August 5, 2011, 8:15 AM
| Comments (15) | | |
 |
| |  |
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has explained repeatedly over the years that Israel has no Palestinian partner to negotiate with. So news reports this week that Netanyahu agreed that the 1949 armistice lines, (commonly misrepresented as the 1967 borders), will be mentioned in terms of reference for future negotiations with the Palestinian Authority seemed to come out of nowhere.
Israel has no one to negotiate with because the Palestinians reject Israel's right to exist. This much was made clear yet again last month when senior PA "negotiator" Nabil Sha'ath said in an interview with Arabic News Broadcast, "The story of 'two states for two peoples' means that there will be a Jewish people over there and a Palestinian people here. We will never accept this."
Given the Palestinians' position it is obvious that Netanyahu is right. There is absolutely no chance whatsoever that Israel and the PA will reach any peace deal in the foreseeable future. Add to this the fact that the Hamas terror group controls Gaza and will likely win any new Palestinian elections just as it won the last elections, and the entire exercise in finding the right formula for restarting negotiations is exposed as a complete farce.
So why is Israel engaging in these discussions?
The only logical answer is to placate US President Barack Obama.
For the past several months, most observers have been operating under the assumption that Obama will use the US's veto at the UN Security Council to defeat the Palestinians' bid next month to receive UN membership as independent Palestine. But the fact of the matter is that no senior administration official has stated unequivocally, on record that the US will veto a UN Security Council resolution recommending UN membership for Palestine.
Given US congressional and public support for Israel, it is likely that at the end of the day, Obama will veto such a resolution. But the fact that the President has abstained to date from stating openly that he will veto it makes clear that Obama expects Israel to "earn" a US veto by bowing to his demands.
These demands include abandoning Israel's position that it must retain defensible borders in any peace deal with the Palestinians. Since defensible borders require Israel to retain control over the Jordan Valley and the Samarian hills, there is no way to accept the 1949 armistice lines as a basis for negotiations without surrendering defensible borders.
SAY WHAT you will about Obama's policy, at least it's a policy. Obama uses US power and leverage against Israel in order to force Israel to bow to his will.
What makes Obama's Israel policy notable is not simply that it involves betraying the US's most steadfast ally in the Middle East. After all, since taking office Obama has made a habit of betraying US allies.
Obama's Israel policy is notable because it is a policy. Obama has a clear, consistent goal of cutting Israel down to size. Since assuming office, Obama has taken concrete steps to achieve this aim.
And those steps have achieved results. Obama forced Netanyahu to make Palestinian statehood an Israeli policy goal. He coerced Netanyahu into temporarily abrogating Jewish property rights in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria. And now he is forcing Netanyahu to pretend the 1949 armistice lines are something Israel can accept.
Obama has not adopted a similarly clear, consistent policy towards any other nation in the region. In Egypt, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Libya, and beyond, Obama has opted for attitude over policy. He has postured, preened, protested and pronounced on all the issues of the day.
But he has not made policy. And as a consequence, for better or for worse, he has transformed the US from a regional leader into a regional follower while empowering actors whose aims are not consonant with US interests.
SYRIA IS case and point. President Bashar Assad is the Iranian mullahs' lap dog. He is also a major sponsor of terrorism. In the decade since he succeeded his father, Assad Jr. has trained terrorists who have killed US forces in Iraq. He has provided a safe haven for al Qaeda terrorists. He has strengthened Syrian ties to Hezbollah. He has hosted Hamas, Islamic Jihad and other Palestinian terror factions. He has proliferated nuclear weapons. He reputedly ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri.
Since March, Assad has been waging war against his fellow Syrians. By the end of this week, with his invasion of Hama, the civilian death toll will certainly top two thousand.
And how has Obama responded? He upgraded his protestations of displeasure with Assad from "unacceptable" to "appalling."
In the face of Assad's invasion of Hama, rather than construct a policy for overthrowing this murderous US enemy, the Obama administration has constructed excuses for doing nothing. Administration officials, including Obama's ambassador to Damascus Robert Ford, are claiming that the US has little leverage over Assad.
But this is ridiculous. Many in Congress and beyond are demanding that Obama withdraw Ford from Damascus. Some are calling for sanctions against Syria's energy sector. These steps may or may not be effective. Openly supporting, financing and arming Assad's political opponents would certainly be effective.
Many claim that the most powerful group opposing Assad is the Muslim Brotherhood. And there is probably some truth to that. At a minimum, the Brotherhood's strength has been tremendously augmented in recent months by Turkey.
Some have applauded the fact that Turkey has filled the leadership vacuum left by the Obama administration. They argue that Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan can be trusted to ensure that Syria doesn't descend into a civil war.
