I hear the conversation everywhere.
Well, I suppose it isn’t so much a conversation as it is a statement. My Jewish friends say it all the time: “I’m voting for Romney because Obama doesn’t support Israel.” More often, the statement comes in a blunter form: “Barack Obama hates Israel.”
Each time, I cringe. Each time, I’m perplexed.
There is no nation on earth that this country, under this administration, supports more comprehensively and more fervently than it supports the State of Israel. Barack Obama does not hate Israel.
At a meeting in February 2011, the month’s U.N. Security Council president entertained a resolution condemning Israeli construction in the West Bank.
When more than 115 nations moved to pass the condemnation, only one delegate from one country raised her hand: American Ambassador Susan Rice. Because America’s status as a permanent member affords it veto-power (and as per the policy of Rice’s boss), the vote failed and the draft-resolution vanished from the international docket.
Last November, President Obama was recorded having what was meant to be an off-the-record conversation with French Prime Minister Nicolas Sarkozy. Obama told Sarkozy that the United States would “have to impose economic sanctions” if the September 2011 Palestinian bid for statehood went through. In a room bereft of TelePrompTers and absent of television cameras, the American president affirmed his support for policies of the Jewish state.
That same month, Assistant Secretary of State Andrew J. Shapiro – a de-facto representative of and spokesperson for the Obama Administration- delivered a speech to the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. In his remarks, he declared that “Israel is a long time democratic ally and we share a special bond.”
Shapiro went on to note that “some skeptics are questioning whether that’s enough of a reason to continue to spend hard earned American tax payer dollars on Israel’s security.” His rejoinder was frank: “We don’t just support Israel because of a long standing bond,” he said. “We support Israel because…ensuring Israel’s military strength and its superiority in the region is (critical) to regional stability and as a result is fundamentally a core interest of the United States.”
The cash sum that the United States spends on aid to Israel has increased steadily since Obama’s first year in office. According to the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, in 2009, the administration spent about $2.81 billion on aid to Israel; in 2010, it spent about $3.04 billion; in 2011, about $3.49 billion. That’s an average eight percent increase in each of those three years – not to mention a 14 percent increase between the second and third years.
Israel is the single largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since the second world war.
Obama has preserved and prolonged that commitment; his budget request for the 2013 fiscal year consists of $3.1 billion in aid to Israel, which includes $99.8 million specifically allocated to joint American-Israeli missile defense development.
President Obama has also sculpted American foreign policy to quell the existential threat posed to Israel by Iran. In his first appearance at the United Nations as president, Obama asserted that if Iran chose to “put the pursuit of nuclear weapons ahead of regional stability…then they must be held accountable.”
He echoed such sentiments in comments during his 2010 and 2011 U.N. remarks. And just last month, he told delegates, “a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained,” and vowed that “the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
And if Obama’s words speak, his actions scream. During the summer of 2010, Obama signed into law the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (CISADA), which enacted severe penalties for companies who do business with the Iranian petroleum sector. And under the Iranian Transactions Regulations as amended by the Obama administration in March 2012, anyone involved in breaching said laws may be slapped with up to a $1 million fine or jailed for up to 20 years.
Last August, Obama signed yet another set of crippling sanctions against Iran. The law, according to the Wall Street Journal, “closes loopholes in existing sanctions law on Iran, and adds penalties…(and) broadens the list of available programs under which sanctions can be imposed on Iranian individuals and entities.”
A representative of AIPAC recently told me that these Obama administration policies are “the most severe sanctions the U.S. has imposed on any country – even the Third Reich.” Barack Obama does not empathize with the Iranian regime.
The Obama years have seen no adverse change in the way of American policy towards Israel; and yet, Obama’s stronghold on Jewish voters (who traditionally support Democrats overwhelmingly) slips from his grasp each day.
The president’s support among Jewish voters has dropped 19 percentage points since last election season, from 78 percent in 2008 to just 59 percent today.
Why is there a disparity between steps Obama has taken and the approval he’s gained? In truth, today’s underlying “tensions” between Israel and the United States amount to a handful of personal gripes between leaders, a series of ultimately trivial comments on West Bank settlements, and hyperbolic questions surrounding Obama’s ties to the Islamic religion.
These conditions have acted as a frustration in the realm of PR and messaging, but by no means have they given rise to a real shift in policy.
Every day, I hear it from close friends, in op-eds by billionaire Jewish donors, pervading the blogosphere: President Obama is anti-Israel; he exercises evasion in the face of the Iranian threat; his policies are crippling or harmful to Jews, Israelis, or Zionists. I respond to my Jewish friends in a voice that I hope will resound: Any such claim is a rash one, based on perceptions plagued by exaggerations and misreadings. We know anti-Israel; we have seen anti-semitism. President Obama embodies neither.
