Florida: Point/counterpoint on Obama’s record on Israel
By Uriel Heilman on Jul 1, 2008 in Barack Obama, Featured, Florida, Presidential Race |
Competing Op-Eds in the Palm Beach Post offer divergent views of Barack Obama’s record on Israel and Jewish-related issues.
Jewish congressman Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.) defends Obama’s stance on Israel and slams email smears against the presumed Democratic nominee. He writes:
Rather than deal in facts, including Sen. Obama’s strong record on Israel, these e-mails and ads focus on guilt by association and are characterized by double standards…
Since taking office in 2005, Sen. Obama has an A-plus record on issues important to the American Jewish community. He has been a staunch supporter of the U.S.-Israel relationship, and fought to ensure Israel’s security in the face of Palestinian terrorism, Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad rocket attacks, threats from Syria and a growing Iranian nuclear threat.
But like the vast majority of the American Jewish community, Sen. Obama believes that a comprehensive settlement - Israel and a peaceful Palestinian state living side-by-side - is the best way to ensure Israel’s security and guarantee that Israel will remain a Jewish state.
In Florida, Sen. Obama laid out the case why, under his presidency, the United States and our ally Israel would be more secure. He also described in stark terms the differences between the direction of America’s foreign policy under his leadership and that of John McCain, who has stridently declared that he will continue to carry out the same failed foreign policies - in Iraq, throughout the Middle East and elsewhere - of President Bush. Under Sen. McCain’s perverse logic, if the policy is broken, don’t fix it.
No one has been more resolute than Barack Obama in addressing the most serious security threat facing the U.S. and Israel - a nuclear Iran. He has stated emphatically that the world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran, which he describes as a “radical theocracy,” from acquiring weapons. To that end, Sen. Obama introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act, which would deny Tehran billions of dollars in energy revenues that are used to fuel its nuclear program and finance its terrorist network.
While not rejecting the use of force, Sen. Obama has taken a page from past presidents in calling for “strong diplomacy” with Iran.
Meanwhile, Matthew Brooks of the Republican Jewish Coalition offers a counterpoint. He writes:
Having served barely three years in the U.S. Senate - two of which he has spent running for president - Sen. Obama’s record is thin. Jewish voters need to evaluate his candidacy by asking additional questions: What role does he see for America in the Middle East? Will he be a friend to Israel? What are the influences that have shaped him? To whom does he turn for advice and guidance? And whom might he ask to serve in his administration?
Brooks finds Obama guilty by association: guilty for not firing national campaign co-chairman Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak (for saying U.S. Jews are the obstacle to Mideast peace), guilty for being supported by controversial Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi (whom Brooks calls a spokesman for the PLO, though Khalidi says he never served in that role), guilty for sitting in an audience while a young Palestinian-American recited a poem accusing Israel of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians.
I find Senator Obama to be a politician of change.
He changes his mind and position depending on who’s vote he is soliciting. As a matter of fact he changes his position as often as one changes a baby’s diapers.
Archie
Archie | Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
Well, thanks for the Republican talking points, but ALL politicians change their minds– McCain included. But I’ve followed Obama’s career for years (and I have no axe to grind here– I am a former Hillary supporter) and he has always been pro-Israel. BUT he also will talk to Palestinians who want peace, and what’s wrong with doing that? Diplomacy is a good thing. Taking potshots at somebody for spurious reasons is not a good thing.
Donna Halper | Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
All politicians change somewhat their positions depending on who they are talking to, what they are talking about, and at what point they are in their campaign [primary or election]. Yes, since the end of the primary, Barack Obama has moved somewhat more to the center; HOWEVER, if you want to discuss changing one’s core values, take a look at John McCain, the political chameleon of the age, or better yet, a political prostitutes for all ages … taxes, off-shore drilling, Anwar, the “amerikan taliban” -which he once denounced as “agents of intolerance” and now kisses ass to win support, immigration … to name but a few. Obviously, you are not Mensa material, but one hopes for a slightly more informed, less bigoted electorate than you, “Archie”
Lee | Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
In Oregon to a liberal crowd, Obama said Iran wasn’t a threat. A day later, in Montana, to a more conservative crowd, he said it was a threat:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/.....n_iran.asp
Michelle Obama is busily pandering to the gay community: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewPol.....0701a.html
Barak is off pandering to the “conservatives”: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/200.....bama_faith
Oh the woes of being a politician….
