Home > Alex Massie

Wednesday 16 May 2012

Obama and Israel

Friday, 20th February 2009

Melanie Phillips makes a pretty remarkable claim at the end of this post:

The fact is that Israel faces the nightmare scenario that it now stands alone -- and against America. Whether through naivety, ideology or rank malice, there is now a fifth columnist in the White House, undermining the cause of the free world. The vast majority of Americans who staunchly support Israel's struggle to exist in the face of genocidal attack, and understand only too well its role as the front line of defence for the free world, need to become aware of what is being done in their name.

As polemic, this is fine stuff. But as analysis I confess I find it somewhat exaggerated. Whatever one thinks of the UN Geneva (Durban 2) conference (not much, actually), the notion that the United States is now hostile to Israeli interests is more than a little eyebrow-raising.

Consider, for instance, the text of House Resolution 34, introduced in January. It expresses the House of Representatives'

"vigorous support and unwavering commitment to the welfare, security, and survival of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state with secure borders, and recognizes its right to act in self-defense to protect its citizens against Hamas’s unceasing aggression, as enshrined in the UN Charter" [emphasis added].

It passed by 390 votes to 5. A similar resolution in the Senate attracted 100% support. If this constitutes Congress abandoning Israel then the bar for demonstrating that one supports Israel is set at such a height that it's all but impossible to clear it.

And is the new President really a "fifth-columnist"? Well consider this:

AIPAC stands with President Barack Obama who stated so clearly when he visited Sderot last year, “If somebody was sending rockets into my house, where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”

Marty Peretz is no-one's idea of a dove, so perhaps he has some credibility when he asked last year:

Can friends of Israel - and Jews - trust Obama? In a word, Yes.

Or if Marty's not good enough for you, how about Jeffrey Goldberg?

Barack Obama has called Israel America's strongest ally in the Middle East; he wants to stop Iran from getting the bomb; he is a stalwart enemy of Hamas and Hezbollah; he is the darling of Chicago Jewry; he is the protege of Sen. Dick Durbin, whose election was aided immeasurably by AIPAC; he himself is close to AIPAC; his advisers include Dennis Ross, Jim Steinberg and Richard Clarke; and on and on and on.
So, all you rumor-mongering, fever-headed Jewish conspiracists: Support McCain, if you want, and there are credible reasons for doing so, but stop smearing Obama in the face of overwhelming evidence that the man is a great friend of Jews and of Israel.

See also this interview with Goldberg in which, among other things, Obama categorically dismisses Jimmy Carter's description of Israel as an apartheid state.

Then there's the President himself. When he addressed AIPAC last year, he said:

I know that when I visit with AIPAC, I am among friends. Good friends. Friends who share my strong commitment to make sure that the bond between the United States and Israel is unbreakable today, tomorrow and forever...
Nothing reflects the face of AIPAC more than the 1,200 students who have traveled here to make it clear to the world that the bond between Israel and the United States is rooted in more than our shared national interests — it's rooted in the shared values and shared stories of our people. And as president, I will work with you to ensure that this bond is strengthened...

We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work. But 60 years later, we know that we cannot relent, we cannot yield, and as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel's security...

Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.

That starts with ensuring Israel's qualitative military advantage. I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation. First, we must approve the foreign aid request for 2009. Going forward, we can enhance our cooperation on missile defense. We should export military equipment to our ally Israel under the same guidelines as NATO. And I will always stand up for Israel's right to defend itself in the United Nations and around the world...

Let me be clear. Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

One could go on, but I suspect there's little point in doing so. As it happens I am not a great fan of Durban 2 and I'm also sceptical that there are many lessons from Northern Ireland that can usefully be applied to the Middle East. But trying to find a settlement, however improbable a task it may be, still seems a better option than not trying. In any case the notion that Obama intends to "sell out" the state of Israel is not, I think, supported by anything in his record. Equally, the notion that the United States has betrayed Israel and will abandon the Jewish state seems, shall we say, somewhat fanciful.

For that matter, if Obama is, as Melanie says, a "fifth columnist" does that mean - as logic suggests it must - that Obama is not merely "objectively" but actively on the side of Osama bin Laden, Hamas and every other manifestation of Islamism? If so, I guess it's a testament to his devious genius - his brilliance as a "fifth columnist" - that so many wise people have failed to detect this conspiracy. Indeed, I suppose every declaration of support for the Israeli point of view cannot be trusted because, as a fifth columnist, he would say that wouldn't he? In other words, the conspiracists draw succour from evidence that directly contradicts or refutes their views, creating an essentially unfalsifiable argument into which no daylight can intrude.

