Saturday January 11, 2025
SNc Channels:

Search
About Salem-News.com

 

Dec-17-2011 22:28printcomments

Obama Ad Condemns Israel Aid Opponents

What is so bizarre about the Obama campaign’s hostility toward those who oppose aid to Israel is that Israel doesn’t need U.S. assistance to begin with.

Obama and Netanyahu
What is so bizarre about Obama’s hostility toward those who oppose aid to Israel is that Israel doesn’t need U.S. assistance to begin with.

(SAN FRANCISCO) - An ad on my Facebook page from barackobama.com reads, "Mitt Romney, Rick Perry, and Newt Gingrich say they would start foreign aid to Israel at zero. Reject their extreme plan now!"

This struck me as odd for two reasons:

First, it is disingenuous and misleading. The actual position taken by these Republican presidential candidates is that all foreign aid should initially start at zero as means of reducing the deficit, to be immediately followed by the resumption of aid on a case-by-case basis. As they themselves have acknowledged, they would immediately resume aid to Israel and perhaps even increase it. Ironically, U.S. "aid for Israel" goes almost exclusively to U.S. arms manufacturers, with which the Republican candidates have a close relationship.

Secondly, millions of Americans—particularly younger voters who are the primary users of Facebook—support zeroing out aid to Israel on human rights grounds. The Obama campaign, therefore, is effectively labeling those of us who oppose the use of our tax dollars to arm the right-wing Netanyahu government, which has repeatedly used U.S. weapons against civilians, as "extreme." Presumably, they feel the same way about those of us who support a cutoff of aid to other governments that violate international humanitarian law as well.

In 2009, Amnesty International, citing war crimes committed by both Israeli forces and the armed wing of Hamas earlier that year, called on nations to suspend arms shipments to both. The Obama administration categorically rejected the proposal. The administration has also rejected calls by human rights groups to condition military aid and arms transfers to other countries that use U.S. weapons against civilians, including Colombia, Egypt, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, India, Azerbaijan, and Morocco. Recently, the Obama administration requested a waiver on human rights restrictions in the forthcoming foreign appropriations bill in order to resume arming the Karimov dictatorship in Uzbekistan, which has massacred hundreds of pro-democracy protesters and has literally boiled its opponents alive.

One can speculate whether, if Obama were seeking re-election in 1984, his campaign would similarly label those who opposed aid to the murderous Salvadoran junta as “extreme.” Or, if it were 1996, his campaign would have marginalized opponents of U.S. aid to the genocidal Suharto regime in Indonesia. The president’s re-election team for 2012 sure appears to think of us that way.

Republican candidates certainly have taken a number of extreme positions regarding Israel and Palestine. Gingrich, Perry, and Romney, for example, have aligned themselves with the far right of the Israeli political spectrum, opposing Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories and opposing a freeze on illegal Israeli settlements. Gingrich has even said the Palestinians are an “invented people” and implied his support for mass population transfers.

I’ve searched barackobama.com and elsewhere, and nowhere does the Obama campaign appear to label such positions or similarly outrageous statements as “extreme.” However, if you oppose sending billions of dollars in taxpayer-funded aid to Israel—whether as a means of cutting the deficit, reducing cuts in social programs, or defending human rights—the Obama campaign considers it an “extreme plan” that should be rejected.

What is so bizarre about the Obama campaign’s hostility toward those who oppose aid to Israel is that Israel doesn’t need U.S. assistance to begin with. Israel, the region’s only nuclear power, has by far the strongest military capability in the greater Middle East, and it possesses the only significant domestic arms industry in the region. Israel also has, by far, the region’s highest standard of living, comparable to that of most European countries. Even putting human rights concerns aside, questioning why American taxpayers should be spending over $3 billion annually in aid to Israel at a time of massive cutbacks at home doesn’t seem unreasonable.

Furthermore, public opinion polls have consistently shown that a majority of Americans believe U.S. military aid should be made conditional to human rights.

Most people for whom providing unconditional support for the Netanyahu government is their top priority are going to support the Republican nominee anyway. Meanwhile, there are millions of Democrats, independents, and even Republicans who question spending billions of taxpayer dollars to prop up that rightist Israeli government every year. Why risk alienating these voters by labeling their position “extreme”? Is it simply a headline thrown together by an overzealous young wonk in the campaign? Or is this part of a larger effort to stifle debate on the Obama administration’s policies of aiding governments that violate human rights?

Either way, it sends the message that the Obama campaign does not welcome concerns about human rights. In addition, it serves as a reminder for Americans who do care about human rights that neither party will provide a presidential nominee we can vote for.

Special thanks to Foreign Policy in Focus

http://www.fpif.org/articles/obama_ad_condemns_israel_aid_opponents




Comments Leave a comment on this story.
Name:

All comments and messages are approved by people and self promotional links or unacceptable comments are denied.



brynababy December 18, 2011 7:39 pm (Pacific time)

The writer is inventing and accusing, but in fact, Israel, with all it's faults is stll the most,and in fact, only,, liberal, democratic, rights-observing country in the entire Middle East, and much of the world. Why do you think Palestinians want to live in Israel?

Editor:You're not trying to call Israel "liberal" really... are you?  What is liberal, the apartheid?  Is it the Jewish-only roads that people like myself and all of my Palestinian friends will never travel down?  How about the laws that incarcerate tiny Arab children and Jewish kids of the same age are barred from arrest... those liberal laws?  Israel is a fascist war crime government, it is wrong on almost every single level.  There is not a such thing as a good religious government anyway, but you I'm sure only fault those that are Jewish correct?  Ever heard the group DAM?  They are Palestinian Israelis, listen to their music and examine the core meaning, they feel like every  right they have is compromised, and yet they live better lives than anyone in Gaza.  Approving of Israel is endorsing the murder of kids.    


stephen December 18, 2011 12:48 pm (Pacific time)

say all ya want, post or dont post my comments, but yet again..another reason to support Ron Paul. Ron Paul came right out and told the world that netanyahoo says he does not need U.S. aid. Ron Paul is the only one that agrees with 99% of this website..wake up. Do the right thing this time..please, I have children that I really care about. I dont care about me, I just love my kids and want them to live in a free country, not be a slave to the banker owned candidates that want my kids to be slaves. Ron Paul is the only answer..If you dont like my posts, just delete them, but I HAVE to type them.

Editor: Just work on consistency and temper your anger if you want to help Ron Paul.

[Return to Top]
©2025 Salem-News.com. All opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Salem-News.com.


Articles for December 16, 2011 | Articles for December 17, 2011 | Articles for December 18, 2011



Annual Hemp Festival & Event Calendar

Support
Salem-News.com:

The NAACP of the Willamette Valley

Special Section: Truth telling news about marijuana related issues and events.