Trending Topics:

Wasserman Schultz brags on Obama’s continuity with Bush policies in ME

on 13 Comments

Many times we’ve pointed out that the Democrats are running to the right of Romney, or trying to, on Israel. Here’s more evidence. In an email recommending a Haaretz editorial that endorses Obama as good for Israel, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, excerpted the editorial and included paragraphs linking Obama’s policy with George W. Bush’s neoconservative policy. A policy, says Haaretz, of launching a disastrous war to assist Israel’s security. Such a statement evidently won’t hurt Obama among the Democratic chair’s intended audience…

Here’s Wasserman Schultz:

Yesterday, Haaretz, the oldest Israeli daily newspaper, endorsed President Obama. It’s a must-read. Take a look at these excerpts, then forward it to everyone you know:

Obama is good for Israel
Haaretz editorial

“Tens of millions of Americans will go to the polls on Tuesday to vote for a president and vice president. It will be an important day for American democracy. This will be the Americans’ day, but the outcome of the elections will impact the entire world.

For Americans in general, and American Jews in particular, the United States’ attitude toward Israel is just one of many factors to consider – among internal and foreign affairs, the economy and defense – when casting their vote …

A deeper examination of the core issues comprising the two countries’ relations — devoid of political and personal interests — reveals no grounds for portraying Obama in a negative light.

Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, assisted Israel’s defense by toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq and deterring, albeit for a limited period, Iran’s accelerated progress toward attaining nuclear weapons. Bush contributed to Israel’s peace, even if partially, by being the first president to adopt the two-state solution. His support even enabled the evacuation of settlements from the Gaza Strip and northern West Bank.

Obama continued this two-way track vis-a-vis Iran and the issue of Palestinian statehood. Under his pressure, Israel suspended for the first time — for a while — construction in the settlements. Relations between the two countries’ armed forces have never been so close. Obama’s challenge in his second term, if he wins the elections, is to lead the region to a stable arrangement of peace and security.

The outcome of the elections will be determined by the voters’ decision as to which of the two candidates is good for America. But if any of them are vacillating in their vote over whether Obama has been a good president for Israel, the answer is yes.”

P.S. I hope you noticed Haaretz’s version of the disastrous Iraq War: “George W. Bush… assisted Israel’s defense by toppling Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq…” I’ve said that, Walt and Mearsheimer said that, Condi Rice said that. Try and say that in the public square here.

About Philip Weiss

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of

Other posts by .

Posted In:

13 Responses

  1. JohnAdamTurnbull
    November 4, 2012, 1:44 pm

    And then there’s the Onion’s assessment of the two candidates and their respective views of Israel.,30184/?ref=auto

  2. Inanna
    November 4, 2012, 5:19 pm

    Count Wasserman-Schultz as yet another member of the ‘we think it was worth it’ team to kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis for the security of Israel.

  3. dbroncos
    November 5, 2012, 12:53 am

    ” Try and say that in the public square here.”

    Yes, exactly. I’ve met steely glares or blank stares on the faces of some people to whom I’ve emphasized the importance of Israel’s “security” requirements as a central part of Bush’s Iraq war calculations. I’m presumably understood to be either anti semitic or a conspiracy theorist. I chalk this up to the scant coverage of the role Israel played in our rationale for that disgraceful war.

    • Citizen
      November 5, 2012, 7:07 am

      Imagine the NYT, WP, or WSJ, or even The Economist saying what the Israeli media dares to say. Imagine Chris Matthews saying it as one of his many spittle-enfused daily declarations.

  4. DICKERSON3870
    November 5, 2012, 5:20 am

    RE: “Debbie Wasserman Schultz, chair of the Democratic National Committee, excerpted the editorial and included paragraphs linking Obama’s policy with George W. Bush’s neoconservative policy. A policy, says Haaretz, of launching a disastrous war to assist Israel’s security.” ~ Weiss

    NEW YORK TIMES / IHT (2006): “He [Bush] told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,” said one person present . . .

    SEE – “Bush and Israel: Unlike his father”, By Sheryl Gay Stolberg, International Herald Tribune, 2006

    [EXCERPT] WASHINGTON — When they first met as U.S. president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon that he would not follow in the footsteps of his father.
    The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Sharon had helped develop.
    But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 – six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond – the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel.
    “He told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,” said one person present, granted anonymity to speak about a private conversation.
    “It was like, ‘Whoa, where did that come from?'”
    That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As this president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah, even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation, some advisers to the father are expressing increasingly deep unease with the Israel policies of the son.
    “The current approach simply is not leading toward a solution to the crisis, or even a winding down of the crisis,” said Richard Haass, who advised the first President Bush on the Middle East and worked as a senior State Department official in the current president’s first term. “There are times at which a hands-off policy can be justified. It’s not obvious to me that this is one of them.”
    Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role now through the prism of the war on terror. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro- Israeli component of his conservative Republican base. . .



