Attention! Barack Hussein Obama Is Pro-Israel
It didn't last long. A handful of days after the execution in Pakistan of Osama bin Laden by American Special Forces (a triumph for Obama’s government), some returned to stressing the middle name of the American president. He is a "Hussein"; at his core he is not very pro-American; he is anti-Israel and much more interested in coddling the Arab-Islamic world. But Barack Obama continues to be Barack Obama, a politician-orator charmed by his own words.
Last week he made a speech on the Middle East that ended up creating a commotion, although he hadn't said anything very original. It is true that he was explicit in saying that a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians will be based on the borders before the 1967 war. But it is obvious that it will have to be thus. How else will it be possible to establish a Palestinian state? This state, nevertheless, depends on much more, and much more was absent from Obama's speech.
Absent were the factors of how Palestinians will accept that there will be no return of refugees to Israel and how Israel accepts that there will be a division of Jerusalem. Apart from these points, there is also the process itself. There is no climate to negotiate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no conviction for genuine negotiations, and among the Palestinian procrastinators is Hamas, now united with Fatah. How can you be an interlocutor (Hamas) when you do not recognize the existence of the other side and ultimately desire its destruction, accepting at most a truce?
Therefore, Obama's speech was mostly a work of his rhetorical willfulness. He is impatient with the lack of diplomatic progress. Clearly, it is heartbreaking. But, in his case, his is a narcissistic impatience. His timing for the speech was terrible. It gave yet another pretext for Netanyahu to show his intransigence (and chew out Obama right in the middle of the Oval Office in the White House), apart from it not having moved the Arab world. And narcissism is dangerous. It's fair to inject Palestinian self-determination into the narrative of the Arab Spring, but the weather is drawing in, and clouds are there in the Middle East converging over Israel. Everything is wintry in the Arab world, so why not distract yourself with those intrusive Jews, the habitual punching bag?
For some, Obama concedes too much. For others, he is very moderate. He threatens to lose friends without threatening his enemies. On Sunday, Obama made a speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobby in the United States. He had to clarify the explicit message. There will not be a strict return to the pre-1967 borders. There will be a mutual exchange of land; that is, blocks of Jewish settlements in the West Bank will be part of Israel, and the Palestinians will receive Israeli land. Obviously, Obama was applauded (there were some boos). First, because it would be insanity for the Jewish lobby to snub the American president, and any American president, even a "Hussein," is solidly pro-Israel.
Let's be straight: To come out against Obama is damaging to U.S.-Israel relations and only favors the enemies of both countries. Obama wants to win some points with the Arab world by taking stabs at Israel — and in the resulting outcry, his incisive criticism and warnings to the Palestinians became obscured, including his reminder that a unilateral declaration of independence is a dangerous symbolic act.
It is easier for Obama to criticize Israel than his other great ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Simply put, there was no mention of the Saudis in a speech of platitudes over the Arab Spring. Yes, Saudi Arabia, that hardcore dictatorship, producer of petroleum. Some friends are given an easier time than others. But why the surprise? He is Barack Obama, or Barack Hussein Obama. The name is irrelevant. What's relevant, for causing damage, is his oratorical willfulness. For cleaning up the mess, there's nothing like a little rhetorical talent. This is Obama.
Speaking of willfulness, some Republican volunteers are not putting themselves forward for the marathon that is the presidential primaries. Despite appeals, on Sunday it was the turn of Mitch Daniels, governor of the state of Indiana, to announce that he is out of the race. There is desperation for a governor (or ex with good managerial reputation) that is focused on fiscal issues and conscious that social wars (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) are bad business for the Republicans.
Daniels’ refusal is bad news for the Republicans. He might have had problems winning the primaries, but he would be strong against Obama in the general elections. The game changes fast. The Republican drama is this: They need a name with solid conservative credentials, but capable of attracting the moderate and independent electorate. The ardor for the tea party is great for warming up the game, but burns the party in the general election. And anyway, the growth of this gang has already peaked.
Daniels’ departure may open a space for other candidates capable of appealing to moderates, such as the ex-governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman. He has more charisma (and money) than Daniels, but he is seen as very moderate (despite being Mormon, which discomfits the evangelical base). Huntsman, like Mitt Romney, the other moderate, millionaire Mormon, would struggle to survive the primaries, but would make Obama really sweat. On Sunday, it was the time for someone without appeal, Tim Pawlenty, ex-governor of Minnesota, to make his entrance on the scene official.
A sign that the Republican establishment is uneasy with its prospects is the renewed call for someone like Jeb Bush, ex-governor of Florida and integral to that dynasty, to consider participating in the marathon. There were some signs that Jeb Bush had calculated that it makes more sense not to blow his shot but save himself for 2016. We'll see: For now, the serious candidates against the Democratic president are called Mr. Barack Hussein Obama and Ms. Bad Economy.