If you intend to support Governor Romney in this election because you believe that the top 2 percent of the American populace should see its taxes decrease, or that women should have their bodily decisions checked and regulated by wealthy men, or that immigration reform should begin by way of expulsion, I wish all the power to you. But if your allegiance to Israeli security is holding you back from casting your ballot for the Democratic ticket, it’s time to rethink your vote.
Ami Fields-Meyer is a College freshman from Los Angeles, Calif.
The Emory Wheel was founded in 1919 and is currently the only independent, student-run newspaper of Emory University. The Wheel publishes weekly on Wednesdays during the academic year, except during University holidays and scheduled publication intermissions.
The Wheel is financially and editorially independent from the University. All of its content is generated by the Wheel’s more than 100 student staff members and contributing writers, and its printing costs are covered by profits from self-generated advertising sales.
Ami, you do an interesting job ignoring all the instances when Obama and his administration have done and said things against and about Israel that are unprecedented. I do not have the time or energy to put forward a complete list, but here is an example, or two.
1) Obama publicly said the ’67 borders should be the starting point for further negotiations. No president other than Obama has ever suggested this before. The ’67 borders mean giving up the high ground to a peope who are intent on Israel’s destruction. The ’67 border means giving up East Jerusalem, means putting Israel’s only commercial airport and Israel’s largest city within clear range…
2) Obama has flip-flopped on Israel’s capital more times than aby president ever flip-flopped on any issue in recent memory. That’s leadership we can trust, eh?
3) Obama has appointed several diplomats and cabinet members and advisors who have a clear and strong history of being anti-Israel.
4) While Obama invites Morsi of the Muslim Brotherhood to the White House he goes on David Letterman and The View and to campaign fund raisers while Netanyahu is in town and cancels an appoitnment with him. Obama did not visit Israel but did visit Egypt, bowed to the Saudi king, and has supported increasingly extreme Muslim leaders inclduing the aforementioned Morsi in Egypt. Obama has overseen the rise of the Islamists throughout the Middle East.
These are just a few examples you have conveniently ignored in supporting your personal view on this issue. Give credit where credit is due and realize that those who disagree with you could just as easily create a longer list of reasons to vote for Romeny.
In closing it seems clear that if not for a Congress and Senate that still strongly supports Israel that Obama’s wont – that of throwing Israel to the lions – might have made more progress.
“Obama publicly said the ’67 borders should be the starting point for further negotiations. No president other than Obama has ever suggested this before.”
False. President Bush said “The point of departure for permanent status negotiations seems clear. There should be an end to the occupation that began in 1967…I believe that any peace agreement between them will require mutually agreed adjustments to the Armistice Lines of 1949.”
Your quote is out of context and your conclusion has been debunked by the Washington Post:
“In the context of this history, Obama’s statement Thursday represented a major shift. He did not articulate the 1967 boundaries as a “Palestinian goal” but as U.S. policy. He also dropped any reference to “realities on the ground” – code for Israeli settlements – that both Bush and Hillary Rodham Clinton had used. He further suggested that Israel’s military would need to agree to leave the West Bank.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/understanding-obamas-shift-on-israel-and-the-1967-lines/2011/05/19/AFPRaT7G_blog.html
Arafat,
You are a rather frequent visitor of pro-Israel articles in college newspapers. I have to ask– what radical organization are you working for that you troll every newspaper in search of articles and feel the need to add your two cents? You view Obama as anti Israel because you want to, and thats just being ignorant of the facts. I hope you will leave this debate to the college students and their newspaper, not some puppet of a right wing organization.
A, if you have issues with my comments then feel free to address them as an adult college student should. My personality should not be part of the disucssion, or so it seems to me. The discussion is about Obama, his alienation of a meaningful percentage of the Jewish vote, and Obama’s policies towards Israel. If you have something concrete to add in defense (or not) on this topic then go at it, but leave me out of that debate, please.
Looks like Ami has internalized the DNC’s talking points on Israel.
Arafat’s comments above are spot on, particularly regarding the ’67 borders.
I suppose the other thing that really bothers me about this issue was the reaction of the delegates at the DNC on the Jerusalem issue. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heQ3-0EjW0o Is this what the modern Democrat party is about?
Huh, the U.S. supports Israel? In other news, the sky is blue and students are still upset about the program cuts.
In terms of domestic policy, the guy running against him is a fool.
