they competed for the role of Israel’s Best Friend --- as opposed to being loyal to Americans
On Oct 24, 8:09 am, MJ <[email protected]> wrote: > Debate Summary: Israel, Israel, Israel, IsraelAnd, oh yeah, AmericabyJustin > Raimondo, October 24, 2012 > One striking impression ofthisdebatewas that out of some 17,000 words uttered > by both candidates and the moderator, about half of them were about domestic > policy. Neither candidate wanted to talk about foreign policy because the > differences between them arenegligible. Out of this half, about 1500 words > were devoted to the subject of Israel around 20 percent. And it’s not as if > the candidates disagreed: indeed, they competed for the role of Israel’s Best > Friend. Obama was first to pledge allegiance to Tel Aviv, less than ten > minutes after the starting bell. Outlining the foundations of his foreign > policy, he averred: > “What I’ve done throughout my presidency and will continue to do, is, number > one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism > efforts; number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in > Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the > region.” > According to the President, Israel’s security is our number two priority not > only in the region, but also in a much broader sense, second only to going > after our own enemies. That’s an odd way to define our hierarchy of foreign > policy values: what about the security and prosperity of the region as a > whole? The Israel-pandering was obsessive and I’m not the only one whonoticed > it. > No aspect of our Middle Eastern policy was discussed without reference to how > it might play in Israel. When Syria came up, Obama made a point of saying > that although “Syrians are going to have to determine their own future,” > oureffortstoaidtherebelsare being carried out “in consultation with our > partners in the region, including Israel, which obviously has a huge interest > in seeing what happens in Syria.” Romney chimed in: > “Secondly, Syria’s an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important > role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran’s only ally in > the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea. It’s the route for them to arm > Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel… We need to > make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies and > particularly with with with Israel.” > Never mind what the people of Syria want: it’s all about what Israel wants. > This duet was sung in many variations. On Egypt, the President warned: > “They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, > because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake > if that unravels.” > This wasn’t enough for Romney, however, who came back with: > “We have to also stand by our allies. I think the tension that existed > between Israel and the United States was very unfortunate.” > Not to be out-Israeled, the President struck back: > “Our alliances have never been stronger. In Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with > Israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, > including dealing with the Iranian threat.” > After all that, Bob Schieffer decided it was time to “move on to the next > segment: red lines, Israel, and Iran.” A visitor from Mars might be forgiven > for being confused at this point: didn’t thelastsegment cover that territory? > Us earthlings understand, however, that when it comes to foreign policy, one > can never kowtow too long or too low in the direction of Tel Aviv, and so > Schieffer gave the candidates yet another opportunity to prostrate themselves > beforeKing Bibi: > “Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an > attack on the United States, which of course is the same promise that we give > to our close allies like Japan? And if you made such a declaration, would not > that deter Iran? It’s certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long, long > time when we made that when we made that promise to our allies.” > The President took over 250 words to declare his undying loyalty to the > Jewish state, wielding all the familiar phrases endlessly uttered by both > candidates over the course of the campaign like some sort of semi-religious > litany: “ a true friend,” “our greatest ally in the region,” etc. > althoughpuristswill note “in the region” as a modifier ishighly suspicious. > Repeating Israeli propaganda almost verbatim including > thelong-debunkedmistranslationof Ahmadinejad supposedly calling for Israel to > be “wiped off the map” Obama again touted “the strongest military and > intelligence cooperation between our two countries in history” as he > committed this country to war under the murkiest of circumstances. His pledge > to defend Israel against “attack” raises some interesting questions: e.g. is > that Hezbollahdrone incursiongrounds for us to startbombing Lebanon? What > about Palestinian resistance to “settler”incursions? But the President wasn’t > too concerned with nuance: he was too busy threatening Iran, hailing the > “crippling sanctions” and gloating that “their economy is a shambles.” > Yes, and so is ours, a better Romneymight have added, but instead he chimed > in: > “Well, first of all, I I want to underscore the the same point the president > made, which is that if I’m president of the United States, when I’m president > of