boo.
As far as I could tell Obama's entire performance consisted of his support for women's rights in the Arab world and of course, as always, hire more teachers.
Obama's agenda is to spend everyone money that he steal from the rich and class warfare.
hope Andrew Sullivan had finished with his latte before the debate: spit-take city
The first words out of Chris Balloonhead Mathews mouth was a loud whiny complaint that Obama has talked about Israel so much or at all. I can appreciate that for a few reasons. One – the Jews who are going to vote for him vs not are set. The Jewish vote is small. And – Balloonhead made a valid point for a change – there's a big world that also has South America, Mexico, Canada, Central America, Africa, East Asia, North Korea, Japan, Russia and Europe. None of which was touched on at all. But then again, it was Shieffer who asked the questions.
Empress_Trudy: I got to figure that he's looking at some really really bleak dismal internal polls somewheres along the line he thinks he needs to keep on his side of the board. But hey, I also think we are s-m-a-l-l.. Maybe it's the now a majority non mainline Protestant Christian vote. Or maybe we've just misinterpreted his deep abiding love of Zion …. n nnah. n nJust a day or so ago Susan Rice was at the Security Council talking up how *Gilo* is an "illegitimate settlement". But it was a stumper wasn't it?
Trudy, n Matthews is mentally and emotionally disturbed.
Why should anyone believe anything Obama says? Seriously? Obama has proved he has no problem going back on his word. None. He promised us deficit reduction too. Better to believe what he says off mic when he thinks no one is listenitng. In a second term he will not be worrying about re-election. If he is not held accountable for his first term anti-Israel policies in this election, why will he care at all in his second term? Do you really think that he worries about someone calling him a liar? do you think the compliant medica will even call him on his lies? Fool you once, shame on him. Fool you twice, shame on you.
Exactly. Obama will make his pledge, ignore it, fail to stop Iran, and then declare that he has succeeded. Same old pattern. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me a few dozen times . . .
"Why should anyone believe anything Obama says?" n nThere is not a reason in the world, from top to bottom, front to back, or east to west.
Exactly. When he reneges on these statements and assurances, it will be our fault. He was misunderstood. Quoted out of context. We were too stupid to comprehend the monumental subtleties and complexities of his sublime utterances. Every statement the man makes has a sell-by date.
Either at your throat or grovelling at your feet, Churchill said of the Germans. n nCalling a politician dishonest or craven is a waste of breath. Goes with the territory. But there are degrees. Obama has no bottom. The creature is utterly shameless. n nRichard Nixon was a class act compared to this guy.
I certainly approve of your analogy, but Churchill (1943) almost certainly stole the words you quote from the exasperated Maj. Gen. Charles Townshend, BIA, who used them around 1920 to describe the Shia Arabs of Basra, being then in rebellion against the British Mandate of Mesopotamia. I have always thought Churchill's application of it to "the Huns" as highly implausible wartime propaganda. As for the Arabs, well now, THAT is an entirely different matter.
I always preferred the definition of the Arab national character found in the Bible. Yishmael hu pere adam. Ishmael is a wild jackass of a man.
IMy Hebrew grammar is one of the few things worse than my Hebrew vocabulary, but I have been told that in Hebrew, because the modifier normally follows the word it is modifying, a more accurate translation of pere adam would be a man of a wild jackass, i.e. a wild jackass in human form.
You are indeed an am ha'aretz as your Hebrew is indeed rusty.
Germans: at your throat or standing on it….we kid!
Obama will walk back his position on Iran is he’s re-elected. He doesn’t understand the regional wars race that will commmense the day after Iran announces it has a nuclear weapon. Saudi Arabia, Turkey & Egypt (who has already annonced they want one) will iammediate purchase or develope one. The altrnative wil be Iranian hegemony over the middle east.
I agree – whatever Obama said in the debate (or anywhere else, for that matter) on Iran will impose no constraint on his policies should he be re-elected.
Please keep in mind that every pledge by Obama has an expiration date. Every one.
Exactly. And this “tough on Iran” pledge expires on November 7th, 2012.
