President Obama has the right priorities and he articulates them well. For that reason alone, he merited his election, and probably merits re-election as well. But he also came out of the starting blocks compromising, instead of using his power and prestige to make others compromise. He thereby wasted some of the political capital he had when he was elected, and has encouraged his opponents and adversaries at home and abroad to paint him as being ‘weak’. This mistake was understandable, at least in the area of domestic policy, because he was trying to learn from the examples of Presidents Carter and Clinton, who ran into trouble after antagonizing Congress. But a President is upposed to have more latitude in foreign policy than in domestic policy—even if foreign policy touches upon some important domestic constituencies.

At the outset, President Obama should have set a new, tougher tone with Israel in order to expedite the peace process. Specifically, he should have listed a set of penalties for Israel for continuing to build settlements anywhere in the occupied territories, including East Jerusalem:

1) witholding government loans;
2)deducting the amount of aid money to Israel in proportion to the amount of money that Israel spends on settlements; and
3) indicating that henceforth the US will not automatically wield a protective veto over UN resolutions that are hostile to Israel.

Now, it is true that Israeli P.M. Netanyahu has recently ordered a temporary freeze on settlements in the West Bank ,but not East Jerusalem. That is because he was embarassing and angering the President of the United States, who had been under growing pressure to apply sanctions. So he deftly avoided that eventuality by “voluntarily” agreeing to stop some of the settlement building.

But it should be President Obama letting Netanyahu off the hook, not the other way around. And then only if all , and not just some, of the settlement building is stopped.

————————————————————————————————

It was amusing to hear former Vice-President Dick Cheney accusing Obama of “dithering” over his decision about Afghanistan. This certainly doesn’t appear hypocritical when you consider how “decisive” Bush and Cheney were about Iraq in 2001-2003. But it is hypocritical when you consider that the proper focus of the War on Terror–Afghanistan and Pakistan–has been neglected for six years. All the more reason to call the Bush presidency one of the worst in history.

My cynicism is based essentially on the fact he’s appointed a Zionist, Rahm Emanuel, as his White House Chief of Staff. Consequently, when push comes to shove, you just know who Obama is going to be most sympathetic too, not least because Emanuel is effectively both his right hand man as well as being his political enforcer. And, It would be an absolute shock if Rahm didn’t have the ear of every pro-Israel lobby group in the USA.

Personally, I see Obama as being a mix of cynical politician and skilful pragmatist, which means that when it’s time again for him to have to raise money for his next presidential campaign, he’ll know all too well how much the Jewish lobby pays. And, given that in 4 years time the Obama stardust/celebrity factor is likely to have become tarnished, I see him becoming more dependent on those old traditional ways of raising money, and less likely to get bank-rolled by Mr & Mrs Joe Public’s internet donations. My prediction is that in 4 years time Mr & Mrs Joe Public will have realised that Obama’s presidency represented more of the same, rather than being a genuine agent of change.

Already the rot is begining to set in for many of his voters, they’ve seen him try to elect tax dogers and lobbyists into his administration, as well as unveil a PORK rich financial stimulus package, despite all his campaign promises to do the opposite. And, as for his Iraq withdrawl, it can hardly be called a full-scale withdrawl when he’s still going to keep 50,000 US personnel based there. Even Nancy Pelosi has taken him to task over this.

Getting back to Israel, for me, the big unknown remains Iran. The reason I say this is because they still flatly refust to recognise the state of Israel and are openly calling for its destruction, and while they pursue a Nuclear program it’s highly unlikely that Israel are going to sit idly by and let them build a BOMB. This means at some stage, unless there’s a MAJOR change with the Iranian leadership or their policy, you can expect to see an Israeli stike on Iran, and if that happens there’s only one side that the Obama Administration is going to support, and that’s Israel.

I hope I’m wrong, and I sincerely hope that Obama really is the new Messiah rather than just another Chicago politician who knows the art of saying one thing, and than doing something completely different. Time will tell!

Steve, On 2/17 you started out your comment with “I am no great defender of Israeli policies, but”. I would say you are a great defender of Zionism and justify Zionism solely based upon retribution for the holocoust. This does not make you unique. I was born in 1947, and in my youth was a Zionist. I wanted to fight in the 1967 war to defend Israel, but of course it only lasted 6 days. I was raised in the US as a strict Methodist and had many Jewish classmates and intimate friends. When I joined the business community, over half of my associates were Jewish. I fondly treasure all those relationships.