Israel receives the most foregn aid in any country in the Middle East and has been since God knows when. Even if Obama was anti-Israel, it wouldn’t make the slightest of difference to Israel’s cause. The US will always support Israel.
Fix your problems at home first. You’re gonna vote for a candidate just because he is more pro-Israel than the other when what is at stake here is the well-being of the American people?
Just remember, Israel is not the country we live in and so while it’s important that the US supports Israel, I’m hoping that your presidential choices are based on more than just the support of a country that is not our own.
Well said!
Good advice that is applicable to any “single issue” voter.
Arafat,
Your comment about Obama being the only president to ’67 borders should be A STARTING POINT for further negotiations is incorrect. Bush brought it up before. The republican party just blows me away. You want Obama to spend less and bring the national debt down but yet he has done far less spending then the majority of presidents during their term. He has definitely spent far less then Bush did in his first 4 years. But you want him to continue spending more money in a country that is not our own. Which he has continued to do and has continued to support Israel. So answer this why is him continuing to support Israel financially so important to you when if you are an American citizen him supporting America and our needs should be what matters. If your decision to vote for Obama is based primarily on this issue is it because your a duel citizen of Israel or you have family living there? Why is that your primary concern? Your primary concern should be the well being of the American people i.e. jobs, college education, welfare, medicare not going bankrupt, health care, etc. All of which Obama has done an amazing job reforming. If your don’t remember 4 years ago when he took office we were already in a depression we are no longer circling the drain. Our economy is coming back. He wants the working middle class to succeed not only the big businesses. Romney doesn’t care about 47% of America nor does he care about the middle class. He wants high taxes on the middle class and tax cuts for the rich. Basically he wants to keep the rich, rich and the poor, poor. So all this about Obama not supporting Israel is a bunch of nonsense. More importantly should not be your reason for not voting for him unless you have ties to that one country and your are worried about your country not being able to survive without American aid. Tell me why is it America is the one country that is suppose to take care of the worlds problems and make sure every other country has enough money to survive. Yet not worry about American’s needs??? Lets vote on the person that will best support America’s needs first and then the needs of other countries. Let’s vote for a man who has spent 4 years trying to make sure all American’s have health care coverage, women can seek preventative care whether it be birth-control or a mammogram, who will provide equality to all, and who will create jobs, keep current jobs (especially teachers who are at risk right now), and decrease the national debt. Lets worry about our own issues. Let’s worry about holding the rich accountable for paying taxes. Oh and by the way “a starting point” does not mean that he does not care or that he is planning on cutting all financial strings, it simply means exactly what it says a starting point for a discussion and further negotiation between them and us to what we can continue doing. Do not try to take words and twist their meaning to something they are not!
Amanda, thanks for your response. Let me just begin by saying I believe your opinions are incorrect, unfair and biased. This is not unique as we’re all human and we all bring our biases into discussions like this. I do just as you have done. I’ll try to highlight some examples where it is my opinion you have done so.
1) You claim that Romney only cares about small business, yet in the debate the other night he said on many occasions that it is his firm belief that it is small business and entrepreneurs who make this country strong. He turned a relatively small company into a big business, and in doing so knows firsthand the job creation, subsidiary businesses this creates, etc…I think he is sincere when he says this. You obviously disagree.
2) Israel’s’ cost to taxpayers in minute. This is not to rationalize the cost, but only to suggest it is meaningless in the bigger question. But more importantly, we could more than compensate for that aid by cutting aid to countries who consider us the “great Satan”, countries like Pakistan, Egypt, the Palestinians. My thinking is why should we ignore our allies and support people who dance in the street when we are attacked? I know this is FAR more complex than either you or I have suggested in our comments, but this is a start.
3) The main stream media, IMO mischaracterized Romney’s 47% comment. As I understand it – and I agree with him – he implied that with 47% of Americans on some form of entitlement it tips the voters towards the party that supports those entitlements, i.e., the democratic party. This is not an outlandish position to take and I think it is true. What Romney and Ryan stand for, IMO, is to be realistic about these programs and there should be nothing wrong with being realistic, no? Their position is that these programs have gotten out-of-control, and I agree they have. This is NOT to suggest they should be eviscerated so much as changed to reflect today’s reality. There is nothing offensive or scary about debating these issues as both parties agree that Medicare and Social Security are in trouble and need to be changed.
4) You write that he (Romney) wants high taxes on the middle class. He said the opposite of this during the debates. I understand he is a politicians and will say what he needs to so as to get votes (and Obama does this as much as anyone) but for you to twist his words I find interesting. You are doing the same thing you accuse me of doing!
