For any Israelis that worried about the United States' stance on Israel with the new Obama administration, worry no more: While the Obama administration is likely to push for ceasefires and diplomatic talks as much as it can, Mr. Obama will continue the US policy of defending Israel's sovereignty, safety, and actions. Allow me to elaborate.Many have somehow worried that Obama's quiet stance on Gaza was a sign that he harbors quiet anti-Israeli tendencies. Not so, I am rather sure. More likely, Obama's quietness allows him to appear neutral coming into the negotiations, which will assist the Israelis more than anyone. The Israelis made sure to rush into this war so that they would not immediately force Mr. Obama into a difficult spot with them, and Mr. Obama has graciously responded by staying out of it for now. it was a wonderful piece of diplomacy, and something that quietly reaffirms Obama's commitment to working with Israel into the future.
The House passed a bill today affirming "Israel's r
ight to defend itself" 395-5 (with a few abstentions, it seems)--it was sponsored by Nancy Pelosi, House majority leader. Big deal? Yes. The House, including a vast bipartisan majority and its Democratic leadership--is behind Israel, and willing to go out on a branch for it.Senate majority leader Harry Reid also supports Israel's action in Gaza, saying (I paraphrase, sorry): "Hamas has to go." He sponsored a resolution with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell supporting Israel's action, and it passed unanimously. That's right, unanimously.
So the new wave of American politicians are firmly and undeniably in the Israel camp. The tactics might be different, but the support isn't. Even if Obama does harbor some anti-Israeli-policy sentiment (which I really can't say either way, I just hear a lot of people complain about it), he certainly has no room to try to do anything about it--his party is firmly a pro-Israel party for at least the next fair while. This will be significant for the Israeli elections coming soon: American approval of the current party's action (Kadima) should raise confidence that they should keep the same horse in the race--I expect full well that Kadima is going to run away with this election and have a new mandate among the Israeli electorate.
2 comments:
To make one clarification about Senate process in regards to the Senate resolution: it passed by unanimous consent, which does not mean that everyone agreed to it, but rather that no one objected to it. Some bills and many resolutions (which generally lack force of law, as this one did) are often passed by unanimous consent (with no vote), but that does not mean that votes would have been unanimously favorable.
Though you are correct that resolutions in support of Israel would likely enjoy overwhelming support if there were a vote.
It reminds me a lot of some other laws and resolutions.
The text can be written such that it's almost impossible to criticize it objectively, but the standard interpretation is wider ranging.
Israel has a right to self-defend itself, like every state and even individual. There's nothing to talk about or to confirm. It's international law, codified in the charter of the United Nations.
The real question is what's self-defence and what not, when is self-defence unproportional (s far this is only a moral matter, not a legal one) and whether military action is useful at all. These are the complicated matters that are all-important, but too complex for mere resolutions and 30 second statements on TV.
Matters can change quickly; a turning point can be reached, a scandal can appear - a resolution like this and AIPAC's influence do not mean that "the new wave of American politicians are firmly and undeniably in the Israel camp." in my opinion.
Post a Comment