Of course, they have a lot more on the line. The question is, when will the American Jews get the memo?
…the poll results from Israel have got to be worrying to the Obama team. Liberal Jews are a critically important fundraising group and voter bloc for Democrats. With the economy remaining very weak and Obama’s national approval ratings sagging, the 2010 midterm elections and the presidential race in 2012 could be more competitive than were the Democratic sweeps in 2006 and 2008.
Will some liberal Jews step back, uncomfortable with the perception that Obama is hostile to Israel? Has Obama crossed a threshold among Jewish voters, much as Jimmy Carter did in 1979-1980, leading to a greatly diminished level of Jewish support in his run for re-election (Carter won but 45% of the Jewish vote in 1980).
To counter this perception, the lapdogs of the Jewish left — in particular, J-Street (a group whose real mission seems to be to reduce the power and influence of AIPAC) and the NJDC — are furiously spinning how Obama is still fond of Israel and the right choice for peace (which presumably is just around the corner if only Israel caved on the settlements issue).
I’ve got spinners like that right here in my comments section, even though the notion is certifiably insane.
I’m not sure but I think someone is bound to cry “racism” over any mention of Obama and spinners.
A laugh-out-loud line from the linked article:
This last argument fully encapsulates the Saudi “peace plan,” which may be why the president bowed to the Saudi prince when they met.
And if he does a fist-bump with Hosni Mubarak it means the U.S. supports the Egyptian policy on Gaza tunnels. It’s diplomacy by greeting gestures!
More seriously, Obama is not running for Prime Minister of Israel, so his poll numbers there are of little concern. If expanding Israeli settlements are in the interest of the U.S., then make that case.
Your ability to miss the entire point of the post is truly special.
—-
I’ll consider the Two-State Solution as a viable path to peace just as soon as the Palestinians do. Meanwhile, if the Palestinians refuse to accept that Israel exists I see no reason that Israel should consider Palestine to exist. Let the settlements continue in “Israel”.
Reciprocity. It’s how I roll.
And yet Jim, when Bush 43 was president we were expected to weep openly over Europe’s opinion of him, and how badly it reflected on us as Americans.
And yet Jim, when Bush 43 was president we were expected to weep openly over Europe’s opinion of him, and how badly it reflected on us as Americans.
You don’t understand — that was Europeans. You know, important people. Not those filthy
JewsZionists.Liberal Jews are a critically important fundraising group and voter bloc for Democrats.
Which is a problem they’ve mitigated by making the taxpayers the major source of funds. They’ll still take Jewish money of course.
Meanwhile, if the Palestinians refuse to accept that Israel exists I see no reason that Israel should consider Palestine to exist. Let the settlements continue in “Israel”.
That may make you feel good, but how does it advance U.S. interests?
You don’t understand — that was Europeans. You know, important people. Not those filthy
JewsZionists.Classy. The problem with Europeans’ low opinion of Bush policies was that we needed European cooperation to meet U.S. goals. What U.S. interest is Obama sacrificing by insisting that Israel — the #1 recipient of U.S. aid — stop growing settlements?
That may make you feel good, but how does it advance U.S. interests?
How does the destruction of Israel advance our interests?
How does the destruction of Israel advance our interests?
It doesn’t. Please explain how settlement growth is the only thing preventing the destruction of Israel.
Please explain how settlement growth is the only thing preventing a peace agreement, or how pressuring Israel, but no one else, gets one?
Please explain how settlement growth is the only thing preventing a peace agreement it’s not. The Palestinians need to give too. Getting the Saudis to direct their money at Palestinian construction (I was going to say “reconstruction” but that’s not accurate) instead of suicide bombers would be helpful.
In short, a lot of things need to happen, and all sides are going to need to give a little.
But only Israel is being pressured.
And as long as the “Palestinians” retain their goal of destroying Israel, it doesn’t matter how much Saudi money is thrown at them.
Please explain how settlement growth is the only thing preventing a peace agreement, or how pressuring Israel, but no one else, gets one?
It isn’t, and it doesn’t. That doesn’t mean that settlement growth is in U.S. interest, or that it is necessary to Israel’s survival.
Settlement growth is a problem in multiple regards. It humiliates Palestinians and makes their day-to-day lives worse, which strengthens support for more extreme Palestinian leadership. It increases the number of Israelis who could be displaced by a negotiated territorial settlement, and therefore reduces negotiating flexibility and increases the political difficulty of such a settlement.
Worst of all, settlement growth undermines Israel’s credibility and labels Israel as negotiating in bad faith. Talk is cheap, but as long as settlements are growing, there is no reason to believe Israel’s claims that it genuinely wants a negotiated territorial settlement.
Does that mean that all the obstacles to peace negotiations are on the Israeli side? Of course not. But the U.S. is an Israeli ally and benefactor; that is where our influence lies. An end to settlement growth would make it easier for the U.S. to maintain its support of Israel, and harder for skeptics of Israel to put assign it all the blame. Israel, too, would benefit from having a stated negotiating position that is not contradicted by their actual policies.
That doesn’t mean that settlement growth is in U.S. interest, or that it is necessary to Israel’s survival.
Many Israelis apparently disagree with you.
It humiliates Palestinians and makes their day-to-day lives worse, which strengthens support for more extreme Palestinian leadership.
