Obama’s Ridiculous Swaggering
After Obama’s propagandistic rant to the “Islamic world” in Cairo followed by the half-hearted response from Benjamin Netanyahu, the question remains how to proceed in the Middle East.
Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, responded in their own way to Obama’s request that settlement building in the West Bank be halted immediately. The first draft of the 2009/2010 Israeli budget in June contained $250 million for the illegal settlements: $125 million was allotted for “security purposes” and the other $125 million designated for the construction of more homes. The two versions of the budget are still to come but it can safely be assumed that the first draft won’t change significantly.
Now it’s not just a question of what Obama is prepared to do about Israel’s intransigence concerning its settlement policy, but also what he will do in order to maintain his credibility with the Islamic world. The same goes for another question that Israel has thus far been dodging. On May 5th, Obama’s Deputy Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller, invited Israel to become a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That would mean Israel would be obligated to reveal details about its nuclear arsenal and would also be required to grant international inspectors access for purposes of verification.
The American media note that for the first time since John F. Kennedy’s administration (nearly a half-century ago), an official representative of the U.S. government has openly asked a direct question concerning Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Pro-Israeli newspapers, like the Washington Times, see that as a threat to the secret U.S.-Israeli nuclear weapons agreement.
Even if Obama isn’t looking for an open confrontation with Netanyahu or with the pro-Israeli lobbies that more or less unequivocally support him in the U.S., there is a distinct feeling of concern about Obama’s Middle East initiatives, especially regarding his appeasing tone toward Tehran.
The neo-conservative Norman Podhoretz has addressed this question in the May 2009 edition of the influential Jewish magazine, Commentary, in an article entitled “How Obama’s America Might Threaten Israel.”
Podhoretz reiterated the fact that from the Jewish point of view Obama had already become a cause of concern as early as his presidential campaign because of his stated willingness to engage in negotiations with Iran “without pre-conditions.” This despite Ahmedinejad’s stated wish to “wipe Israel off the map,” something nuclear weapons would enable him to do.
Podhoretz also refers to companions of Obama’s who, at the very least, may be described as critics of Israel, such as, the controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright, or Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University professor who is said to have referred to Israel as “an apartheid state.”
He even cites U.S. foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski who has fallen out of favor with the Israel lobby and is now considered part of the crowd that has caught Obama’s ear and is influencing the President. Obama distanced himself from these people during the campaign but does so now only when he finds it politically expedient to do so.
Podhoretz stresses that because of Obama’s policies, Israel is now endangered by Obama’s “ridiculous boast” that he will be able to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program through negotiations alone. The fact that Obama has left the military option on the table serves as no consolation.
If Obama can’t be diverted from this approach and the United States refuses to launch a preventive attack on Iran, Podhoretz says the only hope is that such a strike would be undertaken unilaterally by Israel.
What this means in plain language is clear. Such an attack by Israel would force the United States to stand again at Israel’s side with no reservations, ifs, ands or buts.
Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, responded in their own way to Obama’s request that settlement building in the West Bank be halted immediately. The first draft of the 2009/2010 Israeli budget in June contained $250 million for the illegal settlements: $125 million was allotted for “security purposes” and the other $125 million designated for the construction of more homes. The two versions of the budget are still to come but it can safely be assumed that the first draft won’t change significantly.
Now it’s not just a question of what Obama is prepared to do about Israel’s intransigence concerning its settlement policy, but also what he will do in order to maintain his credibility with the Islamic world. The same goes for another question that Israel has thus far been dodging. On May 5th, Obama’s Deputy Secretary of State, Rose Gottemoeller, invited Israel to become a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That would mean Israel would be obligated to reveal details about its nuclear arsenal and would also be required to grant international inspectors access for purposes of verification.
The American media note that for the first time since John F. Kennedy’s administration (nearly a half-century ago), an official representative of the U.S. government has openly asked a direct question concerning Israel’s nuclear arsenal. Pro-Israeli newspapers, like the Washington Times, see that as a threat to the secret U.S.-Israeli nuclear weapons agreement.
Even if Obama isn’t looking for an open confrontation with Netanyahu or with the pro-Israeli lobbies that more or less unequivocally support him in the U.S., there is a distinct feeling of concern about Obama’s Middle East initiatives, especially regarding his appeasing tone toward Tehran.
The neo-conservative Norman Podhoretz has addressed this question in the May 2009 edition of the influential Jewish magazine, Commentary, in an article entitled “How Obama’s America Might Threaten Israel.”
Podhoretz reiterated the fact that from the Jewish point of view Obama had already become a cause of concern as early as his presidential campaign because of his stated willingness to engage in negotiations with Iran “without pre-conditions.” This despite Ahmedinejad’s stated wish to “wipe Israel off the map,” something nuclear weapons would enable him to do.
Podhoretz also refers to companions of Obama’s who, at the very least, may be described as critics of Israel, such as, the controversial pastor, Jeremiah Wright, or Rashid Khalidi, the Columbia University professor who is said to have referred to Israel as “an apartheid state.”
He even cites U.S. foreign policy expert Zbigniew Brzezinski who has fallen out of favor with the Israel lobby and is now considered part of the crowd that has caught Obama’s ear and is influencing the President. Obama distanced himself from these people during the campaign but does so now only when he finds it politically expedient to do so.
Podhoretz stresses that because of Obama’s policies, Israel is now endangered by Obama’s “ridiculous boast” that he will be able to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program through negotiations alone. The fact that Obama has left the military option on the table serves as no consolation.
If Obama can’t be diverted from this approach and the United States refuses to launch a preventive attack on Iran, Podhoretz says the only hope is that such a strike would be undertaken unilaterally by Israel.
What this means in plain language is clear. Such an attack by Israel would force the United States to stand again at Israel’s side with no reservations, ifs, ands or buts.
Previous article![]( "Monster Child")
Next article![]( "Time to Visit Israel")
