Sen. Obama's candidacy has been subject to scurrilous emails and whisper campaigns about his faith and fealty (and his middle name).
what does the Israeli Press say? Let's look, below the fold
Alon Pinkas in this article in Jerusalem post says:
So troubling and critical were the accusations and their implications, that one Israeli newspaper, Maariv, took this lunacy one step further and sprinted to announce in a page-one headline that there are "Concerns in Jerusalem about an Obama Presidency". Quoting "officials in Jerusalem", the paper explained that Obama's foreign policy inexperience (compared to George W. Bush's extensive experience in managing relations between Texas and Oklahoma prior to his presidency) and calls for a diplomatic dialogue with Iran may result in policies inconsistent with Israeli security interests, hence the "concern". I used to be an "Official in Jerusalem".
He goes on to note:
Trying to refute the ridiculous allegations on their merits is relatively easy: Obama's voting record on issues pertaining to Israel is impeccable. Amongst his supporters and contributors are prominent Chicago and New York Jewish community and civic leaders, and I assume there are many more in Los Angeles, Miami and elsewhere. He has never outlined a policy that Israelis may find incompatible with what they believe a pro-Israeli Mid-East policy should be. In fact, Sen. Obama's essay in Foreign Affairs is balanced and contains absolutely no policy prescriptions anyone in their right mind can define as "anti-Israeli".
Saul Singer, in today's JPOST agrees, sort of
I agree with Alon Pinkas that the rumor campaign against Barack Obama is unfair. He is not a Muslim, nor is there anything in his voting record or statements to suggest that he is anti-Israel. He is, from what I can tell, well within the "pro-Israel" mainstream of the Democratic party today.
Further, he states:thank goodness, the position papers of candidates and Members of Congress are now so uniformly pro-Israel, regardless of party (with some exceptions) that it is almost impossible to distinguish between them
http://www.jpost.com/...
No difference between them? The repugs and the Dems? Really? Then what differentiates them? If anything?
well, there's this:
Iran
Here Obama's record is mixed. On the one hand, he has co-sponsored a bill to impose further sanctions on Iran, and has spoken out on the seriousness of the Iranian threat. On the other, while he supported the sanctions that the Administration eventually imposed on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, he opposed the amendment that Hillary Clinton voted for because, "it tied our presence in Iraq to an effort to counter the Iranian threat, which he felt could 1) give a green light to premature military action against Iran, and 2) provide a rationale to keep our troops in Iraq, when of course, he believes we need to end our presence there," as his staff explained to me in an email.
In other words, Obama placed the risk of a US military response to Iran and the risk of lengthening the US stay in Iraq as higher and more important than the risk that international sanctions will be too weak to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power. Such logic is warped and mistaken. It also reveals Obama's talk about sanctions and the need to stop Iran as lip service, rather than a serious, thought-through policy designed to succeed. It is all well and good to be for sanctions, but if this position melts away in the face of extremely tenuous excuses based on extraneous issues, than the "tough" position on Iran is meaningless.
It is not possible to be "pro-Israel" without a serious policy for preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, because a nuclear Iran -
besides threatenin
g Israel directly - would substantially ramp up its support for all the forces that are arrayed against Israel and the US:
Hamas, Hizbullah, and al-Qaida.
JPOST
JPOST helpully links to this:
From his radical stance on abortion to his prominence in the corruption scandals that has been virtually ignored by the mainstream media, Barack Obama is not fit to be Senator -- not to mention the next President of the United States
www.humanevents.org
Hmm, what do the JPOST readers think?
Here's one:
2
. Flawed article from beginning to end! "He is not a Muslim". ?
"He is not a Muslim". How does Saul know this? He doesn't. And in the eyes of every Muslim in the world, Obabma is a Muslim! And this is not a slur. Saying somebody is Christian or Jewish etc is not a slur and neither is saying someone is a Muslim. "Nor is there anything in his voting record or statements to suggest that he is anti-Israel". I don't know what is in Obama's head or heart but if he is a closet Muslim then how would he vote before becoming President? "Much more significant is the candidate's position on radical Islamism" Yep, so let's elect somebody that might be Muslim.
redmike - Israel (01/21/2008 10:41)
Singer concludes:
Iran is the primary foreign policy challenge not just for Israel, but for the United States. The presidential candidates need to be measured first and foremost by the seriousness and coherence of their prescriptions on this issue. By this measure, all the major Democrats are currently fairing worse than all the major Republicans, but this could change as the campaign moves
toward the general election.
In the quiet of the ballot booth, after the curtain pulls closed. Some democratic voters will take a deep breath, and ask themselves, "which candidate is "good" for Israel.
What do we want our candidates to say about the ME?
Any of them speak about fulminating Gaza Humanitarian Crisis today? For or against the policies playing out?
Do the math.