Ira N. Forman, NJDC’s CEO, wrote a piece for Talking Points Memo, “Abrams is Wrong on Obama, History of Middle East Policy.” Forman takes Elliot Abrams, the former deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush, to task for being hyperpartisan and misrepresenting the Middle East policy of President Barack Obama and our recent presidents - some for whom he worked.
The beginning:
Recently Elliot Abrams, the former deputy national security adviser under President George W. Bush, penned an op-ed for the The Wall Street Journal, “Why Israel Is Nervous.” One might assume that an individual with a strong policy background would present an objective analysis of President Barack Obama’s Middle East policy and not resort to the cheapest of partisan screeds. That assumption would be wrong.
The first clue that Abrams is interested in scoring partisan points is in his review of the state of the U.S.-Israel relationship under different presidencies. He equates the pro-Israel credentials of President George H. W. Bush’s administration with those of President Bill Clinton’s. Any objective student of history knows this to be a false comparison. Bush Sr. was often critical toward Israel during his term while Clinton is remembered by large majorities of Israeli and American Jews as a trusted friend.
Abrams proceeds to claim that “no other administration, even among those experiencing considerable dissonance with Israel, started off with as many difficulties as Obama’s.” He conveniently forgets that throughout nearly the entire first year of the term of another President he once served, Ronald Reagan, there was a fierce battle between administration backers and Israel supporters over the sale of Airborne Warning and Control System surveillance planes (AWACs) to Saudi Arabia. In fact, during that battle there were Reagan supporters who characterized the congressional vote as a choice between “Reagan or Begin,” and the President himself took a direct swipe at Israel by stating that “it is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”
It’s not just history where Abrams can’t get his facts right when they conflict with his highly partisan agenda. Repeatedly, he substitutes his own speculation about the intentions of the Obama administration rather than analyze the actual policy. Often this speculation directly contradicts Obama’s own words.
Click here to read on…
There are no comments for this entry