At least it's now out in the open:
It was just a phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday, but it was a stark reminder of a far-reaching shift in how the United States views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and how aggressively it might push for a peace agreement.
When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.
This shift, described by administration officials who did not want to be quoted by name when discussing internal discussions, is driving the White House’s urgency to help broker a Middle East peace deal. It increases the likelihood that Mr. Obama, frustrated by the inability of the Israelis and the Palestinians to come to terms, will offer his own proposed parameters for an eventual Palestinian state.
(For 'offer' read 'try to force a settlement on Israel on the Arab's terms.')
Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.
Accusing Israel of indirectly killing American soldiers is the newest and most pernicious argument of the anti-Israeli left, traditional Arabists in government, and now, the Executive Branch of the United States government.
This is something that the anti-Israel Left has been absolutely salivating for. The president of the United States has just officially embraced their latest fairy tale...that rather than Obama's farcical policies, Israel is somehow responsible for endangering US troops in places like Iraq and AfPak.
And if those stubborn Jews just go twith the program and retreated to indefensible borders again, everything would be just lovely.Hezbollah, Hamas and al-Qaeda would close up shop,Iran and Syria would stop sponsoring Islamist terrorism, the jihad against the West would be canceled and the whole Middle East would become Switzerland.
During the Bush years it was sufficient to lay blame for that 'lost blood and treasure' Obama mentions on george W. Bush and his administration. Now that Obama is in the White House and that blood and treasure is still being lost,it's necessary to look elsewhere and find a different scapegoat. So...blame the Jew.
On response came from none other than Ronald S. Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress in the form of an open letter run as an ad in several major newspapers:
Dear President Obama:
I write today as a proud American and a proud Jew.
Jews around the world are concerned today. We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.
Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.
The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.” This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.
Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.
Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.
Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.
The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.
They are not the key issue now.
Another important question is this: what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement? Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety. Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel? Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?
There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence. How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?
And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East? The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.
And what about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today? That threat is a nuclear armed Iran. Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.
Mr. President, we embrace your sincerity in your quest to seek a lasting peace. But we urge you to take into consideration the concerns expressed above. Our great country and the tiny State of Israel have long shared the core values of freedom and democracy. It is a bond much treasured by the Jewish people. In that spirit I submit, most respectfully, that it is time to end our public feud with Israel and to confront the real challenges that we face together.
Yours sincerely,
Ronald S. Lauder
President
World Jewish Congress
Shortly before Prez Zero entered the Oval office, you might remember that none other than Jesse Jackson said that under Obama Jews would lose all of their clout.
He was right.
This was always going to happen, and anyone who took a good look at who Obama was and whom his most intimate friends and long time associates were knew it.
Now comes the next stage, the resistance. America;s Jews had better wake up and realize what they put in the White house.
3 comments:
Don't blame me, I didn't vote for the anti-semitic creep. Need to qualify it with 75% of America's Jews had better wake up...the rest of us knew what he was and where he was coming from. The issue I still have not been able to resolve is what is wrong with Emmanuel? Is power and money so important to him that he would help destroy the nation his Irgun father faught to create? Think that family would give a psychiatrist a wonderful living.
Hi IP,
Rahm Emmanuel is simply a careerist, who has latched on to Obama and isn't letting go because it is indeed the key to his power and status. The phenomenon of the 'court Jew' who attempts to prosper at the expense of his own people is not an unknown one.
David Axelrod is a different case, a red diaper baby whose Jewish commie parents were always 'anti-Zionists'.
For the record, this Jew also didn't vote for the Jew hater In Chief.
Post a Comment