What these observers fail to recognize is that Erdogan's interests in a post-Assad Syria have little in common with US interests. Erdogan will seek to ensure the continued disenfranchisement of Syria's Kurdish minority. And he will work towards the Islamification of Syria through the Muslim Brotherhood.
Today there is a coalition of Syrian opposition figures that include all ethnic groups in Syria. Their representatives have been banging the doors of the corridors of power in Washington and beyond. Yet the same Western leaders who were so eager to recognize the Libyan opposition despite the presence of al Qaeda terrorists in the opposition tent have refused to publicly embrace Syrian regime opponents that seek a democratic, federal Syria that will live at peace with Israel and embrace liberal policies.
This week Secretary of State Hillary Clinton held a private meeting with these brave democrats. Why didn't she hold a public meeting? Why hasn't Obama welcomed them to the White House?
By refusing to embrace liberal, multi-ethnic regime opponents, the administration is all but ensuring the success of the Turkish bid to install the Muslim Brotherhood in power if Assad is overthrown.
But then, embracing pro-Western Syrians would involve taking a stand and, in so doing, adopting a policy. And that is something the posturing president will not do. Obama is much happier pretending that empty statements from the UN Security Council amount to US "victories."
If he aims any lower his head will hit the floor.
OBAMA'S PREFERENCE for posture over policy is nothing new. It has been his standard operating procedure throughout the region. When the Iranian people rose up against their regime in June 2009 in the Green Revolution, Obama stood on the sidelines. As is his habit, he acted as though the job of the US president is to opine rather than lead. Then he sniffed that it wasn't nice at all that the regime was mowing down pro-democracy protesters in the streets of Teheran and beyond.
And ever since, Obama has remained on the sidelines as the mullahs took over Lebanon, build operational bases in Latin America, sprint to the nuclear finishing line, and consolidate their power in Iraq and Afghanistan.
On Wednesday the show trial began for longtime US ally former Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak and his sons. During last winter's popular uprising in Egypt, Obama's foes attacked him for refusing to abandon Mubarak immediately.
The reasons for maintaining US support for Mubarak were obvious: Mubarak had been the foundation of the US alliance structure with the Sunni Arab world for three decades. He had kept the peace with Israel. And his likely successor was the Muslim Brotherhood.
But Obama didn't respond to his critics with a defense of a coherent policy. Because his early refusal to betray Mubarak was not a policy. It was an attitude of cool detachment.
When Obama saw that it was becoming politically costly to maintain his attitude of detachment, he replaced it with a new one of righteous rage. And so he withdrew US support for Mubarak without ever thinking through the consequences of his actions. And now it isn't just Mubarak and his sons humiliated in a cage. It is their legacy of alliance with America.
Recognizing that Obama refuses to adopt or implement any policies on his own, Congress has tried to fill the gap. The House Foreign Affairs Committee recently passed a budget that would make US aid to Egypt, Lebanon, Yemen and the PA contingent on certification that no terrorist or extremist organization holds governmental power in these areas. Clinton issued a rapid rebuke of the House's budget and insisted it was unacceptable.
And this makes sense. Making US assistance to foreign countries contingent on assurances that the money won't fund US enemies would be a policy. And Obama doesn't make policy - except when it comes attacking to Israel.
In an interview with the New York Times on Thursday, Muammar Qaddafi's son Seif al-Islam Qaddafi said he and his father are negotiating a deal that would combine their forces with Islamist forces and reestablish order in the country. To a degree, the US's inability to overthrow Qaddafi - even by supporting an opposition coalition that includes al Qaeda - is the clearest proof that Obama has substituted attitude for policy everywhere except Israel.
Acting under a UN Security Council resolution and armed with a self-righteous doctrine of "Responsibility to Protect" Obama went to war against Qaddafi five months ago. But once the hard reality of war invaded his happy visions of Lone Rangers riding in on white stallions, Obama lost interest in Libya. He kept US forces in the battle, but gave them no clear goals to achieve. And so no goals have been achieved.
Meanwhile, Qaddafi's son feels free to meet the New York Times and mock America just by continuing to breathe in and out before the cameras as he sports a new Islamic beard and worry beads.
If nothing else, the waves of chaos, war and revolution sweeping through Arab lands make clear that the Arab conflict with Israel is but a sideshow in the Arab experience of tyranny, fanaticism, hope and betrayal. So it says a lot about Obama, that eight months after the first rebellion broke in Tunisia, his sole Middle East policy involves attacking Israel.
Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
| Comments (15) | | |
|
Caroline, You could not be more correct in your assessment of Obama's policy toward Israel and the Jews. Obama is a man of posture, not of deed. What bothers me more is our reaction. Are we so bent on destroying ourselves that we will promise anything to stay in this narcissist's good graces? G-d help us. Shabbat shalom.