  5. elephantine
    November 5, 2012, 6:50 am

    Me not being American and all, a few weeks ago I would have had no idea who this lady was. But that is not the case now because I happened to read Glenn Greenwald’s “The remarkable, unfathomable ignorance of Debbie Wasserman Schultz” and watched the video it referred to. *face palm*

    So now I know who Debbie Wasserman Schultz is and what I read above isn’t too surprising – all things considered!

  6. Citizen
    November 5, 2012, 7:08 am

    The world is watching the US election–the 5 countries where our choice matters most; one is, of course Syria, and two is, of course Israel.

    • David Green
      David Green
      November 5, 2012, 10:23 am

      In regard to Syria or Israel, what difference could this election possibly make? There is no significant difference regarding USFP in any arena between the major candidates.

  7. seafoid
    November 5, 2012, 8:37 am

    “But if any of them are vacillating in their vote over whether Obama has been a good president for Israel, the answer is yes.”

    It’s way too early to tell. If Israel is still going in 2042 then Obama may be judged to have done well.

  8. mikerol
    November 5, 2012, 12:06 pm A Regular Antidote to the Mainstream Media
    November 4, 2012
    Tomgram: Jeremiah Goulka, The Urge to Bomb Iran
    [Note for TomDispatch Readers: The latest Dispatch Books volume, Nick Turse’s The Changing Face of Empire: Special Ops, Drones, Proxy Fighters, Secret Bases, and Cyberwarfare, is now available at Amazon for those who buy there and can also be purchased directly at the website of our independent political publisher, Haymarket Books. In addition, for those in the mood to help this site stay afloat, a signed, personalized copy of his book is available for a contribution of $75 (or more) via our donation page (as are various books of mine and the last pre-signed copies of Noam Chomsky’s Hopes and Prospects). Tom]

    The Obama administration has engaged in a staggering military build-up in the Persian Gulf and at U.S. and allied bases around Iran (not to speak of in the air over that country and in cyberspace). Massive as it is, however, it hasn’t gotten much coverage lately. Perhaps, after all the alarms and warnings about possible Israeli or U.S. military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities this election season, it’s become so much the norm that it doesn’t even seem like news anymore. Still, two recent stories should jog our memories.

    Barely a week ago, the commander of the aircraft carrier U.S.S. John C. Stennis was temporarily replaced and called home to face an investigation into “inappropriate leadership judgment.” What this means is unclear, but it happened while the Stennis and its attending strike group including destroyers, guided missile cruisers, and other ships, were deployed in the Persian Gulf. We forget just what an “aircraft carrier” really is. It’s essentially a floating U.S. airbase and small town with a crew of about 5,000. As it happens, the Stennis was sent back to the Persian Gulf four months early to join the U.S.S. Eisenhower, because Washington wanted two such strike groups in the area. Even if there were no other build-up, this would be impressive enough.

    At about the same time, what might be thought of as the creepy story of that week surfaced. Behind the scenes, reported the Guardian, the British government had rejected Obama administration requests for access to some of its bases as part of preparations for a possible war with Iran. (“The Guardian has been told that U.S. diplomats have also lobbied for the use of British bases in Cyprus, and for permission to fly from U.S. bases on Ascension Island in the Atlantic and Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, both of which are British territories.”) The rejection — “the government does not think military action is the right course at this point of time” — was not, of course, the creepy part of the story. For some strange reason, British officials don’t feel that war is the optimal approach to Iran and, stranger yet, don’t want to be dragged into a potential regional conflagration. The creepy part of the story was the

    • straightline
      November 5, 2012, 3:09 pm

      The British stance is strange and contradictory. On the one hand we have the rejection described by mikerol, and on the other Britain has agreed to station Typhoons (the “eurofighter”) in the Gulf to support US and French materiel and personnel already there:

      And on the third hand (who’s counting), this deployment seems to be connected to sales of said fighters to Gulf States:

      But of course just to make things ok “he Cam” is going to raise human rights issues.
      Maybe its not so contradictory after all.

  9. ToivoS
    November 5, 2012, 7:45 pm

    It is somewhat refreshing to see frank acknowledgement that the war in Iraq was fought on behalf of Israel. I was publicly called an antisemite by a colleague for making that assertion in 2003. Certainly any blogs with a strong Zionist presence will be up-in-arms whenever that assertion is made. There is a real nasty crew hanging out at Walt’s blog right now that make rational discussion most difficult.

Leave a Reply