the United States, we will stand with Israel. And and if Israel is > attacked, we have their back, not just diplomatically, not just culturally, > but militarily. That’s number one.” > The Republican nominee went on to establish his pro-Israel credentials by > mentioning that he had made the same point at Israel’sHerzliya Conference, > where he laid out “seven steps” towardealing with Iran, but only mentioned > two. > Not to be outdone, Obama went much further than he’s ever gone on the Iran > issue, coming very close to Romney’s (and Netanyahu’s) position: > “We’re not going to allow Iran to perpetually engage in negotiations that > lead nowhere. And I’ve been very clear to them, you know, because of the > intelligence coordination that we do with a range of countries, including > Israel, we have a sense of when they would get breakout capacity, which means > that we would not be able to intervene in time to stop their nuclear program, > and that clock is ticking.” > Until now, the key difference between the two candidates on Iran has been > this issue of “capability” with Romney naturally echoing Netanyahu’s stance > that we must strike as soon as we somehow know Iran has the mere theoretical > capacity to assemble a nuclear weapon. Presumably Netanyahu will supply us > with the relevant “intelligence.” The Obama administration, on the other > hand,has been sayingtheir red line is a clear attempt to actually acquire > such weapons that is, until now. “The clock is ticking” on Iran, Obama > growled and, as of Monday’s debate, it seems to be ticking much louder and > faster. > Romney, in danger of being out-Israeled, struck back, attacking what he > called the President’s “apology tour.” This, he declared, was seen by the Bad > Guys as a sign of “weakness,” along with our failure to openly side with the > leaders of the “Green Revolution who neither asked fornor wantedsuch a > declaration. Another sign of “weakness” was “When the president said he was > going to create daylight between ourselves and Israel that that they noticed > that as well.” > The “daylight” citation wasreportedby theWashington Postin the context of a > 2009 meeting between Obama and US Jewish leaders on the collision between the > US and Israel over the Palestinian question, not Iran. The delegation was > dismayed by the President’s insistence that construction of “settlements” on > Arab-owned land does not serve American interests the same position taken > byGeorge W. Bush,Bill Clinton, andBush Senior. > As this debate demonstrated, the degree of daylight between Israel and the US > is rapidly diminishing to the point of near imperceptibility. Unlike his > predecessors, this President would never dare withhold aid, and as far as the > Israelis are concerned the White House cankvetchabout the “settlements” until > the cows come home. > However, Romney’s acquaintance with the facts is, at best, passing, and he > stubbornly hammered away: > “Number two, Mr. President, the reason I call it an apology tour is because > you went to the Middle East and you flew to to Egypt and to Saudi Arabia and > to to Turkey and Iraq. And and by way, you skipped Israel, our closest friend > in the region, but you went to the other nations. And by the way, they > noticed that you skipped Israel.” > The proper response to Romney is: Israel may be our “best friend,” but what > kind of friendship requires a visit whenever you’re in the neighborhood? It’s > an unreasonable even crazy demand, one that might well make a normal person > reconsider the benefits of such an insecure relationship. But we aren’t > dealing with normal people here, we’re dealing with politicians, and Obama’s > response was to detail his trip during the 2008 campaign, his visit to > theHolocaust Museumand to the targeted town of Sderot an itinerary unlike > Romney’s, who used the occasion of his own visit to do a little fundraising. > At this point, Schieffer, apparently concerned the candidates hadn’t talked > enough about their fealty to Israel, asked what he apparently thought was a > tough question: > “What if the prime minister of Israel called you on the phone and said: ‘Our > bombers are on the way. We’re going to bomb Iran.’ What do you say?” > Romney wouldn’t go there, but I thought his answer was nonetheless revealing: > “Our relationship with Israel, my relationship with the prime minister of > Israel is such that we would not get a call saying our bombers are on the way > or their fighters are on the way. This is the kind of thing that would have > been discussed and thoroughly evaluated well before that kind of action.” > In other words: Netanyahu wouldn’t have to even bother telling us. Note, > also, the reference to his personal friendship with the Israeli Prime > Minister, which extends back35 years: friends don’t ask friends for > permission to startWorld War III. > In the course of the same answer, Romney reiterated his theme of the > President’s alleged “weakness”: > “I see our influence receding, in part because of the failure of the > president to deal with our economic challenges at home, in part because of > our withdrawal from our commitment to our military and … in part because of > the turmoil with Israel. I mean, the president received a letter from 38 > Democrat senators saying the tensions with Israel were a real problem.” > This was too much for Obama, who blurted out: “No!” But