The worst component of the 'Obama’s only policy' - the one that could have the most lethal consequences for Israel – is Obama’s refusal to accept that the mutual assured destruction doctrine (MAD) is dead! MAD is Dead http://madisdead.blogspot.com
'Obama expects Israel to "earn" a US veto by bowing to his demands'
One thing Obama has learned well in his short time is how easily Israel's jellyfish leaders bend to his demands.
It's such a breeze to tighten the screws on Israel that he always returns there when he hits a stone wall elsewhere.
Very few leaders yeild to his demands but he can ALWAYS count on the quislings and lemmings who know what is required to become P.M. of Israel.
Livni like Ehud Barak and the ever capitulating Netanyahu understand well.
Obama can keep shoveling the manure on Israel and rest assured that they will keep taking it with a smile.
After he dissed Netanyahu's weak request to release Pollard Obama knew that Netanyahu would do nothing but keep dancing and giving in to his demands.
Israel is a nation of pushovers and it's no secret ,ask the Palestinian's.
Obama knows Israel is desperate, extremely dependant and fearful and plays the faithless secular Jews like a bongo drum.
Here's something the Israeli media covered up well,just how controlled Israel is by Washington.
Just this past week after returning from Washington ,Ehud Barak immediately set out to aid and assist the undeserving Hamastan Gazans with so many 'gestures' who openly call for the extermination of the Jews.... and the rocket barrages began anew.
Somebody like Barak should be in jail if Israle were a normal country ,but truthfully it is a banana republic wrapped around Obama's middle finger.
With such depraved Jews in leadership in Israel is it any wonder that Obama finds Israel as his easy play toy to break when hes not destroying the U.S. ?
It's easy to see that the problem is that there are no leaders in Israel only followers who spend their time on their knees licking Obama's shoes.
Where are the Jews with a spine who can say no ? Are there any ?
Netanyahu always talks big before selling Israel out. At least we now explicitly know that he is on board with Obama's policy.
Why should I defend Israel's right to exist when she agrees with her enemies?
'Obama expects Israel to "earn" a US veto by bowing to his demands'
One thing Obama has learned well in his short time is how easily Israel's jellyfish leaders bend to his demands.
Very few leaders yeild to his demands but he can count on the quislings and lemmings who know what is required to become P.M. of Israel.
Livni like Ehud Barak and the ever capitulating Netanyahu understand well .
Obama can keep shoveling the manure on Israel and rest assured that they will keep taking it with a smile.
After he dissed Netanyahu's weak request to release Pollard Obama knew that Netanyahu would do nothing but keep dancing and giving in to his demands.
Obama knows Israel is desperate ,exremely dependant and fearful and plays the faithless secular Jews like a bongo drum.
Just this past week after returning from Washington ,Ehud Barak immediately set out to aid and assist the undeserving Hamastan Gazans with so many 'gestures' who openly call for the extermination of the Jews. and the rocket barrages began anew.
Somebody like Barak should be in jail if Israel were a normal country ,but truthfully it is a banana republic wrapped around Obama's middle finger.
With such depraved Jews in leadership in Israel is it any wonder that Obama finds Israel as his easy play toy to break when hes not destroying the U.S. ?
It's easy to see that the problem is that there are no leaders in Israel only followers who spend their time on their knees licking Obama's shoes.
Where are the Jews with a spine who can say no ? Are there any ?
An excellent article and you clarify your position that Obama is responsible for what is happening in Egypt without accusing him of precipitating the crisis.
I think the role of NATO in Lybia deserves a mention in this context, especially since you mention Turkey as a player in Syria.
NATO in Lybia, Turkey -- a NATO member -- in Syria and the US -- another NATO member -- hostile to Israel and posing it as an aggressor. All this points to NATO acting in some way against Israel. Remember it already happened to Serbia on the shallowest of pretenses and NATO is still on the ground in Serbia.
Okay...it's all clear to me now.
She is saying that originally Obama was silently supporting Mubarack, b'cuz his likely successor's would be Muslim Brotherhood. Once he saw the tide of opposition to Murbarak, Obama went touting to the world that Egypt deserved "Democracy". And of course Muslim Brotherhood would take a very strong stance and has.
Next, We all wondered what was really happening in Libya...why did John McCain go to Libya and support the rebellious uprising? We were afraid that Al Quida, or MB could take over - But Obama was not taking a strong stance to help them, why? Cuz Turkey was taking the lead in Communication talks with Qadaffi..and they are in cahootz with strong Islamic radicals, and most likely with the MB.
Would you say that Obama secretly wishes the Muslim Brotherhood to gain Eastern Dominance, and eventually destroy Israel and the US?
I hope more people read Carlink Glick. pass on
NETANYAHU BEING FORCED TO MAKE CONCESSIONS?
