Wednesday, December 7, 2011

Americas and I



Today's Opinions Poll

Voice Your Opinions
Send a letter to the editor

Send a letter to the editor

Have a response to a piece in The Post?
Submit an op-ed

Submit an op-ed

Make an argument about a topic in the news.
Contact the ombudsman

Contact the ombudsman

Have questions about Post content or practices?
PostOpinions E-Newsletters
Sign-up for e-mail newsletters and alerts and get the news you need delivered directly to your inbox.
See all Washington Post Newsletters
WP Social Reader Hide this
Your Friends’ Most Recent Activity

Tell me more
Trove link goes here
Top Jobs
See More Jobs
Keyword
Location
Jobs by SimplyHired
Right Turn
Posted at 05:30 PM ET, 12/06/2011

Bipartisan disdain for Obama’s Middle East policy

It is getting harder and harder for Democrats to defend the Obama administration on its conduct of foreign policy, regardless of the issue.
You’d think it would be easy for the administration to dump Ambassador Howard Gutman after his widely criticized comments on anti-Semitism. The administration’s decision to double down on him is creating consternation in liberal ranks.
The heavily-Democratic American Jewish Committee expressed its outrage. Executive director David Harris emailed the Weekly Standard this statement:
As we informed Ambassador Gutman, we were appalled by his comments. Muslim anti-Semitism, he should know, has a long and painful history of its own that has absolutely nothing to do with Israel. Moreover, he has inverted cause and effect -- Muslim anti-Semitism is a reason for the conflict with Israel, not a result. And it was this intolerance that also triggered the expulsion, at times accompanied by deadly violence, of hundreds of thousands of Jews from Arab countries, including my wife and her entire family, just as Christian minorities today in Iraq, Egypt and elsewhere face growing persecution, attacks, and pressure to leave.
No mention was made of the State Department’s “full confidence” in Gutman. That is not “appalling” enough to merit comment I suppose.
Meanwhile, another Democrat on Capitol Hill has joined the chorus of criticism. Rep. Steve Rothman (D-N.J.) told Right Turn this afternoon:
Anti-Semitism is inexcusable under any circumstances. Those who use the existence of the Jewish State of Israel or the ongoing deadlock in Israeli-Palestinians peace negotiations as an excuse to hate Jews are nothing more than anti-Semitic bigots. I strongly disagree with Ambassador Gutman’s analysis on the different reasons for anti-Semitism and I am pleased that he has expressed regret for his remarks.
Again, upset, but no direct indictment of the Obama administration.
On background Democrats are more candid. A Democratic Hill staffer was fuming. He emailed me:
The State Department continues to show a lack of understanding of where Congress and the American People are on these sort of issues. When it comes to anti-Semitism and the Middle East policy coming out of the State Department, even Obama’s strongest supporters have to hold their nose when dealing with State. They continually are the weakest link in the Obama Administration when it comes to support for the US-Israel relationship.
Well, the State Department has rarely been the bastion of pro-Israel policy in American history, but this attempts to sidestep the troublesome spot in which pro-Israel Democrats have been placed (again). President Obama, of course, is responsible for his own foreign policy and the decision to keep Gutman is ultimately his. How long can Democrats afford to pull their punches? At some point they are going to take a beating in the media and with their constituents if they try to shelter the president on this.
Tensions are also high between Congress and the White House on Iran sanctions. Sens. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) and Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) have sent a letter to members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees objecting to the administration’s attempts to weaken an Iran sanctions bill that they jointly crafted. Right Turn received a copy of the letter, which reads:

