Nik Gvosdev of The National Interest reports that while some people have suggested that Obama's foreign policy team is hostile to Israel, someone who met with Obama's principal Middle East policy advisor says differently:
"Without equivocation, [Obama advisor Eric] Lynn made clear the United States must always remain a friend of Israel—an old ally and lone democracy in the region. But even more importantly, the United States must ensure Israel maintains its military superiority in order to preserve its right to self-defense. ...
[Update: Let's be clear on what "military superiority" means in this context. It means Israel can have nukes but the Arabs and Iranians can't. That's the cornerstone of Israeli security policy and it has served them well for 30+ years.]
During the July 2006 Lebanon war, and in the face of criticism, Obama backed Israel’s use of force against Lebanon in reaction to missile attacks by Hezballah. “If U.S. soldiers were kidnapped” Obama reportedly said, “we’d be doing much worse,” according to Lynn. ...
Yes, but would we have fucked it up as badly? Probably. Obama gets points off for judgment on that, I think.
"Furthermore, Obama has no desire to drag Israel to the negotiating table. “If Israel wants peace, they will do it their own way,” said Lynn. Obama has called for the Palestinians to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist."
So much for bringing people together.
On Iran, Obama wants mid-level diplomatic contact to influence behavior directly, but would continue to threaten military action to protect Israel.
In other words, there is no daylight between Hillary and Obama on Israel, and precious little difference between either Democrat and Bush.
What benefits would accrue to the United States for abandoning Israel?
Posted by: zenpundit | February 13, 2008 at 01:21 PM
Between "abandonment" and "uncritical acceptance" there are a multitude of options to choose from. But it serves political interests here and in the region to pretend that it's all or nothing. Unfortunately, it may not be in this country's interest.
Anyway, the point of my post was not to advocate a change in policy, but to deflate a little Obamania. I'm simply saying that, whoever wins the election, U.S. policy toward Israel would not change. Although I fail to see exactly what kind of "direct threat" Iran poses to Israel.
Posted by: Mithras | February 13, 2008 at 03:53 PM
U.S. involvement in negotiating the Israeli-Palestinian relationship is a lose-lose scenario for us. It will remain a fruitless endeavor until both sides are ready and able to cut a deal and enforce it. This is a long way off, about a generation and a half indoctrinated with maximalist nationalism needs the time to die off.
Posted by: zenpundit | February 13, 2008 at 10:38 PM
If he only had another term, Bush could speed that up.
Posted by: Mithras | February 13, 2008 at 11:32 PM