Friday, May 20, 2011

The President and Israel

When the war begins between Israel and US on the one side, and Iran on the other, historians will trace it to yesterday's speech by President Obama.  In it, he effectively told the Israelis that our "special relationship" is over, and that we consider them on the same moral and international plane as Fatah and Hamas.  When will this President realize that Israel's paranoia is warranted?  They don't conjure up in their collective imaginations the series of attacks perpetrated upon them over the past seven decades--these happened.  They don't imagine that there are those dedicated to wiping them off the face of the earth--they live among them. 

President Obama's equivalence of the Israeli and Palestinian causes will increasingly isolate Israel, who will no longer feel that they can rely upon the US.  The trust is gone.  Israel will attack Iran, and Iran will attack US interests as a result. 

We are reaping what we have sown in our OJT President.  He's simply not up to international affairs, thinking that HIS brilliance and HIS influence and HIS ideas are what stand between the world and peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.  I fear that this is a phenomenally dangerous move by the President.  In the Fall, the Israelis will be ganged up on in the UN--and Europe will sit it out.  In the end, Israel will do what it must to guarantee its survival.  And I do not blame them.


LL said...

You hit the nail on the head.

Doc Milnamo said...

Agreed. And the feces hitting the fan right here in the good ol' Great Satan is going to be tremendous.

One of the open switches is how the Ummah will react; mainly the Arab Ummah. Since most are not overly fond of the Persians there is a possibility of them sitting on the sidelines making noises and rattling their scimitars..and AK47s too.

Anonymous said...

We will live with Bush II's OJT for years to come.

Mudge said...

Anonymous - May I use your comment should anyone ever ask me the difference between laughable and funny?

Anonymous said...

When I review the language of the President's speech and the text linked to Israel I am not as concerned by the portion of the text that states “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” Any reasonable person understands that a final settlement will include land swaps and that the land swaps will be viewed in their historical context linked to the 1967 War. Rather, it is the speech in its entirety and the moral equivalency between the State of Israel and her neighbors that is so utterly abhorrent. JFK once said “Dante once said that the hottest places in hell are reserved for those who, in a period of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality.” It is clear now, and for some it has been clear for much longer, that such a place is reserved for this President and his administration as a result of their policy towards Israel. This pains me, as I had great hope for this administration.

XBradTC said...

I have to agree with anonymous that the worst part of the President's speech was the fact that he equates Israel with the Palestinian's leadership on a moral level.

Israel, for whatever faults it may have, has never called for the destruction of the Palestinians. But the leadership of the Palestinian people exists not to promote a Palestinian state, but to destroy Israel. Any President that gives any recognition to them, let alone moral equivalence, is doing a disservice to Israel, and more importantly, the principles that we as Americans hold dear.

Dan said...

I am struggling here, either the US should be trying to play stole between Israel and the Palestinians to bring about peace, as has been US policy going back to Nixon and Kissinger or earlier. Reagan and Bush the first even put sanctions on Israel overcome disagreements, or the US is an unshakable ally of Israel who should be helping it WIN.

If it is the second one then the idea of peace negotiator should be left to the EU or China or UN.

If it is the second one what does winning mean?

If there is never going to be a Palestinian state on something like the 1967 lines then there is never going to be a Palestinian state, so the Palestinian options become not campaign for a state but campaign for a vote in the state they are by default in, Israel.

Israel has 2 threats Iran is one and the Palestinians and local demography is the other, finding a solution to the Palestinian one removes a possible Iranian front.

Newer Post Older Post Home