Why I’m back on the Obama bandwagon

The following is an excellent article from DrMike. Hopefully we will be seeing a lot of him.

Courtesy of DrMike

Last fall, I was part of a panel discussion entitled “Has the Obama Administration been good for Israel?”.  My position at that time was “regretfully, no.”  Regretfully because I had voted for Obama, I am a lifelong Democrat who has voted for every Democratic Presidential candidate since 1976 except for Carter in 1980 (I voted for John Anderson—remember him?), and I support the creation of a state of Palestine on the condition that it commits to living in peace and mutual recognition with a Jewish state of Israel.   Were this discussion to be held today, my answer would be quite different. 

My concerns last fall were that Obama had blundered badly in his demand that Israel institute a settlement freeze, that he continued to blunder in his May 2011 statement that the 1949 armistice lines were to be the starting point for negotiations, that he never really understood the fact that Jewish statehood was an inherent right of the Jewish people rather than a compensation for the Holocaust, and most worrisome, that he had not taken effective steps to stop the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons.  Yet in the past 6 months, he has made substantial amends for all of these points and, most importantly, showed the necessary leadership in instituting crippling sanctions against the mullahs in Tehran.

Let’s examine where the Administration has been on the Palestinian issue. We really haven’t heard much from them about this since last fall except for the American diplomatic leadership in denying the ill-advised Palestinian attempt to bypass negotiations and seek UN recognition of a Palestinian state.  His speech at the UN in September set the tone: “Peace will not come through statements and resolutions at the UN – if it were that easy, it would have been accomplished by now. Ultimately, it is the Israelis and the Palestinians – not us – who must reach agreement on the issues that divide them: on borders and on security; on refugees and on Jerusalem.” He went on to show a much better understanding of Israel’s position in the region: “But understand this is well America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakeable, and our friendship with Israel is deep and enduring. S we believe that any lasting peace must acknowledge the very real security concerns that Israel faces every single day. Let’s be honest: Israel is surrounded by neighbors that have waged repeated wars against it. Israel’s citizens have been killed by rockets fired at their houses and suicide bombs on their buses. Israel’s children come of age knowing that throughout the region, other children are taught to hate them. Israel, a small country of less than eight million people, looks out at a world where leaders of much larger nations threaten to wipe it off of the map. The Jewish people carry the burden of centuries of exile, and persecution, and the fresh memory of knowing that six million people were killed simply because of who they are.” Yes, he invoked the Holocaust but in the context of the real issue—centuries of exile from our homeland. But more importantly, he followed up on his statements with concerted diplomacy. American leadership was so successful that the Palestinians couldn’t even muster the 9 votes in the Security Council that would have forced the US to cast a veto. 

Obama has also been very generous in funding Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system.  Although anti-Israel extremists are loathe to recognize this, Iron Dome saves Palestinian civilian lives as well as Israelis.  After all, if Islamic Jihad launches a rocket that hits a school and kills scores of children, Israel will be forced to respond—not to wantonly slaughter Palestinian children, but to use whatever force is necessary to eradicate the groups responsible for the rockets.  And while the Israel Derangement Syndrome crowd wouldn’t protest a deliberate attack on an Israeli school, they would readily claim that the Palestinian civilians used as human shields by the terrorists were the victims of “war crimes”. 

Obama’s  speech to AIPAC in March of this year mentioned the Palestinians almost in passing, recognizing implicitly that the Palestinians have not met their commitments, and he did not issue demands of any kind upon Israel.  The words “settlements” and “borders” were completely absent.   What was not absent, and what drew the most attention, was his laying down the red lines to the Iranians:  “Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.  And as I have made clear time and again during the course of my presidency, I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

Most importantly, real sanctions now are having their effect upon the Iranian regime.  The US has convinced its European allies to stop importing Iranian oil and it has taken steps to ensure that Iran is cut off from the international financial system. The Administration had wasted precious time in 2009 and 2010 in an effort to engage the Iranians—an effort that was doomed from the start.  It’s possible that this delay will ultimately make it necessary for the US to deploy force to prevent Iran from making a nuclear weapon.  But when the US Ambassador to Israel states that the US military option “is not just available, it’s ready”, a clear signal has been sent to the Iranians—we have pushed a substantial number of chips to the center of the table in this poker game. 

Skeptics can also point out that Obama has likely recognized that the support of the American Jewish community is essential to his re-election.  It was pointed out at a pundit’s panel at the 2011 AIPAC Policy Conference that when the Democratic candidate carries 70% of the Jewish vote he wins; and if he carries 60% or less he loses.  So is this change of at least tone, if not course, simply a bid to secure his re-election, and would a second-term Obama revert back to the policies that raised legitimate concerns a few years ago?  I don’t claim to know what’s in his heart.   But he now doing what I said I needed him to do before I could support him: prevent the Palestinians from bypassing negotiations, recognizing that Israel does not at the moment have a legitimate partner for peace and therefore stop laying unrealistic demands upon Israel, and take forceful action against Iran.  Even Bill Kristol now recognizes that Obama has moved to the mainstream occupied by previous presidents:  “I am happy to agree with Obama to a considerable degree.” Of course, Kristol has tried to walk back some of this by expressing strong concerns about what a second Obama term would bring. 

Has Obama learned from the mistakes and inexperience of his first two years in office?  Or is this a political con job that would be abandoned on November 7?  I don’t think that a president lays down a marker on US military force-- against a regime known for sponsorship of international terrorism that could attempt such acts against US interests abroad as well as here at home—as a bluff.  I’m going with the guy who got bin Laden.