US goes to bat for Israel at UN on flotilla response?

posted at 9:30 am on June 1, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

If Barack Obama had trouble getting Benjamin Netanyahu to play ball with his administration before this weekend, the bloody IDF seizure of the flotilla that attempted to run the Gaza blockade gave him an opportunity to exert pressure on the Israeli leader.  With the UN Security Council writing a statement expected to be harshly condemning towards Israel, Netanyahu and Obama conferred three times by phone over the last 24 hours.  Jake Tapper reports that the US has decided to defend Israel — and got a watered-down, non-committal statement in front of the UNSC instead:

I’m told there won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists.

Regardless of the details of the flotilla incident, sources say President Obama is focused on what he sees as the longer term issue here: a successful Mideast peace process.

“The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.

The suggestion is that US condemnation of Israel would further isolate that country, and make further peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians even more difficult.

Meanwhile, the UNSC’s draft statement avoids placing blame on anyone — and it also doesn’t prevent Israel from conducting the investigation into the flotilla incident:

The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.

The Security Council requests the immediate release of the ships as well as the civilians held by Israel. The Council urges Israel to permit full consular access, to allow the countries concerned to retrieve their deceased and wounded immediately, and to ensure the delivery of humanitarian assistance from the convoy to its destination.

The Security Council takes note of the statement of the UN Secretary-General on the need to have a full investigation into the matter and it calls for a prompt, impartial, credible and transparent investigation conforming to international standards.

The Security Council stresses that the situation in Gaza is not sustainable. The Council re-emphasizes the importance of the full implementation of Resolutions 1850 and 1860. In that context, it reiterates its grave concern at the humanitarian situation in Gaza and stresses the need for sustained and regular flow of goods and people to Gaza as well as unimpeded provision and distribution of humanitarian assistance throughout Gaza.

The Security Council underscores that the only viable solution to Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an agreement negotiated between the parties and re-emphasizes that only a two-State solution, with an independent and viable Palestinian State living side by side in peace and security with Israel and its other neighbours, could bring peace to the region.

The Security Council expresses support for the proximity talks and voices concern that this incident took place while the proximity talks are underway and urges the parties to act with restraint, avoiding any unilateral and provocative actions, and all international partners to promote an atmosphere of cooperation between the parties and throughout the region.

Note that the statement “condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least ten civilians,” while not specifying the acts themselves or the actors responsible.  It’s a carefully-worded statement that refrains from placing blame on anyone — exactly the kind of statement that an enforcement body should make when the facts are in dispute, or at least somewhat so.  If Tapper’s sources are accurate, it appears that the White House succeeded in turning the UNSC attention from the flotilla incident and back towards the longer-term goal of the peace talks and the eventual settlement of all disputes in the region.

The question that will be on everyone’s mind will be what Netanyahu had to offer in order to get Obama to defend Israel in this matter.  As Tapper notes, this was the moment of maximum leverage for Obama over Netanyahu, and it seems doubtful that he would have allowed that moment to pass without winning something for Obama’s own agenda, especially given the outcome at the UNSC.

Update: Hugh Hewitt wonders why Obama didn’t just veto the resolution:

Of course the world would prefer that Israel be able to interdict resupply of terrorists without loss of life, and the ship should have gone to the Israeli port for inspection.  It is a complicated, dangerous situation.

But President Obama advances resolution of the situation not one inch by joining in the pounding of Israel.  The unprecedented level of hostility to Israel from an American Administration continues, and Israel and its supporters must recognize that President Obama is not a reliable supporter when the going gets very tough indeed.

I’d put that in the “maximum leverage” category as well.  If the US had vetoed it, the vetoed resolution would have specifically condemned Israel.  Instead, it just condemns the loss of life, a statement that leaves open the question of blame.  Running the blockade qualifies under that construct, too.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Is this a trick thread? Winning something? Not an election like class president? The One? Like he did with the missle defense shield?

IlikedAUH2O on June 1, 2010 at 9:34 AM

How can there be a peace deal when the enemies of Israel wish its total destruction? Doesn’t BO realize this or is he just blowing smoke? There will never be peace with Israel and its enemies.

garydt on June 1, 2010 at 9:35 AM

“The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.