Filed under: Barack Obama (255 more articles) , Israel (104 more articles) , Middle East (271 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (18)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

ndm

February 20th, 2009 10:37pm Report this comment

Great response. I have long believed the main reason Melanie Phillips' comments depart so far from reality is that they, on the whole, remain unchallenged.

Glenn Greenwald has a really great post in Salon on the smear techniques used by those who share Phillips' ideas.

-- But what is worth noting -- and celebrating -- is that a significant and palpable change has occurred. Whereas these smear tactics once inspired fear in many people, now they just inspire pity. They no longer work. Very few Americans are going to refrain from expressing their views on American policy towards Israel out of fear that the Jeffrey Goldbergs of the world are going to screech "anti-Semitism" at them. Neocons are far too discredited and their policies far too self-evidently destructive for them to intimidate anyone out of questioning their orthodoxies. Now, watching neocons recklessly spew their bitter little epithets in lieu of (and in order to suppress) debate is like watching an old, dying dragon sadly trying to breathe mighty fire from its mouth but collapsing in a debilitating coughing fit instead -- or is like watching a disgraced, post-censure Joe McCarthy in 1956 stand in an empty Senate chamber and rail against hidden Communists. Nobody cares.

-- America's destructive involvement in all Israeli conflicts and its blind devotion to all Israeli actions is one area where -- not due exclusively or even primarily to Obama -- change is on its way. That policy just isn't sustainable any longer, nor are the myths that have long been propagated, and the smear tactics that have long been invoked, in service of shielding that policy from critical scrutiny and open debate. As the debate finally unfolds, Jeffrey Goldberg can -- and almost certainly will -- scream "anti-Semite" until he loses his voice. But the louder he screams, the more he abuses and exploits that accusation, the fewer people who will be listening. Or caring.

-- Indeed, people like Goldberg are becoming extra rancid and reckless in their rhetoric precisely because they know that these rhetorical devices have ceased working. There is a definite sea change when it comes to American policy debates toward Israel. They no longer possess the ability to stifle dissent through thuggish intimidation tactics and they know that, which is why they can now do nothing but turn up the volume on their name-calling attacks.

And the rest of Greenwald's lengthy post continues in the same vein.

MattF

February 20th, 2009 10:39pm Report this comment

As you note, Ms Phillips appears to be quite innocent of any actual knowledge of American politics. But now I'm curious: who is the -actual- target of her wrath?

Francis

February 20th, 2009 11:31pm Report this comment

I think this is naive concerning the way Marxism works. Of course he says he supports Israel but you should never trust a Marxist. You should never believe what a marxist says but pay attention to his ideological background and his record and his actions. However support of Israel is a sine qua non of getting elected in America so I suspect he will be constrained by that.

Matthew Blott

February 21st, 2009 12:08am Report this comment

Alex Massie finds a Melanie Phillips post a bit over the top. I guess you don't get to read her too much then.

ndm

February 21st, 2009 12:38am Report this comment

In a remarkable conflation of two distinct ideas Francis writes: "Of course he says he supports Israel but you should never trust a Marxist." The person you should NEVER trust is the person who asserts that President Obama is a Marxist because such a person is merely peddling crazy conspiracy theories.

Will Heaven

February 21st, 2009 1:03am Report this comment

Brilliant. I shall be reading more of Alex Massie in future.

elixelx

February 21st, 2009 1:08am Report this comment

Alex, there is a flaw in your argument...you quote barry and quote about barry THE CANDIDATE, while completely ignoring the actions of barry THE POTUS....
Melanie is exactly right... barry is a fifth column. If you knew him and his intentions he wouldn't be a fifth column! That's our problem with the man...he is a sleeper, deep-cover, fifth columnist who will slowly but surely reveal the two-faced actions that mark his ilk!

David

February 21st, 2009 2:36pm Report this comment

Don't worry Alex, Melanie and her supporters are never one to let reality get in the way of their worldview. For example, she'll both support and dismiss comments from the same person, depending if they fit. If they do, they tell the truth, if not, they are dissembling.

It's poor journalism for a start.

Francis

February 21st, 2009 5:54pm Report this comment

"such a person is merely peddling crazy conspiracy theories."
Oddly this rather amused me.

