Is Obama "Throwing Israel Under The Bus" Or Does He Just Hate Jews?

President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a meeting last year. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

It's no surprise that some politicians and wealthy Israel supporters were angered by President Obama's Mideast peace speech yesterday, which called for a Palestinian state based on the borders that existed before the 1967 Six-Day War. But at least nobody's distorting Obama's message with overheated hyperbole to score cheap political points. Take likely GOP candidate Mitt Romney's circumspect reaction: "President Obama has thrown Israel under the bus. He has disrespected Israel and undermined its ability to negotiate peace. He has also violated a first principle of American foreign policy, which is to stand firm by your friends." Romney must have seen the Director's Cut of Obama's address, because we seem to recall him saying, "Our commitment to Israel's security is unshakable." Of course, when it comes to the Middle East, everyone's a critic:

Brooklyn Assemblyman Dov Hikind: "In trying to force Israel to return to the 1967 borders, Mr. Obama has effectively condemned the State of Israel to a slow and painful death."
Rep. Michele Bachmann, via Twitter: "Obama's call for 1967 borders will cause chaos, division & more aggression in Middle East & put Israel at further risk...Once again, President Obama has betrayed our friend and ally Israel."
Pro-Israel hawk Rep. Anthony Weiner, on Twitter: "Remind me again, why did the '67 borders change? #IsraelAttacked."
Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver "The idea of constantly putting out preconditions for Israel to meet is not the way to be an honest broker."
"The substance of those will be deemed as essentially more pro-Palestinian than previous presidents' positions at a time when Hamas has entered the Palestinian government," said Michael Singh, director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
Rep. Jerry Nadler: "The president mentioned that, but of course didn’t say how we were going to do that, and I would have been happier if the president had addressed the other issue."

Why can't Obama make everyone happy like he promised to do during his campaign?! Reacting to the reactions, John Podesta, former chief of staff for President Clinton and an ally to the Obama White House, told CNN, "It's almost unprecedented to see such incendiary rhetoric that tries to drive a wedge between the United States and Israel and use it for electoral gain. It's a reflection that this is clearly a [Republican] party that, on security issues these days, lacks a lot of coherence. So they'll go to sort of ...the lowest political common denominator and haven't really thought through the possible strategic consequences of comments like that."

Obama's plan contained no major surprises and is essentially unchanged from President Clinton's, but, as the LA Times puts it, Obama is the first to "publicly announce the 1967 formula, which is the equivalent of touching the third rail in Israeli politics." There's idle speculation this could hurt Obama's re-election chances (78% of Jewish voters backed him in the last election), and not-so-idle speculation in the Wall Street Journal that this is going to cost Obama big fundraising bucks from affluent Israel supporters. But of course many Jews also embraced the plan; the Anti-Defamation League applauded Obama's address.

Obama is meeting today with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was deeply dissatisfied with Obama's speech, dismissing it as "indefensible" as he boarded a flight to Washington.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@gothamist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By John Del Signore in News on May 20, 2011 12:53 PM

Comments [rss]

canofpeas

Obama should now break AIPAC's back; register it and its supporters as agents of a foreign government and view supporters of Israel with the same suspicion the government views Muslims. I don't think many Americans would object to that.

dogbertt

A pox on both their houses!

PanBenek

In 2012 the Jewish voters will have a choice between anti-Israel Obama and the Republican canidate supported by Glenn Beck and the ultra-right Christian groups. Obama will raise his funds on the internet and thumb his nose at the pro-Israel lobby.

Guest

insanity is repeating the same mistakes over and over

Brandon Baugh

How can God's supposed chosen people have a government that is selfish and full of hate.

Ohad Bracha

wow love it hot debate. I am an Israeli I support Obama 100% like most Israelis. we know the 197 is essentially to our existence. does not mean we are not afraid of rockets on Tel aviv . but the risk of not ending the occupation is much larger

zombiebob

But I wouldnt really call it a debate, so much as a psuedo dialouge between people who know whats up and what change is neccessary, and those parrots who repeat the same old BS

zombiebob

Good to know that there are real live Israeli's who know whats up

jfu222

Seems fair to me

...although I failed out of hebrew school and never bar mitzvah'd so what the hell do i know.

Why would it be so bad for Isreal if they gave up a little land?

I'm seriously asking. I don't have all of the info/facts.

It seems like it would be for the greater good (lose a little land and finally gain peace and stability)

fosiacat

well, according to Netanyahu, their population has grown too much to give it back. that's about it.

TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

The elimination of Israel is in the Hamas Charter. Reducing the width of Israel to 9 miles makes that objective that much easier. Nothing will satisfy the Palestinian Muslims except the death of every Israeli. The fight is not about land - that is just a pretext.

The fight arises from a religion that has taught that Jews are rats, dogs and pigs for a thousand years. It's pure inbred hatred.

fosiacat

i think he was asking for a serious, logical and unbiased reason, not anti-palestinian/pro-jew rhetoric.

TheDoctorWhoCuresCancer

+ The elimination of Israel in the Hamas charter isn't rhetoric. It is a fact.

+ Handing over the West bank reduces the width of Israel to 9 miles in that area. It is a fact, not rhetoric.

+ The young children of the Muslim Palestinians are taught that Jews are rats, dogs and pigs. They are taught this through puppet shows and in books. Those are facts, not rhetoric.

+ There are videos of a leading Palestinian Imam calling for the death of all the Israelis. Again facts, not rhetoric.

+ With those facts it is only logical to understand that the fight is not about land...that the land argument is a pretext to make it easier to wipe out the people of Israel.

xXxMExXx

It is very telling when even knee-jerk (emphasis on “jerk”) Democrat Anthony Weiner voices criticism against Obama...

Guest

not really, everything that schmuck Weiner says is to catch a headline.

do you even follow politics?

he already criticized Obama about how he says hello to the Saudis, on healthcare, on the tax cut deal, on predator drone program, etc., etc. shut up.

H.e. Pennypacker

arabs, jews, they're the same, sons of abraham. better to just stay out of this moronic iron age blood feud.

nicemarmot

The only real solution is to let these fuckers nuke the shit out of each other. Make the "holy land" uninhabitable, then who cares who fights over it?

MermaidFornicator

i totally support this idea

xXxMExXx

Only idiots and racists could possibly think Obama is doing a great job as President. If he keeps this pace, the socks I wore yesterday could beat him in next year's election.

Guest

you're right, Obama's gonna have a helluva time trying to beat Huckabee in 2012...wait. i meant Trump...no that's not right. ummm...Gingrich or Palin? yeah, that's the ticket!

so yeah, i guess your dirty old socks are looking like the best hope for the GOP.