It sorta expired by the end of the debate when he said he was glad Romney now agreed on the usefulness of bilateral talks with Iran…no mention of preconditions are the tough goals he started with…
Obama has the typical left-wing opinion of Israel. He blames it for the causes of Middle East problems. Honestly, his breaks my heart. What do those hostile to Israel want from it? It's a geographically tiny and militarily vulnerable state that just wants to be left alone. I really hate to accuse people of dark motives, but I just have to reluctantly conclude that Israel's enemies, and I consider Obama one, just don't like Israeli Jews and therefore are indifferent to that which threatens them. Regrettably, many US Jews share this indifference.
Blacks hate Israel precisely because she is vulnerable. Weakness attracts predators. And the miserable bastards are happy to find a (genuine) minority they feel they can bully. AntiSemitism is the rare prejudice blacks can share with whites. Makes black anti-Semites feel fashionable and assimilated. Finally there's jealousy. African Americans in contact with Jewish Americans suffer feelings of inadequacy, usually justified. They take their jealousy and Jew-hatred out on Israel. n nFunding for black causes by mega-buck Jewish philanthropical organizations must cease. n
Don't be sure. Lot of black baptists are still in Israel's amen corner. I live with black folk and work with them here on the East coast. I just don't get that repressed inferiority vibe.
Evangelicals, black or white, are a whole other category. But Evangelical clout at the ballot box is not matched by clout in public square. Intellectual fashion is dominated by college bred African Americans in the academy and in the media. And these, in their overwhelming majority, hate Jews, Judaism and The Jewish State. n nIt is also a fact that African Americans in general poll significantly more hostile to Jews than other Americans.
Surprised HillelA hasn't weighed in yet to tell us that Obama is Israel's best friend and that all the problems in the Middle East are Mitt Romney's fault.
Was I the only one who noticed Obama's antisemitic slur when he said that unlike Romney "I didn't go to Israel to raise money." n nReminded me of how Obama's first act as President was to slight the Jews by demoting them, for the first time, into the second tier of America's religions: "We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and nonbelievers."
When its convenient, Obama is more than willing to appropriate the Jewish religion to his purposes.
Like most of Obama's heartfelt declarations and promises, it has an expiration date. This particular vow is non-redeemable after November 6, 2012.
Obama did set a red line last night – he said that Egypt's adherence to its peace treaty with Israel is a redline stance for him. Obama's position thus appears to represent support for tiny Israel; yet, Obama refuses to set a redline regarding Iran's nuclear program. So, despite Iran's clear desire to destroy Israel and its millions of Jewish inhabitants, no redline declaration emanates from the white house. n nA seeming contradiction for Obama perhaps? Not really, if Obama know (or hopes) that Iran will acquire a nuclear weapon, and that Iran will use it on Israel, and that israel will essentially be destroyed, then there will be no further need for Egypt to tolerate its treaty with Israel, and Obama's "redline" will be of no consequence!
"Egypt's adherence to its peace treaty with Israel " – unless of course it means the inconvenient parts of the treaty, like keeping the Sinai demilitarized, preventing inflitration of Israel, normalization of trade, and ending governmental incitement.
Romney should have pointed out how Obama's policies encouraged the Palestinians to walk out on talks by emphasizing '67 borders.And how Obama immediately reversed himself on statements that were clearly meant to"mislead" that he made at Aipac Convention. Good that Romney emphasized Obama's avoidance of Israel on the Apology Tour-but Romney should have jumped on the phraseObama used when Obama said"When I was campaigning in Israel" and said something to the effect that yes when you were campaigning-but when you were in office there was no relationship between what you did and what you said when you were campaigning in Israel………………The timing of the current joint military exercises with Israel is of course political-as everything is with the Huckster-In-Chief…….. In the same sense that Clinton was our first black President,Obama is our first Muslim Student Organization President.
There's no reason for US foreign policy to be tied to the extremists of any country, including Israel. Avigdor Liberman's racism has to give us pause in assessing our interests. Certainly we must stand with Israel, as with any democracy, when it's threatened by Islamist barbarians. But to rant against Obama as if he's the 2nd Nebuchadnezzar is delusional and closes off a dialog in the US about what our interests are. Romney's no friend of the US let alone Israel. You can always trust him to give his loyalty to capital first, country 2nd.
