Bibi, tell him to take his promises and go home

News item:

When he visits Israel next month, US President Barack Obama will tell Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that a “window of opportunity” for a military strike on Iran will open in June, according to an Israeli TV report Monday evening.

Obama will come bearing the message that if diplomatic efforts and sanctions don’t bear fruit, Israel should “sit tight” and let Washington take the stage, even if that means remaining on the sidelines during a US military operation, Channel 10 reported. Netanyahu will be asked to refrain from any military action and keep a low profile, avoiding even the mention of a strike, the report said, citing unnamed officials.

Translate “citing unnamed officials” as “the administration leaked.”

There is no way I can put an optimistic interpretation on this. There are four things that immediately come to mind:

First, Israel is asked to put its trust in the Obama Administration to deal with an existential threat. Simply, would you take this bet?

Second, the US armed forces are stretched extremely thin as a result of the budgeting policies of the administration, and now by the likely sequester of funds. For example, the USS Harry S. Truman, scheduled to deploy to the Persian Gulf this month, will not do so. The US is not in a position to ‘gear up’ for anything major.

Third, Obama is said to be offering this to Israel. What will Israel be expected to do in return? I don’t have to tell you, do I? Hint: it involves the Palestinians.

Fourth, the demand to ‘remain on the sidelines’ is a direct attack on Israel’s sovereignty as well as an invitation to disaster. When the first Tomahawk hits Iran, Israel will be attacked by Hizballah, which has stockpiled 50,000 missiles for just this occasion, and probably also by Hamas. Iran, too will throw whatever it can against Israel.

The policy of ‘no self-defense’ would result in the deaths of hundreds, perhaps thousands, of Israelis. It is as stark as that.

And what is the reason for this restriction? There is no American interest served by it — wouldn’t it be better from a tactical point of view for the US and Israel to cooperate? The answer is ugly.

This is part of the deal because the Arab world (and especially the Saudis) finds it offensive when Jews dare to raise a hand to Arabs or Muslims. This is why Israel was required to suffer bombardment by Iraqi scuds during the Gulf War, and why it is expected to do nothing when Iranian proxies try to tear it apart.

And it is to their advantage in the long struggle to extirpate the Jews from the Middle East when Jewish Israelis die. It is beyond disgraceful that America will be complicit in this.

Obama’s policy is Saudi policy. That is where the irrational push to create a Palestinian state comes from, and that is where the handcuffs on the IDF are forged.

Netanyahu must tell Barack Hussein Obama to take his promises and go home.

Update [27 Feb 1901 PST]: Added the link after “Second” to J. E. Dyer article “Dead in the water: Obama’s military and the Iran nuclear threat.” I am not a military expert, but Dyer is. Rewrote last few paragraphs of the post for clarity.

Technorati Tags: , ,

 

Share:
  • Print
  • email
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • StumbleUpon
  • Technorati
  • Tumblr
  • NewsVine

5 Responses to “Bibi, tell him to take his promises and go home”

  1. Robman says:

    This latest intrigue by Obama is so stupid and amateurish, one does not know whether to laugh or cry. It reminds me of the fall of 2010, when the administration was feverishly trying to get the Israelis to extend the “settlement freeze” by three more months.

    This was simply crazy. The ten-month freeze had failed utterly to accomplish anything worthwhile (surprise), but here was Obama & Co. practically promising the moon to Israel for must three more useless months. They – Ehud Barak, Hillary Clinton, Dennis Ross, and perhaps some other principals – had verbally cobbled together some sort of agreement. Bibi was willing to sign on….as long as it was presented in writing. Obama refused. The deal fell through. The sophomoric and open insincerity of Obama in this instance was plain for all to see.

    I would really have characterized this as an incredible insult to the intelligence of the Israelis, that they were expected to make concrete concessions to the Palestinians in return for verbal assurances that the U.S. REFUSED to put in writing.

    I should expect and hope that Bibi has learned the appropriate lessons from four years of dealing with Obama. And the first and most important is, as you Israelis say, when you ask this guy what time it is, you better look at your watch anyway.

    Any verbal assurances Obama gives about action against Iran in exchange for tangible Israeli concessions to the PA in advance – I’m assuming this is the intended scenario – are worth less than they paper they would be written on.

