No 'Buyer’s Remorse' for Voting for Obama

Friday, 27 Jul 2012 12:57 PM

By Alan Dershowitz

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
    A   A  
  Copy Shortlink
Republicans are trying to woo away Jews who voted for Barack Obama in 2008, hoping they have experienced “buyer’s remorse.” I, for one, have experienced no such remorse.

I have gotten from President Obama pretty much what I expected when I voted for him: a pragmatic, centrist liberal who has managed — with some necessary compromises — to bring us the first important healthcare legislation in recent history, to appoint excellent justices to the Supreme Court, to support women’s rights, to eliminate the “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy, to maintain the wall of separation between church and state, to keep up an effective war against terrorism, and to generally make me proud to be an American who cast my vote for him.

Even with regard to his policy toward Israel, which has generated much of the impetus for this “buyer’s remorse” campaign, President Obama has kept his promises.

During the last campaign, I, and others, urged candidate Obama to go to Israel and visit Sderot, which was being shelled by rockets from Hamas-controlled Gaza.

He then went to Sderot, and while standing in front of the lethal rockets that had inflicted so much damage — physical and psychological — to so many children and adults, this is what he said: “I don’t think any country would find it acceptable to have missiles raining down on the heads of their citizens.

"The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens . . . If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I’m going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same.”

And when the Israeli Defense Forces finally had to respond to the rocket terror with Operation Cast Lead, President Obama supported Israel’s actions and his administration condemned the Goldstone Report as deeply flawed and biased against Israel.

Now, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is visiting Israel. I’m glad he is, because support for Israel must always remain bipartisan.

No presidential election should ever become a referendum on support for Israel. Certainly the upcoming election will not be, because both candidates strongly support Israel’s security.

Candidates must earn the vote of each citizen based on the totality of their records, and must not take the support of any group for granted.

The Obama Administration has worked hand in hand with Israel in developing the Iran Dome, David’s Sling and Arrow Defense capabilities.

It has approved the sale of F-35 stealth fighters to the Israeli air force. It has conducted large, joint military exercises and has coordinated intelligence operations with Israeli secret services.

That is why I was not surprised when Israel’s Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that he could “hardly remember a better period of . . . American support and cooperation and similar strategic understanding . . . than what he have right now.”

The greatest threat Israel faces today is from Iran, a nation ruled by anti-Semitic, Holocaust denying, terrorist-inciting Mullahs, who would sacrifice millions of their own citizens to destroy “the little Satan,” which is how they refer to Israel (the United States being “the big Satan.”)

There are some, in both parties, who wrongly believe that a policy of “containment” — that is, allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons but containing their use by the threat of tit-for-tat reprisal — is the right strategy.

President Obama has explicitly rejected this benighted approach and has instead announced that his policy is to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, even if it takes military actions to do so. In the meantime, he has ratcheted up sanctions and diplomatic pressure while explicitly keeping the military option on the table.

Several months ago, Obama invited me to the Oval Office to discuss his Iran strategy. He looked me in the eye and said, “I don’t bluff.”

His actions with regard to Osama bin Laden and the Somali pirates who endangered Americans and threatened to kill them demonstrated his willingness to use force when warranted. So does his increased use of drones to target terrorists who are beyond the reach of capture.

I believe President Obama when he says that Iran will not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons on his watch.

Obama also understands that no sovereign nation can ever outsource the protection of its own citizens against a nuclear Holocaust.

If Israel were to decide — as a last resort, after exhausting all diplomatic, economic, and intelligence options — that it had no choice but to take military action against Iran’s nuclear programs, I am confident that the Obama administration would not condemn that action (as the Reagan administration condemned Israel’s correct decision to destroy Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981).

These are President Obama’s own words on this important issue: "Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States — just as they should not doubt Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions about what is required to meet its security needs.

The issue of Israeli security must be distinguished from the issue of Israeli civilian settlements in the West Bank. Israel’s settlement policy is deeply controversial within Israel and among Jewish supporters of Israel in the United States.

Both Republican and Democratic administrations have been critical of some Israeli decisions regarding the settlements. I have sometimes agreed and sometimes disagreed with these criticisms. Reasonable supporters of Israel will have different views on the settlements and on how best to move toward a two-state solution that assures Israel’s security.

When I decide on whom to vote for president, I ask myself who will be best for America and for the world. An important component of my answer involves my assessment of the candidate’s willingness and ability to protect Israel’s security, since I strongly believe that a strong Israel serves the interests of the United States and of world peace.

I am confident that President Obama will keep his promise “always [to] have Israel’s back” in the face of the continuing threats posed by Israel’s enemies.

Alan M. Dershowitz is the Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. He is a graduate of Brooklyn College and Yale Law School. Read more reports from Alan M. Dershowitz — Click Here Now.

© 2014 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

  Comment  |
   Contact  |
  Print   |
  Copy Shortlink
Around the Web
Join the Newsmax Community
Please review Community Guidelines before posting a comment.
>> Register to share your comments with the community.
>> Login if you are already a member.
blog comments powered by Disqus
 
Email:
Country
Zip Code:
Privacy: We never share your email.
 
Follow Newsmax
Like us
on Facebook
Follow us
on Twitter
Add us
on Google Plus
Around the Web
Top Stories
You May Also Like

Harvard's President Stops Israeli Co. Boycott

Thursday, 18 Dec 2014 16:14 PM

Sodastream has been forced to move its factory to an area in Israel where few, if any, Arabs can be employed. This is no . . .

Amnesty International Suppresses Free Speech

Monday, 10 Nov 2014 11:47 AM

Last month the Columbia chapter of Amnesty International invited me to deliver a talk on human rights in the Middle East . . .

UK's Miliband Rips Israel For Defending Against Hamas

Thursday, 30 Oct 2014 20:34 PM

Ed Miliband, who is the leader of Great Britain's Labour Party, wants to become Prime Minister following the next genera . . .

Most Commented

Newsmax, Moneynews, Newsmax Health, and Independent. American. are registered trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc. Newsmax TV, and Newsmax World are trademarks of Newsmax Media, Inc.

 
NEWSMAX.COM
America's News Page
©  Newsmax Media, Inc.
All Rights Reserved