I doubt that Obama said this in the past. Also, Obama needs to tread very carefully here. He has friends that are directly involved in financing this political statement.

Johnnyreb on June 1, 2010 at 9:36 AM

So I guess this means that Operation Clean Up The Mess Obama Made With The Jews is still on?

myrenovations on June 1, 2010 at 9:36 AM

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/06/026431.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026428.php
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2010/05/026427.php

Orchestrated worldwide effort to destroy Israel, with the American media fully on board.

Disgusting.

Keemo on June 1, 2010 at 9:36 AM

As I posted on another thread:

I’m not so sure that the U.S. really does believe Israel’s account of the flotilla. What the U.S. does believe is that if they don’t stand as a buffer right now with Israel then the arabs are going to start another war with Israel. Just look at the chilling statement Turkey’s Erdogan made about the situation. We are merely trying to prevent a violent break-out in the middle east right now. If we succeed, you can bet Obama will use all the leverage he has to get Israel to make major concessions to the Palestinians.

The U.S. really is not Israel’s ally to any great extent anymore.

KickandSwimMom on June 1, 2010 at 9:39 AM

So the US did what it should have done anyways for an ally? It seems with all the conversations that we did not waterdown the resolution because it was the right thing, but because we could squeeze some benefit. Don’t get me wrong, I think all decisions and diplomacy should wrangle some benefit to the US, but there are times when an ally needs to know that we got their back without a doubt.

dIb on June 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

From Ace’s site:

Another Ship Headed To Gaza; Israel Says It’s Ready
—Gabriel Malor

artist on June 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

“The president has always said for the last 2 weeks that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.

When it’s not doing its best to make Israel feel insecure. . .

smellthecoffee on June 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

As far as I’m concerned,its 1937 for Israel,and since when
has the UN given Israel any help,besides a never ending
condemning of !!!!

canopfor on June 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

“Going to bat” seems like it would take actual going to bat. Neutering language looks more like trying really hard not to take sides while the rest of the world points fingers anyway.

This admin is spinning it’s response for the domestic audience.

MayBee on June 1, 2010 at 9:41 AM

If they want any chance of being re-elected…the American Jews have made it quite clear that the administration better shape up, start supporting Israel or their will be mass defection to the Republican’s.
Obama may be pro-Arab…but he wants to keep his job even more.

A political whore has no standards…

right2bright on June 1, 2010 at 9:41 AM

“Dismally, what the US’s vote in favor of the NPT review conference’s final anti-Israel (and by default pro-Iranian) resolution makes clear is that under Obama, the US is no longer Israel’s reliable ally. Indeed, what the US’s vote shows is that the Obama administration’s ideological preferences place it on the side of the red-green alliance. No amount of backpedalling by the Obama administration can make up the damage caused by its act of belligerence.”
– Caroline Glick, Our World: Ending Israel’s losing streak

Shy Guy on June 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM

artist on June 1, 2010 at 9:40 AM

I wonder if that’s the HTS (Her Terrorists Ship) Rachel Corrie, which had turned back for mechanical problems earlier, finally making it to the party. To all those aboard the Corrie, let’s not forget what happened to your ship’s namesake. And trust me, there will be no paint guns this time.

smellthecoffee on June 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM

So I guess this means that Operation Clean Up The Mess Obama Made With The Jews is still on?

myrenovations on June 1, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Exactly…he doesn’t care about Israel, he cares about votes and power.

right2bright on June 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM

I’m wondering when/if we will get the identity of the “civilians” who are being held in Israeli custody.

Buy Danish on June 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM

The U.S. The Obama Regime really is not Israel’s ally to any great extent anymore.

KickandSwimMom on June 1, 2010 at 9:39 AM

The US will repair the relations with Israel once we wash the skidmark out of our shorts which is Obama.

Flyboy on June 1, 2010 at 9:44 AM

“The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.

 
Notice that it’s not a direct quote. That could just as easily be filtered out to the press after Obama said, “No wonder Israel is such an aggressor. They choose to remain on Palestinian land. And they’re crazy-ass Jews. Of course they’re insecure.”

rogerb on June 1, 2010 at 9:44 AM

The question that will be on everyone’s mind will be what Netanyahu had to offer in order to get Obama to defend Israel in this matter. As Tapper notes, this was the moment of maximum leverage for Obama over Netanyahu, and it seems doubtful that he would have allowed that moment to pass without winning something for Obama’s own agenda, especially given the outcome at the UNSC.

