Saturday, March 21, 2015

Obama Poised to Stab Israel in the Back?

Michael L.

Times of Israel Staff reports:
stabbedPresident Barack Obama’s supposed congratulatory call to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday, two days after the Likud leader triumphed in Israel’s elections, was actually a bitter 30-minute conversation, Israel’s two main TV news stations reported Friday night

Quoting unnamed Israeli sources, they said the president made clear he didn’t believe Netanyahu was genuinely supportive of a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict, and that he indicated that the US would no longer automatically support Israel at the United Nations.

According to a Channel 10 read out on the call, indeed, Obama left Netanyahu with “the impression that he intends to abandon Israel at the UN.”

The United States has actually been considering a reevaluation of ties with Israel, including its automatic support for the Jewish state at the United Nations Security Council, for at least four months, the Israeli sources also told Channel 2. Although the White House claims the reassessment was prompted by Netanyahu’s remarks on Monday in which he rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state — and which he walked back Thursday — that is not the case, according to the officials.
If these reports are true, Barack Obama should be commended for the emerging clarity of his intentions towards the Jewish State and, thereby, toward the Jewish people.

It is, after all, much preferable to have an openly hostile president in the Oval Office then one who tells us that he "has Israel's back" as he sharpens the blade to plunge into that back.

It seems reasonably clear that the Obama administration is planning some sort-of retaliation against the Jews of Israel for daring to disobey him in the election last Tuesday.  The re-election of Benjamin Netanyahu as Prime Minister of Israel was a terrible insult to Obama and this president does not take well to either criticism or dissent.

The first concern, naturally, is that Obama will simply withhold the US veto at the UN the next time that organization takes steps to vilify Israel and hobble its ability to defend itself in the ongoing Arab war against the Jews of the Middle East.

Another related concern is that the Obama administration will back the Palestinian Authority's efforts to force an unfavorable non-solution down Israel's throat at the UN, thereby pressuring Israel to drag Jews from their homes in Judea and Samaria and give half the ancient capital city of Jerusalem to Palestinian-Arabs who have never held sovereignty in that city or any part of that land.

This will give the terrorist organizations PLO and Fatah a stronger position in their ongoing efforts to harass the Jews and undermine the well-being of the Jewish State.  They can pocket hard Israeli concessions while making none of their own, while continuing to incite hatred of Jews among their children, and while continuing the terror war against Israel and the Jewish people throughout the world.

For his part, Netanyahu seems to have painted himself into a corner over recent remarks concerning the unlikelihood of a two-state solution during his tenure.  He then tried to "walk back" the statement by saying, “I don’t want a one-state solution. I want a sustainable, peaceful two-state solution. But for that, circumstances have to change."

He is, of course, correct, but the Obama administration is in attack mode and having none of it.

The only real question at this point is how much damage the Obama administration is willing to do to Israel, and to the Jewish people, in retaliation for refusing to kiss his ring.

We shall see.

From the comments:
Bob Koch

Isn't this the same "2-state solution" that hasn't borne fruit for 25 years? It's time for a new paradigm for this situation. How about the PA and Hamas CHANGE their charters to show that THEY want peace. After all, it's they who are calling for the annihilation of Israel, not the other way around. Obama does not want a 2 state solution. He wants a Palestinian state and he wants Israel gone.
I do not know that I would say that Obama wants Israel gone, but our friend Bob here is correct that "Oslo" is over with and that we do need an alternative paradigm from the failed, but dominant, two-state paradigm.
Steve Klein

We all knew this would come sooner or later so let it come. Then Israel (the Jews) will learn and understand how to deal with it. Israel is not South Africa. Everyone with a half a brain knows there is a difference between murderous jihad against non-Muslims, especially Jews and racial Apartheid in South Africa. This idea of de-legitimatizing Israel in the criminal (anti-Semitic) United Nations is evil. Let Barack Obama be Barack Obama.
I tend to agree with this sentiment.  Let Obama be Obama and, then, long, long after he is gone we can write books about the relationship between the United States and Israel during his tenure.

What we need not do is be afraid of this president, or cave to his diktats, despite his hostility.
Sergio J Bramasole

Term-limited, Obama will soon leave, and whoever comes next, maybe Hillary, will stand with Israel against third world fascists. All 'n all, Obama is an aberration in American politics. Kinda once in a blue moon thing.
We can hope that he is an aberration, but given the anti-Zionist / anti-Israel drift within the Democratic party, I would not be too quick to conclude so.

