r/politics • u/Particular_Log_3594 • 6d ago

No Paywall Obama: Israel 'took the land' from Palestinians, 'ceded moral ground' in Gaza

https://www.jpost.com/international/article-911851
11k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

15

u/Tractor_Pete Texas 5d ago

That's quite the overstatement. He only abstained on the UN vote, didn't vote for it like every other civilized nation. And fully supported ongoing aid, military and intel support for Israel.

He only pushed back a little; it's remarkable because no president had since HW told Israel not to get involved in the first gulf war and went from record high approval to a 1 term president.

3

u/Tyranitardis 5d ago

Israel isn't why HW wasn't elected twice. It's Ross Perot siphoning such a gigantic amount of Republican voters.

That's why Republicans have been quick to kill Republican-friendly third parties ever since.

0

u/Tractor_Pete Texas 5d ago

It's certainly not the only reason; Perot was more important, but it was a factor and the perception/narrative is important in politics, even if it's exaggerated.

1

u/Tyranitardis 5d ago

No, it was Perot 100%.

Clinton barely won with Perot's entrance into the election. Bush wins by a huge landslide if there's no Perot.

1

u/Tractor_Pete Texas 5d ago

I understand arithmetic. You do understand that both factors work together, no?

Perot did so well in part because AIPAC et al came down hard on Bush and cheered the very vocally supportive Perot. They also were capable of arithmetic, and knew that Perot was a greater threat to Bush than Clinton was. It can't be 100%, unless that had zero effect.

1

u/Tyranitardis 5d ago

https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips?code=Q05+&cycle=1992&ind=Q05+&recipdetail=P

AIPAC did not spend much in 1992.

They weren't a deciding factor of anything.

0

u/Tractor_Pete Texas 5d ago

AIPAC does not directly fund campaigns much at all; rather it directs its donor networks to support specific candidates.

1

u/Tyranitardis 5d ago

They had almost no actual impact in the 1992 election.

-4

u/aylio 5d ago

So you wanted him to also risk becoming a one term president and lose all political capitol for the ACA and his other bills like HW did? Frankly the realpolitik hasn't supported taking a position like HWs or beyond until the past couple of years.

2

u/Tractor_Pete Texas 5d ago

Sometimes. It's a tough call (or, many tough calls over 8 years). I don't know all the angles or the best estimates of how politically costly it would have been; even the most well informed people at the time didn't know. I'm not saying there weren't real risks worth considering, but the principle of not aiding an apartheid state is worth risking a fair amount.

1

u/aylio 5d ago

Agreed that it's worth risking a fair amount. I was also in highschool and college for the entirety of Obama's terma and don't know either. But I will at least on this rely on those who did know more at the time likeolder Americans, Obama, and his advisors and the rest of the party at the time. There is plenty of evidence that Obama had a tenuous relationship with Israel and the settlers that others have shared here and I'll add the polls on Americans views of Israel that were overwhelmingly positive until half a year to a year after October 7th. It seems more likely than not that Obama picked his battles here as well as he could and did as much as he could risk. Similar to what he did for Gay Marriage.