Yesterday, I explained at length why Efraim Halevy’s oddly partisan op-ed in the New York Times alleging that only Republicans have strong-armed Israel was as absurd as it was irrelevant to the question of whether President Obama should be re-elected. Nevertheless, some liberals have continued to circulate Halevy’s piece as if it was conclusive proof that Democrats are always good and Republicans are bad. As I pointed out, presidents from both parties have been pressuring the Jewish state since it was born. Even if we were to accept the former Mossad chief’s lame attempt to summarize the history of U.S.-Israel relations so as to focus only on episodes of tension when the GOP had the White House, it does nothing to answer the justified criticisms of President Obama’s undeniable record of pressure.
But there is one aspect of Halevy’s piece that is relevant this morning: his discussion of the way the George W. Bush administration hammered Israel into accepting the “road map” for Middle East peace in 2003 prior to the Iraq War. The prime mover behind that policy went unnamed in Halevy’s piece, but he is very much in the news today: former Secretary of State Colin Powell. To no one’s surprise, Powell endorsed President Obama for re-election. The former general had a number of reasons for backing the president, but by all accounts the most important one was distrust of the “neoconservatives” who advise Mitt Romney on foreign policy. Those who think criticism of the Bush administration’s attitude to Israel should inform the 2012 election need to understand that Powell — the most prominent critic of Israel on Bush’s team — is weighing in on the election largely because he doesn’t like the pro-Israel tone of the Romney campaign and endorses Obama’s policy of pressure. That puts Halevy’s “bad Republican” argument in a perspective that renders it useless to those supporting the president’s re-election.
In an administration where friendship for Israel and sympathy for its security concerns was the norm, Powell was a prominent skeptic about the Jewish state’s point of view about self-defense and the peace process. He was not happy about President Bush’s decision to give Israel a “green light” to take out Palestinian terror bases during the second intifada, and was a key player in the episode Halevy highlighted about the “road map.”
Powell’s antagonism for the neocons in the Bush administration is well known and is not limited to their disagreements about how the U.S. should treat Israel. But the point here is that Powell’s sympathy for Obama’s foreign policy stems in no small measure from their similar views about the Middle East. If the conceit of Halevy’s piece is that a vote for Mitt Romney is a vote for a repeat of the worst aspects of George W. Bush’s attitude toward Israel (as opposed to what every objective observer concedes was its overall stance of unflinching support), then Colin Powell’s endorsement demolishes it.
President Obama came into office determined to create some distance between the U.S. and Israel because he and his advisors thought the two countries had become too close under Bush. In doing so, he seemed to champion the stance that Powell, who was the loser in most Bush administration arguments about policy, had wished to pursue.
President Obama’s record deserves to be judged on its own merits, a point that Halevy ignored in his op-ed. But anyone who thinks concern about a return of Bush-era pressure on Israel is relevant to their decision in this election ought to take Powell’s views into consideration and understand that what he likes about Obama’s policies is precisely what supporters of Israel fear.
Pressuring Israel or not is irrelevant. There will be no meaningful talks on the 2-state or any other solution. The point is to disengage from the whole mess. Let the players themselves handle it, by jaw-jaw or by war-war. It's not our problem or our fight, and not vital to our national interest. n nIf Zionists want to defend Israel, let them move there and pay taxes, join the reserves, take the risks. Leave the US out of the whole intractable muddle.
I know His Grumpiness never ceases to attack and criticize israel. Oddly, though, I tend to agree with his assessment to let the antagonists deal directly with each other. If this would be the case, israel can wipe out the terrorists and make the whole land of israel a prosperous country.
Your 2 neurons are straining! nThat's the sort of argument people like you used in the 30's to avoid confronting Hitler, when in fact he was already formulating plans to attack the US. Andit was Hitler who declared war on the US, not the other way around. nAnd now you think Iran and all those accursed jihadists are just gunning for Israel? nWake up, dumkopf. They have their sites set on your country!
Grumpy is fond of memes from the 1930s. It would not surprise me to learn that he thinks the Iranian takeover of our embassy, its attacks on our troops in Iraq, and its other acts of war or terrorism against the US are only so much Zionist mythology, designed by international Jewish bankers to drag the world into war so that Jewish bankers and munitions makers can profit off of Christian blood, just like we did in the two world wars.