Don't believe everything you read at Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Lieberman is indeed a nationalist. Calling him a racist may be convenient and fashionable but it is not accurate. Unless you mean that it is racist to suggest that Arabs are capable of the same self control and self-improvement as everyone else, and should have to bear the consequences of their actions and mistakes like everyone else.
Sure, and Obama is dedicated to a life of spiritual uplift and tending to the afflicted, like Mother Theresa. You can always trust Obama to give his loyalty to 1) Obama, 2) hanging out with rich folk and getting the means to secure the good life with his chosen posses, 3) whatever left-wing odds and ends can be tended to in the down-time of 1) and 2). The hedge fund zillionaires and Hollywood glitterati who give to Obama's campaign will help support him for the rest of his idle life.
Left wing? Let's see…his healthcare system is insurance company based. He bailed out the banks and General Motors. He hasn't done squat for unions. The stock market is up 50% in 3 years. If that's left wing, then what does right wing look like? You tin foil hat types need to get a new theme. You break the Godwin's law of socialism.
This article is nonsense. There isn't a large enough "Jewish" population in the US for Obama to be too concerned about their vote. What he's more concerned about is the Zionists' influence and that vote. Most Zionists so happens to be "Christians". The largest "Jewish" populations are in New York, Florida and Los Angeles. The only state among these that Obama might lose to Romney is Florida. The total "Jewish" population in the US, including children, is no more than 7 million.
Obama and Romney both repeatedly emphasized the U.S.committment to Israel's security. They both were emphatic about not allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons. nI found such strong support for Israel by both candidates extremely important and positive, especially when there are so many voices (Consider the recent statement of the High Church folks) calling for diminished support to Israel. n n
Obama will say anything to anyone. The man has no inner core or moral compass. n When I heard him speak about Yad Vashem, I felt like I was going to throw up.
Why should Obama be worried about the Jewish vote? He knows those suckers are going to vote overwhelmingly for him and the Democrats, just like always. n nHe's tossing them some kind words now, knowing that's all it takes to make Jewish voters fall all over themselves in order to cast their ballots for the least Christian candidate. n nHere's my bet: 70% plus of the Jewish vote to Obama. Any takers?
Rubbish! There isn't a word of truth that comes out of that man's mouth. He lies all the time, about everything. Mr. Tobin knows this. He just can't say it.
Did anyone notice that when asked by Schieffer about supporting Israel in case of an Irani attack, Obama said in words that can mean anything, I paraphrase, "We'll support Israel," while Romney meaning what he said, said, I paraphrase, "We'll support Israel in all ways, diplomatically, politically and *militarily*" in what I took to be a precise counterpoint to Obama's typical evasive vagueness?
Like in the Last Unicorn – "You never fought my brothers for any stone. All you did was send them a nasty letter, which you didn't even sign." (It's been a few decades, so this quote may not be exact.)
Not only fighting IL but opened widely the door of the WH to the MBs of the world. nMR cannot count on the Jews. Too bad. n
Anyone who believes anything Obama says is an idiot. He is an incorrigible opportunist who will say anything to get a vote, especially a Jewish vote. The only message about Iran from the last debate was that he needed to say what he did to convince Jews he is the 'friend' of Israel. After the elections, if he wins, he will revert to ignoring and insulting Netanyahu and trying to sell out Israel. Why is it taking some people so long to understand that Obama cannot be trusted about anything?
What's the expiration date? Everything zero says comes with an expiration date.
Jews are the Obama`s reserve at the last moment of his fear of the poll`s lose because his traditionally anti-Israel ( anti-Jewish) policy`s declaration change can influence emotional Jews`s votes.
As an Independent, I am not sure that Obama is so anti-Israel as is being made out here. I think that his and Netanyahu’s relationship has been strained, and I think that they have conflicting opinions and ideas, but do you really think that the POTUS is making the wrong decisions here?
Romney is supporting an Isareli led attack against Iran, which would surely promopt Iran to retaliate inna negative way against the USA? I don’t think that Romney’s idea is a good one.
Also, according to the Economist, a lot of liberal Jews at least are not as worried about Israel as they are about the American economy.