Posted on 06/05/2009 8:45:53 AM PDT by Reagan Man
“I have to admire the residents of Iroquois territory for assuming that they have a right to determine where Jews lives in Jerusalem.”
Thus did Israeli government press director Daniel Seamen caustically dismiss President Obama’s opposition to Israel’s right to “natural growth” of its settlements in Arab East Jerusalem and on the West Bank.
Though Obama’s address in Cairo broke no new ground, it confirmed to the world that a new day has arrived and a sea change has taken place. The Israel-centric Middle East policy of George W. Bush is dead. And with the policy change has come rhetorical change.
With Bush, it was “axis of evil,” “you are with us or you are with the terrorists,” “regime change,” a “green light” for war on Hezbollah in Lebanon and on Hamas in Gaza, and “this war is a struggle between good and evil.”
With Obama in Cairo, it was all about “a new beginning” and “mutual respect” between the United States and an Islamic world of 1.2 billion.
Where Bush sought to isolate Syria as a state sponsor of terror, Obama has sent diplomats and is sending the U.S. military to Damascus to work together to halt al-Qaida infiltration into Iraq. Return of the Golan Heights may be back on the table.
Where Bush said Iraq’s drive for weapons of mass destruction threatened America and the world, Obama calls Iraq “a war of choice,” and re-commits to bring all U.S. combat troops home before 2012 and to seek no permanent bases there.
Where Israeli hawks push for pre-emptive U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities, Obama says Iran “should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.”
As there is no hard evidence Iran has gone beyond the NPT, this points to a resolution of the nuclear issue, if Tehran can provide solid assurances it has no clandestine weapons program.
Where Bush refused to meet with Yasser Arafat or recognize Hamas’ election victory, and outsourced Mideast policy to Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, Obama has confronted Bibi Netanyahu and handed Israel an ultimatum: Halt all settlement growth, now, and come back to me with your plan for a Palestinian state.
A collision that could shatter the coalitions of both Bibi and Barack now appears inevitable and imminent. Either the president or prime minister is going to have to back down.
Netanyahu was elected on solemn pledges never to negotiate with Hamas, permit a Palestinian state (”a second Hamastan”) or let Jerusalem be divided. He is committed to the “natural growth” of Jewish settlements in Judea and Samaria.
Obama has said publicly that there is to be no growth of any kind on the West Bank and all illegal outposts must come down.
There are reports that while Defense Minister Barak was in the office of National Security Adviser Gen. Jim Jones, Obama popped in for 15 minutes to tell Israel’s most decorated soldier he wants to see an Israeli plan for peace and a Palestinian state by July.
That state would necessarily have a Jerusalem enclave as its capital, as no Palestinian or Arab leader could agree to a peace that did not include part of Jerusalem, the Al Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock without putting himself in mortal peril.
Behind this clash lies a shift of perspective in Washington.
Obama is directly challenging the thesis of Israel and its lobby, AIPAC, that U.S. and Israeli interests are one and the same, that we are partners. Barack is saying that settlements are an impediment and an independent Palestinian state indispensable to peace. And even if Israel believes its interests are being subordinated and security imperiled, the United States disagrees — and the United States will prevail.
In Israel, the betting is that Barack will break Bibi because Israel cannot defy its last great friend, the lone superpower, upon whom it depends for security, weaponry and diplomatic shelter from U.N. Security Council sanctions. As Rick Wagoner of GM can tell Bibi, you take the king’s shilling, you play the king’s tune.
Indeed, Obama can make a case that he better represents the Jewish community in the United States than the Israel lobby, as he won 78 percent of the Jewish vote.
Netanyhau was outpolled by Tzipi Livni of Kadima, who is waiting in the wings.
Bibi is in a terrible box. If he defies Obama and orders new housing in the settlements, he could face rebellion at home for alienating Israeli’s indispensable ally.
If he goes along with halting settlement growth and moves to accommodate a Palestinian state with its capital in Jerusalem, how does he explain the capitulation to Likud — and to Avigdor Lieberman?
Next weekend, Iran heads to the polls, and President Ahmadinejad faces strong opposition. If the moderate Mir-Hossein Moussavi wins, the possibility of a U.S-Iranian detente rises dramatically.
For Israel and the United States, the days of wine and roses are over.
Pat’s swastika is showing.
Barry's already alienated Israel. There's no problem.
Do it Bibi. Real Americans stand with you.
I normally like Pat, but he’s on the wrong side of the Bible on this one.
Gotta like people declaring "it's illegal!" when "it" is happening in a situation involving no laws.
Now Obama won 78% of the Jewish vote? I’d not heard above 70% before. In any case, it’s obvious American Jews loathe conservatives (of which, interestingly, McCain was not one) more than they support Israel.
How come the “arabs” cannot live in Jordan?
If Israel gives the West Bank to the Palestinians, and the Palestinians resume their rocket attacks on Israel......Israel needs to wipe them out. Lay it out like that and just say it as it is.
Most American Jews are atheists and could care less about what the Bible says about Israel.
“For Israel and the United States, the days of wine and roses are over.”
Only briefly, although nonetheless unfortunate.
Does he do this to sell books? To keep his gig on cable? Or is he genuinely anti semitic? His pal Nixon nearly went to war in ‘73 to protect Israel. His hero Reagan saw Israel as representing the best of western civilization. What is it with Buchanan? Everyone I know who went to Catholic schools like he did quickly outgrew the juvenile anti semitism we thought was appropriate. The Jesuits quickly made me aware of just how inaapropriate it was.
[cue Ice Cube and Chris Tucker flinching back and yelling “DAAAAAAAAMN!!!”]
The only good thing about the eventual terrorist attack on the US is the odds that the Nazi Buchanan will be somewhere around Ground Zero. Appropriate since he is a supporter of Zero.
I don’t think that Israel’s electorate would abandon Netanhayu for refusing to surrender Israel’s security to the whims of an American President bent on appeasing the enemies of the US and Israel. As Prime Minister Sharon (back when he had integrity) said to President Bush, Israel is not Czechoslovakia and will not be sacrificed on the altar of “peace in our time” no matter how much President Obama and his friends would like to see it.
Still, it is delightful to see Pat Buchanan make common cause with the most anti-American President ever.
What a cast of characters: Barak, Jim Jones, and Barack.
***
Israel give up land, but not Jerusalem. They reason that they now have a target for their bombs. It's a strategic concession; in fact, Netanyahu comes away looking as if Israel had no choice but to go along. Obama is the patsy who thinks he's the biggest thing in the world.
Judging by all pies he's got his fingers in, he could fit the description of The Antichrist, but he's just too stupid to be, imho.
Buchanan’s gone over the edge again and sounds like he couldn’t be happier.
“I normally like Pat, but he’s on the wrong side of the Bible on this one.”
We need to base middle eastern policy on US security interests, not scripture. To that end, support for Israel is the only realistic policy. If that happens to coincide with scriptural adherence, then so be it.
Those are the egyptian arabs (aka palestinians) who were tossed out of egypt for causing trouble and are attempting to steal land from Israel.
So the question for Israel is, do you take slow-acting poison or fast-.
Almost 80 percent?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.