Actually I didnt allege a conspiracy (the collusion of the media with Obama hardly counts as a secret).
I think in retrospect that the repeated mention of Marxism contributed little to the understanding of what I was saying. Obama is hardly the reincarnation of Stalin but it is undeniable that he has intellectual links with ideas that are associated with Marxism or influenced by it. He is not a Tory after all (however much he rabbits on about Lincoln).
Maybe loony-lefty would be better as it clearly isnt meant in a technical sense to specify where in the general stream of left wing thought he belongs.
The point of what I was trying to say is about language and its abuse. After New Labour surely everyone accepts that it can be used as much to disguise truth or distract it as much as to reflect. No doubt all politicians are a little economical with the actualite on occasion but the gulf between rhetoric and reality on the left seems more like a chasm. Whether you belive this is because they are stupid or deceitful is a matter of opinion.
Take the matter of the "stimulus" bill. If you listen to waht is said you would think that it was designed to stimulate the economy but the reality does not reflect this. Obama may have talked of bipartisanship but if you pay attention to the reality it was a very partisan, very liberal bill where the views of Republicans were essentially ignored. Obama has a majority so thats fine but its not bipartisan - that is just rhetoric. Whether he is sincere or not I have no idea. Talk right, act left is the oldest trick in the book. Lets see what he does, rather than what he says and see if it better reflects his centrist rhetoric (if you see it as such) or his record and ideological/ intellectual heritage. Krathammer and Ms Phillips pay attention to what he is doing as opposed to what he is saying and i think they are wise to do so. So far its not encouraging.

Deegee

February 22nd, 2009 8:26am Report this comment

I find this amazing - you an refute current BEHAVIOUR based on past campaign statements?? is that how we should judge all politicians? never mind what they actually DO, just look at what they said to get elected. Have you read the transcripts from americas participation on planning for Durban II so far?? it seems unlikely. you must fall over often if you always walk facing backwards

Lee Jakeman

February 22nd, 2009 8:28am Report this comment

If Melanie turns out to be right (she often does), would you take back what you've said?

Like her, I don't trust Obama. He's too good to be true.

ndm

February 22nd, 2009 7:36pm Report this comment

Lee Jakeman writes: "If Melanie turns out to be right (she often does), would you take back what you've said?"

I don't think there is much risk of Melanie Phillips being right on anything. A quick glance at her Wikipedia entry has the words "Evolution," "MMR Vaccine," and "Global Warming" dripping off the tongue and that's before we've even reached the "Accusations of "McCarthyism."

THX1138

February 22nd, 2009 10:26pm Report this comment

Lee Jakeman- What is she right about? Not stuff where you agree with her but right as in the sun sets in the west right.

Why don't some of you join me fighting in the comments section of her blog I just went 10 rounds on that racist thug Wilders, okay so the Mel acolytes attack so what, sticks & stones. I agree with Will Heaven this was a great post and I'm really enjoying this blog.

ndm

February 23rd, 2009 1:39am Report this comment

THX1138 asks "Why don't some of you join me fighting in the comments section of her blog."

The obvious answer, given the moral judgment and intellectual acuity of Phillips and her commenters, is that it would be like going for a pish in Carstairs.

THX1138

February 23rd, 2009 7:32am Report this comment

ndm- Well in the past I have compared Mel to Nurse Ratched.

NYCDAN

February 24th, 2009 12:20am Report this comment

Whoever this Massie guy is, he needs to get that shag carpet off his head and find a good barber before he starts handing out advice to other people.

Aethelbald

February 24th, 2009 3:47pm Report this comment

THX1138, Not every comment submitted to Ms Phillips gets published. If you write a real winner you may find that it evaporates in transit.

ndm

February 24th, 2009 5:05pm Report this comment

Aethelbald - the other risk you run is having your posts airbrushed out of history like someone in a Kundera novel. I even had one case where my post was removed but the full text remained in a quote by another commenter. As Kundera wrote on the opening page of The Book of Laughter and Forgetting "All that remains of Clementis is the cap on Gottwald's head."

I see that Andrew Sullivan has hat-tipped this post in awarding Melanie Phillips YET another of his Malkin Awards. I guess there remain some circles where they are coveted. However, I thought there was still a rule where if you won three you got to keep the trophy - so the cleaning staff at The Spectator will soon have to get out the silver polish.

Post comment