James Kirchik has a post up on The New Republic's "The Plank" that takes Barack Obama to task for his foreign policy "naivete" demonstrated in his recent Ohio speech on Israel:
More after the jump...
To describe Obama's comment as "ridicule" of Likud is ridiculous - questioning unwavering support is not a removal of all support. Throughout his remarks he shows a strong support of Israel but in these short passages rightly calls for Israel to take responsibility for itself and prove its ability to handle itself diplomatically; and that American support is not something set in stone if they prove themselves not deserving of it.
But on that subject of "unwavering support": much of Obama's appeal among the weary post-Bush electorate has been his abandonment of the politics of absolutes. Voters remember the false criticism of John Kerry as being too "nuanced"; now they want a careful Executive who does not rush into things for the wrong reasons and weighs all options. His populist supporters even hope that he may be an Executive who will speak about the pros and cons of decisions and relationships to the American electorate with a transparency we haven't seen in the last eight years, rather than providing a pat "you're either with us or against us" type of response. Kirchik may read this statement as being dangerous, or being offensive to Israel, and perhaps many in Israel may believe that it is. But in no way does he remove support from Israel, just demonstrates a care and caution that is vital at this point in time. This kind of language I believe demonstrates a reaffirmation of American interests as a mediator of the conflict, not one who must always take sides. If Obama must take sides in this issue to please certain allies, then perhaps it is up to them to demonstrate to him (and hopefully publically to the American people and to the State department, populist fingers crossed) that a hardline support is in America's interest.
This is not to say that Israel is not in danger - of course it is. And this is not to say they shouldn't be our ally - of course they are. Obama agrees. But it seems to me that after the last eight years, and the most damaging foreign policy decision in American history, to speak about absolutes is not the most intelligent way to go about our foreign policy. To me, this isn't naive.
(This post previously appeared on TPM's Reader Blog.)
[J]ust because anti-Obama smear artists exist does not mean that legitimate questions about his positions ought also be categorized as scurrilous. A telling line in Obama's speech last week is illustrative of these concerns: "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel." .... Such protestations about the all-encompassing power of "Likud" is a trope in the victimization rhetoric of peace-processors who constantly blame Israel for the region's woes while pretending to be valiant friends of the Jewish State.I think this demonstrates a misreading of Obama's comments, but also is representative of a larger trend in criticisms of Obama's political language. Kirchik tries to make a direct link between Obama and Jim Moran, who outright criticized the Likud. But piggy-backing Obama onto this doesn't seem appropriate, excepting the fact that both men said the word "Likud."
Hillary couldn't find a better example of Obama's foreign policy naivete than his attempt to intervene in the domestic politics of our most important ally in the Middle East. Given that Likud will probably form the next Israeli government, why would Obama go out of his way to ridicule the party and declare that its sympathizers in America have a nefarious influence on our politics? Statements such as the one Obama made last week are highly unusual and ill-advised for a presidential contender, never mind a president.
More after the jump...
To describe Obama's comment as "ridicule" of Likud is ridiculous - questioning unwavering support is not a removal of all support. Throughout his remarks he shows a strong support of Israel but in these short passages rightly calls for Israel to take responsibility for itself and prove its ability to handle itself diplomatically; and that American support is not something set in stone if they prove themselves not deserving of it.
But on that subject of "unwavering support": much of Obama's appeal among the weary post-Bush electorate has been his abandonment of the politics of absolutes. Voters remember the false criticism of John Kerry as being too "nuanced"; now they want a careful Executive who does not rush into things for the wrong reasons and weighs all options. His populist supporters even hope that he may be an Executive who will speak about the pros and cons of decisions and relationships to the American electorate with a transparency we haven't seen in the last eight years, rather than providing a pat "you're either with us or against us" type of response. Kirchik may read this statement as being dangerous, or being offensive to Israel, and perhaps many in Israel may believe that it is. But in no way does he remove support from Israel, just demonstrates a care and caution that is vital at this point in time. This kind of language I believe demonstrates a reaffirmation of American interests as a mediator of the conflict, not one who must always take sides. If Obama must take sides in this issue to please certain allies, then perhaps it is up to them to demonstrate to him (and hopefully publically to the American people and to the State department, populist fingers crossed) that a hardline support is in America's interest.
This is not to say that Israel is not in danger - of course it is. And this is not to say they shouldn't be our ally - of course they are. Obama agrees. But it seems to me that after the last eight years, and the most damaging foreign policy decision in American history, to speak about absolutes is not the most intelligent way to go about our foreign policy. To me, this isn't naive.
(This post previously appeared on TPM's Reader Blog.)
No comments:
Post a Comment