US President Barack Obama will meet on Monday with over a dozen heads of influential American Jewish organizations and is expected to respond to concerns that the White House is pressuring Israel over West Bank settlements while it is soft-pedaling with some of Israel’s worst enemies.
“American Jews more or less agree with the president on settlements, but it’s the focus on criticizing Israel that’s disconcerting,” said an organization leader who will be attending the meeting.
Strictly speaking, the “organization leader” is correct if there is at least one American Jew that agrees, but let’s take the American position as it has been explained by the State Department, express it explicitly, and try it out on some American Jews:
Any Jewish construction activity in the area of historic Palestine that was occupied by Jordan between 1948 and 1967, including areas of East Jerusalem and the West Bank that were inhabited by Jews before 1948, is verboten.
The State Department thereby throws UN resolution 242 under the bus, apparently giving up on the idea that Israel should return land (not all the land) occupied in 1967 in a way which will provide her with “secure and recognized borders” and in return for a peace treaty.
The Obama administration today in effect says that Israel does not have sovereignty over any land beyond the 1949 cease-fire lines. So much for “secure” borders. And since there is no Arab entity capable of making — and keeping — a peace treaty in this area, there will be no meaningful peace either.
What do you think, American Jews? Do you “more or less agree with the president” on this?
What about the contrast between his tough talk on settlements and his willingness to let Iran off with a warning on its nuclear program but no sanctions?
Will Obama’s famous gift of gab help him keep the Jewish support he so richly does not deserve?