Foreign Policy article:"Why is the GOP taking the side of a foreign leader against the US President"

[Pirate Smile]

Blinded by the Right
The GOP's blatantly partisan love for Bibi obscures a dangerous reality: that unwavering support for Israel actually hurts wider U.S. interests in the Middle East.

BY MICHAEL A. COHEN |MAY 24, 2011



-snip-
It is certainly appropriate for members of Congress to disagree with the president's foreign-policy agenda. But it's something else altogether to be appearing to work in concert with the leader of another country in trying to put the president on the defensive -- and seeking to score a partisan political advantage in the process. By openly siding with Netanyahu against Obama and making Arab-Israeli peace a partisan issue, Republicans in Congress are at serious risk of crossing a dangerous line and in the process undermining U.S. interests in the Middle East.

This behavior follows a concerning pattern. Last November, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, after a meeting with Netanyahu, suggested that a Republican Congress would serve as a check on the Obama administration when it came to Israel policy (a position he later sought to walk back). In the fall of 2009, Cantor criticized the Obama administration for its rebuke of the Israeli government over the eviction of Palestinian families in East Jerusalem's Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood. Most surprising of all, the attack was lodged from Jerusalem, where Cantor was heading a 25-person GOP delegation -- an unusual violation of the unspoken rule that members of Congress should refrain from criticizing the U.S. government while on foreign soil. Former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee took a similar position this February while traveling in Israel. He called the Obama administration's opposition to Israeli settlements (a position long held by Democratic and Republican presidents) equivalent to "racism" and "apartheid."

-snip-
But ultimately there is more than politics at stake here. At a critical moment in the political transformation of the Middle East, America's steadfast and unyielding support for Israel -- underwritten by both parties in Congress -- risks undermining America's long-term interests in the region. Last year, Gen. David Petraeus commented in congressional testimony that "Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples (in the region)." His statement provoked controversy in Washington, but ask any seasoned Middle East observer and you'd be hard-pressed to find one who disagrees with the general's assessment. It is not Iraq, Afghanistan, or Libya which is the greatest source of anti-American attitudes in the Arab world -- it is the continued lack of resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the view of many in the region that the United States has its thumb on the scale in favor of Israel.

None of this is to suggest that Washington should turn its back on the Jewish state. But this is also a time when a more evenhanded position on the conflict is desperately needed -- particularly as the United States will need to deal with a new government in Cairo that will likely be less supportive of Israel, a wave of unsteady democratic reforms spreading across the Mideast, and a U.N. General Assembly that appears ready to endorse Palestinian statehood this fall. These events will have serious repercussions not just for Israel but for U.S. policy in the region. Obama at least seems to realize this fact and has -- albeit tepidly -- challenged a recalcitrant Israel to get serious about peace. Yet Congress seems intent on restraining his leverage, effectively holding U.S. actions hostage to the whims of partisan politics -- and in the process working in concert with a foreign leader to do it. At some point, it raises the legitimate question of who is looking out not for Israel's interests, but America's.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/05/24/blinded_by_the_right?page=full

[AtomicKitten]

1. And especially while the prez is out of the country.

[Thrill]

2. The same reason he can't get Gitmo closed

Democrats are weak. They don't back the President up. Look what the so called Leader in the Senate said today.

[Pirate Smile]

4. True - like Gitmo, this is an issue where there is bipartisan opposition to the President so if he

needs any legislation...he's screwed OR they pass legislation containing restrictions preventing him from doing what he could simply using Executive Branch tools. Congress = NIMBY on GITMO + undercut any leverage President Obama could use to pressure Israel.

The irony is, of course, that this isn't helping Israel. It is going to end up hurting both Israel and The United States. Great job, geniuses. :eyes:

[dennis4868]

5. Ummmm you are in DU....

we don't blame the broken congress for ANYTHING....we blame Obama for Everything.....that's the DU way! :-(

[Pirate Smile]

6. Hey, try positive reinforcement.

:)

[Cali_Democrat]

3. "Unwavering support for Israel actually hurts wider U.S. interests in the Middle East"

No shit?

Whooda thunk it?

[nichomachus]

7. Because the GOP is run by traitors

and populated by fools

[Vicar In A Tutu]

8. It's not just the GOP.

It's a great many Democrats, too - it's worse that some of them are otherwise progressive Dems who prove themselves extremely ignorant / brainwashed in this area. I don't think that, for instance, Anthony Wiener can be taken seriously by any intelligent person given his boneheaded stance on this matter.

And before anyone jumps on me, I'm not and will never absolve Palestine of its share of the blame for the ME shitfest, but there's simply no balance amongst 90%+ of Washington politicians, and that's a great shame.

[Fire1]

9. The key issue in this whole mess revolves around the

Israeli borders, which I think could be negotiated fairly. I do understand the prime minister's concerns, however, as a so-called "peace" in that region is always tentative.

[ProSense]

10. This is why

the WH should show members of Congress the joint statement mentioned here. Congress is becoming party to obstructing the peace process.

The negotiating is going to be done by the administration. It's the President's policy to define. He is the leader of this country as much as Netanyahu is the leader of Israel.

Congress can take issue with the President's policy, but it's clear from the piece in the OP that Netanyahu is talking out of both sides of his mouth.