Debate Summary: Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel
You can file this in the "there isn't a dime's worth of difference between Obama and Romney" archive, which at this point could fill a library. Justin Raimondo over at antiwar.com has a good summary of the 3rd debate. I don't understand how anyone with an IQ of a functioning human can't see that Israel directs America's foreign policy and that all politicians with high aspirations must pander accordingly.
Debate Summary: Israel, Israel, Israel, Israel
And, oh yeah, America
by
Justin Raimondo,
October 24, 2012
Print This |
Share This
One striking impression of
this debate was that out of some 17,000 words uttered by both candidates and the moderator, about half of them were about domestic policy. Neither candidate wanted to talk about foreign policy — because the differences between them are
negligible. Out of this half, about 1500 words were devoted to the subject of Israel — around 20 percent. And it’s not as if the candidates disagreed: indeed, they competed for the role of Israel’s Best Friend. Obama was first to pledge allegiance to Tel Aviv, less than ten minutes after the starting bell. Outlining
the foundations of his foreign policy, he averred:
“
What I’ve done throughout my presidency and will continue to do, is, number one, make sure that these countries are supporting our counterterrorism efforts; number two, make sure that they are standing by our interests in Israel’s security, because it is a true friend and our greatest ally in the region.”
According to the President, Israel’s security is our number two priority not only in the region, but also in a much broader sense, second only to going after our own enemies. That’s an odd way to define our hierarchy of foreign policy values: what about the security and prosperity of the region as a whole? The Israel-pandering was obsessive and I’m not the only one who
noticed it.
No aspect of our Middle Eastern policy was discussed without reference to how it might play in Israel. When Syria came up, Obama made a point of saying that although “Syrians are going to have to determine their own future,” our
efforts to
aid the
rebels are being carried out “in consultation with our partners in the region, including Israel, which obviously has a huge interest in seeing what happens in Syria.”
Romney chimed in:
“
Secondly, Syria’s an opportunity for us because Syria plays an important role in the Middle East, particularly right now. Syria is Iran’s only ally in the Arab world. It’s their route to the sea. It’s the route for them to arm Hezbollah in Lebanon, which threatens, of course, our ally Israel… We need to make sure as well that we coordinate this effort with our allies and particularly with — with — with Israel.”
Never mind what the people of Syria want: it’s all about what Israel wants. This duet was sung in many variations. On Egypt, the President warned:
“
They have to abide by their treaty with Israel. That is a red line for us, because not only is Israel’s security at stake, but our security is at stake if that unravels.”
This wasn’t enough for Romney, however, who came back with:
“
We have to also stand by our allies. I think the tension that existed between Israel and the United States was very unfortunate.”
Not to be out-Israeled, the President struck back:
“
Our alliances have never been stronger. In Asia, in Europe, in Africa, with Israel where we have unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, including dealing with the Iranian threat.”
After all that, Bob Schieffer decided it was time to “move on to the next segment: red lines, Israel, and Iran.” A visitor from Mars might be forgiven for being confused at this point: didn’t the
last segment cover that territory? Us earthlings understand, however, that when it comes to foreign policy, one can never kowtow too long or too low in the direction of Tel Aviv, and so Schieffer gave the candidates yet another opportunity to prostrate themselves before
King Bibi:
“
Would either of you be willing to declare that an attack on Israel is an attack on the United States, which of course is the same promise that we give to our close allies like Japan? And if you made such a declaration, would not that deter Iran? It’s certainly deterred the Soviet Union for a long, long time when we made that — when we made that promise to our allies.”
(continue to the full article)
http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2012/10/23/debate-summary-israel-israel-israel-israel/