After I became enlightened through education, maturity, anthropology, and the Vietnam Era, I saw many things in a new light. Not the Jewish People. Not the Vietnamese People. But the pompous British and American politicians who screw everything up by their stupidity. I am no longer a Zionist. It was a preposterous mistake. It doesn’t change the affection I feel for my Jewish friends. I wish all the Jews who migrated to Palestine could have found homes in America. America would be a better place if they had. And other than the Religious Zealots, I think most Israelis would be happier as American citizens. There lives would certainly be more peaceful.

Originally Posted By Steve
Most of Europe is majority atheist at this point. Moreover, as an atheist myself, I do not countenance myself as a member of a distinct religious/ethnic group. I suppose if I went to secular humanist meetings once a week, it would be somewhat analogous, but I do not. Moreover, proving that Judaism is not merely a religion, Jewish atheists have been persecuted as Jews throughout history and continue to be today.

This isn’t really the point. There are many religious and ethnic minorities in the world, many of which do not have a country where they are the majority. Why do you think Jews alone are entitled to this?

The latest attacks on Gaza and Lebanon may have allowed for ridiculous amounts of civilian casualties, but civilian casualies, while terrbile, are not the same as genocide and international law recognizes the difference.

You still aren’t getting my point Steve. I know that, and most importantly, Israel knows that. Which is exactly why they are doing things this way. Ask yourself why these military actions have had so little effect against their supposed terrorist targets, but have been so devastatingly effective at killing innocent civilians. As I’ve already said, Israel can’t get away with open genocide, or they’d lose their US funding. So they’re trying to do it by stealth, under the guise of “collateral damage”.

Suggesting that Jews should start proseltyzing if that want any sort of demographic protection from persecution is insane. Do you really want Jews to start setting up missions, knocking on your front door, and telling you that you are damned to hell if you don’t convert. Or, if you want them to become as numerous as muslims, how about conquering independent countries and killing anyone who doesn’t convert, unless they are people of the cloth, in which case they can live in segretates neighborhoods and be treated as inferior under the law.

Where the hell did I say that? I said they should be more open and inclusive. In other words, they shouldn’t have the attitude that they are the “chosen race”, hence exclusive and superior to others. If they were more accepting of inter-faith marriages, for example, there might well be more of them. Indeed, it is exactly this attitude which may have led to anti-Semitism in the first place. What is it about Jews that has made so many people hate them throughout history? This could be the reason.

The point I’m making is that you can’t enforce “demographic structural protections” for Jews (or any other religious/ethnic group) simply by creating a country for them. Their demographic position has been defined by how they conduct their religion, and they have to live with the consequences of that. And we now have anti-discrimination laws to protect Jews, and other religious and ethnic minorities.

Personally, I do not want any more people following Judaism or any other religion. I want all religion to end, as I believe it is the only way we can ever have lasting, global peace. Once again, if you take religion out of this, Israel would never have been established where it is now, and there would be no conflict. Hence, I do not accept religion as justification for what is in practice an act of colonialism.

Regardless, Palestinians as Palestinians did not exist until Israel was founded. Before then, they identified themselves as Arabs and not a a distinct nation. While leaving your family’s home is not fun, it is not like their country was taken away from them. They never had a country and did not identify the the political entity that included Palestine. Their claim is non-sensical in historical-national terms. Instead, they have a collection of individual claims where some people were forced out of their houses to make way for Jews. As you know, many stayed and became citizens of Israel.

I find your line of reasoning here outrageous in the extreme. So it was alright for colonialists to take America away from native Americans, and to take Australia away from the aboriginals, just because they didn’t call themselves a country? For goodness sake, the Palestinian people lived on, farmed and owned this land before Israel took it over. It doesn’t make any difference at all that they didn’t call themselves a country. This is the 21st century – colonialism is now considered unacceptable.

Since Palestinians are committed to the destruction of Jews, a single political entity is not a viable option.

Why do you continue to condemn Hamas (who do not represent all Palestinians anyway) for simply being more honest about their intentions than the Israeli government? Especially as Hamas has no power to actually carry out their threats, while Israel most certainly does have the power to wipe out the Palestinians – and the evidence suggests they are trying to do exactly that. And Israel basically created Hamas through their own actions in the Palestinian territories anyway – if Israel allowed the Palestinians to have a peaceful and prosperous home, do you think they’d want to wipe Israel out?

Solution Attempt: Equal partition like the Koreas; India/Pakistan.
Cut off all US Government aid to all parties.
Probable Outcome: Lebanon