Irrelevant remarks

Submitted by Charles Landesman (United States), Sep 10, 2012 at 16:43

Your discussion of Obama and Israel involves too much of who likes who and not enough of actual policy. In terms of policy, I do not see much difference between Obama and Romney except for election inspired rhetoric. Some politicians have warm feelings toward Israel and others do not; but usually they perform in the light of what their intellect tells them as well as their search for votes and financial support. I do not see it matters who Obama was friends with in the past or whose speech he quietly listened to; it is what his thoughts are now. And his thoughts as expressed in his speech are quite supportive of Israel.

Moreover, since Obama's current job is to protect US interests, there is no reason at all for him to be deferential in his policies to the policies of any other nation, although his policies are quite firmly aligned with Israel's. I think that his current views on the middle east pertain to a strong desire to keep this country out of trouble as we are bringing to an end two long wars, neither of which were well justified or have strong current public support. Most of those who criticize Obama on Israel tend to personalize matters rather than sticking to relevant facts or policies or are simply supporters of the Republican Party and are hardly impartial in their interpretations.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".