Posted on 03/07/2008 10:56:35 AM PST by SJackson
A follow-up to my post yesterday about the troubling views of one of Barack Obama’s top foreign policy advisers, Samantha Power. In 2002 she sat for an interview with Harry Kreisler, the director of the Institute for International Studies at Berkeley. Kreisler asked her the following question:
Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: without addressing the Palestine - Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Get a load of Power’s response:
What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called “Sharafat.” [Sharon-Arafat; this is actually an Amos Oz construction — NP] I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention.
Just so we’re clear here: Power said that her advice to the President would be to 1) “Alienate” the American Jewish community, and indeed all Americans, such as evangelical Christians, who support the state of Israel, because 2) Israeli leaders are “destroying the lives of their own people.” 3) Pour billions of dollars of the taxpayers’ money into “the new state of Palestine”; 4) Stage an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories — what else can she mean by a “mammoth protection force” and a “military presence” that will be “imposed” by “external intervention”? — in order to do the exact same thing that she considers the height of arrogance and foolishness in Iraq: an American campaign to remake an Arab society.
Note that this wasn’t her response to a question about her personal views of the conflict, or about what she envisions might be a utopian solution to the conflict; it was a response to a question about what she would tell the President of the United States if she was his adviser. Yesterday Barack Obama took a large stride toward the presidency–helped in some small measure by the speeches on behalf of the Obama campaign that Power has delivered–and it is time that someone asked him, while he is still a candidate, what he thinks of the perverse things his many foreign policy advisers have said about Israel and the Middle East.
As Samantha Power herself acknowledged, there is “a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import” that would like to know where Obama stands on these matters.
High volume. Articles on Israel can also be found by clicking on the Topic or Keyword Israel, WOT
..................
Of course she's gone now, but not over these statements.
Right. And have those billions get shifted to Swiss bank accounts. There is too much corruption in third-world countries to just invest more money.
Besides, as long as Hamas encourages violence, a Palestinian "State" will be a state in name only.
One good thing can come if Obama does win in November, his anti-Israel approach will be so known to Israelis and the Israel GOV that they will say ENOUGH and will finally stop abiding by the USA.
Bush does it differently, at the beginning everyone thought he would be the best friend Israel would ever have - so Israelis went along with it - now they understand.
Obama will finally push the regular Israeli to say ENOUGH to America’s demands of what they see as “sacrifices for peace”.
I posted before that Obama himself, in his Senate campaign, said something about waiting to speak out until his election was safe. I’ll try to find it.
—Obama will finally push the regular Israeli to say ENOUGH to America’s demands of what they see as “sacrifices for peace”.—
So, what you are saying is that:
1. Israel will be able to be Israel without worrying about what Uncle Sam thinks and:
2. Uncle Sam will finally be free of the millstone around his neck?
Just asking.
I love reading about Obama’s Power Rager.
Here it is, it was posted to Eric_at-the-beach. So far I thnk it’s the only smoking gun we have re Obama and Israel.
\How About an Obama About-Face by George S. Hishmeh
http://www.us4arabs.com/index2.php?option=com_content&do_pdf=1&id=356.
“...In 2000, when Obama ran unsuccessfully for Congress, Abunimah wrote this week that he heard him being “forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to
the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”.At their last meeting four years ago in a Chicago neighborhood, Abunimah recalled Obama telling him “warmly” that he was sorry that “I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race (for his Senate seat). I’m hoping when things calm down, I can be more up front.”
“More upfront when things calm down”...but now he’s running for president.
Umm, you do know there was a weapons embargo placed on Israel during the War of Independence?
Do you understand that every single time Israel wants to protect its citizens - America comes in and says please STOP, peace must go forward, remove your checkpoints, give up your land, stop retaliating, give up Jerusalem, our capital.
Thanks. That would be the same Abunimah who claims Obama has raised funds for palestinian groups with him.
It could impact turnout, but not really enough Jewish votes to really matter. Black votes, a turnout problem perhaps, but I don’t see them shifting enmasse to McCain.
—Umm, you do know there was a weapons embargo placed on Israel during the War of Independence?—
Umm ... yeah. Was a pretty porous embargo though. Seems like enough old WW2 equipment (including Czech-built Me109s, ironically enough) got through to the embryonic IDF for it to defeat FIVE armies. The US didn’t do much to discourage volunteers like former US fighter pilots to help Israel either (one of whom shot down a RAF mosquito with IIRC a spitfire—again, ironic).
This lady is whacked out of her gourd. For all her huggy kissy routine with Arafat’s wife etc. I don’t think Hillary would even try to attempt this one. Not a very shrewd move for the Obama camp. I can see where they can pretty much write off Evangelicals—who for the most part wouldn’t contemplate voting for Obama anyway. But American Jews are still front and center in the American Left. But hopefully, even to these liberal Jews, the state of Israel still means something. (I think it does to a great majority on some level) Why do you think the Democratic Party for the most part has maintained the status quo on Israel? It needs the traditional loyalty of American Jews. There are some vociferous American Jews who have come over to the Republican camp, but by and large, the majority (even among the Orthodox) have stayed Democrat but with a hawkish view on Israel. Sen. Joe Lieberman is a good example. He is a typical lefty in his opinions on economic and probably most social issues, but he understands what is at stake in the realm of national security, and maintaining a strong Israel that can defend itself from the like of Hamas Hezbollah and the rest of the gang is as important to US security as our actions to defeat jihad elsewhere. If Obama is going to alienate American Jews over the question of Israel he can basically kiss his hopes for the presidency (if he wins the nomination in the first place) goodby. I wonder what constituency he thinks will take up the slack for all those alienated Jewish liberals? Anti-semitic elements in the black community (his pastor & co.), Arab-Americans? Israel hating/jihad-loving academics from Harvard & Yale? I guess when Obama means change he really means change (don’t know about the hope part)
Serious question: do we have any reason to disbelieve him?
My point is treat Israel how you treat the UK.
America would never have the gall to tell the UK to give up its land or any other country nor would a President ever give up Hawaii, Alaska, Mexico to its “original” owners for “peace”.
BUT it treats Israel differently, that’s the point.
Seems to be a more long-winded equivalent of Pat Buchanan's "Amen corner."
Not that I'm aware of, though it's 8 years old. There's no doubt he was close to Obama, nor that he's raised funds for palestinian groups. A short bio of Abunimah in the next post, not a fellow for a Senator to be hanging with.
If one would read that dumb chick magazine, “Marie Claire,” one would find that Samantha Powers is called the smartest woman in America.
SHEESH!
I read where this Samantha Power lass came to the US from Ireland at age 10 and is only 37 now. I’m just wondering what influenced her intellectual development in such a pernicious direction.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.