AIPAC speeches
Sen. Obama's first major speech as the Democratic nominee in all but name was at the AIPAC conference in Washington DC. And as usual he spoke well, but what was more important the content of his speech was all that any American Jew or Israeli could wish for. Not only did he pledge undying support for the US-Israeli alliance, but he also vowed that Jerusalem would remain undivided, something that even the current Olmert coalition cannot guarantee. However, today his staff issued a clarification, saying that he meant it would not be divided as in the past, but must be a subject of "final status" negotiations between Israel and the PA.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, the Republican nominee, also made comparable speeches, and each vied with the other in their pledges of support for Israel. They all also warned Iran that all possible means are "on the table" after sanctions and diplomatic attempts to stop Iranian nuclear development. What was most surprising was that Obama, after having previously stated that he would negotiate with America's enemies, including Iran, without any preconditions, now seemed to have backed away from that policy. He emphasized that even he would not shrink from the use of force if nothing else worked.
What are we to make of these policy turnarounds, or at least changes in emphasis, of Obama. He is clearly fishing for American Jewish votes, especially after separating himself from his former Church. But, that is not surprising. However, known true friends of Israel such as Hillary Clinton or John McCain, who have proved themselves over periods of years in all sorts of difficult situations, are much more trusted by American Jews than is Obama. He speaks well, but in the very dangerous times ahead, dealing with Iran and terrorism, actually he is an unknown. Yes, you can choose to believe him, but what politician keeps his campaign promises? It is only by his actions that you can know and trust him or her, and unfortunaely Obama does not have a record.
Hillary has all but admitted defeat now that Obama has reached the number of delegates required, so he is the projected nominee. That leaves Hillary to decide her options. Of course, the most often mentioned is VP, but most commentators seem to agree that Obama (and his wife Michelle) would rather drink poison than appoint Hillary VP. She comes with baggage, not only her own, but her husband Bill. Don't you think as a fomer Pres. he'd want to put in his few cent's worth and give Obama the benefit of his experience (on how to deal with female aides).
Although Hillary may have been defeated, there is sufficient animosity between some of her supporters (the women's groups, the blue collar workers) and Obama's that many will break with the Democratic Party and support McCain. It's been done before, remember the Reagan democrats.
So the conclusion is that all three Presidential candidates, or at least the two left standing, are very pro-Israel, but only if Obama gets elected and has some well known former Govt. officials for advisors, such as Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, or (God forbid) Zbigniew Brezinski, will we then have something to really worry about.
Olmert also gave an excellent speech at AIPAC, but since very few trust his word and his political future is in doubt, what he said may not be worth much.
Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain, the Republican nominee, also made comparable speeches, and each vied with the other in their pledges of support for Israel. They all also warned Iran that all possible means are "on the table" after sanctions and diplomatic attempts to stop Iranian nuclear development. What was most surprising was that Obama, after having previously stated that he would negotiate with America's enemies, including Iran, without any preconditions, now seemed to have backed away from that policy. He emphasized that even he would not shrink from the use of force if nothing else worked.
What are we to make of these policy turnarounds, or at least changes in emphasis, of Obama. He is clearly fishing for American Jewish votes, especially after separating himself from his former Church. But, that is not surprising. However, known true friends of Israel such as Hillary Clinton or John McCain, who have proved themselves over periods of years in all sorts of difficult situations, are much more trusted by American Jews than is Obama. He speaks well, but in the very dangerous times ahead, dealing with Iran and terrorism, actually he is an unknown. Yes, you can choose to believe him, but what politician keeps his campaign promises? It is only by his actions that you can know and trust him or her, and unfortunaely Obama does not have a record.
Hillary has all but admitted defeat now that Obama has reached the number of delegates required, so he is the projected nominee. That leaves Hillary to decide her options. Of course, the most often mentioned is VP, but most commentators seem to agree that Obama (and his wife Michelle) would rather drink poison than appoint Hillary VP. She comes with baggage, not only her own, but her husband Bill. Don't you think as a fomer Pres. he'd want to put in his few cent's worth and give Obama the benefit of his experience (on how to deal with female aides).
Although Hillary may have been defeated, there is sufficient animosity between some of her supporters (the women's groups, the blue collar workers) and Obama's that many will break with the Democratic Party and support McCain. It's been done before, remember the Reagan democrats.
So the conclusion is that all three Presidential candidates, or at least the two left standing, are very pro-Israel, but only if Obama gets elected and has some well known former Govt. officials for advisors, such as Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, or (God forbid) Zbigniew Brezinski, will we then have something to really worry about.
Olmert also gave an excellent speech at AIPAC, but since very few trust his word and his political future is in doubt, what he said may not be worth much.
posted by Jack Cohen at 9:55 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home