Welcome to the third installment of a series intended to inform and inspire. While these articles often encompass several reasons for voting Mr. Obama out of office, this particular issue deserves more space and consideration.
Reason #7: Mr. Obama’s scorning of America’s allies and his embrace and appeasement of America’s mortal enemies endangers the world.
Categories: no grasp of reality, blaming America first, hatred of America and Americans, dippy diplomacy, incompetent and dangerous foreign policy, ideology over sanity.
In all the world, two of America’s allies have, arguably, been most steadfast: Great Britain and Israel. One would expect any president of the United States to recognize the value of these alliances and to do all that he could to support and maintain them. This is particularly important in the case of Israel, the only stable democracy in the Middle East, a nation with strong ties to America and democratic ideals.
Consider too the moral imperative. When Israelis say “never again,” they refer to the Holocaust and to the knowledge that there are evil forces abroad in the world that work every day to complete what Adolph Hitler started. If America stands for anything, surely it stands for preventing that. We sacrificed greatly to stop the Nazis and their allies and to end the slaughter of the Jews and countless others.
Barack Obama, however, is not just any American president. As the first post-American president, he has consistently insulted and denigrated our allies while embracing and appeasing our most vicious and intractable enemies, Iran foremost among them. Despite claiming to be Christian, Mr. Obama has consistently embraced the Muslim enemies of Israel (and America) and favored Muslims and their causes.
For example, in 2003 Mr. Obama attended a farewell party for Rasheed Khalidi, a Palestine Liberation Organization spokesman and advisor to Yassir Arafat. Khalidi was leaving the University of Chicago to take a position at Columbia University. Khalidi was long involved in terrorist front organizations in America as well. Mr. Obama knew Khalidi through domestic terrorist Bill Ayers which whom Mr. Obama served on the board of the Woods Foundation. The Woods Foundation bankrolled Khalidi’s front, the Arab American Action Network, but Mr. Obama’s relationship with Khalidi went far beyond that. By his own admission, he often had dinner with Khalidi and even engaged Khalidi to babysit his children.
At the dinner, which was reportedly rife with anti-Israel invective, Obama delivered fulsome praise for Khalidi, and went so far as to say that Khalidi “opened his eyes to his [Obama's] own prejudices.” A videotape was made of the proceedings, a videotape that eventually came to be in the possession of The Los Angeles Times, and which reportedly remains locked in a safe there to this day. The Times, of course, refuses to release it.
While there are a great many examples, perhaps another of the most telling was a gaffe (when a politician or bureaucrat accidently tells the truth) by newly promoted NASA head Charles Bolden. Bolden said:
When I became the Nasa administrator, he [Mr Obama] charged me with three things.
One, he wanted me to help reinspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math, and engineering.
It is a matter of trying to reach out and get the best of all worlds, if you will, and there is much to be gained by drawing in the contributions that are possible from the Muslim [nations].
One might be mistaken for thinking that NASA’s efforts should be concentrated on space rather than attempting to elevate the self-esteem of foreign Muslims, but obviously, Mr. Obama has different priorities. Considering that many Muslim nations are not capable of designing and manufacturing the most basic consumer goods, it’s difficult to imagine what contributions such cultures can make to cutting edge space science. However, considering Mr. Obama has grounded all manned space flight—we’re entirely dependent on the Russians to place people or cargo on the International Space Station—I suppose making nice to the descendents of ancient Muslim inventors is incrementally less insane than it first appears.
The British have often done the work of reporting on Mr. Obama that the American media avoids like the plague. Nile Gardiner of The Telegraph is an excellent journalist taking up that particular banner. On April 26, 2010, he published an article titled Barack Obama’s Top Ten Insults Against Israel. By all means, take the link and read the entire article, keeping in mind that Mr. Obama racked up this impressive score in only his first 15 months in office. Two examples:
1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House
In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands. As I wrote at the time:
This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.
There is simply no excuse for such a breech of diplomatic protocol. Even putting aside all diplomatic conventions, Mr. Obama’s behavior was inexcusably rude and stupid. But that’s hardly all:
3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians
In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:
‘On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.’
Ah yes, the Palestinians who never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. The people repeatedly offered virtually everything they’ve ever demanded but who turned it down in favor of eternal blood lust for the destruction of Israel and the genocide of all Jews. Despite this, the Israelis provide food, medical care and water to them each and every day.
A truism: If the Palestinians and their allies laid down their arms, there would be peace in the Middle East. If the Israelis laid their weapons down: genocide. This simple truth seems utterly to escape Mr. Obama.
Since the events compiled in Mr. Gardiner’s list, Mr. Obama has not behaved more rationally and professionally toward Mr. Netayahu and Israel. In early November, 2011 an off-microphone conversation between Mr. Obama and French President Nicholas Sarkozy was not as off-microphone as Mr. Obama might have hoped. Sarkozy told Obama “I cannot bear” Netanyahu and called him a liar. Mr. Obama replied:
You’re fed up, but I have to deal with him every day.
Despite such crude insults, Mr. Netanyahu has continued to behave rationally and has represented Israel with temperance and strength. After his March 5th meeting with Mr. Obama at the White House, Mr. Netanyahu sat for an interview with Greta Van Susteren of Fox.
He demonstrated convincingly that he is the leader that Mr. Obama can never hope to be. Mr. Netanyahu was the sole of diplomacy, fully supporting and not embarrassing Mr. Obama and America, but making it absolutely clear that Israel will act—if necessary, unilaterally—in self-defense. Where Mr. Obama and his supporters aren’t sure that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, Mr. Netanyuh suffers from no such delusion and presents convincing evidence.