Netanyahu could have offered the latest polling results for the US 2010 election that show a drop in Dem support among American Jews. With Obama, it’s all about the One, and he needs to hold on to every special interest group he can.

Wethal on June 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Due to the pervasivess of youtube and the like The One had no choice, it is plain for all who care to see, that the flotilla is not but a PR stunt. Though I am sure it gtrates him to do so, Obama had no choice.

His scarefully crafted image of being even-handed is at stake and the particular circumstances here do not provide the opportunity for his usual duplictousness. He’s going into the midterms and needs his jewish base to do their usual sheeples routine. He can resume biz as usual after November, besides Iran has enough u235 now for two weapons, he may not have even wait that long.

Archimedes on June 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Let’s see what Obama does when a Russian ship escorts these terrorists supporters…will the U.S. “escort” Israeli ships?

right2bright on June 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Grind your loins!

EliTheBean on June 1, 2010 at 9:46 AM

and he needs to hold on to every special interest group he can.

Wethal on June 1, 2010 at 9:45 AM

Especially this one…and in the next few days Obama will be forced to finally make a decision publicly that he can’t back away from.

right2bright on June 1, 2010 at 9:47 AM

Doesn’t this really sound like what Obama always does? “Compromise” by taking out any meaningful language.

He did it when there was a dispute (at the G-8?) between France and China over tax havens. France wanted action, Obama suggested they just take out the language that made China angry

He did it during the big nuclear confab- he went against Sarkozy talking about real world nuke problems and instead promoted the idea of universal disarmament.

He did it at Copenhagen after he finally found where China and India were hiding from him. He “negotiated” some meaningless no-bite accord, announced it, then left town before the vote (where it was not ratified).

MayBee on June 1, 2010 at 9:49 AM

Orchestrated worldwide effort to destroy Israel, with the American media fully on board.

Disgusting.

Keemo on June 1, 2010 at 9:36 AM

Keemo: Isn’t it interesting how much hate is being spewed
on Israel around the globe,this is exactly like the
build up to WW2,and the assault on Israel’s preople!!

There is no question that with a Republican in power,
Israel was a lot safer knowing that a bad enough att
ack on her would invite the wrath of Lady Liberty!!

However,Liberals have made in painfully clear that
its Open Season on Israel!!

canopfor on June 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM

And Obama’s political advisor Rahm Emanuel is no doubt just back from Israel where Rahm’s son had his bar mitzvah. Rahm was heckled at the Wailing Wall for being insufficiently supportive of Israel.

Wethal on June 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM

the end of principal has arrived, in spades. One or 2 looks at the vi.d form hi event and even a surface knowledge of who the ‘Aid’ flotilla was put together and when and that above all, they were told AT THEIR POINT OF DEPARTURE, don’t do it, we will take the supplies to Gaza etc. by the Israelis.

Frankly, that the Israels held their fire for so long, and only, 9 were killed is in fact a testament to patience and training in the application of deadly force.

The “Aid” activists wanted a headline, they got it. this was all crafted as theatre ( of the absurd btw). We should call it what it is.

As long as they fabricated and pre-fabricated events are allowed to result in just more Israeli scorn-heaping, we will never get anywhere in any peace process, period.

( the UN as usual acts pretty god dawg fast when it comes to Israeli resolution’s eh?…what a joke, this is the One world org. Obama just told us last week at west point that will carry us al forward, together, to a clearer safer world? [que La Internationale ']).

imperator on June 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM

The number 1 conclusion from all of this:
The US has (finally) realized that Turkey has tipped toward Iran and radical Islamic views.

This has lots of implications; NATO, in particular.
This Islamification of Turkey is why most European countries want to keep Turkey out of the EU.

albill on June 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM

the end of principal has arrived, in spades. One or 2 looks at the vid from this event and even a surface knowledge of who the ‘Aid’ flotilla was put together and when and that above all, they were told AT THEIR POINT OF DEPARTURE, don’t do it, we will take the supplies to Gaza etc. by the Israelis.