29 comments:

  1. Interesting situation. Obama's a lame duck so basically he has nothing to lose although I suspect Americans would punish his fellow Dems next election for it. Could be wrong there but there sure would be a firestorm. And ultimately what would the vaunted UN do if Bibi et al told them to take a hike with their resolution; send in the troops? Holy Armageddon , Batman.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Indeed.

      The only real leverage that any of them have is economic.

      Obama can withhold the UN veto until the cows come home, but it will be difficult to enforce anything without an economic choke-hold on Israel.

      Neither the UN, nor the Obama administration, is going to send troops to fight Jews in Israel.

      What Obama can do, and I suspect that he's been doing this all along, is support EU economic sanctions against Israel - and, therefore, in some measure the BDS movement - and he need not do so from the rear, anymore.

      It seems to me that he has revealed himself and, thus, has little to lose by stepping forward... which is what he appears to be doing.

      Delete
    2. I don't agree that Obama is an aberration. I think he is the embodiment of the future of the Democratic party. The progressive movement of the international left have set their sights on delegitimising Israel. The universities are producing the future candidates, and the ideological stance that future candidates will take.
      Yes, there are Dems who are very supportive of Israel, but they are swimming against the tide. The younger generation of Dems are more and more anti- Israel.
      There are some people who believe that Obama would not necessarily care if his party lost the election. It might depend on who is actually going to win the nomination. If ( and at the moment there are some reasons to have a little doubt), Hillary Clinton does sail through
      to the White House, he would not be pleased. That's for sure.
      If the Dems do win the election then there's the possibility that they can nominate Obama for the UN job, should he wish to have it. That is fairly worrying.

      I imagine that Obama has been looking for an opportunity ( excuse) to go after Israel. He is, to some extent, 'manufacturing' this situation.
      He can do enormous damage to Israel now. He can join with the EU to impose sanctions. He can also choose to
      'recognise' the state of Palestine. Thus allowing the PLO to drag Israel through the international criminal courts. That would be a nightmare.
      Obviously, he can refuse to use the US veto at the UN, and force Israel into an
      unworkable 'peace settlement.'
      All of these scenarios are very alarming.
      And will do more to signal to the Palestinians, and the rest of the Arab.world, that aggression towards Israel, Israelis, and Jewish targets around the world, are green- lighted by this administration. He has already sent out that signal, to some degree, by making these statements in public.
      I would not underestimate how much harm he can do. Or, how much he wants to do.
      Having your enemy step out into the open, doesn't make them less dangerous. Especially, if there are so many other elements out there who are on their side.
      In some ways it can make them much more dangerous. He is lending legitimacy to the anti- Israel cause, all around the world.


      Delete
    3. So you're calling him anti-Semite basically, no?

      Delete
    4. Was there ever any doubt?

      Delete
    5. I would be mindful of the people who were his mentors when he was growing up. And of his choice to attend Rev Wright's church.
      Obama is the first ' European ' - in terms of progressive ideology - to be US president. So, yes, venomously against Israel, and with very hostile views about Jews, in Israel and beyond. Although, some of his best friends ( and advisers) are Jews...

      Delete
    6. Much of it was obscured by his fictionalized biography.

      It's incredible that so many of his supporters, who say they care about liberal principles, are so willing to excuse him when he repeatedly engages in deception.

      Delete
    7. I would say two things in this thread.

      The first is that Barack Obama is not an anti-Semite, not in the normal definition of such a thing. That is, Barack Obama is not known for repeating classic anti-Semitic themes, such as that Jews are greedy, or whatever. Or the implication that "Zionists" enjoy killing little Arab children.

      He may not like Israel, but that is not the same thing.

      The reason that he dislikes Israel is probably not out of any particular, or pre-existing, tendency toward anti-Semitism... or so one can hope.

      I am more or less convinced that he is convinced that Israel is a bad actor in the world that is oppressing and persecuting the "indigenous" population.

      That is, in a nut-shell, the kind of slanted misinformation that he would have gotten sitting at the feet of Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and, yes, the Rev Jeremiah Wright.

      Delete
    8. Edward Said, Rashid Khalidi, and Rev Jeremiah Wright.

