Obama Can't Decide Whether to Stand with Israel

 

by Jennifer Rubin

 

Josh Rogin reports: “The Obama administration is still not saying what it will do if and when the U.N. calls for another international investigation into the Gaza flotilla incident.” You see, Obama is supportive of the Israeli investigation; he just won’t say whether he’ll defend Israel’s right to conduct its own investigation and rebuff UN attempts to set up an international kangaroo court. Rogin tells us:

The uncertainty is whether the Obama administration is willing to actively oppose a new investigation. This uncertainty is compounded by the mixed messages coming from senior officials like Jones, as well as the Obama team’s apparent unwillingness to brush Secretary-General Ban off the plate.

This lack of resolve and maddening squishiness should no longer shock us. While other American presidents would leave no “uncertainty” and would make clear that the U.S. would not countenance such an action from the UN, this president is different (to use Michal Oren’s description). His attitude toward the U.S.-Israel relationship is unlike his predecessor’s. For Obama, the highest foreign-policy priorities are getting along with the “international community,” accommodating our foes (i.e., “engagement”), and reorienting the U.S. toward the “Muslim World.” If those aims come in conflict with Israel’s security needs (which they inevitably do) and its efforts to hold back the assaults on the Jewish state’s legitimacy, Israel may well have to fend for itself.

Unfortunately, the uncertainty in and of itself is harmful both to Israel’s security and America’s international standing. Most immediately, the hemming and hawing demonstrates less than “rock-solid” (Hillary’s description) support for the Jewish state, serving as another sign of  daylight between this administration and the Israeli government. This will only encourage more attacks on Israel (diplomatic or otherwise). As for our own standing, once again, we display what a fickle and unreliable ally we are. Uncertainty is not what allies expect – or what keeps foes at bay.

Perhaps if American Jewry demonstrated the same “uncertainty” about its support for Obama, the administration might feel compelled to straddle less and defend our ally more. Jewish leaders of mainstream groups should be concerned. If Obama has this much difficulty deciding whether to fend off an UN investigation, what will he do when there is another terrorist propaganda stunt? Or when Israel is compelled to attack Iran? It’s not enough for Obama to drop his outward hostity toward Israel. What is required is what Jewish groups expect of every American president — that he stand with Israel unambiguously against efforts to weaken and defame the Jewish state.

Commending him for straddling sends precisely the wrong message to this president. And while we’re talking about straddlers, it’s time for Jewish groups, whose membership is overwhelmingly Democratic, to decide whether at this point in history it is more important to run interference for Obama or to challenge him to live up to his pro-Israel campaign rhetoric.

 

Jennifer Rubin

Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.