Obama’s Positive Support for Israel Speaks Volumes: Substance Behind the Scenes

President Obama’s critical support for Israel was implemented behind the scenes – far from public speeches. His quiet (close to the vest) diplomacy has been seriously underestimated.

On October 18, 2012, we learned that US troops arrived in Israel for the largest joint missile defense exercise ever undertaken.

Graham T. Allison Jr, director of the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at the Harvard Kennedy School, and Shai Feldman, director of Brandeis University’s Crown Center for Middle East Studies, wrote in the NY Times on October 13, 2012:

Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Obama administration was conducting a quiet campaign that would strengthen the view, already circulating among Israeli security professionals, that prematurely attacking Iran would not advance Israel’s interests and would damage Israel’s relationship with America. Instead of holding Israel at bay or threatening punitive action, the administration was upgrading American security assistance to Israel — so much so that earlier this year Mr. Barak described the level of support as greater than ever in Israel’s history.

This increase was manifest at every level: intelligence sharing that resulted in a convergence of assessments about Iran’s nuclear efforts; joint cyberoperations to slow Iran’s nuclear program; support of Israel’s development of antimissile defenses; and reaching a common declared strategic approach to Iran’s nuclear program. That approach now focuses the two countries’ efforts on preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, while also ruling out the option of a retreat to containing and deterring a nuclear-armed Iran.

Equally important, increased American assistance has been accompanied by closer institutional links between the two countries’ defense and intelligence communities, as well as more intimate personal ties between both communities’ top echelons. Through numerous meetings in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and Washington, the Obama administration has used these connections to convey an unambiguous message: Do not attack before all nonmilitary efforts to roll back Iran’s nuclear program have been exhausted.

Ever deeper American-Israeli defense ties have created what might be labeled a “United States lobby” among Israeli security professionals, who now have a strong interest in continuing the close partnership. It is no accident that the security institutions have become among the most vocal opponents of attacking Iran. No one knows better than they what is at stake if they ignore Washington’s concerns.

The following was reportedly first posted by Florida Jewish Journal on January 11, 2012 – unfortunately, we cannot find the link – and later as a comment by Melvin Kahn on the JewishReporter.com on August 15, 2012. It has since been repeated on numerous sites.  Our appreciation to Isaac Barr for contacting Rights Radio to provide the original source.

Relations between Israel and the United States are warmer under President Obama than under previous administrations, yet we hear that the President has a “Jewish problem.” The problem is not Obama, but us: In only three years, we’ve lost historic perspective. We’re criticizing Obama for what would have gone unnoticed in other administrations.

Gerald Ford and Henry Kissinger threatened to “reassess” America ‘s relationship with Israel . Obama has declared that America ‘s bond with Israel is “unbreakable,” and Israeli Defense Minister, Ehud Barak credited Obama for the strongest relationship between the two countries ever.

Ronald Reagan suspended arms shipments to Israel and supported a UN resolution criticizing Israel for bombing Iraq ‘s nuclear reactor. Obama secretly sold Israel the bunker busting bombs it requested during the Bush administration and cast the only UN veto of his administration against the one-sided anti-Israel UN Security Council resolution on settlements.

George W. Bush pressured Israel to allow Hamas to participate in Gaza elections and made little progress in stopping Iran ‘s march toward nuclear weapons. Obama has not negotiated with Hamas. He has mobilized the international community to impose the toughest sanctions ever against Iran and flat-out declared that that he will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, saying no options are off the table. Obama’s pro-Israel accomplishments compare favorably with any Republican president. Yet we keep complaining.

We say he hasn’t visited Israel as president, forgetting that Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are the only two presidents who visited Israel during their first terms in office. George W. Bush did not visit Israel until his seventh year as president. Ronald Reagan never visited in his entire life. Obama went to Israel as recently as 2006 and 2008.

We complain that the Obama administration criticizes Israel ‘s settlement policy, forgetting that every administration since 1967 has criticized Israel ‘s settlement policy. But unlike George H.W. Bush, Obama never threatened to withhold U.S. aid to Israel because of settlement activity; instead, Obama has taken U.S. financial assistance to Israel to record levels.