Frankly, that the Israels held their fire for so long, and only 9 were killed is in fact a testament to patience and training in the application of deadly force.

The “Aid” activists wanted a headline, they got it. this was all crafted as theatre ( of the absurd btw). We should call it what it is.

As long as they fabricated and pre-fabricated events are allowed to result in just more Israeli scorn-heaping, we will never get anywhere in any peace process, period.

( the UN as usual acts pretty god dawg fast when it comes to Israeli resolution’s eh?…what a joke, this is the One world org. Obama just told us last week at west point that will carry us al forward, together, to a clearer safer world? [que La Internationale ']).

imperator on June 1, 2010 at 9:52 AM

0bama is out to destroy Israel with the rest of his mooslum brotherhood.

Mirimichi on June 1, 2010 at 9:52 AM

Israel made a simple demand…the ships are to proceed to an Israeli port, off load and the Israeli’s would deliver the cargo to Gaza…all of this could be avoided if Turkey just followed protocol…if this administration doesn’t hammer this home, then the U.N. will win, and Israel will lose.

right2bright on June 1, 2010 at 9:55 AM

canopfor on June 1, 2010 at 9:50 AM

Exactly canopfor… If it wasn’t for free speech here in America, where sites such as this one can report the facts-truth, Israel would be destroyed. I must believe this is why the Progressives want to destroy the 1st amendment so desperately. Control over the message.

It’s also mind boggling that American Jews vote Democrat.

Keemo on June 1, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Mubarak orders Rafah crossing opened temporarily to allow aid to Gaza and “alleviate the suffering of our Palestinian brothers”; Israeli ambassador to Cairo summoned.
Egypt temporarily lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip Tuesday to allow aid into the area, according to an Egyptian official.

JPost

This is the land crossing, which Egypt has kept closed (that rarely makes the news). The sea blockade is still in effect. And of course, Israel has been letting in humanitarian aid at land crossings (after inspection) all along.

But Egypt wants some good PR in world opinion.

Wethal on June 1, 2010 at 9:57 AM

Send the “civilians” to Gitmo!

Don L on June 1, 2010 at 9:58 AM

The question that will be on everyone’s mind will be what Netanyahu had to offer in order to get Obama to defend Israel in this matter. As Tapper notes, this was the moment of maximum leverage for Obama over Netanyahu, and it seems doubtful that he would have allowed that moment to pass without winning something for Obama’s own agenda, especially given the outcome at the UNSC.

If Obama’s support among Jewish voters and Jewish donations to Democratic Party candidates for the 2010 midterm cycle really are down as much as reported, it’s not as if Obama doesn’t have a dog in this hunt as well.

The now-cancelled White House meeting with Netanyahu was in large part designed to assuage Jewish voters that the White House wasn’t anti-Israel. That effort would have been blown out of the water if the U.S. joined the pack at the U.N. in condemning Israel over the floatilla conflict, especially after all the IDF video came out. So it was in Obama and the Democrats’ domestic political interest to take advantage of one of those ‘crisis’ Rahm Emanuel talks about and use support of Israel here to woo back some of the Jewish voters who have been deserting the president in recent months.

jon1979 on June 1, 2010 at 9:59 AM

Has Obama said one word about this yet?

My guess is that the career diplomats are stating our former default position: We stand with Israel. But when The One finally returns from his weekend of barbecues, golf and pick-up games, he’ll make it clear that we don’t stand with Israel any longer.

tsj017 on June 1, 2010 at 10:00 AM

Aid convoys, to which Egypt has in the past allowed only limited access, would be allowed to use the crossing, subject to following Cairo’s limitation that only food and medical supplies be transported.

“Hard materials” – apparently including concrete and steel which Gazans want to repair damage from last year’s Israeli offensive – would have to go via Israel, the Egyptian source said. Israel has made clear since it halted a Turkish-backed aid convoy at sea on Monday that it will not ease its embargo.

More from Ha’aretz. So Egypt still won’t let construction materials in, either.

