Levy vs. Frum on the US as an ‘Honest Broker’

The Economist is hosting a debate on the proposition: “This house believes that Obama’s America is now an honest broker between Israel and the Arabs.”

The online debate includes comments and voting by the readers.

Daniel Levy of J-Street and the New America Foundation is taking the affirmative, and David Frum of the America Enterprise Institute is taking the negative.

While many Antiwar.com readers might, on the surface, say that the US is not an honest broker, and many would argue that the US should not be a broker at all, this is quite an interesting debate.

Levy is clearly trying to frame the question that Obama is trying to be more of an honest broker than the alternative which, in this case, is Frum, who’s arguing the position that Obama is an anti-zionist Arab/Iran/Muslim-lover.

I urge readers to check out and participate in the debate.

Comments to this blog item will be closed at Antiwar.com. Instead, please comment at The Economist.

5 thoughts on “Levy vs. Frum on the US as an ‘Honest Broker’”

  5. Let me get this straight. The two sides of this debate are (a) that under Obama, America is an honest broker; and (b) that under Obama, America is biased in favor of the Arabs????

    Excuse me, but who is arguing the much more plausible position, namely (c) that under Obama, America is still heavily biased in favor of Israel, but possibly slightly less so than previously?

  6. Is there really anyone naive enough to think or to "belioeve" there is anything left about us, our government or our foreign policy that is honest? The motto of our time could be "Honesty is for suckers."

  7. Anyone who thinks America is an "honest broker" in the middle east isn't playing with a full deck. To say nothing of the fact that we shouldn't even be involved there in the first place. The founding fathers would be horrified if they could see American foreign policy today.

  8. Piss on Frum, that Israel-first, neocon douche bag.

    Speaking of douche bags, President Obama The Divine had better quit being one and tell Prime Minister Nuttyyahoo and the racist Foreign Minster Lieberman to f**k off.

  9. Israel's establishment in 1948 was legal but immoral. Isreal's occupation beyond its borders is both illegal and immoral. Asking the US to be an "honest" broker is such a situation will be a repetition of the historical brokering by the US with the Native Americans. The two superpowers in the Middle East, Israel and the United States, will act no differently than usual in the history of mankind – power is never given up. Horace Walpole wrote that life is a comedy for those who think, a tragedy for those who feel. The tragicomedy in the Middle East continues. A broker works with both sides – Israel and Palestine. Two Zionists debating the issue confirms my thesis. kb

    1. Why was its establishment in 1948 legal? Did the Palestinian people have any say in it? Did they ask to be placed under a British "mandate" after WW1? Did they ask for the Balfour Declaration? How many Arab or muslim countries in 1948 were free and independent instead of being colonial possessions of Europe?

  10. Excuse me, but who is arguing the much more plausible position, namely (c) that under Obama, America is still heavily biased in favor of Israel, but possibly slightly less so than previously?

    In the MSM, of which The Economist is a minor organ (of the Establishment Keynesian variety), the answer is "no one."

    The motto of our time could be "Honesty is for suckers."

    I'd LOVE to see that translated into Latin.

Comments are closed.

viewpoint highlights
breaking news
© 2024 Antiwar.com. All rights reserved.
Antiwar.com Blog Stock Photos provided by our partner Depositphotos