Nonsense. What makes their lives worse is their corrupt keepers in the Arab world, who use them as pawns in their ongoing genocidal war against the Jews. Until that is fixed, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
“In short, a lot of things need to happen, and all sides are going to need to give a little.”
Israel gave back the Sinai and Gaza. The Golan Heights will be next if the liberals in Israel get their way. What have the other sides given? Zip, nada, nothing, a big FAT O. Hamas didn’t change their charter, the Saudis still fund terror. Egypt hasn’t really cracked down on tunnels, Syria still funds Hamas and Hezbollah. To say natural growth in settlements is the obstacle is worse than disingenuous, it is ignoring the pervasive terorrism of the other parties and giving them a pass on murder.
“An end to settlement growth would make it easier for the U.S. to maintain its support of Israel, and harder for skeptics of Israel to put assign it all the blame.”
So we should withhold money from the Palis until Hamas changes their charter? Sauce for the goose, as it were. Of course, if you take this position because you know the Israelis are civilized people and a Democracy so they have compassion and really do want peace but the Palis are savages and completely unreasonable and willing to die as long as Jews go too, I understand.
“What have the other sides given? Zip, nada, nothing, a big FAT O.”
Oh, they’ve given the Israelis tons and tons of high explosive — in deflagrating form.
I’m willing to bet that Israel would have at least shown up for hot dogs and soda at the Embassy. Hebrew Nationals, anyone? Maybe now that there are a few open invitations ‘Bama can squeeze them in.
“It humiliates Palestinians and makes their day-to-day lives worse, which strengthens support for more extreme Palestinian leadership.
Nonsense.
You don’t think it’s humiliating and radicalizing for Palestinians to see other Palestinians pushed off land, to be searched at time-consuming checkpoints, and be forced to use separate, inconvenient roads while the settlers among them zip by on their own checkpoint-free roads? You really think that encourages Palestinians to blame anyone but Israelis for their problems?
What makes their lives worse is their corrupt keepers in the Arab world, who use them as pawns in their ongoing genocidal war against the Jews.
Says Rand. But if you want to persuade Palestinians to see it that way, step 1 is for Israel to stop saying one thing (we want negotiated borders with a Palestinian state) and doing another (building settlements that presuppose those borders).
Until that is fixed, there will be no peace in the Middle East.
How, exactly, does building settlements on more land get us closer to that “fix”?
Israel gave back the Sinai and Gaza. The Golan Heights will be next if the liberals in Israel get their way. What have the other sides given? Zip, nada, nothing, a big FAT O.
Israel got recognition and peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. They also got out of having to defend settlers in Gaza. Do you think Israel would be better off today if they still had the Sinai, and settlers in Gaza, and if Egypt and Jordan were still technically at war with them?
“Israel got recognition and peace treaties with Egypt and Jordan. They also got out of having to defend settlers in Gaza.”
That is one of the most bizarre excuses I’ve ever heard about this whole mess. Jordan and Egypt were trying to destroy Israel. To say when they ceased trying means they gave up something and Israel gained something would be like the Jews at Auschwitz calling a day the ovens broke a holiday. The bad is still there just not the effort at this time.
Jordan and Egypt were trying to destroy Israel.
Yes, and now they’re not. You don’t see that as progress?
The bad is still there just not the effort at this time.
And how do you propose to get rid of “the bad”? I’d suggest that steps in the right direction include formal recognition, peace treaties, normalizing relations, etc.
And as long as the “Palestinians” retain their goal of destroying Israel, it doesn’t matter how much Saudi money is thrown at them.
Maybe Obama should try to get both sides to compromise by meeting each other half way. Israel will agree to stop building so many settlements if the Palestinians agree to only destroy half of Israel (per year).
Lets turn the logic on its head. What do the Palestinians have to offer the U.S.?
Israel doesn’t have much in the way of material goods to export. But they provide a great deal of intellectual export to the world. Some of the brightest minds in semi-conductor technology and software programming come out of Israel. Chances are the electronic devices you hold in your hand, manage your car, or power your computer were developed in some part by design centers located in Israel.
What do the Palestinians have to offer the U.S.?
We want good relations with oil-producing Muslim countries. We want good relations with countries that produce or harbor or have intelligence about Muslim terrorists. We want potential terrorists to be less motivated to become actual terrorists and attack us. We want potential supporters or funders of terrorism to be less motivated to offer support and funds.
Backing expanded settlements in the West Bank makes all those important U.S. interests harder to achieve.
“Backing expanded settlements in the West Bank makes all those important U.S. interests harder to achieve.”
You obviously can’t comprehend that the only way fundementalist Islamic countries will even give us a chance is if we destroy Israel. Of course after that, we would have to destroy ourselves because that would be next on their list.
You obviously can’t comprehend that the only way fundementalist Islamic countries will even give us a chance is if we destroy Israel.
I “can’t comprehend it” because it isn’t true. There are quite a few predominantly Muslim countries in the Middle East, and each has its own politics, culture, and relationships with others. Each is populated by many, many individuals with different interests and concerns. The notion that they are a unified bloc of countries, made up of amoral robots who care about nothing but the destruction of Israel and the U.S., is a grim fantasy dreamed up to justify all sorts of emotionally satisfying policies that are actually harmful to U.S. interests.
We have some influence over how large the Palestinian question looms in the minds of Arab and Persian Muslims. Supporting settlement growth is a way to make that issue more prominent; stopping settlement growth is a way to let other issues, where we may have more common ground, come to the fore.