Last week, the U.S. Senate voted 100-0 to adopt the Menendez/Kirk Central Ban of Iran sanctions amendment to the FY12 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). As the authors of this important amendment, we urge you to include the provision as passed by the Senate in the final Conference Report.
The Menendez/Kirk amendment is tough, responsible and, most importantly, bipartisan. It provides the Administration another key tool to curb Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons while keeping oil markets stable and encouraging other nations to reduce Iranian oil purchases. With the support of every single United States Senator, it needs no alterations.
We understand the Administration has submitted to your Committee a list of proposed changes to the Menendez/Kirk amendment - both “technical fixes” and “alterations.” We would note that proposals to delay sanctions implementation and water down the amendment’s penalties are not “technical” in nature and should be rejected.
As the recent IAEA report reminded us, time is not on our side. We must impose crippling sanctions on Iran before the regime acquires nuclear weapons. Therefore, we urge you to adopt the Menendez/Kirk amendment as passed by the Senate in the final NDAA Conference Report.
What will the conferees do? It’s once again a nearly inexplicable move by the administration that suggests, as does its retention of Gutman, that its foreign policy has no rhyme or reason and/or is undermining our and Israel’s security. The Hill reports that Kirk has had enough:
“Not one senator stood with the administration” last week when the upper chamber unanimously approved a plan to sanction firms and other governments that do business with the Central Bank of Iran, Kirk said. He said the 100-0 vote in the Senate on that language “sent a message” that senators feel the administration is not moving aggressively enough with Iran.
Again, this puts Democrats on the spot. Will they cave and agree with the administration’s efforts to soften sanctions? Foreign Policy’s Josh Rogin observes that it’s getting dicey for members like Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.):
In a statement e-mailed to The Cable, Berman indicated that the Kirk-Menendez language might not be the final say in how Congress moves to sanction Iran.
“As the original author of the House amendment to sanction the Central Bank of Iran, I am pleased that the Senate has taken action on this urgent issue. In the near future, the House will pass the Iran Threat Reduction Act, which includes my amendment,” Berman said. “Meanwhile, I will be working with my colleagues in the House, the Senate, and the Administration in an effort to ensure that the final language of the Kirk-Menendez amendment is as tough and sensible as possible and provides a time-frame that corresponds to the rapid progress Iran is making toward developing nuclear weapons.”
One GOP congressional aide told The Cable that if Berman seems to be working to weaken the Senate language, Republicans are ready to use that as fodder against him in his upcoming primary fight against Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA). The two lawmakers’ districts were combined due to redistricting, and they now have to run against each other next year.
Come to think of it, Berman hasn’t spoken out on Gutman either. Right Turn emailed him for comment and will report back anything received.
Meanwhile, these sorts of moves by the administration leave the president open to bipartisan criticism and put Democrats on the ballot in 2012 in a tough spot. As to the latter, their opponents will argue that they rubber stamps for an administration whose Middle East policy has gone off the rails. One thing is certain: Carrying water for the administration has certainly gotten harder this week.
By  |  05:30 PM ET, 12/06/2011
Categories:  2012 campaign, Israel, President Obama
Your washingtonpost.com MyPost ID, bakulaji, will be displayed with your comment.

Limit 3000 characters (3000 characters remaining)


