My friend Rick Richman should worry less about his "risk of being accused of mental illness," and more about the risk of being accused of a doggedness, a dedication to ascertaining the absolute unvarnished truth that is seldom found anywhere, especially so well expressed. He just will NOT let the Obama administration off the hook for its vacillation on our new, yet hardly improved, O-merican relationship to Israel.
In a post at contentions, Rick asks - no, demands an answer to the question - Is Obama's Commitment to Israel's Security "Unqualified"? (to which I would add the unnecessary yet glaring, " OR NOT? ")
.... At the risk of being accused of mental illness for doubting Obama’s unqualified commitment (and Siegman’s assertion that the 1967 borders were “pre-conflict” ones), here is an easy test to determine the quality of President Obama’s commitment: Does he stand by the 2004 Bush Letter to Israel, which reiterated the following “steadfast commitment:”
The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats. [Emphasis added.]
No responsible Israeli or American military person considers the 1967 borders “defensible.” It was their indefensible nature that led Arab states to prepare for what they announced in May 1967 would be a “total war which will put an end to Israel.” Israel’s ability to deter and defend itself, by itself, also depends on preservation of its ultimate deterrent — which the words “by itself” in the Bush Letter were intended to reaffirm.
The Obama State Department has declined, no less than 21 times, to pass this test. The administration’s continued silence about it leads to a certain amount of doubt about Obama’s commitment — a doubt increased by Hillary Clinton’s BBC interview on Friday....
Read it all. And in any way that you can, add your voice to this lonely chorus of one Jew asking ... What, in fact, is our country's commitment -if any- to the security of the Jewish state? It is a question too urgent, too pivotal to be ignored any longer.
Posted by: bunuel | Monday, 02 November 2009 at 01:00 PM