Obama and the 51st Veto

Obama is not the great and true president of 2011. His economic leadership is problematic and his chances of re-election are low. One good thing about him: In his actions and his policies, Barack Obama is fundamentally pro-Israeli. The rest is politics.

For example, take his speeches in May at the State Department and at AIPAC, his own statements on Israel before the elections in 2008 and in the last two years his public opinions on the Palestinian process in the U.N.

Now, drop the title “Barack Obama” and what do you get? The combined opinions of Ehud Barak, Shimon Peres, Yitzhak Rabin, Tzipi Livni, Amir Peretz, Ehud Olmert, Dan Meridor, 100 army generals, the heads of Mossad and Shin Bet, 60 percent of Israelis and 70 percent of American Jews.

Now, put back the name “Obama” at the top of the document and what do you get? A hostile president, sucking up to the Arabs, appeasing the axis of evil, abandoning an ally, probably Muslim, a lack of feelings towards Israel, threatening its security, detesting Prime Minister Netanyahu for no reason, trying to tie Israel up in processes that will damage its power and protection.

A Veto Which is Entirely Contradictory in Nature

Since 1949, the United States has exercised its Security Council veto 50 times against anti-Israeli resolutions. The 51st time is likely to occur in the coming days, if indeed the Palestinian request for recognition as a member state of the U.N. reaches the Security Council.

It will be Barack Obama who will cast this veto. It was also Barack Obama who cast the 50th veto last February, against a resolution calling on Israel to freeze the construction of settlements.

The political request for the extension of the construction freeze came from Obama himself. Netanyahu refused, and Obama vetoed anyway. In both instances it is a veto which is entirely contradictory in nature — a veto against government policy itself and even a veto against U.S. policy since President Lyndon Johnson accepted Security Council resolution 242 in 1967. Obama thinks and says very serious things. He says that the future of Israel and its security will only be secured by political separation from the Palestinians.

It’s not a case here of historical justice or “narratives” colliding, but a demographic reality that threatens the existence of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state. He says that the U.S. guarantees the security of Israel and the strong, strategic and valued partnership between them that is deep and durable. He says that the U.S. will continue to help maintain Israel’s qualitative edge and its accessibility to weapons systems and advanced technologies.

Obama with a Skullcap

Obama says exactly what most of the U.S. national security, foreign policy and intelligence establishment says. The president stirs passions so intense that New York Magazine this week chose for its cover, a picture of Obama wearing a white skullcap with the headline “The First Jewish President.”

Barack Obama, writes John Heilemann “is the best thing Israel has going for it right now. Why is that so difficult for Netanyahu and his American Jewish allies to understand?” Obama doesn’t say that the absence of a political process damages U.S. interests in the region — interests which since the collapse of the Soviet Union are evolving and expanding.

He leaves these determinations to the former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates or the C.I.A. Director David Petraeus. So what if in the last two years the scope of cooperation between the two countries is unprecedented in quality and quantity? A president who doesn’t appreciate Netanyahu is a hostile President to the state of Israel and the Zionist enterprise.

That Israel is Not a Major Issue for Jewish Voters in America …

… is a simple notion highly persuasive to the American Jewish right, the Jewish center that is frightened by what it has seen and been exposed to, the Republicans who want to inherit the presidency and the Israelis.

The Reasons to Recoil from and be Suspicious of Obama Are Many and Varied

One reason is related to image, another to political hatred. Also, the president needs to be loved and admired, but, unlike Clinton and Bush, Obama is not an emotional person. Other reasons stem from racism, but most are the fault of the president and his presidential style.

Seventy-eight percent of American Jews voted for Obama. This result is consistent with past voting percentages for Clinton, Gore and John Kerry. Jews vote as Americans. Contrary to the impression that we have, Israel is not a major concern to Jews in the United States, although the prospect of confrontation with Israel causes great discomfort. Even a large portion of those Jews who are in fact opposed to his Middle East policies, largely for stylistic reasons, are mostly angry about his economic policies.

Obama’s public approval rate is 42 percent; among Jews, it is 54 percent. Compared to the percentages of the public that voted for him (53 percent of the public and 78 percent of Jews respectively), this is a great retreat. However, Obama’s problem is not American Jews. His problem is the hostile image of him painted by those in Jerusalem.

Obama is not the great and true president of 2011. His economic leadership is problematic, his presidential style is absurd and his chances of re-election are now less than 50 percent. One good thing about him: In his actions and his policies, Barack Obama is fundamentally pro-Israeli. The rest is politics.