Saturday, February 28, 2015

Give 'Em Hell, Bibi!

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

bbDuring the 1948 presidential campaign, Harry Truman toured the country attacking Republicans and putting forth his own views on what was best for America.  At one point during a speech in Bremerton, Washington, a man in the crowd cried out, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"

To the delight of the listeners Truman called out, "I don't have to give 'em hell.  I just tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell!"

Well, one thing is certain, Benjamin Netanyahu has not been "giving 'em hell" in recent years.

Under pressure from a hostile American administration and its European Union partners, Benjamin Netanyahu, was forced to humiliate himself by apologizing to Turkey's president Erdogan for the fact that Turkish Jihadis got themselves killed in a foolhardy attempt to break the blockade of Gaza.  Netanyahu caved to the Palestinian demand that it release Jihadi terrorists in return for the privilege of maybe, at some point, sitting across the table from Palestinian-Arab dictator, Mahmoud Abbas, who is now in the tenth year of his four year term.  Netanyahu agreed to support the creation of a "Palestinian" state on traditional Jewish land in Judea and Samaria and provided electricity to Gaza while the Gazans were shooting rockets into the southern part of the country, making life practically unlivable there.

Netanyahu even agreed to a ten month freeze on building within Jewish townships in Judea and Samaria in order to encourage Abbas back to the negotiating table, but Abbas refused until the final weeks of that ten month period, pocketed the concession and then demanded an extension of the freeze in return for exactly nothing.

No matter how many concessions Israel makes, the Palestinian Authority never reciprocates, continues to teach its children to despise Jews, and incites its people to violence against us.

Yet, as far as Barack Obama is concerned, it is the side that calls for peace and that makes concessions, i.e., the Israeli side, which is intransigent, while the "Palestinian" side calls for blood, never makes a concession, and is never asked to concede anything.  It does not matter to the Obama administration what the "Palestinians" do or do not do, because it is the Jews of Israel, and only the Jews of Israel, that must be disciplined and forced into compliance.

As for Obama, he did give 'em "hell"... the Israelis that is.

As Caroline Glick recalls in the Jerusalem Post:
He and his representatives have given a backwind to the forces that seek to wage economic warfare against Israel, repeatedly indicating that the application of economic sanctions against Israel – illegal under the World Trade Organization treaties – are a natural response to Israel’s unwillingness to bow to every Palestinian demand. The same goes for the movement to deny the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence. Senior administration officials have threatened that Israel will become illegitimate if it refuses to surrender to Palestinian demands.

Last summer, Obama openly colluded with Hamas’s terrorist war against Israel. He tried to coerce Israel into accepting ceasefire terms that would have amounted to an unconditional surrender to Hamas’s demands for open borders and the free flow of funds to the terrorist group. He enacted a partial arms embargo on Israel in the midst of war. He cut off air traffic to Ben-Gurion International Airport under specious and grossly prejudicial terms in an open act of economic warfare against Israel.
But, now, Netanyahu has an opportunity to "give 'em hell" in return and I very much hope that he does so.

This is not for the purpose of giving Obama the comeuppance that he so richly deserves, but to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear bomb within 2 years or 5 years or 10.

Obama broke his promise.  He told the world that the United States would prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry, but now he has changed his tune.  Instead of preventing Iran from nuclear break-out capacity, the Obama administration wants the United States to constrain, but not impede, Iranian nukes for maybe ten years, while allowing it a one-year window for completing its Jihadi Bomb.

The reason that Obama is going to allow Iranian nuclear break-out capacity is because the US administration is endeavoring to turn the Islamist state into a regional strategic partner.  It is also for this reason that the Obama administration is comfortable with Iranian expansion into Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, if not Iraq.

This is entirely unacceptable to the people of Israel - left, right, and center - and the Sunnis throughout the region are, for the most part, no happier about any of this than are the Jews.  The only people who seem comfortable with Iranian nukes are Barack Obama and the Iranians, themselves.

If Obama gets his way, we will see an arms race throughout the Middle East with virtually every significant player scrambling to kick-start their own nuclear programs.  There is certainly no possible way that Egypt will allow a nuclear armed Shia Iran without Cairo gaining that capacity, as well.

What is necessary is for the American people to make it clear to the Obama administration that we stand not only with the people of Israel, but with people the world over - most particularly in the Middle East - who understand that a nuclear-weaponized Iran is potentially disastrous enough that as a basic matter of common sense it must be prevented.

Obama is not up to this job, because his heart is clearly not in it.  Obama the community organizer from Chicago is comfortable with Iranian nukes.

Benjamin Netanyahu the commando from Israel clearly is not.