Last week he made a speech on the Middle East that ended up creating a commotion, although he hadn't said anything very original. It is true that he was explicit in saying that a peace accord between Israel and the Palestinians will be based on the borders before the 1967 war. But it is obvious that it will have to be thus. How else will it be possible to establish a Palestinian state? This state, nevertheless, depends on much more, and much more was absent from Obama's speech.
Absent were the factors of how Palestinians will accept that there will be no return of refugees to Israel and how Israel accepts that there will be a division of Jerusalem. Apart from these points, there is also the process itself. There is no climate to negotiate. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has no conviction for genuine negotiations, and among the Palestinian procrastinators is Hamas, now united with Fatah. How can you be an interlocutor (Hamas) when you do not recognize the existence of the other side and ultimately desire its destruction, accepting at most a truce?
Therefore, Obama's speech was mostly a work of his rhetorical willfulness. He is impatient with the lack of diplomatic progress. Clearly, it is heartbreaking. But, in his case, his is a narcissistic impatience. His timing for the speech was terrible. It gave yet another pretext for Netanyahu to show his intransigence (and chew out Obama right in the middle of the Oval Office in the White House), apart from it not having moved the Arab world. And narcissism is dangerous. It's fair to inject Palestinian self-determination into the narrative of the Arab Spring, but the weather is drawing in, and clouds are there in the Middle East converging over Israel. Everything is wintry in the Arab world, so why not distract yourself with those intrusive Jews, the habitual punching bag?
For some, Obama concedes too much. For others, he is very moderate. He threatens to lose friends without threatening his enemies. On Sunday, Obama made a speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the main pro-Israel lobby in the United States. He had to clarify the explicit message. There will not be a strict return to the pre-1967 borders. There will be a mutual exchange of land; that is, blocks of Jewish settlements in the West Bank will be part of Israel, and the Palestinians will receive Israeli land. Obviously, Obama was applauded (there were some boos). First, because it would be insanity for the Jewish lobby to snub the American president, and any American president, even a "Hussein," is solidly pro-Israel.
Let's be straight: To come out against Obama is damaging to U.S.-Israel relations and only favors the enemies of both countries. Obama wants to win some points with the Arab world by taking stabs at Israel — and in the resulting outcry, his incisive criticism and warnings to the Palestinians became obscured, including his reminder that a unilateral declaration of independence is a dangerous symbolic act.
It is easier for Obama to criticize Israel than his other great ally in the Middle East, Saudi Arabia. Simply put, there was no mention of the Saudis in a speech of platitudes over the Arab Spring. Yes, Saudi Arabia, that hardcore dictatorship, producer of petroleum. Some friends are given an easier time than others. But why the surprise? He is Barack Obama, or Barack Hussein Obama. The name is irrelevant. What's relevant, for causing damage, is his oratorical willfulness. For cleaning up the mess, there's nothing like a little rhetorical talent. This is Obama.
Speaking of willfulness, some Republican volunteers are not putting themselves forward for the marathon that is the presidential primaries. Despite appeals, on Sunday it was the turn of Mitch Daniels, governor of the state of Indiana, to announce that he is out of the race. There is desperation for a governor (or ex with good managerial reputation) that is focused on fiscal issues and conscious that social wars (abortion, gay marriage, etc.) are bad business for the Republicans.
Daniels’ refusal is bad news for the Republicans. He might have had problems winning the primaries, but he would be strong against Obama in the general elections. The game changes fast. The Republican drama is this: They need a name with solid conservative credentials, but capable of attracting the moderate and independent electorate. The ardor for the tea party is great for warming up the game, but burns the party in the general election. And anyway, the growth of this gang has already peaked.
Daniels’ departure may open a space for other candidates capable of appealing to moderates, such as the ex-governor of Utah, Jon Huntsman. He has more charisma (and money) than Daniels, but he is seen as very moderate (despite being Mormon, which discomfits the evangelical base). Huntsman, like Mitt Romney, the other moderate, millionaire Mormon, would struggle to survive the primaries, but would make Obama really sweat. On Sunday, it was the time for someone without appeal, Tim Pawlenty, ex-governor of Minnesota, to make his entrance on the scene official.
A sign that the Republican establishment is uneasy with its prospects is the renewed call for someone like Jeb Bush, ex-governor of Florida and integral to that dynasty, to consider participating in the marathon. There were some signs that Jeb Bush had calculated that it makes more sense not to blow his shot but save himself for 2016. We'll see: For now, the serious candidates against the Democratic president are called Mr. Barack Hussein Obama and Ms. Bad Economy.
Previous article![]( "The Myth and Reality of American Aid")