What Comes after Obama’s Surrender?
Published in Iraq News Agency
(Iraq) on 10 July 2010
by Saad Mahiuo (link to original)
(Iraq) on 10 July 2010
by Saad Mahiuo (link to original)
Translated from
by Marissa Icabone.
Edited by Heidi Kaufmann.
"If there remained any vestiges of hope in the Middle East from Barack Obama, they have dissipated; if some people still expected Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to lead a courageous move, they now know they made a mistake (and misled others ). The masked ball is at its peak: Preening each other, Obama and Netanyahu have proved that even their heavy layer of makeup can no longer hide the wrinkles. The worn-out, wizened old face of the longest 'peace process' in history has been awarded another surprising and incomprehensible extention[sic]. It's on its way nowhere."
No. It is not us who have said this, but rather the Israelis themselves (Ha’aretz 7-8-2010).
“President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel satisfied their short-term political goals with an Oval Office meeting on Tuesday. It is less clear that they achieved much of substance. Both were desperate to show their voters that their frigid relationship has warmed. So they posed — smiling — for an official photo, spoke with reporters and shared lunch.”
Again, no. It is not us who have said this, but rather the New York Times (6-8-2010)[sic].
Therefore, both Ha’aretz and the New York Times have been acquitted of the charge of having a permanent negative attitude toward Obama and everything he does.
Of course, we all would have liked to see a different picture and to hear brave words coming out of Obama’s White House, giving Israel the choice between peace with a billion and a half Muslims or full international isolation. But this has not happened, as we saw the day before yesterday, when he favored his electoral interests and the strategic interests of the United States.
Thus, another picture is being drawn in the Middle East: Obama’s three-dimensional strategy for the Middle East. Any two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, establishing bridges of understanding with the Muslim world through the gates of Istanbul and Cairo and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be put on the back burner from now on. What strategy will be in its place? It will most probably be a carbon copy of Bush’s policy, which President Obama vowed to change.
As a reminder, Bush’s policies can be summed up in one phrase: The Israelization of American policy in its entirety and the support of any and all wars Israel intends to start in the region (except, for the present time at least, Iran). Obama, who has proven to be a member of the Machiavellian school in its Kissinger-and-Brzezinski nature, can resume political exercises and secret transactions in the Middle East, which have been interrupted.
How? Via putting aside the American State Department and granting the CIA carte blanche for administrative matters and concerns in the area. This is supposed to secure him a way out of this dead end of American policies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and even in Egypt and Turkey. However, could it be in the CIA’s secret plans to achieve at least some stability and balance in the Middle East? No. Most likely this secret approach will only fuel conflicts in the area instead of allowing peace. This will eventually be a detriment to U.S. interests.
If Obama achieved the appeasement of Netanyahu and his current political and electoral aspirations, he then lost all or most of the chances to praise a new edifice for relationships with the Arab and Muslim worlds. All the new expected effort, overt and covert, will not change the current reality one bit.
What now for the complications of Obama’s surrender to Palestine, Israel and Lebanon?
No. It is not us who have said this, but rather the Israelis themselves (Ha’aretz 7-8-2010).
“President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel satisfied their short-term political goals with an Oval Office meeting on Tuesday. It is less clear that they achieved much of substance. Both were desperate to show their voters that their frigid relationship has warmed. So they posed — smiling — for an official photo, spoke with reporters and shared lunch.”
Again, no. It is not us who have said this, but rather the New York Times (6-8-2010)[sic].
Therefore, both Ha’aretz and the New York Times have been acquitted of the charge of having a permanent negative attitude toward Obama and everything he does.
Of course, we all would have liked to see a different picture and to hear brave words coming out of Obama’s White House, giving Israel the choice between peace with a billion and a half Muslims or full international isolation. But this has not happened, as we saw the day before yesterday, when he favored his electoral interests and the strategic interests of the United States.
Thus, another picture is being drawn in the Middle East: Obama’s three-dimensional strategy for the Middle East. Any two-state solution for Israel and Palestine, establishing bridges of understanding with the Muslim world through the gates of Istanbul and Cairo and ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will now be put on the back burner from now on. What strategy will be in its place? It will most probably be a carbon copy of Bush’s policy, which President Obama vowed to change.
As a reminder, Bush’s policies can be summed up in one phrase: The Israelization of American policy in its entirety and the support of any and all wars Israel intends to start in the region (except, for the present time at least, Iran). Obama, who has proven to be a member of the Machiavellian school in its Kissinger-and-Brzezinski nature, can resume political exercises and secret transactions in the Middle East, which have been interrupted.
How? Via putting aside the American State Department and granting the CIA carte blanche for administrative matters and concerns in the area. This is supposed to secure him a way out of this dead end of American policies in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon and even in Egypt and Turkey. However, could it be in the CIA’s secret plans to achieve at least some stability and balance in the Middle East? No. Most likely this secret approach will only fuel conflicts in the area instead of allowing peace. This will eventually be a detriment to U.S. interests.
If Obama achieved the appeasement of Netanyahu and his current political and electoral aspirations, he then lost all or most of the chances to praise a new edifice for relationships with the Arab and Muslim worlds. All the new expected effort, overt and covert, will not change the current reality one bit.
What now for the complications of Obama’s surrender to Palestine, Israel and Lebanon?
Next article![]( "Wall Street’s “Mitigated” Reform")
