The rise of the presidential candidacy of Barak Obama has raised some serious concerns about his foreign policy positions - especially concerning Israel and the Middle East. Our first report on this perculating issue brought a considerable amount of reaction from our One Jerusalem community.
Since our relatively-recent post, there has been a considerable amount of research into who are the members of Obama's foreign policy brain trust. Our first blog post centered on Robert Malley, now there is a growing body of information about other members of O'Bama's foreign policy brain trust. But before sharing this information let say a few words about Obama's actions and words related to the Middle East and Israel.
I recommend visiting Obama's website to see his expressions of support for Israel, his stated opposition to Hamas, Hezbolah, and terrorism, and his commitment to Bush's two state initiative. Obama recently reiterated these positions in a conference call with members of the Jewish/Israeli press. The general consensus among the people who participated on the call was that he said all the right things: Among them being a commitment to the survival of the Jewish State. Frankly, his stated positions on Israel do not, at their core, differ from Clinton, Romney, or McCain.
This brings us to Obama's foreign policy advisers and related concerns. There is no doubt that Obama and Clinton (for that matter all the Republican candidates are in the same boat) are short on foreign policy experience, therefore it seems appropriate to delve into who they are relying on to develop their positions on security and foreign policy matters. Given Obama's metrotic rise and the general lack of information about him let us continue our exploration of what recent information has come to light about how Obama might relate to Israel.
Should he be elected President, Obama will face a problem that all first-term President's come up against: Appointing a foreign policy team. He has already done this for his campaign and many friends of Israel and supporters of a strong American foreign policy are deeply concerned by who comprises this team.
Ed Lasky and Richard Baehr at American Thinker have done their usually careful research before writing about their deep concerns about who Obama has chosen as his team. The most senior expert is Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser and staunch Bush critic Zibignew Brzezinski.
Brzezinski is the godfather of the blame Israel first school of analysis. He has blamed American policies that treats Israel as a true ally as being the central reason for our problems in the Middle East. One must wonder why any candidate would associate with Brzezinski. Afterall, his failed tenure in the Carter Administration should be reason enough to look for another adviser.
But Brezinski is not the only problem. Noah Pollak at Commentary has uncovered disturbing information about another Obama adviser -- Samantha Power by way of Harvard. Pollak cites this quote from Power:
"America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive."
In other words, making Israel's security a concern of United States foreign policy is wrong according to Power. She is also a vocal critic of a foreign policy that puts the concerns of America first and those of international institutions lower down the ladder.
Malley,Brzezinski, and Powers are all critics of a pro-Israel policy for the United States. Why has Obama invited them into his inner circle? Is it a sign that he would consider shifting policy away from Israel -- that he may support treating Israel in the same manner as Israel's enemies?
Another reason for concern is Obama's relationship with the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.. Wright is an out spoken friend and admirer of the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan. Read more about the troubling Rev.Wright here.
Obama's foreign policy team also includes Dr. Susan Rice, who served as chief foreign policy adviser to John Kerry when he ran for President. Dr. Rice also served in the Clinton Administration and co-authored an article disagreeing with President Bush's decision to issue a policy justification on the use of pre-emptive military strikes against a threatening enemy. For a more in-depth look at Rice's views on the need to make substantial changes from the way the United States currently operates in the world, including talking to adversaries (Iran?) check out this interview.
Let me close this post by stating that not all of the members of Obama's team are problematic. Malley, Brzezinski, and Power do raise some serious concerns. Their views and their senior positions in the campaign are troubling. And the controversial Rev. Wright does not seem the kind of spiritual leader a moderate man would adopt as his spiritual adviser..
After studying this issue please let us know what you think. Keep those comments coming.
I agree with aprpeh. I also agree that Obama is displaying by his choice of advisers how he feels about Israel
Posted by: Ruth K Peffer at February 9, 2008 2:50 PM
There is really no need for reading chicken entrails as far as Obama is concerned. As the old truism goes look at a man's friends to know who the man is. Well Malley, Wright, Zbiggy and Rice are the friends. What poosible truth or good could there be for Jews or Israel in Obama's soothing sound bites. See Obama for who he is.
