Thread
:
Obama's unqualified support, except when it's not, or maybe
View Single Post
02-11-2009, 02:53 PM
#
1
Big A
Join Date
Oct 2005
Age
51
Posts
4,148
Administrator
Obama's unqualified support, except when it's not, or maybe
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/bl...richman/150621
Henry Siegman asserts in “
Israel and Obama
†in this morning’s
New York Times
that President Obama’s “unqualified commitment to Israel’s security†is real. Indeed Siegman alleges that the White House is “about to set a new record†for reassuring Israel. But Siegman opposes a campaign to ingratiate Obama with the Israeli public, because the “unprecedented Israeli hostility†springs from Israel’s “pathological†rejection of a “return to the 1967 pre-conflict borders.â€
At the risk of being accused of mental illness for doubting Obama’s unqualified commitment (and Siegman’s assertion that the 1967 borders were “pre-conflict†ones), here is an easy test to determine the quality of President Obama’s commitment: Does he stand by the
2004 Bush Letter to Israel
, which reiterated the following “steadfast commitment:â€
The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including
secure, defensible borders
, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and
defend itself
,
by itself
, against any threat or possible combination of threats. [Emphasis added.]No responsible Israeli or American military person considers the 1967 borders “defensible.†It was their indefensible nature that led Arab states to prepare for what they
announced
in May 1967 would be a “total war which will put an end to Israel.†Israel’s ability to deter and defend itself, by itself, also depends on preservation of its ultimate deterrent — which the words “by itself†in the Bush Letter were
intended to reaffirm
.
The Obama State Department has declined, no less than
21 times
, to pass this test. The administration’s continued silence about it leads to a certain amount of doubt about Obama’s commitment — a doubt increased by Hillary Clinton’s
BBC interview
on Friday. Asked about Israel’s settlements, she said this:
We continue to have very serious questions about the legitimacy of the settlements that Israel has promoted. We understand that to a large extent, it has to do with their security needs and fears about trying to have a defensible perimeter around Israel.
But we also are committed to a two-state solution. And as President Obama said, that two-state solution will take place in the territory occupied by Israel since 1967. The question is how we get to it. And that’s what we’re trying to achieve.
Quote
Big A
View Public Profile
Find More Posts by Big A
All times are GMT +1. The time now is
01:46 PM
.