      Antisemites?

      Delete
    9. Mike,
      I would refer you to the " Working definition of anti- Semitism."

      It is more complicated than you make out. And has important things to say about the treatment of Israel being directly tied to anti- Semitic beliefs.

      http://free.download2.net/t/the-international-working-definition-of-antisemitism-and-w38957.html

      You have to scroll down some way to find it.

      Will email link in case I've written it down incorrectly.

      Delete
    10. school, I do not know.

      They surely despise Israel, that much is certain.

      Y'know, they put up a mural at SFSU honoring Said.

      This is a guy that we have on film throwing rocks at the IDF.

      Delete
    11. It's time to say it. BDS.....Bibi Derangement Syndrome.

      Delete
    12. How can anyone ( let alone the president of the United States) who doesn't acknowledge that the hideously toxic biased anti- Israel agenda of the United Nations is anti- Semitic, claim not to be an anti- Semite?

      Just asking.

      Delete
    13. It's the way they despise Israel. The way they single it out like none other. Who runs Israel again?

      Like Potter Stewart said, you know it when you see it.

      Built on a false narrative, too. Just like hands up don't whatever. How far have the progressive disciples of scientific reality fallen?

      It's the identity stuff, which starts looking like racism per se. Jewish identity, however, cannot break the glass ceiling.

      Did not imagine this was an issue with Obama, or that he would prove to be deceptive in the practice of politics. So many claim that the Clintons are Nixonian, but in the end it will probably be Obama that wins the prize.

      When the effect of actions tend to harm people, and there is increased antisemitism, it becomes okay to ask if the actors be held to answer for contributing to the outcome, and if they knew or should have known.

      Delete
  2. Over at dKos and elsewhere, the haters are trying to make this bigger than Bibi. They are trying to demonize the whole Israeli populace for re-electing him on a platform of no Palestine; this, despite his immediate re-clarification. This was all a big gift for the haters. Hopefully Obama gives them no further gifts.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can't believe Obama's thinking of throwing Israel under the bus. Next thing you know he'll be supporting the Muslim Brotherhood or something....oh, wait.....

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Khamenei continued: "Of course yes, death to America, because America is the original source of this pressure. They insist on putting pressure on our dear people's economy. What is their goal? Their goal is to put the people against the system."

    http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4639397,00.html

    Psssstttt, Bibi. If ya wanna get Obama on yer side you need to start saying "Death to America." Just sayin'

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There actually is truth in what you say.

      Delete
  5. If the next Democrat is pro-Israel, then most of the rest will follow. It will then be easy to see the extremism present.

    As time elapses, it's hard to argue that Obama is pro-Israel in his heart. He is acting in a way to damage the strategic relationship, and would cry no tears if Israel suffers. He sees Israel as an impediment, but the world he envisions without Israel will be more dangerous and less just.

    Once he is out of office, his anti-Israelism will continue, and at some point so many of his Jewish supporters will acknowledge the damaging role he played.

    Would love to be wrong about this, but the body of evidence is becoming persuasive.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The United States has actually been considering a reevaluation of ties with Israel,"

    From my point of view, Obama has been reassing America's relationship with Israel since at least his days at Columbia.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Who does that Bibi think he is saying things in a campaign and then saying something else once elected, Barack Obama?
    Barack Obama said Iran will have no nuclear weapons.
    Barack Obama said that a united Jerusalem should be the capital of Israel.
    Barack Obama said you can keep your own doctor and your current health plan.


    This guy ran for this country's highest office on a razor thin resume of accomplishments and a thin legislative record. I find the amount of on questioning adulation for him quite frightening.
    But I also think the Democrats have a problem. Some here argue that the Democratic party is split and trending toward an anti-Israel position. I believe this can become an electoral problem for them. You can count up all the idiots in college railing against Israel if you want, but many of them will forget this shit within ten years of graduating, many of them will be embarrassed by it. Most Americans are not that ideological and stupid. They know a free country when they see one, and a totalitarian movement when they see it. And as for the Jews themselves, I think that Obama revealing what he is really all about is going to make the Jewish establishment far more cautious in the future. This is not Europe with a mealy mouthed Jewish minority afraid to rock the boat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That should have read "unquestioning adulation" and not " on questioning."

