But through it all the President-elect has been silent, using the old standard "we only have one President at a time." Of course CANDIDATE Obama spoke out about the Russian invasion of Georgia, and PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama spoke out about Mumbai and the economic crisis.
Even Liberal Columnist Kristin Powers is upset. She feels that Obama has not taken the Anti-Israel stance of the people who elected him:
WHAT kind of "change" will Barack Obama offer on the Palestinian-Israeli mess? Since the conflict erupted back onto the front pages, his response has been disheartening to anti-war liberals, who overall have high hopes for the new president.A recent Rasmussen poll found Americans split on whether Israel should have taken military action against the Palestinians: 44 percent in favor, 41 percent against. But only 31 percent of Democrats supported the use of force; 55 percent said Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution first...
...Then, on Sunday's "Meet the Press," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid rightly condemned Hamas and the killing of Israelis - but, like Pelosi, uttered not a word about the massive Palestinian casualties. Host David Gregory asked, "So you, you're in sync with the Bush administration on this [issue]?" Reid's answer: "Yes, I am."
Of course Kappo Miller and, Ms. Powers forgets that there ARE NO SETTLEMENTS in GAZA. Israel totally pulled out of the area over three years ago.
Wrong answer - for the majority of Democratic voters, anyway.
Those voters (activists, especially) will point to the latest Newsweek, where former US diplomat Aaron David Miller writes: "In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of State, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity . . . does to the peace-making process."
Obama's supporters have a reasonable expectation that he'll chart a different course.
This points to a much larger and more worrisome problem at least if you are a supporter of Israel. While the "Old Line" Democrats like Reid and Pelosi, may still be supporting Israel, the new "Obama Democrats" feel that an approach more favorable to the terrorist forces is not only preferable to the present approach but should be a priority. Witness the fact that they are speaking out against Obama for his lack of a stance.
Fear Not Obamamaniacs, the reason your Hero is silent is he really believes that their is only one president at a time. The President-elect disagrees with President Bush on Israel so he is remaining silent. But when he becomes President he will speak out. Unfortanatly he will be speaking out AGAINST the Jewish State.
You see, all that talk of supporting Israel that Obama gave on the stump, was nothing more than Bara-crap.
2 comments:
Actually, Yid, I agree with him, but for different reasons. Mixing the Jewish people with the Palestinian Arabs always was a foolish enterprise that should have best been left to Jordanian sovereignty, but for a grudge the Saudi Royal Family held against the Hashemites at Rabat in 1974. Leaving them to their civil war and their barbarism is all for the best, imho. I simply don't believe that settlements in the West Bank is best for Israel in the long term, especially given the long term demographic issues facing Israel.
Condi Rice understood this, which was one of the reasons she pushed for an agreement with Abbas. However, she was always fated to work with the hapless Olmert, who was saddled with the legacy of the Lebanon war. I understand that everyone on the right criticized her, but she was only trying to get Israel the best deal she could before a hostile Administration took power.
Bloggers like you and the Settler lobby completely misunderstood how unpopular the Bush Administration had become in the United States, and how limited Bush's options were with regard to settlements, Iran, and Iraq, especially after Lebanon. We were always trying to make the best of a bad situation. With this latest War, Rice has been running interference for Olmert again as she did for three weeks in the summer of '06, stalling the UN in the hopes that Barak and the IDF can turn in a workmanlike performance in Gaza.
The IDF has, maybe, another week of high velocity contact and then until BHO takes power to take care of business. You are dead on about Obama and the appeasers who surround him, but you never understood that Bush and Rice always understood that a liberal Democrat would succeed them, and that that Democrat would have, in his train, Arabist policy advisors. The hostility to Israel among Democratic activists is palpable. They were trying to get the best deal for Israel they could within the context of a two-state solution that was fair to the Pallies. It's a shame you didn't get this, but there you have it.
It's very simple. A true, weighted and outspoken position on Israel would certainly subject Mr Obama to much derision on either side of the aisle. No clear decision or opinion cannot yet be subject to excoriation, second-guessing or analysis.
BZ
Post a Comment