Obama’s Word
Published in Maariv
(Israel) on 26 September 2011
by Shmuel Rosner (link to original)
On one hand, Obama’s speech was captivating. On the other hand, it is hard to forget a problematic track record. So, do we believe him or not?
At the beginning of March 2007, Barack Obama, at that time a presidential candidate, stood to make his first important speech about Israel. It was in Chicago, the city where he started his campaign, in front of an audience composed of pro-Israeli AIPAC lobby supporters, an audience that Obama seemed pretty determined to win over.
Israel’s security concerns “will always be my starting point,” Obama said in that speech. He continued, “We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests.” After that speech I wrote: “He sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush and as friendly as Giuliani. At least in his rhetoric, Obama passed any test you could have thrown at him. Anyway, he’s pro-Israeli. Period.”
Four and a half years have passed since that speech — four and a half years in which his charisma has eroded and doubts have stirred in the hearts of some of his listeners — years during which Obama certainly did try to “dictate” alternative policies to Israel.
Do these intervening years since the speech in Chicago prove that candidate Obama and President Obama think and feel very differently? That the original speech was a political performance, and now we are seeing his true colors?
Two schools of thought compete with each other over interpreting Obama’s position on Israel. Some say that the American president has a public relations problem. If everyone knew what he had done for Israel, they would not hesitate to call him a great friend, even today.
Others say that the public is not stupid. People are not suspicious of Obama because they do not know what he has done; on the contrary, they are suspicious of him because they know exactly what he has done. Both these schools will go to the elections in 2012 with the president and, along the way, there will be intentional leaks, political spin and performances. Obama’s speech at the U.N. last week is an interesting test case. In response to the speech, there were those who immediately said, “We told you he was in favor of Israel” and also those who immediately said, “It is a performance for the elections.”
In contrast to when that speech in Chicago was given, Obama now has a track record we can examine. Of course, he has a known track record: Squabbles with Netanyahu’s government, recriminations and a continuous bitter dialogue. This is a track record that will be exposed gradually until the election.
There’s No Faith in Obama’s Honesty
Today, for example, the journalist Eli Lake published details in Newsweek of a transfer of “bunker buster” bombs to Israel — a transfer that the Bush administration forbade and the Obama administration approved. Whoever follows Lake’s Twitter account will have seen a short exchange of blows on Friday between him and John Podhoretz, editor of the conservative magazine Commentary and not a fan of Obama.
“White House feeds Eli Lake in desperate effort to get the Jewish vote back that it of course hasn't lost," wrote Podhoretz scornfully. Lake, to put it mildly, did not like the tone. “You need to exercise some impulse control,” he retorted. “It's unbecoming to question my journalism cause you don't like the news."
Podhoretz, rather than casting doubt on Lake’s (excellent) journalism, probably casts more doubt on the level of trust you can give the September 2011 version of Obama, the Obama of the U.N. According to the tone of the commentaries in Israel about Obama’s speech, it seems that even here there is a degree of happiness about the change but no faith in the American president’s honesty. The general message was that after the election he will return to his old tricks. The widespread belief is that this is all happening because of the Jewish vote.
They Will Be Happy to Believe Obama
Obama does not aim for the trust of Israeli Jews. He aims for the trust of American Jews, and his starting point with them is different: Most of them want to believe him.
An American president who is in conflict with Israel is a president who confuses American Jews. A Democratic president who is in conflict with Israel is a president who confuses them even more. Who will the Jews vote for next year — a Republican candidate? It is hard to believe. Will they stay at home? They don’t usually stay at home. Will they vote for Obama? They will be happy to vote for Obama, only if he gives them a lifeline, only if he helps them to be convinced, only if he straightens a few things out. They will be happy to believe Obama, no matter what the Israelis believe.
At the beginning of March 2007, Barack Obama, at that time a presidential candidate, stood to make his first important speech about Israel. It was in Chicago, the city where he started his campaign, in front of an audience composed of pro-Israeli AIPAC lobby supporters, an audience that Obama seemed pretty determined to win over.
Israel’s security concerns “will always be my starting point,” Obama said in that speech. He continued, “We should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests.” After that speech I wrote: “He sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush and as friendly as Giuliani. At least in his rhetoric, Obama passed any test you could have thrown at him. Anyway, he’s pro-Israeli. Period.”
Four and a half years have passed since that speech — four and a half years in which his charisma has eroded and doubts have stirred in the hearts of some of his listeners — years during which Obama certainly did try to “dictate” alternative policies to Israel.
Do these intervening years since the speech in Chicago prove that candidate Obama and President Obama think and feel very differently? That the original speech was a political performance, and now we are seeing his true colors?
Two schools of thought compete with each other over interpreting Obama’s position on Israel. Some say that the American president has a public relations problem. If everyone knew what he had done for Israel, they would not hesitate to call him a great friend, even today.
Others say that the public is not stupid. People are not suspicious of Obama because they do not know what he has done; on the contrary, they are suspicious of him because they know exactly what he has done. Both these schools will go to the elections in 2012 with the president and, along the way, there will be intentional leaks, political spin and performances. Obama’s speech at the U.N. last week is an interesting test case. In response to the speech, there were those who immediately said, “We told you he was in favor of Israel” and also those who immediately said, “It is a performance for the elections.”
In contrast to when that speech in Chicago was given, Obama now has a track record we can examine. Of course, he has a known track record: Squabbles with Netanyahu’s government, recriminations and a continuous bitter dialogue. This is a track record that will be exposed gradually until the election.
There’s No Faith in Obama’s Honesty
Today, for example, the journalist Eli Lake published details in Newsweek of a transfer of “bunker buster” bombs to Israel — a transfer that the Bush administration forbade and the Obama administration approved. Whoever follows Lake’s Twitter account will have seen a short exchange of blows on Friday between him and John Podhoretz, editor of the conservative magazine Commentary and not a fan of Obama.
“White House feeds Eli Lake in desperate effort to get the Jewish vote back that it of course hasn't lost," wrote Podhoretz scornfully. Lake, to put it mildly, did not like the tone. “You need to exercise some impulse control,” he retorted. “It's unbecoming to question my journalism cause you don't like the news."
Podhoretz, rather than casting doubt on Lake’s (excellent) journalism, probably casts more doubt on the level of trust you can give the September 2011 version of Obama, the Obama of the U.N. According to the tone of the commentaries in Israel about Obama’s speech, it seems that even here there is a degree of happiness about the change but no faith in the American president’s honesty. The general message was that after the election he will return to his old tricks. The widespread belief is that this is all happening because of the Jewish vote.
They Will Be Happy to Believe Obama
Obama does not aim for the trust of Israeli Jews. He aims for the trust of American Jews, and his starting point with them is different: Most of them want to believe him.
An American president who is in conflict with Israel is a president who confuses American Jews. A Democratic president who is in conflict with Israel is a president who confuses them even more. Who will the Jews vote for next year — a Republican candidate? It is hard to believe. Will they stay at home? They don’t usually stay at home. Will they vote for Obama? They will be happy to vote for Obama, only if he gives them a lifeline, only if he helps them to be convinced, only if he straightens a few things out. They will be happy to believe Obama, no matter what the Israelis believe.