More dangerous than Obama and the Arabs combined is Israelis' TENDENCY TO MAKE EXCUSES for the PM and his MKs.
Obama plays the role of Netanyahu's implacable adversary - and the Israeli government whimpers and then retreats from every fundamental principle.
But how true is that picture?
Could it be just a political game that benefits both politicians? The US government growls and makes demands from Israel, thus impressing his leftist and Muslim supporters. Bibi routinely buckles, retreats, and implements his leftist agenda, while getting Israeli hawks to consistently MAKE EXCUSES for him, loyally supporting him to the end. All he has to do is blame Obama. Easy.
Where was the alleged US pressure when PM Netanyahu made that initial speech in favor of the creation of the state of Palestine?
The Bad-Obama/Good-Netanyahu deception permeates the Jewish right wing media. Only a few see through it.
In the meantime the Jews of Israel are being swindled out of their land and, very possibly, out of their country's future viability as well.
Please, PLEASE, Caroline, stop making excuses for the PM.
THE ANSWER to US bullying is right there ON YOUR COLUMN. Of all the countries you mentioned, it's only Israel that retreats without a struggle every time the US government frowns.
There's no fighting spirit, NO FIRM PRINCIPLE.
Everything is negotiable - including Jerusalem - because the US government is "forcing" the government to betray Jewish and security principles. FORCING IT?
I'd like to see more "tough love" on Israeli columnists and a drastic turn from helpless outrage at US government behavior into a clear exposure of "right wing" leaders who are letting the country down. And I don't mean the PM alone, but the whole gang of self-proclaimed "right wing" Likud MKs who submit so passively to the will of the PM, while paying only lip service to the principles that got them their jobs in the first place. Just check their shameful voting record, for Pete's sake!
'The Bad-Obama/Good-Netanyahu deception permeates the Jewish right wing media. Only a few see through it.'
They don't want to see through it and love being manipulated and lied to because everything they believe in is riding on their god who can do no wrong Netanyahu.
His enchanting words have mesmerized the pagan right of Israel just as the left are seduced by delusions.
The Netanyahu cult have no where else to go and so facts and the truth mean as much to them as it does to the left.
When it gets in the way of their devotion and worship they ignore it.
Zombie politics infects the right just as it does the left.
Idolatry is a hard sin to free ones self of.
Most will die with their useless trinkets.
Caroline,
Ok, Obama hates Israel, this is nothing new. What is amazing is how Netanyahu is caving into US pressure to deal with the Palestinians. Face it Netanyahu is a 21st century Judenrat. Rockets fall from Azza, Egypt will be a fundamentalist stronghold and Hibullazh rules Lebanon. Iran is on developing rockets capable of hitting Israel and other locations. Netanyahu is incapable of protecting the State of Israel and Israeli populace are in denial.
The only conclusion, sadly, is that the Zionist enterprise is a failure. Israeli jews have not intellectually left the shetl.
I suggest that you consider leaving Israel as the fight is for Israel is basically over.
No one in Eretz Israel has the balls to act like an independent and proud nation state!
Benjamin
Obama's ardent self-love and his red-hot hatred of Israel seem to be the most genuine parts of who he presents to the world, two sides of the same coin driving this one clear policy of his: pedestal-building for self-display - in a world without Israel. Islamist rule in the nations around Israel suit him perfectly, however random US policy application looks.
One more thought. Isn't this push in the UN for recognition of another Arab state on Jewish soil being blown way out of proportion by all players? Someone stick a pin into the inflatable monster it has become and make it fizzle.
To my profound dismay, Israel is turning out to be a nation of fools. They are following in the footsteps of the US. Politically correct stupidity has western culture running over the cliff in mass.
What is needed is a profound censorship of this fatal policy. Then move on to take care of the rising Hitler of Iran.
Will Israel really give away it's survival for a promise from a man who's very occupation of the Oval Office is a lie?
I´ve just translated this article to spanish. You can find it in my blog http://elrejunteil.wordpress.com/2011/08/07/la-unica-politica-de-obama-en-el-medio-oriente/
The many comments about Oboma isn't only on the mark but has been the status for the Oboma Administration since he took office. After he told the primenister of Israel to move its boarders back to be for the 6 day war MANY of us Americans were moved to do anything we could to expose Obomas agenda " MY WAY OR THE NO WAY". His self proclaimed Christianity in its self is a joke at best. Even "the devil comes dressed in lambs cloths". Obomas anti-semitic agenda has open the eyes of many and has moved many of us Americans to challange his every move. If any one thinks the debt ceiling issue was just about Obomas carless spending of money is only half right. The Idea is to put obstacles in to Obomas agenda were ever and when ever we can. May the L-rd bless Israel. Shalom.