Leann | Jul 1, 2008 | Reply
For the first time in American Politics, a legislator was influenced by Palestinian pressure. Obama changed his stance after his pandering to AIPAC the very next day; he does this all the time. His record on Israel is no different than that of any other politician, they all vote the same, it is what they will do following the vote that is frightening. His statement in Iowa that the Palestinians were suffering more then any other group, the next day, he is back peddling. During the debate, he and Hillary were asked what the US response would be if Iran attacked Israel, Hillary said annihilate them; Obama said he would have to think about it and then talk to Iran. Sorry, not the response I wanted to hear. His relationship and fundraising with Professor Edward Said and other Arab and Palestinian groups before he ran for the Senate, not very pro Jewish. Don’t get me started with the anti-Semitic rants from his church, or that man saying he did not hear one sermon for 20 years? Please, even after all the high holidays in synagogue, I heard something.
I could keep writing for days, I just have one thing to say about Wexler, his job was to represent his constituency, he did not, they all voted for Hillary. He is bucking for a position in the Obama administration. He talks about lies; he makes up his own fun facts and perpetuates them.
Michelle F. | Jul 2, 2008 | Reply
Comon guys, aside from his petty voting record (a mere three years worth), let’s look at the kind of people he’s been associated with: Edward Said, Rev. Wright, Qaddafi, etc. Are these pro-Israeli or pro-Jewish people? I think not. Anyone who wants to have peace talks with “drive the Jews to the sea” folks like Ahmadinejad and Hezbollah is simply a naive fool. What part of “destroy Israel off the map” does Obama not understand? What could he possibly tell these terrorists that will make them change their minds about Israel? Fact is, the guy is secretly a Palestinian-sympathizer at heart and is two-faced when it comes to the support of Israel.
Malka | Jul 3, 2008 | Reply
Suggested reading;
What Jewish progressive community thinks about it.
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23708/26/
http://mwcnews.net/content/view/23086/26/
Dave | Jul 5, 2008 | Reply
Barak, only is out for Barak….the Jewish people and nation will be thrown under the bus as soon as his little dance he is doing for the American people is done and he is President….a lot of eyes are veiled! Wake up…we can’t let this double talking viper become President….if you do it will be the end of life as we know it in this nation and for Isreal!
Friday Hamlet | Jul 6, 2008 | Reply
Re: “The best thing it seems Brooks can come up is to declare Obama guilty by association.”
Guilt by association means Joe McCarthy or someone like him posts a picture–real or fabricated–of someone in the same room with a Communist, and then proclaims, “So-and-so is a Communist.”
Now, if So-and-so posed arm in arm with a Communist, attended the national meeting of the Communist Party, solicited and accepted endorsement from Communists, that is no longer guilt by association. Barack Obama:
(1) Accepted the endorsement of Jeremiah Wright *
(2) Accepted the endorsement of Michael “there were a whole lot of white people crying” Pfleger *
(3) Praised and endorsed Al Sharpton and his National Action Network (Google on “Freddy’s Fashion Mart” for how Sharpton and the NAN called the Jewish owner of a store in Harlem a “white interloper,” “bloodsucking Jew,” and similar terminology)
(4) Solicited and accepted the endorsement of MoveOn.org, an anti-Semitic and anti-Catholic hate group that welcomed hate speech at its now-disgraced Action Forum while publishing a derogatory photomanipulation of Pope Benedict
(5) Attended a church whose congregation and NEW pastor, Otis Moss, cheered and applauded Michael Pfleger’s racist tirade
* Obama “disappeared” the Wright and Pfleger testimonials from his Web site only after they became liabilities to his campaign.
Bill Levinson | Jul 7, 2008 | Reply