Wethal on June 1, 2010 at 10:01 AM

The problem is that Obama showed global weakness and betrayal of allies appeasement to enemies. Then things go south in a hurry because troublemakers see opportunity.

the_nile on June 1, 2010 at 10:04 AM

Egypt is party to the blockade because they want weapons away from Hamas too, but only Israel is the evil player. Netanyahu is no fool, he knows now he needs to play the “peace” roll with the Palestinians to keep Obama from totally stabbing Israel in the back. At least until we elect an administration who is true to our friends and allies.

cartooner on June 1, 2010 at 10:05 AM

It’s also mind boggling that American Jews vote Democrat.

Keemo on June 1, 2010 at 9:56 AM

I find it to be true for other groups, too. Just what is it the dems have to offer these different groups? I just can’t see it. Are they all into socialism? Let someone else pay their way?

Mirimichi on June 1, 2010 at 10:08 AM

As Tapper notes, this was the moment of maximum leverage for Obama over Netanyahu, and it seems doubtful that he would have allowed that moment to pass without winning something for Obama’s own agenda, especially given the outcome at the UNSC.

Deliver the Jewish vote in November 2010. Maybe?

mechkiller_k on June 1, 2010 at 10:08 AM

As Jon1979 noted, it is more Obama who needs to show some solidarity with Israel right now; in order to retain at least some of the support of the American Jewish community who he’s gone a way toward alienating already.

The fact is that Israel wouldn’t have knucked under on this, no how and no way. And, considering that the Obama bunch have recently sided against Israel in other UN security council votes regarding NPT and Israeli strategic forces:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5eaf6bbb255b23063c3b3635bd5f7c52.161&show_article=1

Not to mention the weak-as-water, and most likely ineffective, planned “sanctions” on Iran.

So it’s clear that this is the usual game of, “Barack giveth, and Barack taketh away…”

And anyway, he may want to blockade Iran in the near future-depending on how his poll numbers are going into the 2012 election cycle-and he doesn’t need to be on record as saying that boarding blockade runners is an irresponsible and illegitemate action.

RocketmanBob on June 1, 2010 at 10:11 AM

to destroy the 1st amendment so desperately. Control over the message.

It’s also mind boggling that American Jews vote Democrat.

Keemo on June 1, 2010 at 9:56 AM

Keemo: And to top it off,Obama has used every method of
communication in his neverending campaining,and
at the same time he points his finger on its usage
and demonizes the free-flow of information,and yes,
exactly,total control!!:)

canopfor on June 1, 2010 at 10:18 AM

why do Jews vote Dem? i guess for the same reason that blacks do. and I have no idea why.

kelley in virginia on June 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Since North Korea has killed men,and blew a hole
in the South Korean navy vessel,the message is,
no penalty!!

I do hope,this never happens to Israel,especially in this
manufactured provocation of a tinder box,because Isreal will
strike back,and justly so!!!

canopfor on June 1, 2010 at 10:22 AM

LMAOROTF! Yeah, Barry is ‘calling the tune’.

GarandFan on June 1, 2010 at 10:26 AM

This has lots of implications; NATO, in particular.
This Islamification of Turkey is why most European countries want to keep Turkey out of the EU.

albill on June 1, 2010 at 9:51 AM

Yet they are going full speed ahead with the islamification of their own societies? It’s about the poverty in Turkey not radical islam. Euros have not done anything but bow to islam and sharia.

clnurnberg on June 1, 2010 at 10:29 AM

What’s gonna happen when Israel strikes to take out Iranian nukes?

rebuzz on June 1, 2010 at 10:31 AM

Oh, and another thing…The BS floating around about Israel’s “disproportionate force”is just that BS. Attack a police officer with a metal rod or knife anywhere in the U.S. and you will get your butt shot! So Israel’s “excessive response” isn’t so excessive at all.

cartooner on June 1, 2010 at 10:33 AM

I wonder if that’s the HTS (Her Terrorists Ship) Rachel Corrie, which had turned back for mechanical problems earlier, finally making it to the party.
smellthecoffee on June 1, 2010 at 9:43 AM

Maybe the HTS Rachel Corrie will have an unfortunate ‘meeting’ with a supertanker.

agmartin on June 1, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Thank God this was our first reaction. I think that might have been “it” for a lot of people in this country if we would have gone after them like many countries are doing.

