While many of us can admire Obama's ability to speak well, some of us have questioned his foreign policy credentials. Foreign policy is obviously a complex and difficult aspect of the Presidency because it is so variable and fluid, not to mention situations can change in a moments notice. So, I for one have been weary of the Jr. Senators bona fides in this area due in large part to his youth.
However the other day Obama made a clear foreign policy distinction that went unnoticed by the press for the most part but it was a very important statement concerning our closest ally in the Middle East, which is of course Israel.
Obama stated:
Quote:
|
“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”
|
In essence he pointed out the difference between being pro-Israeli and pro-Likud, something that has been long over due. (Israeli Likud Party is a bit like our neoconservatives)
The very fact that Obama sees this difference and makes this distinction is not only surprising and bold but may also serve to actually move the prospects for a brokered peace in the region forward. This may seem subtle and obscure but in US and Israeli relations it is huge.
In case any of you foreign policy types care to read his full statements on this subject. There is also a link to the Jewish Telegraph and the NY Sun that have provided full transcripts.
Antiwar.com Blog · Obama Distinguishes Between ‘pro-Israel’ and pro-Likud
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