Grumps, while you're disassociating the US from Israel, remember to stop US payments to the "palestinian authority" & related & supporting bodies too. These payments amount to roughly 1/2 billion $$ per year. If you don't want to stop those payments then I will have to conclude that you're a faker & a phoney.r nEspecially when the US treasury needs every cent it can get to pay off Obama's unprecedented federal debts.
I believe that when Nazi Germany invaded and conquered Czechoslovakia in 1939, Prime Minister Chamberlain of Great Britain said that Great Britain was not concerned with what was happening to a far distant land. nIsrael is an ally of the United States, the only democracy in its part of the world. Does Grumpy-Old-Man want more Jews killed?
I just figured O needed Powell to counter Eastwood, so thanks for connecting the background dots. n nIt is sad to see Powell dragged into providing an endorsement at this moment. n
I think Powell's most important reason is that Obama is black (or half anyway). Whatever he thinks of neocons, I doubt he would have bothered to endorse a failed white Democratic President.
Sadly, I think you are correct. I would never have guessed Powell would endorse based on color. Can't think of any word but the one liberals use for anyone who might vote on color for Romney.
Are you American or Israeli? Make the choice.
The ever popular disloyalty canard may be the least anti-Jewish thing you have posted in a long time. Are you a Jew hater who has affected a Hebrew name, or a human being? We already know what choice you made.
Are you an Arab or an American? Make the choice. n nAre you an idiot or a hater? Make the choice. n n n netc, etc, etc.
Arab? I had always figured him for a neo-Nazi.
I'm not Jewish, but put me down with Israel.
Being a crypto Israel hater is the litmus test for American politics now it seems. If you're a 'real patriot' you have to at least obliquely dislike the Jews. And considering that Colin Powell once mentioned that as a young man he learned some Yiddish while working for a downstairs neighbor, it seems the new normal is the opposite of all of that. All I can say is that while everyone is falling over themselves being 'even handed' and creating 'daylight' between the Jews and the US I suspect your new best friends in the psychotic Arab Islamic Bronze Age aren't going to be impressed. Oh you can throw us at the rampaging alligator but the alligator's going to get you too.
As someone who watched Colin Powell deliver a speech to raucous cheers at the Jewish United Fund in Chicago, where the Israeli National Anthem was sung prior to his speech, I find the suggestion that he is somehow an Israel-hater absurd.
wait- n nyou are saying that since Jews sang Hatikva and Jews cheered Colin Powell prior to delivering a speech, n nColin Powell cannot be a Jew hater? n nhelloooooooooooooooo~ anyone home? n n
First, I honor Colin Powell for his long service in uniform. Secondly, I never had him pegged as one of the genteel anti-Semitic country-club Republicans such as those who inhabited (infested?) the administration of George H.W. Bush. Some not so genteel, of course… n nBut, regardless of party self-identification, what kind of Republican would vote for the most liberal sitting Senator in 2008, and then, despite Obama's obvious failure, pledge to vote for him again in 2012? n nPowell is a Democrat. Period. n
I don't think Powell is a Jew hater either. And I too honor his service to our country. But I think he has a seriously flawed undertanding of the situation in the middle east, and has the typical State Department view of Israel. n n
Colin Powell, like Obama, is an affirmative action product, long in over his head. Like attracts like.
fwiw n nI don't think Powell is a Jew hater either-just another affirmative action hire.
A Canadian Jew comments: For sure Colin Powell waited too long because Mitt Romney has probably already won the election. It is hard to imagine what it would take to turn things around for the Obama campaign in the short time left before November 6th. The tide turned shortly before the third debate, by which time both Obama and Romney had obviously already seen polling that drove Obama to be overly aggressive and Romney to play it cool and presidential. Romney sure knows how to pace himself. We saw this already in the long run for the nomination. Now Romney is just getting into his stride for the final push against Obama who will find the final days especially painful. As longtime Democratic party pollster David Schoen said earlier this week. After the first debate, Americans stopped listening to Obama. Could it be that the Lord God of Israel somehow helped remove this King whose heart has cold to the Jewish People and Israel? Well, sounds good to me!
Colin Powell retains his appeal to middle of the road voters. Like it or not, his endorsement helps Obama.