3 Jun
Where Angels Fear to Tread . . .
In the world of diplomacy, mindfulness is very important. When gifts are given, it is always apropos to be gracious and make a show of appreciation. It is one thing when a diplomat makes a thoughtless gesture, but when a President makes a gaffe, nations remember.
When President Obama first took the Oval Office, one of the first things he did in the opening days of his presidency was flinging a bust of Winston Churchill out of his office and sent it packing back to the British Embassy.
The bust was a loaned gift that President Bush received right after the 9/11 attack on New York and Washington. Anyone familiar with Winston Churchill’s legacy knows how this man courageously mobilized his nation to stand up and fight the Nazis. Churchill’s bust was an obvious but poignant symbol of the solidarity that exists between our two great nations.
Yet, the President’s penchant for insulting allies has been perfectly consistent. When we think of the life-sentence Jonathan Pollard received for the crime of “friendly spying,” one wonders why the United States government has not put Obama on trial for betraying Britain’s nuclear secrets to the Russians over the new START Treaty. If the Republicans had any gonads, they would start an impeachment over this treasonous act. Why did he betray the British? Because the British are not an important ally!
In his recent visit to France, Obama referred to France as “America’s strongest ally.” Well, maybe when the colonies fought against the British in the 18th century, but definitely not since.
Personally, denigrating the British is not a crime that especially bothers me given their animus against Israel and their tolerance for Islamic anti-Semitism that exists within their borders. However, for him to take sides with Argentina over the Falklands, or to undermine British influence in NATO, well, such behavior makes me wonder: Why does the President seem to trivialize so many of America’s best friends and time-honored allies?
King Abullah of Saudi Arabia was also very upset and even screamed at President Obama for turning against a time-respected ally. The King described Obama as, “more or less a wet-behind- the-ears young man . . .”
President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, since 1975 has done more to ensure the peace between the State of Israel and Egypt in one of the most important peace treaties of recent history. While Mubarak has been a strongman in his country, he has accomplished what no other political leader imagined possible: a peace treaty with Israel.
Mubarak deserves a far better fate; Obama’s open criticism destabilized his government and Mubarak had already a transition team ready to take over after his demise. Remember: Mubarak is no spring chicken!
Under American pressure, Mubarak stepped down, Obama triumphantly said, “Egypt will never be the same . . .” Yes, I believe the President is correct. But far from being “better,” we may soon witness a new revolution that is fueled by religious fanaticism just like we witnessed in Iran back in 1979. Could Egypt fall into the Iranian camp? Most certainly.
Already, since Mubarak has stepped down, the Coptics have found themselves increasingly threatened. The Egyptians are abrogating the Camp David promise to provide Israel with natural gas; over 10,000 missiles weapons and other weapons are flowing into Gaza with complete support from the new Egyptian government. Mr. President, how will this new Egyptian policy serve the cause of peace?
Oh yes, virginity tests for Egyptian maidens are on the rise.
Yet, the President hounded and threatened Mubarak in the name of “democracy” and in the process has made the Middle East more unstable than ever—even now as the Muslim Brotherhood plans to take leadership in the next election. And when the peace treaty is eventually abrogated by the Muslim Brotherhood, what will Mr. Obama say to the people of Israel and Egypt? “Maybe I shouldn’t have been playing so much golf . . .”
Of course, President’s Obama refusal to even visit Israel and his crass treatment of President Shimon Perez, who made a pre-planned visit to congratulate Obama, and his public demand that Israel return to the 1967 borders—all reveal that President Obama is a man who has no appreciation whatsoever for the sacrifices others have made for freedom and peace.
Despite all the speeches Obama has made about the spread of democracy that is taking place in the Middle East, he has said nothing to encourage the dissidents in Syria or Iran. One must truly wonder: Who is advising Obama? One can only surmise that the President believes that Syria and Iran have a positive role to play in the Middle East. When one considers the thousands of dissidents both these rogue countries have killed in their own countries and abroad, how can a President be so delusional about reality?
Let me remind our readers that back in 2009, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton summed up longstanding United States policy when “We will not deal with nor in any way fund a Palestinian government that includes Hamas unless and until Hamas has renounced violence, recognized Israel and agreed to follow previous obligations of the Palestinian authority.”
Fine and good—except for one little problem: Hamas has not done any of these things. Yet despite the signing of the unity agreement, the Obama Administration has continued funding the Palestinian Authority and pressuring Israel to negotiate with it. Amazingly, we have yet to hear from the Jewish representatives in Congress like Chuck Schumer, or Dianne Feinsten and others mutter a word of concern or alarm about Obama’s “peace” plan.
Hamas is a threat that cannot be ignored. The people of Israel understand this problem well. For those friends who support the President’s Kafkaesque vision of the Middle East, ask yourselves one important question: If—after the Muslim Brotherhood wins the election in Egypt—the new Egyptian leaders subsequently reject the Camp David Accords, why should the Palestinians observe any treaty made with Israel? For what purpose?
One more point deserves special mentioning: When Obama’s speech called for Israel to return to the 1967 borders, he meant that as only a starting point for negotiations, without reaffirming that Israel would absorb the Israeli-majority settlement blocs across the green line. Conspicuously absent in Obama’s speech is the thorny issue regarding the Palestinian “Right of Return.” The fact he left out these important points strongly suggests that Obama’s peace plan will continue to exact a pound of political flesh from Israel to placate the Arab world. Jewish supporters of Obama need to rethink their support of the President-clearly, he is no friend of Israel. Continue Reading
