Mike L.
There is an awful lot of buzz lately that the Obama administration has no intention of keeping any commitments that it has made toward Israel in regard the possibility of Iranian nukes.
For example, in Commentary, Jonathan Tobin writes:
But though Obama’s Jewish charm offensive may still be in full swing, government insiders are apparently working overtime to send Israel and the rest of the world the signal that the president’s political commitments ought not to be taken all that seriously.
That’s the upshot of a week of heavy duty leaking on the part of administration officials who are less than thrilled about the fact that the president has publicly enlisted them in an effort to stop Iran. Yesterday, there was the attempt by Washington to expose Israel’s secret alliance with Azerbaijan and thereby ensure that it would be broken off so as to render an attack on Iran more difficult. Today, the New York Times has another leaked story in which anonymous government figures state their concern the president’s public rhetoric on Iran has boxed them into a spot that neither he nor they want to be in.
Barack Obama tells the world that he "has Israel's back" and that he doesn't bluff. The more likely truth is that he is undermining Israel's ability to defend itself and that he is, in fact, bluffing. Does anyone honestly think that if push comes to shove this feckless administration will actually prevent the Iranians from attaining nuclear weaponry? I sincerely doubt it.
The president of the United States is telling Jewish people that we must give over Jewish self-defense to his offices. He is essentially telling us that we should forget about the notion of Jewish self-defense and let him take care of that. In this way he wants us to throw one of the very central reasons for the existence of Israel into the garbage... and he doesn't bluff.
...the administration has no intention of ever actually going to the mat with Iran in spite of all the tough talk that comes out of the president’s mouth when addressing pro-Israel audiences. Some of the anonymous sources for the Times story are worried about the tough talk taking on a life of its own and overwhelming their proposed diplomatic plans on Iran. But the underlying assumption of these leaks is that the real truth about the president’s plans was revealed in his “hot mic” moment with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev when he spoke of having more “flexibility” after his “last election,” not his speech to AIPAC.
This president is clearly not to be trusted with Israeli security and is doing everything that he can do to undermine Israel's efforts to protect its own people.
...sooner or later, President Obama will have to choose between actually taking action on Iran and breaking his promise to ensure that Iran never goes nuclear. His staffers just hope that moment comes after November when, they presume, he can safely break his word.
A vote for Barack Obama this November is a vote against the future well-being of the Jewish people. The reason for this is because a vote for Obama is a vote to hand off Jewish self-defense to a non-Jew who has shown distinct hostility toward the Jewish state.
We don't need Barack Obama to cover our backs.
We need to cover our own.
.
.
.
Oh, and just in case anyone decides to intentionally misunderstand the point, I am not calling on Israel to attack Iranian nuclear facilities. My argument is that Israel needs to see to Israeli security. If Israel can defuse Iranian nuclear intentions in alternative ways, such as the Suxnet virus, I am all in favor.
But Israel must take care of Israel.
That's the point.
"Barack Obama tells the world that he 'has Israel's back' and that he doesn't bluff. The more likely truth is that he is undermining Israel's ability to defend itself and that he is, in fact, bluffing."
ReplyDeleteMore likely still is that he has Iran's back and that he isn't bluffing even a little bit about that.
If he's this antagonistic to Israel now , during the run-up to the election, then I shudder to think about what happens if he wins and is unanswerable to anyone.
Needless to say, I agree that any Jew who votes for Obama is making a very bad choice.
I think that he really, truly lost me entirely the moment he gave Hillary the go-ahead to berate Netanyahu about Jews building housing for ourselves in Jerusalem.
DeleteAnd, yes, I say "ourselves."
To argue that Obama is at the forefront of support for Israel is to kid oneself and others.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the American commitment to Israel is stronger than Obama's personal desires, confusing as they are.
I believe that, because of the confusion, Israel will do what it thinks best for itself, as it should, and most Israelis would agree.
Because of the confusion, anti-Israel states and proponents can take a supportive message and push even harder.
Too many Obama supporters believe he is an altruist, a visionary incapable of playing politics when signs are that playing politics is paramount.
Here, he may end up being too smart for his own good, which may make matters worse. At some point some will come to understand they were misled.
Republicans, by the way, play no less a cynical game and care too much about liberty at the expense of equality.
In other words, the alternatives are bad and worse. The saving grace is that American support for Israel will likely grow because of the actions of its adversaries. Americans know they are our adversaries as well.
Very interesting comment, School.
DeleteIt's one of those comments that opens up all sorts of cans of worms.
Let's chew on this a little bit:
However, the American commitment to Israel is stronger than Obama's personal desires, confusing as they are.
I certainly have far, far more faith in the American people than does your average Kossack or leftist, that much is certainly true.
But when you refer to Obama's personal desires as confusing, just what do you mean?
Mixed signals in regards Israel?
Is that what you are suggesting, because if so, I think that you are quite right.
I have to say, tho, that given the precarious nature of Jewish life in the world, to give us mixed signals is, to my mind, to give a negative signal.
Our numbers are just far too small to have faith in a president that is comfortable lecturing Jewish Israelis about where they may live, but hardly breathes a word about Arab genocidal incitement against us.
I see him trying to walk a line, believing he knows better than anyone else and that he can control the matter in the end. 11th dimensional chess, so to speak. Part of this is to give a confusing message that anyone can be interpreted in different ways.
ReplyDeleteBy doing so he often alienates his friends. He has also asked Democrats and Progressives to search their souls.
Progressives cheer him on now. The fact is that they have no where else to go.
Look at the very first appointments he made, his health care "reform" and the same for the financial sector, the Bush tax cut, and even free expression, to name examples of where Progressives were let down.
With Israel and elsewhere it is different because it is foreign policy and each state decides in the end for itself.
Progressives simply have the option to go along.
Especially to make sure the dreaded Republicans do not take over and destroy the universe as we know it. This is where Democratic voters and advocates are best programmed these days. To always believe the worst when it comes to a non-Democrat, and to use vitriol to show it.
Republicans are no better in this regard, and perhaps worse. They spew too much. Not to mention their position about the role of government.
Back to Obama, I think he underestimates the value of allies at your side when most needed, which is why he often leaves friends with an uneasy feeling about his intentions. I also think he underestimates the manner that adversaries react when his Administration does not stand up to, or even encourages, the diplomatic assault on Western values.
It invites turmoil. But the faster we address turmoil, the faster we can be rid of it. It's coming no matter what Obama or anyone else does, thanks to our friends in Europe and their misguided actions that brought the underlying matter to the surface. Ironically, it may also allow for the cure.