Moty & Udi: behind Obama’s scar

The scar.

The scar.

President Obama’s scar has created a lot of excitement among bloggers, some of whom suggest that he may have had brain surgery, performed either by human doctors or extraterrestrials. I’m not speculating.

What I would like to know, though, is this:

Is there anything that could count as a reason for him to not force Israel to give up as much as possible of Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to create a Palestinian state?

One would think that the fact that US sort-of-ally Egypt is in turmoil and is likely to soon be ruled by anti-American Islamists or Arab nationalists would be a reason that this is not the best time to weaken Israel and strengthen Hamas.

One would also think that the fact that Lebanon is now dominated by the terrorist Hizballah is another reason, the fact that the Jordanian regime is struggling yet another. Yemen will soon be in the anti-Western column. Even Saudi Arabia is worried. It’s hard to see how Syria or Libya could get worse, but despite the wishful thinking in some of the media, none of these countries is moving toward democracy.

Look at it this way: what seems to be happening is that relatively stable, moderately pro-Western regimes are changing, and the direction of change is to reduce US influence. So what is the advantage of helping to create yet another radical, aggressive and ultimately (when Hamas takes over) Islamist Arab state, while at the same time undermining the strongest, most stable democracy and US ally around?

And if you think ‘Palestine’ will be pro-American because of all the money we are giving their corrupt leadership, you don’t understand the ideology of this leadership, or the power relationships in the Mideast.

I am speaking from America’s point of view here. From Israel’s, it’s even worse. Instead of facing heavily armed terrorist proxies on two sides, it will be three (if Arabs could breathe in water, it would certainly be four).

There is only one explanation for this. The Obama Administration does not expect Israel to survive and has decided that its future lies with the Muslim bloc. So it is making the best of a bad deal — after all, it’s hard to ignore all the anti-American propaganda in the region — and, within limits set by its desire to prevent a revolt by pro-Israel voters in the US, encouraging Israel’s demise while pretending to support it.

That is the only way to understand why the administration is very concrete about what it wants Israel to give up, and very vague about how its security requirements will be met. International guarantees, peacekeeping forces, etc. have never worked to keep peace when one of the parties doesn’t want to be peaceful. In the most polite terms possible, these promises are bullshit.

Here’s what’s behind the scar: Obama and his team are prepared to sacrifice Israel for Peace In Our Time. If  Israeli policymakers don’t understand this by now, the state is in trouble.

Americans: the loss of Israel would mean the loss of the Middle East to radical Islam. If you don’t think radical Islam is a real threat to the US, and indeed, to Western civilization, if you want the US to be the kind of nation that allies with Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood, then go ahead, re-elect Barack Obama.

Technorati Tags: , ,

2 Responses to “Moty & Udi: behind Obama’s scar”

  1. Shalom Freedman says:

    I think this piece goes too far in speculating about evil intentions of the U.S. President. Many Israeli officials have claimed that security cooperation with the U.S. is better than ever before. The Obama idea of a solution in which Israel gives up most of Judea and Samaria and cedes the heavily Arab populated parts of Jerusalem has been as I understand it the basic U.S. line since 1967. Obama seems to be mistaken in his perception of Middle East realities, and is showing weakness as a leader. His having made Israel the major object of whatever pressure he applied in the area was abominable. He probably does ’tilt’ Palestine. But that does not mean he is for the destruction of the Jewish state. That after all would be conceived as one of the biggest American policy disasters of all time and for him a huge failure as President.In any case my point is that I do not think it wise or right to attribute to anyone ‘evil thoughts or intentions’ which they themselves have not expressed.

  2. Vic Rosenthal says:

    I’m sorry, Shalom, but I stand by my statement that “there is only one explanation for this.”
    There is no rational way that a forced 2-state partition can be anything but a disaster for Israel. The position of the US since 67 has been that the two sides should negotiate a solution. But the Arab side has never been prepared to agree to anything that will leave room for the Jewish state. So now the plan is to impose the ‘solution’. This is not the traditional US position.
    Is Obama — actually, the whole cabal of advisers including Power, etc. — so ignorant that they don’t see what they are doing? I don’t believe it.
    Simple logic: IF (stupid OR evil) AND NOT stupid THEN evil.
    Policy disaster? Nah, they’d say they were sorry, but after all, it would be Israel’s fault. If only they’d made more concessions sooner, the ‘extremists’ wouldn’t have been able to ‘sabotage peace’.