People are pointing to recent statements out of the US Government to prove that the US is abandoning Israel. Lets look at the facts:
- Call for a two-state solution. Hillary Clinton was the first person associated with any administration to call for a two-state solution. She actually "outed herself" before her husband when he was the President. Bill quickly chimed in. George W Bush Called for a two state solution. Obama is continuing in that tradition. On the Israeli side, every Prime Minister after Rabin called for two states, that included Bibi the first time, and Bibi now.
- Dismantling Israeli Settlements. Since Jimmy Carter was president (maybe before), every US President has called for Israel to stop building and dismantle existing, settlements on the other side of the "green line." Obama's position is no different.
- Talks With Iran. President Obama's policy of reaching out to Iran is misguided. Its the wrong approach for the United States and in the end may be very harmful to US allies in the middle east including, but not limited to Israel, but Jordan and Saudi Arabia also. These Iranian discussions are no way directed toward hurting Israel. There is no evidence that Obama is looking to trade our relationship with Israel for a new friendship with Iran.
George W.Bush did not want Israel to bomb Iran, neither does Barack Obama. Just as Menachem Begin destroyed the nuclear plant in Iraq over US objections 28 years ago, If Iran gets close to a bomb, Bibi Netanyahu will find a way to destroy their capabilities without US permission. Should this happen, Israel will be punished with a loss of arms deals, just as they were in 1981.
- America Outing Israel's Nukes? The "big story" that broke yesterday that at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, said Israel should join the treaty which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal. "Universal adherence to the NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea, ... remains a fundamental objective of the United States," Ms. Gottemoeller told the meeting, according to Reuters. According to an Israel Foreign Ministry source the statement did not signal a significant policy change from the United States.
Israel has always given a "non-denial, denial of its nuclear capabilities. Whenever asked about the program, the answer given is "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear arms into a conflict." The United States has always accepted this position and chances are they will continue to accept it.
A contact of mine in Israel suggested that the statement Gottemoller made had more to do with India and Pakistan than Israel, which makes much sense. The US wants Pakistan to forget about India and press the fight against the Taliban. Pakistan and Indian participation in the NPT may serve to ease tensions on their joint border and allow Pakistan to concentrate on the Afghanistan side of the country.When you put together all of the recent "threats" of an American/Israeli divorce you are simply left with a basket full of same old, same old. That's not to say that President Obama won't end up betraying the long held friendship between Israel and the United States. I believe that concern is justified. But we won't really know anything until after Bibi's meetings with the US President in a week.
Until then, just like Chicken Little, if Israel supporters keep screaming that the sky is falling when it isn't, no one will listen to us when/if the sky does indeed fall.
5 comments:
Hi Sammy:
Great post. I found you through Maggie's Notebook. I wrote a post yesterday I believe that looks at the Obama administration and the problem that it poses.
Iran/Israel Follow-up: Biden at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee
The Old Saying Goes That Actions Speak Louder Than Words
Vice President Biden spoke a the AIPAC Conference and defended the fact that the Obama administration is making diplomatic overtures to Iran. If you read my article this morning which spoke about the moves that Iran is making in the region to become the de facto leader, it's spoken desire to obtain a nuclear capability, it's undying hatred of Israel, and severe dislike for the United States (or maybe hatred is another word), what is the purpose of opening a dialogue?
President Obama, an appeaser at heart, a man who seems to desire be liked by all, is going to sit down at a table and enter into "substantive" talks with Iran, whose only purpose of sitting down is to move world opinion in it's favor and to buy itself time to continue to work on the ability to obtain and deliver nukes...
FROM CAROL HERMAN
The real threat is the mess in Irak. Where the Shi'a have stiffed Bush. And, Maliki, long ago, when to Iran for the military support (or terror support) ... it being one and the same ... that took on the Sunni's.
Iran just did a "fly over" destroying Kurdish villages. As Turkey has also done. The Kurds don't have friends in the region. And, they're in the same boat as Israel. But without a country.
Obama knows all about "American 3rd rails." Where if he touches them, he's politically kaput. LBJ touched ONE. Nixon touched ONE. Jimmy Carter touched ONE. And, the Bush "boychicks" gambled and lost.
Obama wants to win. So? For sure, he will not pull a Jimmy Carter. That he's let Hillary "step out?" Why not? She's still a threat to him. And, it's not so easy to get rid of threats. (Not Iran's either. But they're just terrorists. When you fight them you can't hold back.) Olmert held back! He's gone, now. Jew haters making mischief? Well, Pat Buchanan isn't dead, either.
FROM CAROL HERMAN
It may be worth mentioning, because so few people are really familiar with history. But FDR (Franklin Delano Roosevelt) was thought to be a lightweight. People said the "FD" in FDR stood for "feather duster."
But nobody was ever able to "read" him! (There's a story where Winston Churchill was trying to convince FDR of allowing England to be in charge of WW2, when Eleanor piped up: "Winston, just because Franklin is saying 'yes, yes, yes' ... doesn't mean he agrees with you. ONLY THAT HE'S LISTENING.
FDR was a very good listener. He also knew he needed the public to back him up. And, when he became president, in 1932, a majority of Americans believed him. And, went along with his decisions. The republicans got swept away.
Oddly enough Obama is aiming for the same thing. For this reason I'm just waiting to see what Bibi has to say.
I think my word veri is extremely fitting:FINGR
Because that is what Obama gives not only Israel but the world, and especially his supposed own country. And I dont' write that over any birth certificate story that is out there, I write that because I find it hard to believe any American for any reason could go around the world denegrating Americans as he did and actually have loyalty to American first.
How many examples of Obama talking out of both sides of his face do you need? How many times has he espoused he won't do this or that to have that same policy change the very next day and not in favor or freedom, Israel or liberty!
Folks, this is the point you are not getting. I am not saying that Obama WONT screw Israel. I am saying that there is no evidence that he has as of yet. And when that happens I will be out in the lead bashing the hell out of him. But if we complain when he is just doing what previous presidents have done, then when it is time to scream, no one will listen
Post a Comment