My last name is Bernstein
While I no longer identify religiously as a Jew, I am of Jewish heritage, of which I am proud.
Relatives on my mother's side were killed in the liquidation of the Jewish community of Bialystok.
Were a Nazi regime ever to take hold of this nation, I have little doubt that my lack of religiosity would in no way protect me from whatever equivalent of gas chambers they might choose to use.
I strongly believe in the right of Israel to exist.
That said, I must take strong exception to the following statement from the foreign policy speech Mitt Romney delivered this morning at VMI:
We may be bound by mutual assistance treaty commitments to come to the aid of a formal ally that is attacked. Such assistance is required under Article V of the agreement that established NATO, which is why other nations offered us assistance beginning September 12, 2001, and why the efforts in Afghanistan were done under NATO auspices.
In my mind, the statement I have quoted from Romney disqualifies him to be President of the United States, and can only be interpreted as a pure political pander in what will be a failed attempt to sway the American Jewish electorate, which will still heavily support Obama.
And while I am criticizing Romney, while I would not expect him to bring up the participation of the cadets of VMI in armed rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States in the Battle of New Market during the Civil War (that would be rude to his hosts, although he has been previously known to be so rude), perhaps he should remember in quoting George Marshall he quoting someone from an administration savaged by his Republican Party. He should also well remember the words he quoted about preventing was when he posits military threats against a major regional power such as Iran. Those are also criticisms of his foreign policy speech well worth making.
I will leave the development of those points to others.
I support Israel's right to exist.
I do not support giving Israel, or any other nation, a blank check by which it could commit the United States to potential milltary conflict. That is why there can be, and sometimes must be, daylight between the foreign policy of the United States and that of Israel.
Relatives on my mother's side were killed in the liquidation of the Jewish community of Bialystok.
Were a Nazi regime ever to take hold of this nation, I have little doubt that my lack of religiosity would in no way protect me from whatever equivalent of gas chambers they might choose to use.
I strongly believe in the right of Israel to exist.
That said, I must take strong exception to the following statement from the foreign policy speech Mitt Romney delivered this morning at VMI:
I will reaffirm our historic ties to Israel and our abiding commitment to its security—the world must never see any daylight between our two nations.We may have historic ties, and we certainly have a commitment to its security, but our foreign policy interests are NOT identical, and that formulation would allow Israel to dictate our foreign policy in the region.No American President should cede authority over our foreign policy to another nation.
We may be bound by mutual assistance treaty commitments to come to the aid of a formal ally that is attacked. Such assistance is required under Article V of the agreement that established NATO, which is why other nations offered us assistance beginning September 12, 2001, and why the efforts in Afghanistan were done under NATO auspices.
In my mind, the statement I have quoted from Romney disqualifies him to be President of the United States, and can only be interpreted as a pure political pander in what will be a failed attempt to sway the American Jewish electorate, which will still heavily support Obama.
And while I am criticizing Romney, while I would not expect him to bring up the participation of the cadets of VMI in armed rebellion against the lawful authority of the United States in the Battle of New Market during the Civil War (that would be rude to his hosts, although he has been previously known to be so rude), perhaps he should remember in quoting George Marshall he quoting someone from an administration savaged by his Republican Party. He should also well remember the words he quoted about preventing was when he posits military threats against a major regional power such as Iran. Those are also criticisms of his foreign policy speech well worth making.
I will leave the development of those points to others.
I support Israel's right to exist.
I do not support giving Israel, or any other nation, a blank check by which it could commit the United States to potential milltary conflict. That is why there can be, and sometimes must be, daylight between the foreign policy of the United States and that of Israel.