People are very protective of Israel.

gophergirl on June 1, 2010 at 10:35 AM

The anti Israel groups; Hezbollah, Hamas, Syria Iran etc are becoming more dangerous and aggressive because Obama is the POTUS.

When I read the Ezekiel Option by Joel Rosenberg I remember thinking no American president would ever act like the one in the book…Obama is way more hostile than that one!

Add Israel to your prayers…

CCRWM on June 1, 2010 at 10:38 AM

A good, solid C- effort there.

rbj on June 1, 2010 at 10:43 AM

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/israel-shows-its-claws/

Good piece…

Keemo on June 1, 2010 at 10:43 AM

When Israel takes out iranian nukes they will be publicly condemned and privately, very privately, thanked, especially by the euros who cower to jihad

clnurnberg on June 1, 2010 at 10:43 AM

why do Jews vote Dem? i guess for the same reason that blacks do. and I have no idea why.

kelley in virginia on June 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM

In the back of thoer mind Jews know which is the group that would happily destroy them… so they cozy up to it hoping it will not and then they will come running to our side when they realize they are about to be attacked… Black people shoud read real history books and figure out who really wants them to succeed on their own and who wants them enslaved for votes…

CCRWM on June 1, 2010 at 10:48 AM

Oh to be a fly on the wall at National Ego’s Endless Vacation. Without the Totus Obama would have a public anti-semitic meltdown.

txhsmom on June 1, 2010 at 10:49 AM

It’s silly to think Obama has any more leverage over Israel at this time than before. The US has always had a great deal of leverage over Israel. It’s just never been used.

ButterflyDragon on June 1, 2010 at 10:54 AM

why do Jews vote Dem? i guess for the same reason that blacks do. and I have no idea why.

kelley in virginia on June 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Hollywood.

ButterflyDragon on June 1, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I’m told there won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists.

So … with a variety of lunatic leftists and anti-Israel, if not outright anti-semitic, advisors in his administration, O’Baaama’s puppeteer has decided that they need the campaign money from American Jews much more than they need to continue to express their true feelings about Israel.

Interesting.

Jaibones on June 1, 2010 at 10:56 AM

this is when I am glad we have HRC in there, afaik she is the only voice for Israel and frankly I am hopeful she would warn Bibi if the shtf

you know this is killing MO, how could you sit and listen to wright for a lifetime bashing Israel and comparing Palestinians to apartheid and not blame Israel?

this is an example of an area where I had no CLUE where the ‘elitist’ Dems were. I dont know why they hate Israel, but they need to beg borrow or steal a clue, every blue collar Dem I know supports Israel. We are also all Catholic now that I think of it. mebbe that’s part of it I dunno

I could not believe the ‘demonstrations’ I saw on tv this morning across the US against Israel and was glad to see the pro Israel peeps out too

is there anyway we can let Israel know regular Americans support them? I see Ban Ki Moon is calling for an end to the blockades and Rice signed off on the UN anti nuke mid east policy that singles out Israel also.

with that maroon Brennan talking about the imaginary moderates in Hamas and Hizbollah and Taliban I do not think Israel can sleep at night for the next 3 years (if they have ever been able to sleep)

ginaswo on June 1, 2010 at 11:01 AM

kelley in VA

I dunno, maybe same reason I used to vote Dem- bad media coverage and ignorance? rebellion against GOP parents?

ginaswo on June 1, 2010 at 11:03 AM

Hmmm so far Obama isn’t messing this up too bad.

Strange.

petunia on June 1, 2010 at 11:05 AM

albill
Erdogan’s stmts are pretty damned frightening I agree. And with the collapse of the Euro, Turkey is now not interested in being in the EU currency union and is free to express itself as it wishes and it certainly appears it wishes to hurt Israel.

ginaswo on June 1, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Two things are fairly obvious. The video means nothing because most liberals won’t watch it, and those who do will see what they want to see. They’re liberals.

Barack Obama does not care if he gets re-elected. He passed a socialist healthcare bill. The Holy Grail of the Progressive movement for a hundred years. His place in history is set. No matter what happens with Israel or Iran, Barack Obama can’t lose in the eyes of Progressives. They will blame anything that happens on the Jews.

I would be willing to bet that Barack and Michelle Obama are counting the days until they can leave the White House. I bet that’s what they talk about when they’re in bed at night.

