The Issue: Obama’s decision not to meet with Benjamin Netanyahu during the UN General Assembly.
***
Perhaps it is time that those concerned not only about the security of the Jewish state but its very existence slap President Obama in the upcoming election (“A Widening Rift,” Benny Avni, PostOpinion, Sept. 12).
Obama continues to refuse to establish a red line about Iran’s nuclear program, gives blunt warnings that Israel should not try to arrest the Iranian rush to a nuclear bomb for use against the Jewish state and continues to conflict with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Obama has shown his pro-Israel rhetoric is a sham.
Actions speak louder than words. Israel has reason not to trust him.
Nelson Marans
Silver Spring, Md.
Iran’s relentless quest for nuclear weapons and its repeated existential threats against Israel have driven the Jewish state to the brink of a pre-emptive military strike.
An Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities would be a dismal event, yet we all see it coming.
Obama’s approach is to stick with a failed strategy — negotiations and sanctions — while warning Israel not to attack, but rather to trust him.
Negotiations and sanctions represent wishful thinking as foreign policy, as even the International Atomic Energy Agency is implying.
But Obama sticks with it lest his re-election effort be impaired by tending to business.
David Letterman, yes; Netanyahu, no.
Paul Bloustein
Cincinnati
Obama’s continued outrageous behavior toward Israel and its prime minister, and his refusal to recognize the existential threat that Iran poses to Israel, should greatly concern Americans this election season.
If Obama had been president immediately prior to Dec. 7, 1941, would he have bowed to the Japanese, apologized for American exceptionalism and extended his hand in friendship to Germany?
Would he have rejected an invitation to meet Winston Churchill or recognize the threat that Germany posed to England’s survival?
Gerald Jacobs
Staten Island