Clinton adviser: President's role is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel

[maximusveritas]

I couldn't fit the whole quote in the title, but if it wasn't clear, this Clinton adviser was actually talking about the role of the President of the United States, not the President of Israel.

Here is the remarkable exhange between Obama supporter David Kurtzer and Clinton adviser Ann Lewis speaking in front of a Jewish group:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/17/AR2008031702440_2.html?hpid=topnews&sid=ST2008031702549

Next question to Kurtzer: Obama's assertion that he needn't have a "Likud view" -- that of Israel's right-wing party -- to be pro-Israel. Kurtzer explained that Obama wanted to see a "plurality of views." Silence in the room.

To that, Lewis retorted: "The role of the president of the United States is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded.

The idea that the President of the United States must support the decisions made by Israel, regardless of the wisdom of those decisions or the party making them is outrageous. Clearly, it is the role of the American President to be supportive of Israel, but that occasionally must mean disagreeing with the decisions made by the Israeli government when they go against our own interest or the interest of the Israeli people.

[theoldman]

1. What is missing in this discussion is that many Israelis do not

support their own government. Jews in Israel do not necessarily agree with Jews in America. Most important of all is that Jews in Israel do not agree with Christians in America.

[maximusveritas]

9. Agreed, this is like our allies thinking they must support everything Bush does

Some of them probably did think that in the leadup to the Iraq War, but that was obviously a huge mistake.

[Voice for Peace]

14. And MANY Jews in America don't agree with AIPAC.

[eridani]

20. And of course that AIPAC does not represent American Jews n/t

[NorthernSpy]

2. Holy mother of FUCK!

:wow:


No, Lewis. That's the job of the PM of Israel. The job of the president of the United States is to uphold the US Constitution; to cherish the interests of the United States above the interests of any other nation; and to do the will of the American people. None of that is supposed to be contingent on what Israelis do.


Mearsheimer and Walt were right. We have GOT to take back our foreign policy, and this election offers us a rare chance to get this issue out in the open and do that.


Great find, maximusveritas! We can use this.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. At least eveything is on the table, finally.

Now you know why Abramoff was allowed so much swing.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

4. here is a Haaretz article on the issue

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/966127.html

and Politico.com

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0307/3177.html

[KittyWampus]

10. your loves teh War Machine. She even prays with it's biggest cheerleaders

[shenmue]

5. Right, because it's the role of the president of Israel to sit back...

and accept whatever Palestinians want to do, even if it means giving away a chunk of their country to a bunch of violent Jordanian squatters. No thank you.

Again, you're not allowed to criticize the "saintly" causes. Never mind that nothing called "Palestine" existed until a bunch of people wanted to take land Israel won in the 1967 War. Well, there was one other time-- the Roman Empire. :eyes:

Tell me why it is the Palestinians have never asked for help from... Jordan?

[burythehatchet]

6. wrong forum. The dungeon is thataway

[NorthernSpy]

12. nice try, but the issue here is OUR interests and OUR foreign policy...

... and OUR election, and OUR ownership of those things.


If you want to talk about what Israel should do, or what the Palestinian Authority should, then DU has another forum for that.

[Poll_Blind]

7. Clinton sucks up to the Israeli right-wing, Obama not so willing to.

  Another check mark in the Obama column as far as I'm concerned.

:thumbsup:

  BTW, the whole article (not just the snippets) is worth reading.

PB

[Cali_Democrat]

15. Exactly!! nt

[Cali_Democrat]

8. That's why alot of extremely radical pro-Israel Likud folks are supporting Clinton

The know she will kiss the feet of Israel's Prime Minister. Why do you think those folks are so skeptical of Obama? All the more reason to vote for Obama and end Israeli terrorism.

[Divernan]

22. This is why HRC voted AGAINST banning the cluster bombs Israel carpeted

Lebanon with just before the anticipated ceasefire. It would have offended some of her biggest NY donors if she had voted against one of Israel's favorite weapons. Obama voted to ban these weapons -a not so subtle criticism of Israel's method of waging war on civilians.

When is a cease fire not a cease fire? When you carpet large parts of a country with cluster bombs immediately beforehand.

[Umbram]

11. More politics as usual.

I'm sick of our foreign policy being dictated by foreign interests.

We need to end this pandering to Israel and Anti-Castro Cuban Americans (whatever they might be called now...)

[NorthernSpy]

17. weren't the original anti-Castro emigres supporters of Batista?

So that'd make them the Batista-istas.


:shrug:

[Catherina]

13. That whole article was an eye-opener

Kurtzer, granted his turn to speak, attempted to argue that "on issues relating to Israel, frankly, there aren't any differences among the three candidates." Eagleburger looked at him incredulously; the audience laughed.
...

The skepticism continued through the question time. Daroff said he had "heard in the hallways here" that Obama "doesn't see the U.S.-Israel relationship as much of the mainstream of the Senate or the Jewish community sees it."

[AntiFascist]

16. Not only does that argument sound ridiculous...

since when do most of the people of Israel, or Jews in the US for that matter, support the Likud party? They are probably causing greater danger to Israel than any real threat.

[NorthernSpy]

18. a blog you might find useful...

http://www.philipweiss.org/


Lots of commentary about Obama and the lobby.

[maximusveritas]

19. Thanks for the link

Here's the post where he discusses this specifically and gives a good take on it:
http://www.philipweiss.org/mondoweiss/2008/03/apparently-with.html

He mentions that Milbank uses the phrase "fealty to Israel" without a sense of irony which is something I also found disturbing.

[Frank Booth]

21. Too important to let drop.

:kick:

[moxie_1]

23. It looks like she's saying support the people's choice of *party*---not all the party's decisions.

See below. He says he doesn't have to have a Likud view, and she responds that we should support the people's choice of party to lead (which may or may not be Likud).

That's not the same as saying the US president should support every decision made by that party.

Obama: he needn't have a "Likud view"

Lewis: "The role of the president ... is to support the decisions that are made by the people of Israel. It is not up to us to pick and choose from among the political parties." The audience members applauded.

[maximusveritas]

24. But that doesn't make sense in the context of the debate

They were discussing Obama's following quote:

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel"

Neither Obama nor his supporter said he wouldn't recognize a Likud government or would lend his support to another party. He just said he doesn't think one should "adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach".

And Lewis was disagreeing with that.

[anonymous171]

25. WTF! We aren't a puppet military! We are a sovereign nation!