We complain about imagined slights to Prime Minister Netanyahu, forgetting that when the chips were down, Obama came through for Israel and Netanyahu. When Israel asked for help fighting the Carmel forest fires, President Obama’s response was “get Israel whatever it needs. Now.”  (Remember the ‘slight’ was media misreporting what was business as usual when there is a last minute, not planned in advance, visit!)

In September 2011, when the late-night call came from Israel to Obama asking for help in rescuing the Israelis trapped in the Egyptian embassy, Netanyahu himself called it a “decisive and fateful moment,” recalling that Obama “said ‘I will do everything I can.’ And he did.”

The list goes on and on. Obama opposed the Goldstone Report, stood with Israel against the Gaza flotilla, boycotted Durban II and Durban III, and successfully derailed Palestinian attempts to unilaterally declare statehood at the UN. He’s done more than any president to thwart Iran ‘s nuclear ambitions.

Yet despite the facts, despite the historic perspective, it’s almost as if some of us want Obama to be anti-Israel because that would validate our worst fears. Attacking Obama on Israel is like attacking John Kerry on his personal military record. The Swift Boat campaign worked because Kerry and his supporters were too slow to take it seriously and fight fiction with facts. The result was four more years of George W. Bush.

Maybe it’s our nature to complain. But President Obama’s words and deeds prove that he is not only a strong friend of Israel, but that he is willing to stand up for Israel publicly and behind the scenes. That’s what matters, and that’s why most Jews will again vote for Obama in 2012.

Note: I want to thank Robert Robert Goldschmidt in his comment below for sharing an important video link. I’m embedding it here as well.


  1. Isaac Barr says

    The article “Obama’s Positive Support for Israel Speaks Volumes: Substance Behind the Scenes” was published first by Florida Jewish Journal 10:17 am EST, January 11, 2012. Regarding the content: It misses the point: It is not “which party was better with Israel” but how can we expect president Obama and governor Mitt Romney treat the difficult Palestinian Israel conflict. Governor Mitt Romney was right when he declared “President Bush and I are — are different people and these are different times and that’s why my five point plan is so different than what he would have done.” In fact Romney was critical of President GW Bush on numerous occasions. Romney’s commitment to Israel is beyond a political agenda, it his “higher Authority”. Indeed, different times and different personalities create different attitudes. President Barack Obama is not President Bill Clinton either. Review of the pro-Israel sections of the 2008 and 2004 Democratic Party platforms removed from the 2012 Democratic Party platform realizes Obama’s intentions and his plans for Israel if he gets a second term. The Obama campaign asserted that deletion concerning Jerusalem as “the capital of Israel” was an innocent mistake. They claim that the president personally intervened to reinstate the language regarding Jerusalem. But the Democrats must explain the fact that other pro- Israel sections in the 2008 platform concerning Hamas, Palestinian refugees, and borders remained deleted in the 2012 platform. Obama did not reinstate these. Rather, the deleted agenda is an close replica of Obama’s positions in the controversial Middle East speech May 19, 2011 that “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines.” In that speech President Obama disregarded assurances made to Israel from previous administrations concerning the Palestinian refugees and Hamas. As a person who knows Islam Islam Obama he must know the Islamic concepts of WAQF and TAQYYA and not demand all concession to be done by Israel. Yes, different people, different agenda, different solution. The Democrats and the Republicans tackled for many years the Palestinian Israel conflict investing talent and money. Sometimes conflicts cannot be resolved by the most dedicated. This article is a HOAX, an ugly deception which originated by those Democrats who stole my Romney signs from my home.

    • says

      Isaac Barr » Thanks so much for your response and insightful comment. We’ve searched for the link on the Florida Jewish Journal, but cannot find it. If you have it, we would be grateful. We would like to give them credit.

    • Robert Goldschmidt says

      Israel complains, and rightfully so, about being treated by a double standard. But I believe many US born Jews here and in Israel treat President Obama by a double standard.


      As for Governor Romney, there is no way to be sure where he stands on any issue (perhaps even he doesn’t know at this point). What we do know is that both he and Representative Ryan are lacking any depth of foreign policy experience while President Obama has demonstrated a steady, determined and respected hand over the past 3.5 years.

      It would seem that a President Romney, if confronted by a significant foreign policy threat, would fall back on his advisors who are the same G W Bush neocons that got us into Iraq under false pretenses. [Even if you were to believe that the intelligence leading up to the Iraq War was flawed, then why didn't we pull out after no WMD was found?]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>