Which side are they on? -Jonathan Tobin
Obama and his advisers seem to think there will be no political price to pay for [confronting Israel].
Obama's decision to personally confront Netanyahu on settlements, his decision to avoid Israel during his tour of the Middle East, and a National Public Radio interview in which he described his policy as merely being "honest" which invoked the specter of an "even-handed" approach to the conflict, all ought to worry friends of Israel.
Obama's camp believes the loyalty of Jews to the Democratic Party and its very popular leader may outweigh affection for the Jewish state.
[But] there is another factor that could focus [American Jews] on opposing Obama's stand: Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and the existential threat such weapons would pose to Israel.
Obama's insistence on picking a fight with Israel over settlements rather than prioritizing the menace from Iran, is puzzling. [M]ore concessions on settlements are unlikely to advance the peace process with a toothless Palestinian Authority or its Hamas rivals. It is as if Obama has decided that pressure aimed at ousting Netanyahu, who was elected in February, is more important than confronting the ayatollahs in Teheran, even if it means the latter will almost certainly be granted the time to advance their nuclear ambitions.
Can such a policy be what the majority of American Jews who voted for Obama were expecting? Will they reward an administration that pursues such a reckless policy with continued high levels of support?
[Jersualem Post]
*
Obama and his advisers seem to think there will be no political price to pay for [confronting Israel].
Obama's decision to personally confront Netanyahu on settlements, his decision to avoid Israel during his tour of the Middle East, and a National Public Radio interview in which he described his policy as merely being "honest" which invoked the specter of an "even-handed" approach to the conflict, all ought to worry friends of Israel.
Obama's camp believes the loyalty of Jews to the Democratic Party and its very popular leader may outweigh affection for the Jewish state.
[But] there is another factor that could focus [American Jews] on opposing Obama's stand: Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and the existential threat such weapons would pose to Israel.
Obama's insistence on picking a fight with Israel over settlements rather than prioritizing the menace from Iran, is puzzling. [M]ore concessions on settlements are unlikely to advance the peace process with a toothless Palestinian Authority or its Hamas rivals. It is as if Obama has decided that pressure aimed at ousting Netanyahu, who was elected in February, is more important than confronting the ayatollahs in Teheran, even if it means the latter will almost certainly be granted the time to advance their nuclear ambitions.
Can such a policy be what the majority of American Jews who voted for Obama were expecting? Will they reward an administration that pursues such a reckless policy with continued high levels of support?
[Jersualem Post]
*
No comments:
Post a Comment