Romney pressed on: > “They asked him, please repair the tension Democrat senators please repair > the damage in his in his own party.” > Again,that letterwas the result of the White House’s rebuke to Netanyahu over > the construction of more Israeli “settlements” a position taken by all recent > occupants of the Oval Office regardless of party. If we were to have any kind > of real debate or even a semblance of one on Israel’s relations with the US, > then the President would have come back with this simple fact. Perhaps he > would have even asked Romney if he supports the right of the Israelis to > build such “settlements” endlessly, without limit. But of course he said no > such thing. > One has to wonder in what sense US opposition to the Israeli government’s > ongoing depredations against the Palestinians, including the building of > “settlements,” signals our “receding” influence. Does Romney believe > America’s perceived decline is punishment from God for the “sin” of not > following orders from Netanyahu on every conceivable question? > Romney’sMormontheology mayexplainthis rather weird remark. > Every one of these debates has had these weird little moments, but this one > seemed to have way more than the first two. As might be expected, Romney was > the main author of these. Weirdest of all was when he was visibly struggling > to come up with a scenario short of war with Iran, and latched on to the idea > of “indicting” Ahmadinejad for “genocide incitation.” Leaving aside > themistranslationof Ahmadinejad’s words this charge is based on the Iranian > president was saying Israel would “vanish from the page of time” due to the > Palestinianpopulation explosionrather than a nuclear explosion one wonders > what court will issue the indictment, and under what legal standard. > “Genocide incitation” is not against the law in the United States, although > it is in Europe and in Russia: will the United Nations file the charges? Then > again, Romney and Ryan criticize the present administration for relying too > much on the UN, so it’s hard to make any real sense out of this little > outburst. > The conventional wisdom is that Romney de-neoconned himself, forat least one > night: does this mean his promised appointment of John Bolton as Secretary of > State is off? I think not. Shape shifter Romney will take any form, even that > of a relative peacenik: “We can’t kill our way out of this,” he declared, no > doubt surprising the numerous and bloodthirsty red state fascists among his > supporters. But did he have his fingers crossed under the table? There’s a > simple explanation for Romney’s “peace” offensive: neocon snakes shed their > skin when necessary. > Another weird moment was when Romney forgot who he was debating, and attacked > Sen. Rand Paul, albeit not by name: > “We look at what’s happening in Pakistan and recognize that what’s happening > in Pakistan is going to have a major impact on the success in Afghanistan. > And and I say that because I know a lot of people just feel like we should > just brush our hands and walk away. And I don’t mean you, Mr. President, but > some people in the in our nation feel that Pakistan isn’t being nice to us > and that we should just walk away from them. But Pakistan is important to the > region, to the world and to us, because Pakistan has 100 nuclear warheads, > and they’re rushing to build a lot more.”It’s none other thanSen. Paulwho > sponsored a bill to defund Pakistan, Egypt, and Libya, and whose political > action committee RandPac isrunning adsagainst West Virginia Democratic Sen. > Joe Manchin showing mobs of screaming Muslims burning the American flag: “Joe > Manchin is against cutting aid to countries that burn our flag, and storm our > embassies,” the ad intones. (Sen. Paul originally came outagainstaid to > Israel as well, but has apparently backed off that one). > Stealing a line fromRon Paul, the President said three times! we need to stop > nation-building abroad and start doing it at home. It’s no stretch to imagine > John McCain attacking this as “isolationist,” but Romney who can read polls > as well as anyone knew better. Instead, he masqueraded as some kind of > Gandhi-like peacemaker, declared no troops would be sent to Syria, and > reversed his earlier critique of Obama’s 2014 timeline for withdrawal from > Afghanistan. War with Iran, he averred, would be a “last resort.” > Both candidates know the American people are sick unto death of war and > endless intervention around the world, and both were smart to keep their > warlike tendencies under wraps on this occasion. Yet there were moments when > the mask came off, and both stood revealed for who and what they are and it > wasn’t pretty.NOTES IN THE MARGIN > Fact-checking department: Obama said we lavish more on the military than the > top ten spenders in the world: actually, it’s thetop fourteen, or, depending > on how you calculate the numbers, it’s more than the rest of the world > combined. And finally, did anybody notice Schieffer’s opening stumble?: > “Good evening from the campus of Lynn University here in Boca Raton, Florida. > This is the fourth and last debate of the 2012 campaign.” > There have been only three debates: it only seems like > more….http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/23/debate-summary-israel-israel-israel-israel/ -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
