You knew it was too good to be true and not going to last. Ben Smith has the story, as AIPAC’s friends in the House begin their due diligence.
“My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.). “I think it would serve America’s interest better if we were pressuring the Iranians to eliminate the potential of a nuclear threat from Iran, and less time pressuring our allies and the only democracy in the Middle East to stop the natural growth of their settlements.”
“When Congress gets back into session the administration is going to hear from many more members than just me,” she said.
Berkley is a 20th century politician who may be beloved in Nevada, but she’s never going to be part of the solution in the Middle East, as she sees the whole argument in terms of what Israel wants. Her views have nothing to do with what will actually help U.S. foreign policy in the region, or Israel for that matter.
As for Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.), according to Smith’s reporting, wanting to “narrow the administration’s definition of “settlement” to take pressure off Obama,” is about as likely as Bibi bending on “natural growth.” The pressure will remain, because Obama, at least right now and unless he pulls a reverse under pressure like he did on the torture photos, is content to do what’s required, not what’s not worked before.
But it’s Rep. Cantor (R-Va.), as usual, who barricades himself behind the baloney barrier:
“It’s misguided. Behind that pressure is the assumption that somehow resolving the so-called settlements will somehow lead to the ultimate goal” of disarming Iran, said Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.), the House minority whip. “A backward assumption is being made that if we deal with the Israel-Palestine question, somehow all the problems in the Middle East will be solved,” he said.
It’s just plain ignorance on parade to say that Obama believes that equilibrium alone between Israelis and Palestinians will solve all the issues in the Middle East.
What it will do is open up a whole lot of room for discussion. Conversation that right now is focused on one thing and one thing only. In the void just maybe allies can be sought and new relationships forged.
The other issue the congressional AIPAC pals don’t mention is that if Obama doesn’t work aggressively to move forward, as King Abdullah of Jordan has said, with others agreeing, the hopes of equilibrium will disappear into a ratcheting up of violence that could likely lead to war.
Mr. Netanyahu cannot want that, because it would likely bring the fall of his government and end the last chance he has to make his mark for Israel.
As for Mr. Obama, here at home, Democrats aren’t going to make it easy for him.
“I think that most people could understand somebody having a child and their child living with them, as long as it’s not a ruse to expand” the settlement, said Ackerman, who said two of a dozen questions to Netanyahu during a meeting with members of Congress had concerned settlements.
The type of logic that Rep. Ackerman (D-NY) applies in the above statement is indicative of the nonsensical debate in this section of the Middle East. “A ruse to expand” is exactly what this is, so you have to wonder if Mr. Ackerman is just dense or he thinks we’re stupid.
If you care about the Middle East, let your representative know you support what Pres. Obama is doing. Because the noise from AIPAC’s friends is only going to get louder from here.
Comments are closed.