Is the Obama Administration Trying to Silence Critics of its Middle East Policy?
As readers of The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal know, last week Nobel laureate Elie Wiesel and World Jewish Congress head Ronald S. Lauder purchased full page ads challenging President Obama’s policies on the Middle East and Israel.
Lauder’s ad appeared on April 15th. “We are concerned,” Lauder began, “about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.” He continued:
Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.
Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.
Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.
The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.
They are not the key issue now.
“Appeasement,” Lauder wrote the President, “does not work.” The real threat was not Israeli settlements, but “a nuclear armed Iran.”
One day later, Wiesel issued a statement to the press assuring them that his ad was not coordinated with Lauder’s WJC statement. Wiesel said that Jerusalem must remain the spiritual capital of the world’s Jews, and should serve as a symbol of faith and hope – not as a symbol of sorrow and bitterness. He wrote: “Jerusalem is the heart of our heart and the soul of our soul.” Jerusalem, Wiesel said, “is above politics…It is mentioned more than 600 times in Scripture – and not a single time in the Quran… Its presence in Jewish history is overwhelming.”
Well said, Professor Radosh. This is one of your finest blogs ever.
I would only take issue with your phrase, “In acting to stifle those with the courage to take them on, the Obama team demeans itself…” It has gone far beyond “demeaning itself.” It is the most intolerant, naive, and dangerous administration in American history. Of course, it has little competition because our history is replete with examples of tolerant, astute Presidents and administrations that sought to defend the Constitution, the United States and its allies.
We now have a President and an administration completely outside the community of American leaders of the past 234 years. He, his administration with its “unnamed officials” are unique in our history for their overt contempt for the people of the United States and the citizens of our allies. May the rule of this pernicious junta last no longer than January 20, 2013.
“We must ask what this says about the Obama administration, which seems to find any criticism extremely threatening.”
It surprises none of us who were paying attention—long before the presidential election. Barack Obama is a relatively poorly educated man. He cannot even begin to hold his own in a serious discussion. The credentials Obama received from Harvard are mostly a joke. On top of that, the man is a narcissist. Yes, that means he is also psychologically unbalanced. The world is supposed to revolve around him. How dare anyone question his wisdom? Such an individual must be a disgusting reactionary. Furthermore, this pathetic soul is to be “nudged” towards a more trusting attitude. It is, after all, for their own good.
Well, first, I’d want to get some sort of confirmation of this. An unnamed source, particularly in Ha’Aretz, is not exactly the most unimpeachable reference imaginable.
That said, I regret to add that the story is by no means implausible on a number of grounds, especially that this administration and its president combine rather thin skins with rather high estimations of themselves. Obama doesn’t seem to accept criticism well. It’s worth remembering that despite being subjected to the worst and most vile rhetoric I can remember, George Bush resisted any temptation he had to lash out at his critics. He seemed to assume that if you’re the president it happens and people have the right to say what they want, no matter how slanderous and odious. It took Obama few weeks to decide that Fox News wasn’t a legitimate news source.
And David is also right. Despite the two Ivy League degrees–which I don’t think per se rate you as educated–he doesn’t seem to know all that much. His forays into history, such as the Berlin Airlift and the Cold War, don’t bespeak broad knowledge.
Barack Obama is not a nice guy—even though a large number of Americans still say they like him personally. His overall positive image is contradicted by the evidence. Obama should readily remind one of the vindictiveness and nastiness of Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard Nixon.
Narcissits can be very nice to those they need, so long as you continue to work with them. Cross them, even once, and the mask comes off.
This behavior is more suited to a Banana Republic dictator — a la Chavez or Castro.
One day soon we’ll see a screaming, breaking furniture temper tantrum, complete with foam at the mouth.
What a shame and disgrace to our country he is.
The left, and not just in the United States, viewed Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, et al., as dangerous because of differing perspective.
Those critical of BHO, and crowd, view them as dangerous because of ________.
Who will be the first to fill in the blank?
Because, take a look at this, especially the comments: http://ezralevant.com/2010/04/protecting-canada-from-obama.html
Of course they are. Surely you’ve noticed that this White House doesn’t tolerate dissent on any issue.
Obama took the “sucker bet” from Amadinnerjack that some how if the “Palestinian issue” were resolved that they would talk peace and abandon their ambitions for nukes.
Any student of history would ask … why do Persians care about Palestinians ? Short answer .. they don’t
Once again Jerusalem was captured from Jordan during the 1967 war and would still be in Jordans hands if they didnt try to attack and destroy the Israelis.This is a fact.It is Israel’s capital and will remain so.Also a fact.The current prime minister of Israel has more balls than the current president of the United States.Thats my opinion.Time will tell if it becomes fact.