Christie Talks Foreign Policy At Adelson Gala

Sunday, May 18, 2014


Governor Chris Christie is wary of Russia, wishes President Barack Obama acted against Syria and can't imagine allowing Iran to get a nuclear bomb. The presumptive 2016 presidential candidate presented that vision of a strong U.S. presence abroad at the Champions of Jewish Values International Awards Gala on Sunday night, which was co-hosted by billionaire Republican Sheldon Adelson.

Christie's foray into foreign policy was billed as a major speech on Israel and the Middle East. It came just weeks after he upset some Israel supporters for using the controversial term "occupied territories" to describe areas where Palestinians live with an Israeli army presence.

On Sunday, Christie said America "was never a place where our friends had to wonder whether we would stand next to them and fight with them."

However, he never actually mentioned Israel by name during his remarks.

In contrast, Texas Governor and possible presidential candidate, Rick Perry, was unequivocal. Perry spoke after receiving an award at the event.

"Israel is the oldest democracy in the Middle East — a strategic security partner, a tremendous ally. It is time for this country to end the policy of calculated ambivalence and renew our commitment to a strong Israel," Perry said to applause.


More in:

Comments [7]

Thomas Eccardt from NYC

"Occupied territories" is NOT a controversial term. If it were, that would mean that the US is considering recognizing the annexation of these territories by Israel. As far as I know, even Israel is not considering annexation.

WNYC's description "areas where Palestinians live with an Israeli army presence" is an idiotic "euphemism." I had to research this whole "controversy" to be sure that WNYC did not mean "areas within Israel proper where Palestinian Israelis live".

Nobody in his right mind can deny that these territories have been occupied by Israel since it took over this land from Jordan. You may not think that the Palestinians deserve their own state, but you cannot deny that these are occupied territories. Just because a right-wing nutcase says some term is controversial, doesn't mean it has to be avoided by the American media.

May. 19 2014 09:25 PM
mgduke from nyc

The pro-Israel bias shown by WNYC in this article, which was repeated several times in your news briefs this morning, is very troubling and shameful.

Your decision to report that the designation “Occupied Territories” for lands that Israel conquered by military force is ‘controversial’, without providing a scintilla of clarification on the relative merits of such controverters, is tantamount to reporting that the Nazi genocides are “controversial” and leaving it at that.

Don’t you realize that by presenting the issue as if there are legitimate grounds to question whether these territories are “occupied”, WNYC betrays its listeners and reduces itself to a mouthpiece of Israeli propaganda that is at odds on this key issue with every nation in the world and all major international bodies, including the United States and the U.N. Security Council?

Your further decision to identify the Occupied Territories as “areas where Palestinians live with an Israeli army presence”, was even more shameful in spreading a Zionist slant that is not only absurd but vicious in its mockery of the enormous daily suffering imposed by that army on hundreds of thousands of Palestinians. Your category--places where the population lives with a foreign military presence--would fit W. Germany or S. Korea, whereas the Occupied Territories are lands in which a brutal Israeli military power is committing the war crimes of stealing Palestinian lands and enforcing apartheid.

Don’t you see that because of support for Israel among a misinformed American public, misinformed by reports such as yours, and misled by corrupt politicians like Christie, Israel’s criminal actions are continuing to raise enemies and retaliatory terrorism against us?

 What is WNYC going to do to correct the Israeli propaganda that you have spread this morning and so often in the past, which causes so much harm to America?

May. 19 2014 04:29 PM
Anthony Margraf from New York

Christie did not mention that Israel is giving medical care to senior military officers of Syria. Israel is opposed to Assad losing power as they fear what will replace him. WAKE UP

May. 19 2014 01:54 PM
Sham from NYC

I would add delusional too, but this America...He stands a chance to win over the voters.

May. 19 2014 10:58 AM
Fred from Brooklyn

If Christie becomes President, he'd easily solve the the world's problems with a technique he has proven effective: just block their bridges.

May. 19 2014 08:24 AM

Christie is a state governor. He has no special knowledge of Middle East politics, of peacemaking, or security details.

His blather and pandering to his target audience: Adelson and his deep-pocketed conservative friends. "Jewish values" take many forms, and Adelson's interpretation is but one variant.

WNYC: The term "occupied territories" is NOT controversial in legal circles. It is only so among ideologues and politicians.

The relevant Israeli Supreme Court has determined that the West Bank and the Gaza strip are occupied territory.

Beit Sourik v. Gov't of Israel & Commander of the IDF Forces

"Background: Since 1967, Israel has been holding the areas of Judea and Samaria [hereinafter – the area] in belligerent occupation."


"The general point of departure of all parties – which is also our point of departure – is that Israel holds the area in belligerent occupation (occupatio bellica). See HCJ 619/78 “El Tal’ia” Weekly v. Minister of Defense; HCJ 69/81 Abu Ita v. Commander of the Area of Judea and Samaria; HCJ 606/78 Ayoob v. Minister of Defense; HCJ 393/82 Jam'iat Ascan Elma’almoon Eltha’aooniah Elmahduda Elmaoolieh v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the Area of Judea and Samaria. In the areas relevant to this petition, military administration, headed by the military commander, continues to apply. Compare HCJ 2717/96 Wafa v. Minister of Defense (application of the military administration in “Area C”). The authority of the military commander flows from the provisions of public international law regarding belligerent occupation. These rules are established principally in the Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907 [hereinafter – the Hague Regulations]. These regulations reflect customary international law. The military commander’s authority is also anchored in IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949. [hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention]. The question of the application of the Fourth Geneva Convention has come up more than once in this Court. See HCJ 390/79 Duikat v. Government of Israel; HCJ 61/80 Haetzni v. State of Israel, at 597. The question is not before us now, since the parties agree that the humanitarian rules of the Fourth Geneva Convention apply to the issue under review. See HCJ 698/80 Kawasme v. Minister of Defense; Jam'iyat Ascan, at 794; Ajuri, at 364; HCJ 3278/02 Center for the Defense of the Individual v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank Area, at 396. See also Meir Shamgar, The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories, 1 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 262 (1971)."

The International Court of Justice and the US State Department agree that Palestinian territory is occupied.

Maybe we all disagree what flows from that that conclusion, but the term is only debated by politicians.

May. 19 2014 08:15 AM
Richard Thornton from Princeton, NJ

Christie wants us in Syria and I want Christie in the gym, trying to lose 150 lbs.

May. 19 2014 07:36 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Get the WNYC Morning Brief in your inbox.
We'll send you our top 5 stories every day, plus breaking news and weather.


Latest Newscast




WNYC is supported by the Charles H. Revson Foundation: Because a great city needs an informed and engaged public


Supported by