      Delete
  8. The White House is prepared to ignore Iran saying "death to America," but not Bibi being concerned about existential stuff.

    Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Another piece of the puzzle to answer your question:

    Although Netanyahu later backtracked, and reiterated a commitment in principle to a “sustainable, peeaceful two-state solution,” Obama told The Huffington Post in an interview published Saturday that his administration is now operating under the assumption that Netanyahu does not envision the creation of a Palestinian state.

    “We take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership,” Obama said, “and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region.”


    http://www.timesofisrael.com/obama-netanyahus-anti-arab-remarks-risk-eroding-israeli-democracy/

    Why does he not take Iran at face value, or Hamas, or the like? How do his defenders continue to do so with a straight face?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hmmmmmm....sounds like a convenient excuse to me oldschool. Just what he and they were looking for I suspect. Certainly not rational or believable.

      Delete
    2. "“and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region.""

      Yeah, because there are certainly no other "situation[s] in the region" which could ever be characterized as "chaotic."

      It was all peaceful rainbow land over there before the dastardly prime minister of Israel made a pre-election pander / statement of simple inconvenient fact, that he immediately walked back a couple days later...

      Delete
  10. I have a sick feeling about all this. From a recent "Old Right" blog The American Conservative blog post on the Suez crisis of 1956 (bolding mine):

    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
    What Ike Can Teach Obama

    At one point early on in the Suez crisis, Eisenhower contemplated intervening in support of Egypt against Israeli aggression. As the crisis unfolded, Eisenhower became a de facto protector of Nasser, not of the policies of Britain and France. He recognized that America’s interests did not lie with blind and unconditional support of an ally. This is perhaps the most critical lesson Obama could draw from 1956, and he should make it very clear that an Israeli attack on Iran would be viewed as direct threat to American interests, and the United States might counter it directly, by military means, if necessary.
    ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

    Tell me how wrong I am to fear this. I'd really like to be disabused of this notion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just a Buchananite's wet dream, perhaps trying to regain the upper hand and outdo the 'progressive' left on making wild, violent threats against the Jews.

      I wouldn't lose much sleep over it.

      Delete
  11. I don't worry too much about the European and American sanctions on Israel - is it even possible given the current state of affairs in EU and the US? EU producers already are hurting from Russia's rejection of EU products. EU's attempt to blacklist all Israeli products would result in increase in EU products first of all. At most what the EU will do - I suspect - is force labels on produce and goods from the territories. (And, of course, they have to be mindful of Israel responding in kind by, e.g., letting some territory produce bound for EU to wait for the inspector who is vacationing in Eilat.) I expect similar possibilities for the American rxn.

    I think that a lot more realistic possibility is the direct political offense of taking things to the UNSC. We are seeing a repeat of French-Israeli breakup. I doubt it's based on any intrinsic hate. I suspect Obama just thinks that Iran has a better chance of staying stable over the next 2-5 years (than any Sunni state, esp. considering the populace's education, etc. bringing improved economy and increasing stability), and becoming friendlier with Iran and forcing Israel past the impasse with Palestinians would - in his mind - likely be a step to improved relations with China, to which we are pivoting.

    Netanyahu has managed to beat Obama so far in the game (speech backfiring on O, and Bibi's reelection). The issue for Bibi is - can Bibi pull out another Joker or two? I'm talking of another UNSC member vetoing any anti-Israel resolution. Before I only thought of China as a possible ally (for the next decade or so). However, in view of France actually standing on principle in Iran talks (or so I read in "papers"), who knows if this is not an indication of a realignment. Not too long ago (in 2013), French President made a trip to the ME, visiting Israel as well. France likely wants to fill up the vacuum left by the US leaving the Western part of MENA. And, at least for now, it won't even need to choose between the Arab states and Israel - like happened in the 1960s.

    On the other hand, the Chinese are building a port in Ashdod (?). A weakened Israel means that Egypt's stability becomes paramount. But if the weak Egyptian government falls and Egypt descends into chaos again, how will Chinese products travel to the EU? Israel's strategic geo position, thus, has increased in importance to the degree that China could become Israel's UNSC patron. And possibly to the degree of China switching from Iran to Israel? Or maybe clearly signaling to Iran that it shouldn't even dream of nuking Israel.

    Of course, I may be purely dreaming all of this up.

    ReplyDelete