With all the anti-Obama smears circulating on the internet, Tom Friedman's column gets right to the point with Obama and the Jews:
Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama once said there has to be “an end” to the Israeli “occupation” of the West Bank “that began in 1967.” Yikes!
Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama said that not only must Israel be secure, but that any peace agreement “must establish Palestine as a homeland for the Palestinian people.” Yikes!
Pssst. Have you heard? I have. I heard that Barack Obama once said “the establishment of the state of Palestine is long overdue. The Palestinian people deserve it.” Yikes! Yikes! Yikes!
Those are the kind of rumors one can hear circulating among American Jews these days about whether Barack Obama harbors secret pro-Palestinian leanings. I confess: All of the above phrases are accurate. I did not make them up.
There’s just one thing: None of them were uttered by Barack Obama. They are all direct quotes from President George W. Bush in the last two years. Mr. Bush, long hailed as a true friend of Israel, said all those things.
Friedman's core question is: What really makes a pro-Israel president?
Personally, as an American Jew, I don’t vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest. It’s not only because this is my country, first and always, but because the single greatest source of support and protection for Israel is an America that is financially and militarily strong, and globally respected. Nothing would imperil Israel more than an enfeebled, isolated America...
But what matters a lot more is that under Mr. Bush, America today is neither feared nor respected nor liked in the Middle East, and that his lack of an energy policy for seven years has left Israel’s enemies and America’s enemies — the petro-dictators and the terrorists they support — stronger than ever. The rise of Iran as a threat to Israel today is directly related to Mr. Bush’s failure to succeed in Iraq and to develop alternatives to oil.
From there, Friedman segues into a discussion of Arab-Israeli diplomacy:
I don’t want a president who is just going to lean on Israel and not get in the Arabs’ face too, or one who, as the former Mideast negotiator Aaron D. Miller puts it, “loves Israel to death” — by not drawing red lines when Israel does reckless things that are also not in America’s interest, like building settlements all over the West Bank.
It’s a tricky business. But if Israel is your voting priority, then at least ask the right questions about Mr. Obama. Knock off the churlish whispering campaign about what’s in his heart on Israel (what was in Richard Nixon’s heart?) and focus first on what kind of America you think he’d build and second on whether you believe that as president he’d have the smarts, steel and cunning to seize a historic opportunity if it arises.
Friedman's article is ok, but what's completely missing is any comparison between Obama's approach to these and John McCain's.
If the underlying threat to Israel is U.S. dependence on Mideast oil, which candidate has a better plan for ending that dependence?
John McCain has spent decades in the Senate voting for Big Oil against every form of energy conservation, including higher fuel economy (CAFE) standards, as well as alternative energy. By contrast, Barack Obama supports energy conservation and alternative energy.
And if the solution to Israel's problems is creative diplomacy, which candidate is more committed to creative diplomacy?
John McCain vehemently opposes diplomacy, calling any form of negotiations "appeasement." By contrast, Barack Obama is willing to begin serious diplomacy during his first year in office.
So if those are the two criteria for evaluating which candidate would be more pro-Israel, Obama beats McCain by a score of 2-0.
