This Congress won't give Obama a free pass on Israel

[azurnoir]

The very substantial electoral defeat of the Democrats in the recent congressional elections was a defeat for the president, Barack Obama. The voters were angry and gave vent to their anger by voting Republican, in some cases even when the local candidate was a "Tea Party" candidate whose prescription for dealing with the economic crisis was not always sensible.

<snip>

As is well known, in the United States foreign policy is determined by the president. He decides and he and his secretary of state execute. Only when foreign policy decisions require budgetary allocations is the president dependent on congressional approval. At first sight it looks like there is hardly any room for the Congress to interfere or influence when it comes to foreign policy. However, there is more here than meets the eye. First of all, the new Congress is very friendly to Israel. Not that friendship, and even admiration, for Israel is limited to the Republican party - that sentiment is bipartisan and includes Democrats and Republicans alike. However, many Democrats in Congress who did not agree with the pressure that the president applied to Israel in the past two years have hesitated to voice criticism of the president's policy out of loyalty to the leader of their party.

Republicans in the new Congress will feel no such compunction. They will let the president and the country know when they disagree with him. The new Congress can be expected to be openly supportive of Israel. That means that if the president were to resume his tactic of pressuring Israel he will find himself in opposition to many in the Congress. With many other urgent items on his agenda he may not want to get into a collision with Congress on this issue. If he were to consider taking punitive measures against Israel, if he finds the Israeli government recalcitrant, he will find it difficult to get the cooperation of Congress in the areas where this is required.

It is therefore unlikely that we will see a repeat of the crises between the U.S. and Israel, real and artificial, that we witnessed in the past two years. The Israeli prime minister will not again be insulted on his visits to Washington. There'll be some changes. This Congress will not give the president a free pass on Israel.

http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/this-congress-won-t-give-obama-a-free-pass-on-israel-1.324945

[BrklynLiberal]

1. That is a shame....

If he grows a real spine, I hope he uses it in this arena as well as for the Middle Class in the US

[bluestateguy]

2. No free pass is required

This Administration, in spite of disagreements over the settlements issue, has generously provided Israel with all of the aid that country (and AIPAC) has requested.

[Violet_Crumble]

3. Exactly...

I remember seeing a few incredibly one-sided things coming out of Congress in Obama's first two years, where the slavering worship of Israel was so OTT that I doubt another couple of 'supporters' of Israel amongst their numbers will make much difference...

[oberliner]

6. Not true

The administration has actually done neither of these things.

[bluestateguy]

13. Annnnn....d?

So are we to believe then that Obama has not provided the levels of aid that are desired by AIPAC and AIPAC?

[Tripmann]

4. Obama has already folded on every I/P issue faster than superman doing origami.

[oberliner]

5. Such as?

Can you provide any examples?

[Tripmann]

9. Settlements.Allowing one side to continue illegal activity during a peace process you're negotiating

while also funding and arming them makes a mockery of the whole affair.

[oberliner]

10. He never stated otherwise

His actions have been consistent with his previously stated policies.

[Tripmann]

11. When he describes illegal activity as 'disappointing' then offers them concessions to stop

(including a free pass for UN investigations into criminality) nothing needs to be 'stated'. The actions speak far louder than words.

Oh, and can the wannabe politician stuff oberliner. You don't have the chops and we aren't your buddies in AIPAC

[oberliner]

12. The wannabe politician stuff? AIPAC?

I have no idea what "wannabe politician" stuff you are talking about or what your reference to AIPAC is all about.

In any case, Obama has been entirely consistent with respect to his policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

You have offered no evidence to suggest otherwise.

[Tripmann]

14. I never claimed he's acted contrary to his policy, I said he's folded on the issues.

If you're happy enough to claim that being made look like a jackass on the settlement building issue was his policy all along, you are free to do so.

[oberliner]

16. What does folding mean?

Where did he "fold" exactly?

[Tripmann]

18. Obama wanted a freeze on the illegal activity, bibi refuses, biden gets embarrassed while on trip to

israel by announcement of more settlement construction. Obama still gives weapons and funds instead of leveraging the issue. Meanwhile your secretary of state shouts 'stop, or we'll say stop again'.

Are you saying israel hasn't embarrassed and belittled america in relation to the illegal settlement building?

[oberliner]

19. That makes sense

Although I think Obama actually got some of what he wanted when Netanyahu agreed to the earlier freeze - and he may agree to this one as well.

[whosinpower]

15. Obama has been consistant - the media paints it differently

As do right wingers.

The current "flavour" is that Obama is a muslim loving anti-Israeli president who will show Israel no favours - but this is not at all consistant with the reality.

And this all goes back to Biden's visit to Israel - when they announced new construction in the settlements - embarrassing Biden and the American position that settlement building was inconsistant with a peace process......Netanyahu comes to America - and is not treated with loving blind loyalty....and somehow this is translated into something that is Obama's fault....even though Israel has received THROUGH OBAMA, more aid than ever before.

America's position, and Obama's position regarding settlement building and growth has never changed. It was the same during Clinton - it was the same during Bush Jr, and it is the same now. Settlement building is a deterrent, a roadblock to the peace process.

Where Obama differs from others is that he actively began his presidency dealing with this difficult subject, instead of kicking it down the road until he was almost finished his presidency. Having said that, this new grand incentive for a 90 day holiday of building is rewarding Netanyahu for his intransigence - and it should never of been offered - in my opinion.....But Obama wants a settlement, so it would appear that he weighed the options available to him. Punishing Israel for building would bring the two parties no closer to the table, even if that is what should of occured. It is my belief that this is the conclusion that Obama came to.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Yeah, he's been a massive disappointment when it comes to Israel...

He's made a few small noises and things did look promising at first, but the way he's folded on the settlements issue is sad. I guess he's got other priorities....

[oberliner]

8. In what respect?

How did he fold exactly?

[shira]

17. In the respect that Obama doesn't hate Israel as much as the Gideon Levy Left does.

Gideon Levy and his ilk can't even stand Israel's most Liberal Zionist doves.

I suppose many here were hoping Obama would be like that too, and oppose Israelis like Amos Oz, David Grossman, Carlo Strenger (even Yitzak Rabin).

[oberliner]

20. Obama is a pro-Israel Zionist

If he were posting his views on this board, he would probably be met with serious hostility.