Posted by: Simon Wajcer at February 8, 2008 8:51 PM
im preocupied with B. Obama, born moslem and then converted to christian, may be by convenience, should he be elected as candidate i will prefer to see John Mc. Cain as President.
Posted by: Samuel Abecasis at February 8, 2008 7:07 PM
Despite his denials to the contrary concerning the accusations that his program seems to be 180 degrees from the present U. S. foreign policy. There is much room for worry on our part. Until he rids himself of the very questionable line-up of advisors it behooves us to wtach and listen very carefully, and to marshal our support in favor of more amenable candidates.
Irving Eisenman
Posted by: Irrving Eisenman at February 8, 2008 3:13 PM
Obama is at best an Islamic apologist and at worst a supporter of Islamic expansion. His background and upbringing leave me wondering where his ultimate loyalties would lie...With America and it's Isreali ally, Or with the Islamists who threaten the very exsitence of the Western world.
Posted by: Bookman at February 8, 2008 12:59 PM
It appears that B. Hussein Obama is going to reequip our National political drive with some of the same wheels which spun us into a mudhole before, and the new faces will be just as tractionless. This is hardly 'Change'; it is a facade, and we certainly don't need to revisit the embarrassing and debilitating past, especially with an amateur at the helm.
Posted by: Photon at February 6, 2008 7:19 PM
Having read the interview with Dr. Susan Rice, I find two areas of concern: first, the idea that the foreign policy starts from the American perspective and works or orients out to other parts of the world; secondly, the belief in the time necessary for face-to-face diplomatic dealings with Iran, and the belief that those encounters will be efficacious in bringing about a peaceful resolution to Iran's nuclear plans. Would Mr. Obama be supportive of these perspectives specified by Dr. Rice? From the rhetoric I have heard on TV and read in The Jerusalem Post, Mr. Obama has been outspoken about his desire to meet with Iranian officials. I am not sure what he understands about the apparent assessment of the National Intelligence Assessment concerning Iran's present status vis-a-vis its nuclear program. Notwithstanding, I do know that Israel's intelligence is in disagreement as to the time Iran will possess a nuclear warhead: Israel's assessment has designated a time period of Iranian nuclear readiness perhaps in three years or less. Another concern I have with Dr. Rice relative to the article about the "President Bush's justification of the use of pre-emptive military strikes against a threatening enemy" is the following: Would Mr. Obama. as the President of the United States, meddle in Israel's employment of pre-emptive strikes in Syria, Gaza, Iran? Since Israel's intelligence does not correspond with the NIE's take on Iran's capability and intention, what should I, as a Jewish-American (Israeli citizen), interpret as the stance most beneficial to Israel? I would and will say that Mr. Obama's potential for comprehending the real serious threats that Gaza as well as the PA and Iran pose to Israel as being insufficient in addition to counterproductive. I hear and read too much America first and too little regard for Israel's needs. The chance for tragedy's resulting from such an America-first perspective, especially when having to work in such a constrained time frame according to Israeli intelligence, seems too high to risk my vote for Mr. Obama.
Posted by: Yoel Nitzarim at February 6, 2008 4:33 PM
keep up the pressure. there is no right to be President or even the nominee of a party. Obama is displaying by his choice of advisers either ignorance or tacit approval of their credibility.
Posted by: aprpeh at February 6, 2008 10:26 AM
Post a Comment
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.onejerusalem.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1077
Listen now to the latest exclusive One Jerusalem Bloggers Conference Call with Caroline Glick, world journalist, policy-analyst and author of, Shackled Warrior: Israel and the Global Jihad.Caroline raises important points about the future of Israel, the centrality of Jerusalem, Barak Obama's anti-Israel advisers,...