114 Days to Go
What Still Bothers Me About Obama

By Sherwin Pomerantz

With 114 days to go until the United Nations General Assembly convenes in New York and, given the additional remarks of President Obama on Sunday to the AIPAC Conference in Washington, I am now more bothered by the President than I was after Thursday’s remarks.

On the surface of it, listening to his 26 minute friendly talk to the 10,000 AIPAC delegates (bless them) gathered in the hall, one could easily walk away saying to oneself “you know, he really is right, peace is something we need to strive for and he has laid out a plan that we all have discussed in the past, so why not go for it?” But what is scary is that the President’s presentation of his vision for peace carried with it multiple promises of strong support from the United States. However, at any number of places during his presentation he simply altered the facts to make the audience believe that when push comes to shove he and his administration are always there for us. Really? I don’t think so.

Some examples of what he said:

“There was nothing particularly original in my proposal; this basic framework for negotiations has long been the basis for discussions among the parties, including previous U.S. Administrations…What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately.”

But as we all know, previous administrations never accepted the 1967 armistice lines as the starting point for any negotiations. It was always assumed by prior administrations that some of the territory gained by Israel during the six-day war would be kept by Israel. Former President Bush even wrote that to former Prime Minister Sharon in 2004 and the Palestinians in earlier negotiations had agreed to this concept as well. What the President did in making this statement (and in his confirmation of it on Monday) was to reset the clock back to June 1967 thereby dramatically hurting Israel’s current negotiating position. Quite a gift to the other side, I would say.

“So when the Durban Review Conference advanced anti-Israel sentiment, we withdrew. When an effort was made to insert the United Nations into matters that should be resolved through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, we vetoed it.”

Does he seriously believe that these are true statements of fact? As all of us recall it was Canada, to its credit that withdrew from the conference. History will show that the U.S. participated in the meetings on the agenda, even after it was clear that it was going to be another Israel/Jew-bashing event, thus affording it a reasonable degree of legitimacy.

As for the US’ recent UN Security Council veto, how can any of us forget the incredible strength it took for Amb. Susan Rice to raise her hand during that meeting and, even more disturbing than that was her fawning regret at having to do so. Not the kind of reluctant support that I would brag about if I were this President.

Of course, in his speech on Monday there was also his description of what the United States is doing to address the Iranian threat:

“Here in the U.S., we’ve imposed the toughest sanctions ever on the Iranian regime. At the United Nations, we’ve secured the most comprehensive international sanctions on the regime, which have been joined by allies and partners around the world.”

Has he not learned by now that sanctions, per se, are of little value and have, to date, done nothing to stop Iran’s march to nuclear arms capability. I guess he forgot that their reactor went on line last week. And we all remember that when he addressed AIPAC in 2008 as the presumed Democratic candidate for President that he made one of his key points his support for an undivided Jerusalem. But that was just campaign rhetoric to secure the Jewish vote, or so it seems.

So at the end of the day as a citizen of Israel and of the United States as well, I would not want my future security here in Jerusalem to be safeguarded by this particular President. House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, also a Democrat, would be a much better choice as his remarks in support of Israel were clear and unequivocal.

To be sure, we do need to reach a peace agreement with our neighbors and our long term security would clearly be much enhanced if we could do so. I also still believe that this is possible. But the realities that the President thinks are the realities here are little more than his desire to pander to a segment of the world’s population that itself has little respect for him, in spite of his avowed goal to see things in a different light.

We need to keep up the pressure on the delegates to the U.N. not to vote to recognize Palestinian statehood in September in our state goal of preserving this land as the legitimate homeland of the Jewish people. Let them hear from you!