Looking At The Candidates, Looking At Ourselves
Jewish Week Online Columnist
Photo Galleria: 

Judging by the volume and nature of some of the comments posted to my article on Rick Santorum in last week’s Jewish Week, I seem to have touched a raw nerve in some readers. I assume that to be the case because of the tone of some of the postings, which is, shall we say, dismissive of my point of view.

Of all the things that were said, let me respond to this one specifically. No, I did not intentionally omit Muslims when I said that we Jews are “as American as…” and I listed a variety of religions. To be honest, I hadn’t noticed the omission until the reader pointed it out, and it meant nothing other than that I happened, by chance, to omit it. I’m not completely sure what the significance would be if my omission had been intentional, but for the record, it wan’t.

To the reader who signed his name “Curious” and asked how comfortable I am with the current President… I thank you for asking it politely. Some of your fellow commenters asked a variant of it, but with a generous splash of animus thrown in. “More liberal garbage. A poisonous article like this could only be written by someone who supports Obama.” Or, “Give me a break! Jews have bigger problems, like the current occupier of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.”

To “Curious” I would answer that, after three days at the AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington this week, I now know that whatever my concerns about some of President Obama’s policies might be, I am more comfortable with him than with some who would claim the privilege of taking his office.

The AIPAC Policy Conference was an amazing event. Being in the same place– and for plenaries, in the same hall– as some thirteen thousand other pro-Israel activists is a heady experience to say the least. Advocating for Israel can be a lonely experience these days. Just ask any university student (there were about three thousand of them at the Conference; very inspiring!). I have nothing but enormous respect for the work that AIPAC does, advancing Israel’s case to American political leaders with enormous skill and dedication, regardless of whether the Israeli government is left or right of center. Given that America is Israel’s most important ally with no one a close second, there is no overstating AIPAC’s importance.

But with this being a presidential election year and the ominous threat of a nuclear Iran monopolizing the thought of the pro-Israel community, the Policy Conference this year bordered on -- I thought -- an often unfair indictment of President Obama’s policies. Sometimes the criticism was subliminal, other times overt and caustic, as when the Republican Presidential candidates spoke and tripped over each other trying to be tougher in how they would deal with the Iran issue. Send warships now! Articulate your “red lines!” There was a whole lot of metaphorical foaming at the mouth going on, not to mention– as a number of people have pointed out, including the President– a wholly inappropriate subversion of the President’s efforts to bring this crisis to a conclusion without having to resort to military options. One President at a time! It was a shameless political exercise in what should have been a bipartisan context.

That said, let me state this as clearly as I can, because I know that the same people who commented last week are more than likely to find this article distasteful. I am not convinced that President Obama is right is his approach to Iran, and that the critics are wrong. I’m not sure that bringing a bigger stick and a lot less talking to the Iranian issue isn’t the only way to stop them, and I’m all for stopping them. They may be right. And America is asking Israel for a whole lot of trust on an issue which goes to the very heart of their survival.

But even if the critics of the President’s policies are right- and neither I nor you have any real way of knowing that other than gut feeling- I categorically reject the idea persistently and irrationally advanced by far too may in the Jewish community that President Obama is an “enemy of Israel,” or “anti-Israel.” I find that attitude to be despicable and unwarranted by facts on the ground.

Would an enemy of Israel ask for an increase in Israel’s foreign aid allocation at a time when the pressures to cut the American budget are enormous? Would an enemy of Israel create the closest military and intelligence cooperation between the two countries that has ever existed? And this by Israel’s own reckoning! Would an enemy of Israel declare clearly and unambiguously– and repeatedly– that Iran must not be allowed to become a nuclear power, and that a policy of “containment” is not an option? Would an enemy of Israel declare that no option is off the table to avoid a nuclear Iran, very much including a military option, because both Israel and the world cannot afford the risk?

Are we so blinded by our very legitimate fears about Israel’s security that we are willing to alienate an American president whose only real problem about Israel is that he neither thinks nor talks like Jabotinsky? He is, at the end of the day, the President of the United States, and not the Prime Minister of Israel! His job is to protect the United States and its interests in a complex and dangerous world. It seems to me that many friends of Israel want President Obama to talk like a right-wing Israeli leader instead of an American President. That’s not a fair expectation.