bakulaji
6:47 PM EST
I thought that in progressive western countries, including but not limited to the USA, capital punishment was banned by law."Corporal punishment is defined under human-rights law as "any punishment in which physical force is used and intended to cause some degree of pain or discomfort."
In international situation, where Miss U S Senate, a teacher (sic) is using this ghastly, inhuman, demonic and destructive method to punish a wayward, uppity and bad boy, Iran?
No psychologist, psychiatrist would tolerate such an archaic mean for any believable change in the attitude of the bad boy's future behavior.
Punish any which way you can, Iran hasn't shown any indication, whatsoever, in accepting the US sanctions as detrimental to their long and hard policy to be a regional leader. Not any kind of superpower. One crude bomb does not make Iran a superpower. However one stupid senate bill makes American foreign policy a true, "Great Satan."
Stop pressing the Obama policy, especially, the Middle East policy into a pretzel. Barack Obama is still the president. You, senators, ought to know.
I know. Iran knows, so do Nicolas Sarkozy, Angela Merkel, Vladimir Putin and Wen Jiabao. Did you, Jennifer Rubin find it a surprise that the world is spherical like a ball and not flat like a coin?
A lltle wisdom on your part in collecting quotes for this article would have made the difference between a run of the mill, stale, much padded, biased middle school mandated essay for a final grade.
If I were your teacher, Miss Manners, I would give you a failing grade.
...and I am Sid Harth@arabuhuru.org
Garak
6:24 PM EST
Guttman spoke the truth. Israelis have long known and worried about this.Rubin's blood libel of the Palestinians is racism, pure and simple.
That Democratic staffer forgets he serves the USA, not Israel.
Frak Israel. We've had enough of it Let Rubin take her bile and move there.
jillcohen
4:16 PM EST
Rubin and AIPAC do not constitute bipartisan.
Recommended by 2 readers
ReplyReport
j3hess
3:58 PM EST
I think Obama's foreign policy is mature, balanced, reasonable, and as successful as one can reasonably expect.Rubin wants to subsume US foreign policy to the foreign policy of israel, particularly the policy of the Israeli right. If she weren't so feckless, it would border on having a higher allegiance to a foreign power.
Recommended by 1 reader
ReplyReport
MrMichaelRichards
2:47 PM EST
I know this is going to come as a shock to Ms. Rubin but the sun does not rise and set on AIPAC.What would really do in Obama would be to have him seen again as a rubber stamp for the Putin-style AIPAC lobby. The fact that he refuses to say 'How high?' every time the irredentist Israel lobby growls 'Jump!' is actually a little refreshing.
Recommended by 2 readers
ReplyReport
anofech
1:54 PM EST
MJR3 says:
"Israel...again...yawn...It's time that our foreign policy stopped revolving around this biblical Disneyland."
I live in Israel and I sure want to avoid a nuclear war. If it happens, it wouldn't be Disneyland. I don't know how a sensible person would.it that.
anofech
1:49 PM EST
Iran sanctions? Their pace is so glacial that it is likely a nuclear war will break out before they even bite.
DeltaDon4
1:09 PM EST
I'm an American Jew and believe Ambassador Gutman's comment correctly describe the world as it is today. Those who take such offense are either ignorant of how Middle Easterners feel today or simply believe the world to be as they want it to be rather than how it is. I guess not everyone left George W. Bush's faith-based world for the reality-based world.
Recommended by 4 readers
ReplyReport
wildcat1
1:04 PM EST
The knee jerk outrage to the ambassador's language is telling. He wasn't offering a treatise on the various explanations for historical Antisemitism or even looking for an explanation let alone an excuse.He was stating what is clearly a fact that is always denied by the Israel firsters, that a nations policies actually have an impact on how that nation is viewed by others. The occupation and oppression of 3 million Palestinians has a negative impact on how Israel is viewed throughout the region. For whatever reasons Israel maintains this policy, it is undeniably true that those who support justice for the Palestinians will oppose Israeli policies in the West Bank. It is Israel itself that contends that any opposition to its policies is ipso facto, anti-semitic. The Ambassador was only, mistakenly, using Israel's term of reference.
Will a just solution to the aspirations of Palestinians for legitimate self-determination end antisemitism? Of course not. Will radicals who might wish that Israel not exist as a state in the region give up their dreams of Israel's demise? Probably not. But a solution that results in an independent sovereign Palestinian state will go a long way towards reducing tensions in the region and increase justice at the same time. How can anyone be opposed to that?
Recommended by 3 readers
ReplyReport
walden1
11:40 AM EST
More Republican stink bombs hurled at Obama. Fact is and actually Obama's foreign policy moves, in the Middle East and elsewhere, have been strong, decisive and correct, including trying to put pressure on Israel at the risk of losing the Jewish Lobby votes. Much more courage demonstrated than all the Republican candidates.
Recommended by 6 readers
ReplyReport
non_violence_works
11:45 AM EST
Except for Ron Paul, of course. Lets stop giving all countries our foreign aid, starting with Israel and Pakistan. If Obama had a brain he'd audit the fed and look bipartison.
Recommended by 1 reader
Report
walden1
11:49 AM EST
Boy, you and Ron Paul are both sick...you want to go back to the log cabin days before the Revolutionary War and the Constitution and destroy the federal government. Cool, but it ain't gonna happen to the world's largest economy and most pluralistic democracy on earth...that fact has something to do with why Teddy broke the Robber Barons and why we have and need a Federal Reserve!
Recommended by 1 reader
Report
Hypatia3
10:52 AM EST
Killed Bush's nemesis Bin Ladin, got Reagan's nemesis Kadaffi toppled without committing a single American troop or life... seems like you're having to cherrypick and use vague words like "he's soft on..." while dodging around a lot of this administration's foreign policy successes.
Recommended by 6 readers
ReplyReport
1812overture
9:45 AM EST
It was under President Obama's watch that the problem of Bin ladin was laid to rest. Need my President say more...seems the Republicans failed miserably at this task. I'll be voting for him again, and not for the party of no.
Recommended by 4 readers
ReplyReport
MJR3
9:31 AM EST
Israel...again...yawn...It's time that our foreign policy stopped revolving around this biblical Disneyland.
Recommended by 6 readers
ReplyReport
hank5000
9:16 AM EST
Palestine is a fascist state."The Beleaguered Christians in Bethlehem"
By the acclaimed Muslim journalist Khaled Abu Toameh
Christian families have long been complaining of intimidation and land theft by Muslims, especially those working for the Palestinian Authority.
Many Christians in Bethlehem and the nearby [Christian] towns of Bet Sahour and Bet Jalla have repeatedly complained that Muslims have been seizing their lands either by force or through forged documents.
In recent years, not only has the number of Christians continued to dwindle, but Bethlehem and its surroundings also became hotbeds for Hamas and Islamic Jihad supporters and members.
Moreover, several Christian women living in these areas have complained about verbal and sexual assaults by Muslim men.
Over the past few years, a number of Christian businessmen told me that they were forced to shut down their businesses because they could no longer afford to pay "protection" money to local Muslim gangs.
Recommended by 1 reader
ReplyReport
hank5000
9:10 AM EST
Palestinians has massacred Jews in 1921 1924 1929 and 1931 when Israel did not exist and Palestinians had the west bank.
Load more comments



© 2011 The Washington Post Company


Posted by at

0 comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)