    As sure as night follows day, these assurances would never be carried out. New excuses would be found to delay action. More “talks”. And then, this bribe would be trotted out down the road to wring out still more concessions from Israel.

    Given the administration’s general drawdown of forces in the region, the cuts to defense spending, the onpoing withdrawal (read: defeat) in Afghanistan, and of course, their past track record and the presence of the Iranian-born, extreme left leaning Valeria Jarrett at Obama’s side, plus the extreme Islamist butt kissers now installed both at the Pentagon and the CIA, the genuine chances of U.S. military action against Iran have got to be less than zero.

    I cannot believe Bibi will be so stupid as to fall for this. I hope not, anyway.

  2. Robman says:

    Oh, one more thing. Let’s not forget that this info about an impending U.S. strike was “leaked”.

    If they were serious, there would be NO f***** “leaks” . This is far too serious a matter to be playing such games about. You want an operation like this to succeed, you better play your cards damn close to your vest.

    Right there, this tells me that Obama is not serious about a strike at all.

  3. sabashimon says:

    Not to put too fine a point on it, but……Obama is simply a liar and an Arabist, and if we, or Bibi believe anything coming out of his, or his administrations’ mouth, then we truly deserve what we get.
    Unfortunately, I trust Bibi about as much as I trust Obama.

  4. Noah Farbstein says:

    I recommend a FZ blog post to dispel the lies and untruths of the self hating Jew Norman Finkelstein. He continues to spread blatant lies about Israel.

    Here is my post:

    NORMAN FINKELSTEIN – SELF HATING JEW BY WHOM I AM DISGUSTED!

    As the following video clip demonstrates, Norman Finkelstein either is uniformed (not the great authority on the topic that he claims to be) or intentionally is trying to mislead given his response to the question by a young jew of “Why between 1948-49 and 1967 durring the Egyptian and Jordanian occupation of Gaza and the WB, respectively, both illegal according to international law, was no Palestinian statehood granted in the respective territories, .

    His claim that after 1967 (up to Present day) the Arab world (and the Palestinians) has accepted the legitimacy of Israel as the Jewish National Homeland and the two-state solution is a blatant lie. Instead, it is clear that Hamas, the elected (maybe) government in Gaza, and other radical Islamic fundamentalists, such as Islamic Jihad, never have nor ever will accept Israel’s existence, nor does the PLO/PA, which has rejected every Israeli offer for statehood, including Camp David (94% of the land, including half of E. Jerusalme), Taba (circa 2001) and Ehud Olmert’s even more generous offer in 2008. In fact, recently the PLO/PA has violated its agreement under the DOP of the Oslo acords by circumventing direct negotiations with Israel in an attempt to obtain statehood from the UN General Assembly. While the GA has no ability to make law, any agreement by the UN to grant Palestinian statehood on Israeli land would be a violation of the UN Charter (Article 80), which was ratified into law.

    Further, he blatantly misquotes Benny Morris, one of Israel’s most well-known historians and an authority on this topic. In his most recent book, Morris blames the failure of the peace process on the Palestinians, who he claims do not seek a two-state solution and instead openly endorse a binational state with an Arab majority (e.g. Sharia Law) in all of the land of Israel. In fact, Morris believes that the Palestinians, including the PLO/PA, never truly accepted a two-state solution (even in the 1990s), as clearly stated in their charter (“…from the river to the sea.”). This might explain why recently they have placed even more restrictive preconditions on negotiations with Israel, such as no construction in Jerusalem on land owned by Israel, and which never was a consideration in previous negotiations.

    Clearly, contrary to Finkelstein’s propoganda, the Palestinians and the Arabs never have nor ever will accept Israel.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rkBTI03UIE

  5. Shalom Freedman says:

    If President Obama comes as a true ally he will coordinate with Prime Minister Netanyahu the preemptive steps both countries should take together against Iran and Hezbollah. He would discuss closely a plan of operation which would have the U.S. center on Iran, and Israel on Hizbollah.
    But if he proves the kind of ally the first President Bush was in the first Gulf War , and is far more concerned with Arab and Islamic reaction to any such cooperation the outcome will not be a good one.
    Unfortunately the signs point to the latter kind of Obama policy.