Given the current state of the Republican presidential primary campaign, I think there’s a better than even chance that Israel is going to be working with President Obama for another four years, when he doesn’t have to be worrying about re-election. So yes -- absolutely yes. It is Israel’s right, and responsibility, to secure its own survival, and be the master of its own fate. But it is also the Israeli government’s responsibility to navigate the political currents of today’s world wisely, and in that regard, it needs America and American support. President Obama is not ruling out a military option if all else fails, and containment is not an option. How much closer on policy can you get than that?

How much do I trust the president? Enough to take him at his word. If Israel decides that, based on its own intelligence estimate, it must act now and not wait, I will support it. But I hope that there is a way to let the sanctions work before the military option is the only viable one. As the President said at his news conference this week, war is not a game, and it’s not fodder for the campaign trail. It is about death and destruction. You go to war when you have to– and not before. You go with the broadest consensus possible. And you try to have your best and most effective ally at your side.

Last Update:

03/18/2012 - 07:06
AIPAC, Barack Obama, Rick Santorum, Zev Jabotinsky

Add comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comment Guidelines

The Jewish Week feels comments create a valuable conversation and wants to feature your thoughts on our website. To make everyone feel welcome, we won't publish comments that are profane, irrelevant, promotional or make personal attacks.


Seriously, where in the world do you get the opinion that Santorum wants "the Catholic equivalent of Sharia law?" (to paraphrase) There's not a scintilla of truth to that. It's just fear mongering, if indeed the writer actually believes it. Santorum holds some traditional Judeo Christian views that have long been very popular with the American public. It has only been in recent years, relatively speaking, that these ideas have started to decline in popularity, and even then, only in some segments of the society like pop culture/Hollywood. Actually, with abortion, the pro-life segment of Americans have increased. Admittedly, it has been the opposite case with gay marriage. However, if he had a specific religious agenda, I don't think all the evangelicals would be supporting him like they do.

Issue will be resolved before election...probably in may

I think the main points for people to realize are (1) the danger for Israel and US is different; (2) the timing for a response is different; (3) the ability to respond is different; and (4) each needs to act when its time/need arises.

While some might argue US should take out Iran, I think Israel's red line and time for a strike arrive much sooner. So key is for the President/administration not to undermine/thwart the Israeli attack when it will be forced upon Israel (their call)... aid Israel in defense, and be very prepared to immediately wipe out the Iranian program should Iran attack US in any way as retaliation... and i mean immediately...

It would also be nice to skip the official condemnations that arose after the Israeli strike on Iraq's nuclear plant and make the private expressions of thanks/relief very public this time... (that last comment applies to certain arab countries as well-- i can dream can't i)

Later on, we can debate if US should be peacekeeper of world, spreader of democracy (if that is possible where no history of it), protect only our interests (and what that means short term and/or long term), but for now it is to logistically help and to be ready for the necessary israeli strike which will set the program back for a few years and if no Iranian attack on the US again give "greater sanctions more time to work"...

Did you listen to the President's comments after AIPAC? He all but renounced every promise he made to you at his AIPAC appearance. Obama is not carrying a big stick, and he's running his mouth, now wanting to open talks with zero preconditions. I have never understood how someone who supports Israel, can support Democrats. Right now, Netanyahu is not asking for talks, Israeli intelligence shows it is past that time. Obama only said what he did at AIPAC because he is up for re-election. He has taken away a shaky peace between Israel and Egypt, and handed it to the Muslim Brotherhood. We conservatives were saying this would happen before Mubarak left, but there is no mention of that in the media. Libya will fall to radicals as well. The only thing I see him accomplishing in the Middle East is the resurgence of the Caliphate.

Well, when Israel does attack Iran, Russia will nuke Tel Aviv, and we won't have to worry about Israel starting any more wars. Let's just hope they don't decide to nuke NYC, while they're at it. Israel has become the biggest threat to the Jewish people in history.

Good article. So much political pandering has taken place on the part of the Repo Party candidates around this issue! As far as I can tell the key point of your article is an accurate one - the cooperation at the military level between the U.S. and Israel as at least as close if not closer than ever. that is where the rubber meets the road. Try to get any Repo politician to agree to that and he won't because he no longer can as he's been boxed in by his own rhetoric.

Frankly, I'm far more concerned about a party that actively promotes Governor Perry who holds Christian only public rallies and Senator Santorum who seems to want to establish the Sharia Law Equivalent of Catholicism. These are the folks that Jews ought be concerned with.

Our Newsletters, Your Inbox