5) He did say higher taxes for the rich are in order. And I strongly agree with him. The laws that allow people like Romney to pay 15% (or less) are criminal and should be changed. That said, Romney would be a fool for paying more taxes than required when he believes that smaller government is better than an endless bureaucracy. His actions are not criminal they are simply following the tax code. Are you suggesting he should have ignored these laws and paid more taxes? And, as an aside, he donated far more to charity than many people do in his position.
Anyway, thank you for taking issue with me and my positions. Civil debate is a step in the right direction and I applaud you for your role in participating!
I agree 100% with you Ami. Well done.
As one who worked professionally for AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby in Washington, let me point out a few tings.
First… Obama has never stated anything that has deviated from previous Administrations. And for the record, Obama never spoke of 1967 borders. In fact, there are no 1967 borders. There are armistice lines where a cease fire has held for 45 years. US policy has remained consistent with regards to negotiations using the ’67 lines as a starting point. This is also ISRAELI POLICY as well. Ignore rhetoric from those making a wedge issue out of an issue where bipartisan support has and continues to remain rock solid.
Second… US-Israel relations have never been stronger. This week alone over 3,500 US troops will be carrying out joint military exercises with Israel in an unprecedented show of solidarity. The Israeli Defense Minister and former Prime Minister Ehud Barak has called relations stronger than ever before. The truth of our relationship with Israel is in the actions we take with them and not the nonsense coming from the Republican party or the taking out of context statements Obama has said about this special relationship.
Finally… Much of the anti-Obama feelings have been based on the behavior of the Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. While I admired the guy decades ago, this is not the same man. He is advised by GOP operatives from the US on electoral matters. He was a former business colleague of Mitt Romney when they worked together in Boston (Bibi went to MIT). And he constantly plays to the camera when on trips to the US. He faces an Israeli electorate where the majority of Israelis do not like him and never voted for him. He won his position by simply being the least offensive (Bibi has faced scandals many times before) and garnering a plurality of the votes. His trips to the US are primarily about raising money… and those whom he has been getting money from of late are the same wealthy individuals who are financing SuperPACs for Romney… and they do NOT represent the mainstream Jewish Community. They are lone wolves with completely separate and mostly non-Jewish agendas. So for Bibi to get the money he wants, he often creates an environment where he can play it up for the cameras to both a home audience as well as those whom he is going to raise money from. This is why Bibi committed a diplomatic sin when he tried to lecture the President on the history of the Middle East during a photo op in the Oval Office. Obama, of course, served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and was a strong friend (and knowledgeable one as well) on the US Israel relationship as well as the history and certainly did not need Netanyahu lecturing him…. but that’s the point. Netanyahu wasn’t even really talking to the President. He was making a show for the home audience to see him as tough and to give wealthy Republican Jewish contributors something to talk about and use to help Mitt Romney. At worst this is about personalities and private agendas of Netanyahu. But there have been no changes in the US-Israel relationship than have not gotten stronger in the past four years… NONE!
The bottom line is that Obama IS one of the strongest real friends Israel has ever had in the White House. Combined with all of the other issues of concern to the Jewish community related to matters of social justice and more, there is a clear choice from the Jewish community perspective… and that is a solid vote for President Obama’s reelection.
Well if your comment isn’t pulled from the pages of partisan democratic talking points then I am not sure what is. You pretend to be objective, claim to be of AIPAC-like stripes, but your words and sentiments do not support your claim. Yours are the words of the DNC marketing department not those of a rational independent.
It is said that to understand people’s true intentions watch their feet and ignore their words. And recent polling data suggests Jew’s feet are running away from Obama as fast as they can carry them. It appears they see through the hollow marketing points Obama and the DNC are feebly trying to pitch them and they are running to the other side in droves.
Evidently the cumulative impact of Obama’s treatment not just of Israel’s elected Prime Minister, but also of his treatment of Israel has gotten through to a people who have always supported democrats. For Jews to turn their backs on a democratic president says a lot and for you to suggest these Jews are confused by the facts is somewhat presumptuous as if you know better than they what is what and what is real.
And I would also argue it is not only Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu and Israel but includes his background affiliations with people like Reverend Wright – a man whose words of Jew hatred are on record – and of Obama’s actions and words in support of Islamists, as well as his political appointments; appointments who often have a record that is not one suggestive they support Israel, or Israel’s impossible situation: That of a tiny country surrounded by those who hate and would destroy her if given the chance.
If I were Jewish I know which direction my feet would take me and it would be as far from the DNC as possible. Obama’s words, his actions his affiliations, his appointments all add up to one thing and that is that his true intention is to abandon Israel to the wolves.