YES, BUT HOW STAUNCH?

Noah Pollak has a follow-up smear to his earlier smear of Samantha Power, in which, among other delights, he interprets Powers' suggestion (in a 2002 interview, during one of the most violent periods of the second intifada) of the possible necessity of an American-led peacekeeping force in Palestinian areas as advocacy for "an American ground invasion of Israel and the Palestinian territories." You know, if you squint really hard and tilt your head ... no, not really.

Meanwhile, Pollak's fellow contender Eric Trager comments on Barack Obama's recent phone call with American Jewish leaders, in which which Obama reiterated his support for Israel in the face of rumors to the contrary. Trager expresses sadness over the innuendos being spread against Obama's campaign, as if unaware that his magazine is a player in the effort. Then Trager gives us this:

Yet one question remains legitimate: how can voters who care about the U.S.-Israel relationship be reassured that Obama’s staunchly pro-Israel declarations are not mere pandering? After all, Obama is on record as having called for an “even-handed approach” to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in 2000, just as the Palestinians commenced the Second Intifada following Camp David.

Good heavens, "an even-handed approach"? What's next, wearing a keffiyeh? Driving a VW bus? Yeah, sure Obama says he's staunchly pro- Israel, and he has a record of supporting staunchly pro-Israel policies, but does he really feel it? You know, like, really? Questions remain.

--Matthew Duss

You need to be logged in to comment.
(If there's one thing we know about comment trolls, it's that they're lazy)

Connect
, after login or registration your account will be connected.
Advertisement