Taylor Marsh – TaylorMarsh.com – News, Opinion and Weblog on Progressive Politics

via Think Progress

For all the talk about Bill Kristol on Fox “News,” and there’s been
a lot of it, the nucleus of Kristol’s neoconservative wingnuttery revolves around
that old standard: Who is more pro Israel?

“…I think Israel is worried though. I mean, what signal goes to Ahmadinejad if Obama wins on a platform of unconditional negotiations and with an obvious reluctance to even talk about using military force…” – Bill Kristol, Fox News Sunday

What a joke. There isn’t an American politician who could rise to Obama’s level
without going through the juggernaut of Israeli foreign policy fealty, while understanding that
Middle Eastern policy and our special relationship with Israel is the third
rail of U.S. foreign policy.

Kristol goes on to pontificate about concerns over Obama being tested. But if you look at the first years of WJC and GWB, both came fraught with dangers. In 1993, soon after Clinton came into office, the World Trade Center was hit for the first time. I’ll leave aside George H.W. Bush’s legacy in Somalia that was left to Bill Clinton to clean up, which only ended up in the military disaster of Blackhawk down that resulted in Clinton second guessing military options going forward. This is all reminiscent, if only a little bit, of what J.F.K. was handed off by Dulles on the Bay of Pigs fiasco. Inheriting messes planned, not finished, or unwisely launched, without enough time to finish them, can leave the incoming president in one hell of a mess, especially if a different political party is coming in to office. Look what happened when George W. Bush took the unwise, self-defeating and ultimately dangerous position that anything and everything having to do with WJC’s presidency should be jettisoned. Ignoring Clinton’s investigating into Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, Bush’s decision was a fateful mistake. After coming into office, warnings about Al Qaeda were ignored, as was Richard Clarke, one of the foremost experts on terrorism, then he was demoted to below cabinet level, not given a meeting until it was too late, with the result of the lack of cohesion between presidencies being, well, we all know what happened. The bottom line is that all new presidents are tested, especially in the age of asymmetric threats.

In a nutshell, Bill Kristol is trying to make people afraid of Barack Obama
by insinuating his Middle East foreign policy thinking isn’t strong enough to
protect Israel. I’m surprised old Billy boy didn’t pull out a picture of Senator Obama in traditional African costuming to drive his Sunday morning talking point home. Because in presidential politics, “soft on supporting Israel” is as dangerous
a charge as “soft on terrorism.” There must have been some pretty heavy backslapping at neocon central.

But to address the first portion of Kristol’s statement, since Hillary Clinton
called him on his “no preconditions,” Senator Obama has backed way
off that mark saying simply that he will indeed have “preparations”
put in place before any high level talks will occur. But he will indeed talk
to our adversaries. I applaud the Democrats for
leading on this score, because what Republicans have been doing hasn’t and won’t work.

But we shouldn’t ignore Kristol’s not so subtle Israel is worried about an Obama presidency, which is not catching as much attention because of the usual reactions whenever a neocon says “Iran.” All you have to do is read Obama’s
AIPAC speech to prove Kristol a manipulator and instigator of false foreign
policy stories that Republicans want to imbed in the hopes of having them stick.

Though you will have to first get through Obama’s meaning about keeping Jerusalem
“undivided,” which sent Palestinian leaders into a frenzy, not to
mention had to be clarified
by one of Obama’s campaign advisers: “Two principles should apply
to any outcome,” which the adviser gave as: “Jerusalem remains Israel’s
capital and it’s not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it
was in 1948-1967.” More:

… Indeed, let’s be clear about this, since some (including Mahmud Abbas, alas) have interpreted his phrase to mean exclusive Israeli sovereignty in the city. Again, when Israeli rightists say that Jerusalem should be exclusively theirs they say the city should be Israel’s capital and united. “Undivided” is the Labor Party euphemism for a city whose Arab and Jewish quarters are not separated by a wall, as before 1967 (and—though this is not usually mentioned in this context—the wall Israel has more recently thrown up). “Undivided” does not prejudice the question of who is awarded formal sovereignty where. The Geneva Initiative, for example, proposes an undivided Jerusalem with international forces helping to keep the place an administrative whole. OBAMA, TO BE sure, didn’t make any new friends in the Arab world yesterday. But he is likely to be the only president who will get something of a honeymoon from the Arab world nevertheless, as with the rest of the world. … Undivided Attention, by Bernard Avishai

But as for military force, Obama’s like everyone else who gets to vie for the
top spot in the world. Saber rattling is, unfortunately, required. Obama at AIPAC:

…Finally, let there be no doubt: I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally Israel. Sometimes there are no alternatives to confrontation. But that only makes diplomacy more important. If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed, and will have far greater support at home and abroad, if we have exhausted our diplomatic efforts. – Barack Obama addressing AIPAC

Obama one. Kristol zip.

There is no reluctance about using military force, to the contrary, it’s always
on the proverbial table. We have the mightiest military, the best trained in
the world, even at the current George W. Bush state of depletion and exhaustion.
It’s always there and everyone knows it. This has now become the catch phrase
that is to prove a U.S. leader serious about protecting Israel, whether it actually
does or not. It reminds me of a conversation I had with another primary
contender (not Clinton), when I suggested that we needed to
find a new way to say what we all know to be true. That any American vying to
be president would never hesitate from the use of force if there was a clear
and present danger. Just lose the “all options off the table” lingo
and rephrase what is built into our foreign policy since John F. Kennedy. But
sadly, even the best of our Democrats insist on adding this language to pass
a Republican test that any American would engage if lives were at risk. After
all the wars, the bombs and the death, in the 21st century isn’t this one thing
to which we all are aware? It’s implicitly understood if you’re a Republican, while Democrats keep feeding the notion by succumbing to their test. Obama’s no different on the 20th century language.
I wish he were. I wish Hillary Clinton was too, but she isn’t either. It’s the
standard foreign policy litmus test that politicians must pass.

Whether William Kristol heard or read Obama’s AIPAC speech, with the “offending”
Jerusalem passage, which Obama’s team has now clarified, Kristol thinks he’s got something. What Kristol was trying
to do yesterday was send a message to Jewish voters that you can’t trust this
new guy, that guy you do not know. No doubt Joe Lieberman is in the wings ready to bring that message home. It’s
the politics of fear, Israel style. “Soft on terror” is assumed.

Oh, and by the way, the Washington Post picked up on this story too, including Obama advisers confirming that Europe is “uncomfortable” with Obama on Iran. That turned into a headline blasting “Europe Fears Obama Might Undercut Progress with Iran.”

…”This will give us stronger carrots and stronger sticks,” said Dennis Ross, a Middle East envoy in the Clinton administration who advises the (Obama) campaign and acknowledged he has heard concerns from Europeans. “This will give us leverage with those who are convinced Iran should be stopped but have not provided tough economic sanctions,” such as ending financing of Iran’s energy businesses. “This will not take place divorced from the U.N. Security Council. But we have to be mindful we have a process that is not working.”

This nonsense Bill Kristol is serving up is just one reason why Senator Joe Biden is being talked about strongly for vice president. He sends a message to allies that Obama can’t: You know me, trust me, the new guy is okay.

TM NOTE: An earlier draft of this post was mistakenly posted due to technical error. This post replaces it, with comments transferred.