Is Obama Really Pro-Israel?

Steve Sheffey — August 19, 2009 – 5:38 pm | Democrats | Foreign Policy | GOP Hypocrisies | Israel | Obama | Republicans | Stop the Smears Comments (8) Add a comment

I’ve always said I’d criticize President Barack Obama if he departed from America’s pro-Israel positions, and now he’s done it—today he announced that he’s forcing Israel to withdraw from the Sinai Peninsula. Oh, wait. That was President Dwight Eisenhower in 1956.

But consider this: Today Obama announced that he is suspending the delivery of F-16 fighters to Israel and is supporting a UN resolution condemning Israel. Oh, wait. That was President Ronald Reagan in 1981 after Israel bombed the Iraqi reactor at Osirak.

Here’s the ticket: Today Obama announced that he’s opposing loan guarantees as long as Israel continues settlement in the West Bank and Gaza and that he opposes new “settlements” in the West Bank or East Jerusalem. Oh, wait. That was President George H.W. Bush in 1991 (Bush complained that he was “one lonely little guy” up against thousands of lobbyists on the Hill).

Now we’ve got him: Today Obama announced that he’s denied Israel’s request for specialized bunker-busting bombs needed to attack Iran’s main nuclear complex and that he’s denied an Israeli request to fly over Iraqi airspace to reach Iran’s main nuclear complex at Natanz. Oh, wait. That was George W. Bush—the same Bush who pressured Israel to allow Hamas to participate in Gaza elections against the advice of both Israel and the Palestinian Authority, thus conferring on Hamas a legitimacy it never could have otherwise obtained.

But I know Obama’s done something bad. I just know it. My Republican friends are sending so many emails. Ah, here it is. Not actions, but words.  Check out this quote:

Israeli settlement activity has severely undermined Palestinian trust and hope. It preempts and prejudges the outcome of negotiations and, in doing so, cripples chances for real peace and security. The United States has long opposed settlement activity. Consistent with the report of the committee headed by Senator George Mitchell, settlement activity must stop.

Oh, wait. That was Bush’s Secretary of State, Colin Powell, in 2001.

But here’s the smoking gun against Obama. The non-partisan Jewish Forward reports:

[A] growing apprehension over the widening gap between Jerusalem and Washington on the matter of settlements…the administration, from the president on down, continues to insist on a “total freeze” on settlements, in accordance with the road map, and rejects Israel’s insistence on continued expansion of the settlements within the limits of their “natural growth.”

Oops. My mistake. That Forward article was from 2003, reporting on an upcoming meeting between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and Bush. Darn Google.

I’m going to try one more time. If this doesn’t convince you that what’s going on now is unprecedented in the history of U.S.-Israel relations, nothing will. The Jerusalem Post reported that the Secretary of State herself said that

”[T]he United States doesn’t make a distinction” between settlement activity in east Jerusalem and the West Bank and that Israel’s road map obligations, which include a building freeze, relate to “settlement activity generally.”

I almost got that one right. The quote was indeed from the Secretary of State, but it was Bush’s Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on January 8, 2009.

You get the point. Some send me emails, using all caps and exclamation points to show how much you mean it,  that Bush is not the issue. But Bush is the issue, along with other administrations, for two reasons.

First, without historic perspective, it’s impossible to assign significance to Obama’s recent statements on settlements. Judging from the hysteria of some of our Republican friends, you’d think not only that the sky was falling, but that the stars themselves were landing in our backyards. The truth is that U.S.-Israel relations have been far rockier under other Presidents, and that Obama is simply restating long-standing U.S. policy on settlements.

What’s different about Obama is not his position or public statements on settlements, but that unlike so many other administrations, he’s not taking action against Israel. This is a disagreement between two allies, nothing more. You want pressure—what Eisenhower, Reagan, and the Bushs did was pressure. They coupled words with actions wholly inappropriate for the strategic and moral alliance that defines the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Second, characterizing the American position on settlements as “Obama’s position” undermines a cardinal principle of pro-Israel advocacy: support for Israel should be bi-partisan. If Obama does something wrong, we should call him on it, but to argue that Obama is not pro-Israel because he articulates, sometimes almost word for word, the same policy as his predecessor is counter-productive. I’ve even had some people tell me that Obama’s statements “prove” that he was influenced by Rev. Wright. Maybe George Bush attended Wright’s church too—after all, Bush’s policies on settlements were the same as Obama’s. Come to think of it, maybe Eisenhower, Reagan, and Bush Sr were there too—turns out that Wright was a regular Billy Graham.

Comments