I say, give 'em hell, Bibi.

Just tell 'em the truth and they'll think it's hell.

11 comments:

  1. Glick makes a strong case. Obama himself has changed the dynamic with Israel, as if he knows better than anyone else. Then we are privileged to listen to the blind faith of those who spread his message.

    These people never consider for a moment that they may be wrong, that the position they blindly adopt may foster a world where terror and violence is worse. Then how will history judge?

    They are prepared, it seems, to sacrifice Israel in the silly belief that Iran will be satisfied. They are prepared to let the strife in Islam become nuclear. What foresight!

    Then there is the added moral dimension of what has been done to Jews and Israel's part in Jewish self-determination. And we see that antisemitism is not limited to the most blatant haters, but extends to those that deny human rights to Israel and Jews like to no other state or people.

    I hope enough Democrats wake from the elixir. Just because Obama is not a Republican does make his designs correct.

    Leaders mislead because that is easier than dealing with the issues, which there are no certain answers. And with cell phones and social media, we are more susceptible to become just another of Pavlov's dogs.

    In the end, is Obama that wedded to his "critical" theories that it makes him oblivious to the effects of his actions, not just in empowering adversaries to Western values, but to the Jewish people as human beings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is now among the most anticipated speeches in my political lifetime.

      He damn well better have something to say.

      My fingers are crossed for him.

      Delete
    2. Can't see that Obama will be stopped in making a deal, then telling us how great it is for both Israel and America, when it's as likely he is sealing a worse fate. The deal is all that seems to matter, and not to support HIM means you want war and are bad.

      Delete
    3. We don't need a deal.

      What we need is the fulfillment of our strategic goals.

      One of those goals was, according to Barack Obama, preventing the Iranian regime from gaining nuclear weaponry.

      If the deal accomplishes that, very good.

      If the deal does not accomplish that - which this one seems not to - then we have not met our strategic goal.

      Instead we made a deal.

      1 year break-out capacity, huh? And, obviously, any secret facilities could not be taken into consideration when determining just when that 1 year mark arrives.

      Furthermore, they wouldn't break-out so much as sneak out.

      We need to see what the final terms are, but it looks to me like this is kicking the can down the road. Iran won't get nukes today, but they might tomorrow, and they will the day after.

      Delete
    4. Usually a deal made for its own sake is not a very good one. The beneficiaries of these deals are often the deal makers.

      Obama should hear Netanyahu and his critics out and address them if his ideas are superior.

      Delete
  2. By the way, I thought that the Left was opposed to nuclear proliferation.

    Yet, from what I can tell, there is virtually no opposition coming from the western Left toward Iranian nukes.

    How odd.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "By the way, I thought that the Left was opposed to nuclear proliferation."
      They were, and I've said this to people many times and gotten blank stares in return. They were also supposed to be for facts, truth, and elevated discussions of issues, but as you can see when it comes to Israel and Jews they are quite nonfactual, dishonest, and in the gutter.
      This is certainly not the "ban the bomb" left. It's more a let's even things out because that's fair, mammy pamby b.s. from brain dead Chomsky-ites who've been taught the worst things about their own country.

      Also, this deal also let's down an entire group of people not even mentioned: Iranians. It will help to make a success of the Iranian economy with the free flow of trade from the West further solidifying the Iranian population's role as children to be told what's good for them under the maniacal care of their father, the Ayatollah. No freedom for you, Iranian people. Obama has spoken.
      Obama is close to his dream: an Islamist State to be 'friends' with. Didn't work out with Egypt, boo hoo.

      Delete
    2. Islamic imperialism is the new anti-imperialism.

      Delete
  3. Also, by using Netanyahu's acceptance of an offer to speak before Congress as a reason to sick the hounds on the Israeli PM, he has taken what would have been a speech listened to by some in the government and people like us and turned it into an international event.

    If Obama had just kept his mouth shut, this thing would have passed barely noticed.

    Now he has done everything in his power to see to it that Americans, in general, get an opportunity to hear the key points on the news, and international players will watch every word.

    {Good for Barack Obama.}

    ReplyDelete
  4. The speech might go down well with Congress. There will be a favourable response from sections of the ( centre- right) media. And what Netanyahu says might well be both necessary and true. However, the blowback will be terrible. It is entirely Obama's nature and way of operating, and already apparent, that he will take his revenge for this. I would put no ceiling on what he and his administration will be prepared to do. Really frightening. Unfortunately.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Let's be clear though. Obama's objections are personal, paranoid and petty. But the wider scope of objections coming out of Obama's mouth are coming from Iran. They're the one's calling the shots here.

    ReplyDelete