Jaynie59 on June 1, 2010 at 11:11 AM

why do Jews vote Dem? i guess for the same reason that blacks do. and I have no idea why.

kelley in virginia on June 1, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Hollywood.

ButterflyDragon on June 1, 2010 at 10:55 AM

Because Republicans don’t take the time and energy to massage the egos of the “leaders”.

Republicans expect people to vote their best interests without direct payoffs.

Apparently parts of the electorate prefer to be treated like children. And understand bribes better than the true respect of actual equality.

It’s the whole victim psychology that Dems have nurtured for so long!

petunia on June 1, 2010 at 11:12 AM

ahhhh looke NRO Corner Michael

ginaswo on June 1, 2010 at 11:20 AM

Oops sorry, rubin nails it:

If Obama decides it is in America’s interest to make an example of Israel after the Gaza flotilla incident in order to win goodwill in Cairo, Beirut, Tehran, and Ankara, then he must also recognize that the leadership in Jerusalem is going to conclude that it cannot trust the United States to safeguard its security, and that therefore it must take matters into its own hands on any number of issues, not the least of which is Iran’s nuclear program. In effect, if the White House decides to come down hard on Israel now, it is the same as giving a green light for Israel to strike Iran. That is not advocacy; it is just the realism about which President Obama is so fond.

ginaswo on June 1, 2010 at 11:21 AM

I agree with Hewitt. A veto to an anti-Israel resolution would say more than a vote for an ambiguously anti-Israel moral equivalating resolution.

joe_doufu on June 1, 2010 at 11:22 AM

Hugh Hewitt wonders why Obama didn’t just veto the resolution

He wonders?

Attila (Pillage Idiot) on June 1, 2010 at 11:25 AM

Sems me Netanyahu has the leverage here, and used it well. Obama really needs that photo-op with him, ASAP. I’ll bet those phone calls involved Obama asking Bibi what he wanted in return for rescheduling that visit to Washington. He probably promised some of his biggest Jewish fundraisers some face time with Bibi, and Rahm is making sure that will happen.

Nobody really gives a crap what a UNSC resolution says. They care about what they see the President of the United States doing and who they see him meeting with.

rockmom on June 1, 2010 at 11:49 AM

The UN has become the goto organization for muslims and fascists so a statement coming from that organization carries little weight in the real world.I also don’t see where Obama can exercise leverage over Israel.As Hugh noted a true ally of Israel would have vetoed this resolution.The reason the Obama administration did not come out in support of the “activists” is because of the way it would have played in the US. Israel still has many allies in Washington and most Americans see the Palestinians for what they are, enemies of the American people.Given Obamas political position at home, standing with illegals, incompetent management of the oil spill and failed Obamacare.I don’t see how he could come out against Israel, though I’m sure he would have liked to.

Hera on June 1, 2010 at 11:56 AM

If Obama truly believes that the best way to achieve peace in the Middle East is for Israel to feel secure, then I suggest that he start doing something real about stopping Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. As for Obama standing behind Israel on this one, I think you all are reading more into this than you need. There didn’t have to be a concession from Netanyahu for Obama to back Israel. Obama has a major problem with his major Jewish donors. His hand was forced. If he made a public statement against Israel, rest-assured that would have been the end of Obama’s Jewish money. Haim Saban, not the Rabbis, control Obama’s destiny. And in that sense, maybe, Bibi Netanyahu, as well.

~Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

The CJ Political Report on June 1, 2010 at 11:58 AM

The UN is a joke. It has become nothing more than the United Nations Against Israel (UNAI).

~Halli Casser-Jayne
http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com

The CJ Political Report on June 1, 2010 at 12:01 PM

Obama is focused on what he sees as the longer term issue here: a successful Mideast peace process.

Well I’ll be darned – imposed peace treaty? If this thing turns out to be some sort of 7-year deal I’m heading for the hills…

Otis B on June 1, 2010 at 12:02 PM

NewsBusters: Obama Supposedly Stands With Israel, But Will Our Pro-Palestinian Press?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/06/01/obama-supposedly-stands-israel-will-our-pro-palestinian-press

StewartIII on June 1, 2010 at 8:23 PM