Thoughts on President Obama's Recent Middle East Speeches

While I can understand disagreeing with the vision outlined in President Obama's recent Middle East speeches, I do not understand using them as a basis to call him anti-Israel. In them, he has reaffirmed Israel's right to exist, the strong bonds between the US and Israel, a commtiment to Israeli security and preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, and condemned the Hamas-Fatah unity while stating that Israel can not be expected to negotiated with a terrorist group callng for its destruction, that a Palestinian state must be de-militarized, and opposing the PA's move to seek statehood at the UN.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the entire concept of land-for-peace is based on the ceding most post-67 terriotires - ie, basing it off of the 1967 borders, though not necessarily going back to the exact borders of 48 - which is exactly what Obama has stated, as he clarified today what he meant by :67 borders with mutually agreed upon landswaps, and has been the policy of both every Israeli and every American administration since the days of Rabin and Clinton. To expect Obama to be more "pro-Israe;" ie, right-wing, than that, woild be expecting him to essentially endorse a one-state solution, and be more right-wing than any of his predecessors, as well as large swathes of the Israeli public.

Most people complain about Obama's "tone", which is a very vague term. Others point to his stormy relationship with Netanyahu, however, Netanhyahu, while brilliant, is a rather tempermental man whom it is hard not to have a stormy relationship with. Furthermore, from day one, both the American and Israeli Jewish publics have perceived Obama as anti-Israel, and every positive overture of his has gone unnoticed, while any even slightly leftwing remark has garnder dispropoprtionate outrage. It is no wonder Obama is not moree pro-Israel: A relatinship with a people who had you pegged as an enemy from day one, and do not seem open to changing their mind, who show disgrattitude at any positive overture but complain heavily at any misstep and offer no forgiveness, must by definition be a hard relationship, and at a certain point efforts at appeasing them may seem futile, causing you to give up. It is to President Obama's credit that he has not done so.

President Obama is president of the US, not of Israel. While we, as American Jews, have a right to advocate on behalf of Israel - that is one of the beauty's of democracy, that different minority groups can advocate for different causes - we must keep in mind that ultimately, his mandate is to protect the best interests of the United States, and he can only be as pro-Israel as that mandate allows him to be. If we want a government tasked with the mandate of protecting the best interests of Jews first, then we should move to Israel.

Lastly, a question to friends who do reject land for peace: What do you see as the solution? The only solution I can see, aside from land for peace, is the status quo: Israel ruling over a large population of Palestinians who are not citizens, turning it into a country whose military occupation becomes part of its national fabric - something that i beleive is bad for civil society, and ultimately dangerous, since occupied peoples will rise up, and history shows that when they do, they might not play fair and might target civilians. This is a case in which the threat of a Palesitnian-Israeli official war, scary as it is, almost pales beneath the threat of terror. The other solution is for Israel to become apartheid: A state in which the Palestinians in certain areas of the country are denied citizenship and basic human rights, not as part of a temporary military occupation until a peaceful solution can be worked out, but as part of the permanent status quo. Neither of these "solutions" is acceptable to me, since I beleive they violate the concept of Jewish democracy that is one of the foundations of Zionism as laid out by David Ben Gurion in Israel's Declaration of Independence, and since I beleive occupation and apartheid both rot away a society at the roots, thus harming even the "privileged" groups.

Sex Scandals and Politics

Recently, between Gingritch and Shwarzenneger, it seems like there have been a lot of politician sex scandals on the news. I am not quite sure why it matters whether or not a politician has had an affair; I beleive that a person's personal life is usually not a good indicator of the politician they will be; a good man can be a terrible governor, president, etc., and vice versa.

I guess sex scandals touch on the question: How important is a politician's personal morality? I do beleive that while the answer is generally: "Not that important.", there is an exception to that rule: It is important if a politician commits a gross immorality in their personal life, because that does indicated that their code of ethics is such that they might act immorally once in power, either by a) acting in their own best interest and not those of the state or b) not remaining loyal to supporters/not tyring to adhere to the platform on which they were elected, thus sabotaging the entire democratic process, which hinges on the principal that by choosing candidates, you are choosing policies. (At least in the US; there are countries where you vote for parties, not candidates, and those are a different cup of coffee.)

If one takes this exception to the rule, then it would matter whether or not a politician stole a large sum of money, but not whether they once shoplifted during a drunk night in college. It would matter to me whether they had a history of treating those in positions below them like crap, because that speaks to a basic lack of respect for humans, which I view as a gross immorality. While I do view affairs as immoral, I would not hold a politician who had a one-time affair politically responsible for his action, provided a) he did not lie b) he appeared genuinely contrite about it - as Shwarzenneger appears to be. I would however, hold politicians with multiple affairs (bespeaking not a one-time mistake, but rather a way of life/general attitude towards their marriage) or who dealt poorly with their affairs (example: Jon Edwards) or had affairs in particularly immoral situations (ex. Gingritch, who supposedly had an affair when his wife had cancer - I can not find a reputable source for this) politically responsible.

I can not decide if those who castigate politicians for their personal lives are holding our politicians to a higher standard, or simply define any affair as a gross immorality. Mostly however, I suspect that they are either just muckracking, or muckracking in the hopes of discrediting whichever politician/political party they happen to oppose. That makes me very sad.