Oh, you…
Obama’s ‘evenhandedness’ troubles OU.
When you oppose evenhandedness, you know you’ve lost your moral compass.
For a more complete report on the meeting in question, click here.
I’m jaded enough to think that this little ray of sunshine in US - Israel policy is not going to do a damn thing to end the occupation, but I think its going to shake the relative power of American Jewish orgs in a good way. At the very least the new administration is going to cause AIPAC and the Presidents Conference to cut back on their saber rattling.
“When you oppose evenhandedness, you know you’ve lost your moral compass.”
Huh? Why is that automatically so? What does “evenhandedness” even mean? And under what moral doctrine is a third party obligated to be “evenhanded” between two opponents?
“At the very least the new administration is going to cause AIPAC and the Presidents Conference to cut back on their saber rattling.”
How do AIPAC and the Presidents Conference “rattle sabers”? What “sabers” do you imagine those groups even have available to rattle in the first place?
—Eric · July 15th, 2009 at 12:08 am
Huh? Why is that automatically so? What does “evenhandedness” even mean? And under what moral doctrine is a third party obligated to be “evenhanded” between two opponents?
It means that we’re supposed to pretend it’s June 2000, and not July 2009 . . . and that all Obama needs to do is “impose” an agreement on both side so that we can live happily ever after.
How do AIPAC and the Presidents Conference “rattle sabers”? What “sabers” do you imagine those groups even have available to rattle in the first place?
Don’t you know that anybody who thinks Israel/America should proceed cautiously–on the Palestinian track–is mindlessly spewing AIPAC’s war-mongering rhetoric?
—Jonathan1 · July 15th, 2009 at 8:26 am
Not to be a dick but…
e·ven·hand·ed
adj.
Showing no partiality; fair.
It’s been my understanding that the point of a third party is to exhibit this very trait. otherwise it’s not really a third party…it’s just the friend of one of the parties… Just sayin..
—Trista · July 15th, 2009 at 10:57 am
The best thing about the piece is that Malcolm Hoenlein, who has defined the right wing of American Jewish opinion (neck and neck with ZOA’s Morton Klein) for decades, is called a centrist. Now there’s a real scoop.
—Aryeh Cohen · July 16th, 2009 at 1:26 am
>>”It’s been my understanding that the point of a third party is to exhibit this very trait. otherwise it’s not really a third party…it’s just the friend of one of the parties… Just sayin..”
Should the US be “evenhanded” between China and Taiwan? Between England and the IRA? Between North Korea and South Korea? Please.
—Eric · July 16th, 2009 at 9:29 am
eric
OMG i never said anything about should. but if the U.S. is there to be a third party, one that is separate from the two conflicting parties, then that is it’s role. but whether that is what should happen is a totally different.
and as I am in S. Korea, I can assure you the people here want N. Korea back and aren’t afraid to hold their government responsible for some of the alienation of their northern family members. but i could see how it might look like a bad political step on the part of the U.S. government.
—Trista · July 16th, 2009 at 10:34 pm
But the U.S. WAS even-handed between Republican and Unionist forces…
As for Taiwan… The U.S. has NEVER been even-handed, so why not give it a try?
—B.BarNavi · July 19th, 2009 at 4:17 pm
If the US wants to *say* it’s not evenhanded, it should go ahead, but then who would trust them in the region?
—Amit · July 22nd, 2009 at 6:55 am
Can’t we look at it from the other angle, though. If the US wants to say its somebody’s friend, and then doesn’t back up that friend when the friend is clearly right (ie, 2000-2004 and those years’ lingering effects) . . . who would trust American friendship?
—Jonathan1 · July 22nd, 2009 at 8:36 am