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.
For a long time, I defended Mr. Buchanan against charges such as the ones you level.
I can’t do so any longer. You are right.
Well, one-sided pandering to Israel clearly hasn’t produced much peace, just more creeping annexation, social turmoil, and an obscene orgy of violence against innocents (Gaza Stomping 09).
Time to try a more even-handed approach, and get this Middle-Eastern albatross off America’s back.
You must be an arab if you think Hamas controlled Gaza rocket barrages into Israel constitutes innocence.
Rush just announced that the Israelis, have started building new houses in the disputed settlements, they are calling them Obama huts.
So the Israelis don’t want any help in taking on Iran?
OK, good luck with that.
Obama Huts? ROFL. Are they mud and grass ‘Kenyan’ style, like brother George lives in?
The lack of support from the US simply increases the odds that Israel will use some of its’ nuclear, perhaps thermonuclear weapons on Iran. I believe that this is known as the ‘Samson Option’.
Show me any comment from Pat that he supported the Holocaust or putting Jews into gas chambers.
I think this hatred towards Pat is more based on comments from Pat that have been misconstrued and further mistated over the years on blogs and websites.
I am an American Firster so I don't support 100% everything Israel wants but I don't have any animosity towards Jews or Israel. I believe Pat is the same way.
Haven't been keeping up, I see. Buchanan was opposed to aiding France and England in WWII, in a recent book. As the joke above said, he lost a beloved relative in the Holocaust, who fell off of a guard tower.
No they want it, but Obama just said they ain't gonna get it. They are on their own, and they know it. They didn't get it from Bush either, so they are used to it.
If the loony lefties in Israel succeed in controlling the day then I guess we will have a seven year peace treaty. From there, if you don't recognize the significance, you are on your own.
That is about the most asinine statement I have ever read on this forum. Not to mention very insulting.
Didn’t the parties on the right in israel out-poll Kadima? Even if Netanyahu didn’t get as many votes as Livni, his votes combined with those of the other party on the right (can’t remember the name) don’t indicate that Israel is willing to allow Hussein to shove them around.
I find it ironic that Zero proclaims that no nation should be more powerful than another, yet he presumes to dictate to Israel.
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... 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... 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... Either the president or prime minister is going to have to back down... 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... 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... even if Israel believes its interests are being subordinated and security imperiled, the United States disagrees -- and the United States will prevail... 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.
Oh so thats what an Iran with nukes is, simply an Israeli problem that we might help them with if they do what we say? Can you be anymore naively shortsighted? Oh, and you never answered my question on Comrade Buchanans next running mate.
Never underestimate the power of the left, they were well trained by the Clinton Arkansas Mafia, which is how they got power in the first place.
I am pretty sure they won't use the Masada option again, even though many here would like for them to.
IMHO if the government of the right in Israel is convinced that they are going to be exterminated, they will take Iran with them.
I can see some of Pat’s points in the article about Iran. However; if, as he seems to believe that Iran is just pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes, I just have one question for Pat. How does he explain Iran’s continuously threatening to blow Israel off the map once they get them?
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.