Detractors of the Obama administration are smearing the President’s record and discarding bipartisanship when it comes to the U.S.-Israel relationship. As former Israel Consul General in New York Alon Pinkas recently wrote in an op-ed in Politico, conservatives (and their Israeli allies) have sought to “reduce the issue to one basic equation: Republicans are good for Israel, Democrats aren’t.”

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence described the administration as “the most anti-Israel administration in the modern history of the state of Israel and our relationship with her,” when speaking with the Christian Broadcast Network in August.

The accusations that have been leveled at President Obama to prove this charge are baseless. President Obama’s record shows that he has worked to ensure Israel’s security while maintaining and enhancing the special U.S.-Israel relationship. Consider the following:

• In addition to significantly expanding trade between Israel and the U.S., President Obama played an important behind-the-scenes role in bringing Israel into the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), a long sought-after Israeli goal.

According to the <em>Wall Street Journal, “U.S. military aid to Israel has increased markedly this year,” from the result of policy directives the White House gave the Pentagon early in Obama’s presidency to “deepen and expand the quantity and intensity of cooperation to the fullest extent.”

Obama raised the amount of U.S. military aid to Israel, making it the single largest expense of the 2010 foreign aid budget. He also authorized 205 million to enable Israel to complete the Iron Dome.

The Obama administration has significantly increased the level of strategic dialogue and the depth of intelligence coordination between the U.S. and Israel, particularly regarding Iran, and has successfully led international efforts to intensify pressure against the Iranian regime over its nuclear program.

Even President Obama’s opposition to West Bank settlement construction — a cause célèbre for attacks against the White House’s relationship with Israel — is not remotely a new position for the United States. In fact, his policy demonstrates the consistency of U.S. foreign policy on this topic — his stance mirrors that of every president, Democratic and Republican alike, since Lyndon Johnson. What has changed is that unlike previous administrations, who have either ignored, tacitly approved, or, in the case of President George H. W. Bush, attempted to discourage such construction by withholding aid, President Obama is now offering Israel significant U.S. incentives to halt construction… for just 90 days.

Against this backdrop, for anyone to claim that the President does not support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship is truly mind-boggling. But the administration’s detractors have a penchant for fabrications over facts.

In September, Rush Limbaugh panned President Obama’s speech to the United Nations General Assembly as “Israel bashing” (he has also called Obama “anti-Semitic”). This is not evenly remotely accurate. The President’s speech challenged the international community to support Arab-Israeli peace, stating that “Israel’s existence must not be a subject for debate,” and that “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakable opposition of the United States.”

Alan Dershowitz recently opined in the Huffington Post that the policy of the United States “seems to be that a nuclear Iran is inevitable.” This too is not true. President Obama led international efforts to impose sanctions against Iran, including signing “the toughest sanctions against Iran ever passed by the United States Congress.” Upon signing the sanctions bill, the President stated, “There should be no doubt: The United States and the international community are determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Recently, Daniel Gordis wrote in the Jerusalem Post that the “alleged offer” from the United States to induce Israel to implement a 90 day settlement freeze shows that the U.S. “has not applied anywhere near the kind of pressure on Iran that it could” and that the steadfast U.S. opposition to efforts to delegitimize Israel “is over.” Of course, Gordis hasn’t actually seen the offer, which has yet to go public, but that hasn’t stopped him from slinging mud at the President.

Such baseless charges are not only shameful but also damaging to the strength of the U.S.-Israel relationship. In truth, the Obama administration has supported Israel despite hostility among Arab and Muslim publics, at a time when U.S. efforts to withdraw from Iraq and stabilize the region greatly depend on their support. The U.S. is sticking to its principles, even if it is not expedient to do so.

Preventing Iran’s acquisition of a nuclear weapon, safeguarding Israel’s security, and achieving a comprehensive Middle East peace are key U.S. policy objectives, and national interests. In pursuing these objectives, the Obama White House can confidently say that it has maintained and reinforced the U.S.-Israel relationship.

If the administration’s detractors truly support the U.S.-Israel relationship, they should spend more time trying to strengthen our ties by helping President Obama achieve these critical goals, rather than diminish them by smearing his record.

 

Follow Peter A. Joseph on Twitter: www.twitter.com/israelpolicy4m