Berkeley 12/4/11 Debate Notes: Is the Obama Administration Good For Israel?

Last night I was fortunate to attend a debate panel discussion at Temple Nativot Shalom in Berkeley, between The Progressive Zionist's own volleyboy1 on one side, and Michael Lumish of Karmafish and Michael Harris of Stand With Us on the other, on the question "Is the Obama Administration Good For Israel?"

Volley has been a long-time supporter of President Obama and a progressive Zionist committed to the two-state solution. Both Lumish and Harris stated that they had voted for Obama in 2008, but were unsure now in the case of Harris or certainly opposed in the case of Lumish, and were both also in favor of the two-state solution.

The audience of around 40 people was mostly older, and seemed to contain a combination of hard-line - and perhaps hard right - Israel supporters - including one man who referred to the West Bank settlements as "outposts", as well as many individuals who displayed more of a sensibility that would be considered stereotypical of Berkeley. There did not appear to be any anti-Zionists.

-----------

The centerpiece of the argument for, presented by Volley, were the statements from Israeli officials, especially current Defense Minister and former Prime Minster Ehud Barak, as well as prime minister Netanyahu, lauding Obama's commitment to and defense of Israel. It seems that Ehud's effusive comments, as cited by Volley, really do go beyond the perfunctory, and establish Obama as a true friend and defender of Israel, at least in the eyes of the Defense Minister.

It was also noted that Obama has increased US aid to Israel and supported the transfer of military hardware that was held up by the Bush Administration.

The argument against rested on three points: 1) That in making a settlement freeze a precondition for talks, Obama gave Abbas an easy 'out' to not participate, 2) That Obama has enabled the rise of Islamists in the wake of the Arab spring, and 3) that Obama has committed rhetorical lapses justifying the Palestinian narrative.

The second point is the one I take the most issue with. It seems that Lumish and Harris would have had Obama stick by Mubarak or even Gadhaffi. Such a move would have been disastrous IMO, as it was clear that Mubarak was almost universally loathed at home and would most certainly have fallen with or without US rhetorical support for the opposition. That would have likely put the US in an even worse position than now. So I don't think Obama can be faulted for what has happened in Egypt, or really in any other Arab country recently.

The third point is highly debatable. Volley pointed to quotes where Obama took the Palestinians to task for their rejectionism, while Lumish and Harris pointed to other statements, including some by other administration officials, such as when Secretary of State Clinton said that moderate Islamism was possible. I think that it is hard to establish a consistent pattern one way or the other.

The first above listed point is the one which I found to be the most intriguing and deserving of further thought. I believe this may indeed have been a blunder on Obama's part. However, the totality of his administration's actions are what need to ultimately be evaluated in order to answer the question.

Personally, I believe that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the Obama administration has been good for Israel on balance, although certainly not perfect.

-------------------

There were areas of agreement. All three debate panelists agreed that it would be extremely helpful, both in terms of putting pressure on Abbas and moving the conversation forward, if the Israeli government would put out a map of their proposed final borders.

Also, in a discussion afterward, I believe we managed to agree that the tactics of 'guilt by association' practiced around this issue were ridiculous and should be avoided, whether applied to Obama (e.g. Obama was friends with offensive person X) or applied to bloggers (e.g. anyone affiliated with blog Y is bad). People can be and very often are friends and debate partners with those with whom they completely disagree politically.

I found the complete lack of anti-Zionists in attendence refreshing, as I was concerned given the combination of the Berkely venue and their propensity to show up anywhere they are not wanted.