Obama Administration’s Mistaken Path
It is time for the Obama administration to admit that its appeasement policy favoring Arab Islamic extremists yielded disastrous results in the Middle East.
It is such a paradox, with President Obama trying to portray himself as a friend of Israel while collecting money from Jewish donors for his campaign. Two high-ranking members of his team have released chilling views regarding their expectations for Israel if the current administration wins another election.
After Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta returned at the start of the week and stated that the United States is committed to protecting Israel’s security, he stated roughly that it is time for Israel to sit at the cursed negotiating table, ignoring the truth that even after a ten-month freeze in settlement construction, Palestinians refuse to cooperate in direct negotiations with Israel. He even returned to the senseless slogan that Israel is partially responsible for its own diplomatic isolation. He urged Israel to take bolder steps to overcome their differences with the Palestinians. In other words, he thinks they have to make more one-sided concessions. In fact, Panetta asked Israel to lend a hand toward rebuilding that relationship, including compromising its interests for regional security. He also named Turkey and Egypt as a challenge in this context.
He forgot to mention the Israel’s unparalleled efforts to maintain peaceful relations with Egypt, which is now on the path to being controlled by jihadist groups, and the fact that Erdogan’s Turkey is now an ally of Hamas.
In the same speech, Panetta also warned Israel that if they acted unilaterally in Iran, it would put the United States in an unenviable position, cost many lives, and add to the instability of the world’s economic order. As Elliot Abrams, former deputy national security adviser, noted, fears of Iran have been eased by reversing the United States’ repeated statement that all options are on the table to halt the nuclear threat.
These things are important for understanding Obama because the secretary of defense would not issue statements like this unless he was authorized to do so by the president. After Panetta’s speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in criticism of the proposal, which defines foreign-funded non-governmental organizations and raises differences with Israel. Such intervention by the secretary of state in a public debate and criticism of an ally government are not unparalleled. More disturbing are Clinton’s remarks on the small number of misguided Israeli soldiers who wanted to boycott events with women singers. This matter and the image of army treatment are shameful and trouble many Israelis. But why would a secretary of state who does not say anything about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries interfere in this regard?
Another point is that the Jewish U.S. ambassador in Belgium, Howard Gutman, who was appointed after fundraising for Obama, said recently that one must distinguish between traditional anti-Semitism, which must be condemned, and the Muslim hatred of Jews that stems from the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a clear indication that Muslim anti-Semitism is a product of Israel’s unwillingness to reconcile differences in the Middle East, and this is understood. But what does Obama do? He defends the ambassador.
These statements indicate that Israel, despite having the sympathy and support of the U.S. House of Representatives, still faces hostility from the administration.
The timing of these statements is problematic because they come at the same time as the election results in Egypt, in which the Muslim Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafists won 60 percent of the vote, showing the wave of Islamic extremism sinking the whole of North Africa and the Arab states.
There is no doubt that it is time to recognize that the Obama administration’s appeasement policy has led to devastating consequences in the Middle East. Instead of trying to go soft on Islamist criticism of Israel, they must organize themselves for a long struggle with Islamic extremists who are accustomed to believing that the best way to achieve their goals is not appeasement, but increased violence.
It is such a paradox, with President Obama trying to portray himself as a friend of Israel while collecting money from Jewish donors for his campaign. Two high-ranking members of his team have released chilling views regarding their expectations for Israel if the current administration wins another election.
After Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta returned at the start of the week and stated that the United States is committed to protecting Israel’s security, he stated roughly that it is time for Israel to sit at the cursed negotiating table, ignoring the truth that even after a ten-month freeze in settlement construction, Palestinians refuse to cooperate in direct negotiations with Israel. He even returned to the senseless slogan that Israel is partially responsible for its own diplomatic isolation. He urged Israel to take bolder steps to overcome their differences with the Palestinians. In other words, he thinks they have to make more one-sided concessions. In fact, Panetta asked Israel to lend a hand toward rebuilding that relationship, including compromising its interests for regional security. He also named Turkey and Egypt as a challenge in this context.
He forgot to mention the Israel’s unparalleled efforts to maintain peaceful relations with Egypt, which is now on the path to being controlled by jihadist groups, and the fact that Erdogan’s Turkey is now an ally of Hamas.
In the same speech, Panetta also warned Israel that if they acted unilaterally in Iran, it would put the United States in an unenviable position, cost many lives, and add to the instability of the world’s economic order. As Elliot Abrams, former deputy national security adviser, noted, fears of Iran have been eased by reversing the United States’ repeated statement that all options are on the table to halt the nuclear threat.
These things are important for understanding Obama because the secretary of defense would not issue statements like this unless he was authorized to do so by the president. After Panetta’s speech, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton spoke strongly in criticism of the proposal, which defines foreign-funded non-governmental organizations and raises differences with Israel. Such intervention by the secretary of state in a public debate and criticism of an ally government are not unparalleled. More disturbing are Clinton’s remarks on the small number of misguided Israeli soldiers who wanted to boycott events with women singers. This matter and the image of army treatment are shameful and trouble many Israelis. But why would a secretary of state who does not say anything about women’s rights in Saudi Arabia or other Arab countries interfere in this regard?
Another point is that the Jewish U.S. ambassador in Belgium, Howard Gutman, who was appointed after fundraising for Obama, said recently that one must distinguish between traditional anti-Semitism, which must be condemned, and the Muslim hatred of Jews that stems from the confrontation between Israel and the Palestinians. It is a clear indication that Muslim anti-Semitism is a product of Israel’s unwillingness to reconcile differences in the Middle East, and this is understood. But what does Obama do? He defends the ambassador.
These statements indicate that Israel, despite having the sympathy and support of the U.S. House of Representatives, still faces hostility from the administration.
The timing of these statements is problematic because they come at the same time as the election results in Egypt, in which the Muslim Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafists won 60 percent of the vote, showing the wave of Islamic extremism sinking the whole of North Africa and the Arab states.
There is no doubt that it is time to recognize that the Obama administration’s appeasement policy has led to devastating consequences in the Middle East. Instead of trying to go soft on Islamist criticism of Israel, they must organize themselves for a long struggle with Islamic extremists who are accustomed to believing that the best way to achieve their goals is not appeasement, but increased violence.