With the right eager to drive a wedge between President Obama and Jewish voters, yesterday's comments from Israeli Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Defense Ehud Barak, followed soon after by comments by Israeli President Shimon Peres, are music to the campaign's ears.
I suspect this exchange, between Ehud Barak and CNN's Wolf Blitzer, will be put to great use by the Obama campaign in the fall.
BLITZER: You've studied U.S.-Israeli relations over many years. How would you describe the relationship today?
BARAK: I think that from my point of view as defense minister they are extremely good, extremely deep and profound. I can see long years, administrations of both sides of the political aisle deeply supporting the state of Israel, and I believe that reflects the profound feelings among the American people. But I should tell you honestly that this administration under President Obama is doing, in regard to our security, more than anything that I can remember in the past.
BLITZER: More than any other president? LBJ, Bill Clinton, or George W. Bush?
BARAK: Yeah, in terms of the support for our security, the cooperation of our intelligence, the sharing of thoughts in a very open way even when there are differences, which are not simple sometimes, I found their support for our defense very stable.
That's clearly not the impression Republicans would prefer voters to have.
On a related note, Media Matters highlighted another key talking point being pushed by the right this week: Obama deserves to be condemned for not having visited Israel during his first term.
The argument, however, is burdened by a fairly significant flaw.
During an appearance on Fox News' Special Report, Fox contributor and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol praised Romney's recent visit to Israel while noting that "President Obama has not been in Israel as president of the United States." Fox's Sean Hannity similarly said that it is an "alarming fact that after nearly four years in office, President Obama has yet to visit our closest ally in the Middle East in what is now a very troubling time."
Beth Myers, a top Romney aide, also told reporters recently that it's "pretty amazing" Obama hasn't visited Israel.
The attack at least has the benefit of being partially accurate -- Obama visited Israel as a candidate, but has not been back during his first term. If Republicans choose to find that outrageous, their complaints are grounded in fact.
The problem, however, is the selective nature of their disgust. George W. Bush didn't visit Israel at any point during his first term, and neither did Bill Clinton. Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush didn't travel to Israel during their respective terms in office at all.
Did the right find this "alarming," too? I looked to see if Kristol, Hannity, or Myers ever criticized modern Republican presidents for their failure to visit Israel at this point in their terms and couldn't find anything.
Imagine that.
Leave a Comment:
Steve - Doesn't "musing" mean reflect or "speak to one's self in a thoughtful manner"? Did you mean to use this, or did you mean "music to the campaign's ears"?
So, the Republicans are wrong about everything. Again.
In other earthshaking news, sun continues to rise in the east.
Republican Presidents didn't suggest Israel unilaterally capitulate and move back to '67 borders.
So we have noticed. Just curious, have you ever heard of Palestine? Would you give up all formerly Spainish territory in the USA to Spain?
Why are republicans so one sided on this issue?
Neither did Obama. he said:
And this is the same position that was held by Clinton and Bush 43.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/where-netanyahu-fails-himself-and-israel/2011/05/25/AGwSfUBH_story.html
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/05/obama-didnt-shift-us-policy-on-israel----a-look-back-at-the-record.php
Don't confuse "shooter" with facts!
i find it odd that even were Shooter's allegations true they somehow seem to bother him (and every other wingnut) more than they bother the actual Israeli leadership. i wonder who is in the better position to know what's what on this issue?
How about - Israel SHOULD move back to the '67 borders. Through the grace of world powers, the people of Israel have benefitted, in a large sence. They have their own country! Let's "give a little to get a little" and be more reasonable toward the Palistine and it's disinfranchised people. Yo -
I was wrong. Bush did advocate the '67 borders. The part I find interesting in the responses is this...
Is that a argument for giving back land to the Palestinians? I don't think so. (Though giving them back California is a pleasing thought). But, as long as the Palestinians are devoted to the idea of destroying Israel, they will remain a fourth rate state.
It's helpful to remember that the argument that "this is an important and unusual time in history" as it relates to Israel and her defense is made more specious when reviewing history. Both Bush 41 and Reagan were in office during times of intense discord in the region. Conflict with Iraq, intra-country PLO conflict, the First Infitada, a raid into Lebanon, the al-Aqsa mosque shootings, Iraqi missile strikes...
Saying that Obama should have visited Israel is a political argument. Saying that not visiting is a defense policy blunder is specious.
Well, there goes the old "cats and dogs", "oil and water" blacks and Jews meme out the window!
Sammy Davis Jr. would be rolling over in his grave.
This whole business is spun out of whole cloth. The Obama Admin's position on Israel is the same as the G. W. Bush administration's position. Negotiated 2-state solution with boundaries and other matters to be settled at the table by both sides. In fact, the first Bush administration was a lot harder on Israel than any administration since, with James Baker pretty much twisting Prime Minister Shamir's arm into agreeing to negotiate with the PLO. Of course, this is politics in 2012, facts are entirely irrelevant.
To be fair, it seems like you should check for criticism of a similar nature from more left wing new outlets. Not saying it's there, just saying a fair examination has actually been done yet.
On the news they kept saying,the President hasn't visited Israel, so they assumed the relations were strained, or that that was a bad thing. Maybe no news is good news, and Our President felt our relations with Israel were adequate, why weren't all the Countries named that had not had a visit from Our President? You know the old saying"If it's not broke why fix it?" If Israel was upset, I think we would have heard something by now. So, can we all make up stories, or just some people can? I forgot lieing is now acceptable if you meet certain criteria, like running for public office or working for The American people. I guess people can lie all they want, but, we don't have to accept it and we may stop beleiving certain individuals. Kinda like crying Wolf.
Visiting Israel is now some kind of test of competence in office? Yet another right-wing litmus test. Buy stocks in litmus, the stuff is only going to get used more and more in the years to come.
Has Hillary Clinton visited as Sec of State? Isn't that enough? The GOP straining to try to make a dent in Jewish support for Obama when their values are basically anathema to most Jews is a really pathetic sight.
Besides all of that, it is much more convenient for our politicians (Obama included) to prostrate themselves in front of
The Likud PartyAIPAC. It saves the travel expenses.Hey - Is Rachel Mad-Woman GREAT, or what? The Israel border should be moved back to '67 boundries. How about that. Let's give a little to get a little. Peace and Love - that's where it's at. Get real? It is real - try it.
We can make this hard - or, we can make this easy.
Do NOT vote for Pee Wee Romney.
Vote for Barrack H. Obama.
It's the RIGHT thing to do.