When Van Susteren asked (beginning at app. 11:58 in the video):
You spent a long time with President Obama in the Oval Office. What can you tell me about that conversation?
Mr. Netanyahu replied:
I thought it was a very good conversation because it was open, it was honest, between two leaders of two allies, great allies. I think, you know, I think that Israel’s alliance with the United States is of profound importance to everyone in Israel.
… I think America’s alliance with Israel is important to the United States because when you look at the Middle East, what do you have? You don’t have that many reliable allies, solid democracy that is unabashedly pro-American, doesn’t make any excuses for it, cuts across the entire population. You don’t have people chanting “Death to America” in Israel. You don’t have people saying we want to move away from America, on the contrary. That’s an island of stability and reliability in the heart of the Middle East, which is a very unstable and unreliable region these days for the United States, and one fraught with great dangers.
These terrorists — Iran has slaughtered and arranged the slaughter of hundreds, if not more, Americans. It’s helped kill American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has tried to assassinate the Saudi ambassador a few blocks away from here in Washington. Its proxy Hezbollah killed 241 in Lebanon. God forbid that such — such a regime would have atomic bombs? That would be a great threat to the United States, to American lives, to Israel certainly, to America’s allies, to the supply of oil. It could spark a mad race, a nuclear arms race that could turn the Middle East into a nuclear tinderbox.
This is a fantastic threat to the peace of the world, to the security of my country — certainly, but to the security of your country and to the security of peace and the peace to the world. I think it’s something that must be stopped. I can’t stress that.
And even though people don’t see that, sometimes people don’t see a danger coming at them until it materializes. Churchill called it the—you know what he called it? The slumber of democracies. He said democracies tend to sleep and they are woken sort of at the last moment by the jarring gong of danger. Well, if I could start sounding the jarring gong of danger, not to disregard all the dangers that are fraught in trying to stop this danger from materializing, but also understanding the enormous consequences of not stopping it. This could be so — it could be a different world, one that you regret that we allowed to happen. It has happened before.
Notice Mr. Netanyahu’s careful comments, comments that only suggest Mr. Obama’s weakness and indecision. Notice too that he is speaking the truths that Mr. Obama refuses to acknowledge, not only about Israel’s relationship with America, but about the danger of the Iranian’s single-minded determination to obtain nuclear weapons.
By all means, watch the 16-minute video and see what an actual national leader, a man truly representing the best interests of his nation—and ours—looks and sounds like. No wonder Mr. Obama hates him so intensely.
Mr. Netanyahu listens to the daily threats of the Iranians and heeds them. Mr. Obama hears the same threats, but chooses to act in his best political interests instead. Michael Barone, perhaps the most astute political writer in America, explained the issues very well in a recent Examiner article titled Obama Kicks Can Down Road on Iran, Entitlements.
This article, too, should be read in its entirety, but here are a few representative insights:
But there clearly is a difference between the two leaders. Obama has been talking about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Netanyahu has been talking about preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapons capability.
This is a particularly sage and important observation. Netanyahu understands that one bomb will be followed by additional bombs. The capability to produce such weapons is the immediate and continuing threat. Mr. Obama is concerned only with the momentary threat to his political fortunes. Barone continues:
I draw the conclusion that Netanyahu will very soon order an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear weapons facilities. Meanwhile, Obama is kicking the can down the road, announcing Tuesday that the United States will participate in further negotiations with Iran.
It cannot be known with certainty that these negotiations will fail, as earlier negotiations have. Obama is correct in saying that we are in the process of imposing much tougher sanctions that are doing real damage to Iran’s economy.
But he doesn’t mention that those sanctions were produced by a coalition of Republicans and Democrats in Congress, over the opposition of the administration. A coalition that was alarmed by Obama’s policy of, well, kicking the can down the road.
Just so. Viewing the same facts, Mr. Netanyahu wishes to ensure that millions of Israelis don’t vaporize in a nuclear fireball–now or ever. Mr. Obama wants to continue to talk to people who have repeatedly mocked him, and who constantly swear to destroy America as well.
Following Mr. Netanyahu’s statesmanlike speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Mr. Obama tried to maintain his political viability among American Jews with a speech that expressed support for Israel and steady determination that was entirely at odds with his actions. Daniel Mandel at the Spectator called the speech:
…a remarkable performance of salesmanship.
He further noted that Mr. Obama said:
I have Israel’s back’ and ‘as you examine my commitment, you don’t just have to count on my words. You can look at my deeds.
Take the link and read the entire article where you’ll discover that—as usual—Mr. Obama’s words and deeds are entirely at odds with each other.
With Mr. Obama, nothing is more important than his political fortunes. With the threat of an Iranian nuc likely no more than months away, and despite his repeated, faux-manly claims that “I have Israel’s back,” once again he demonstrated the danger of believing anything he says.
Isn’t it possible, however, that Mr. Obama might launch a pre-election US attack on Iran’s bomb making assets in a cynical attempt to bolster his national security image? The applause over the death of Osama Bin Ladin has died out long ago, even as Mr. Obama continues to bring it up to try to appear resolute and fearsome. Perhaps the clearest answer to the question was reported in the NY Post. At his meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, Mr. Obama wanted to make a political deal:
The US offered to give Israel advanced weaponry — including bunker-busting bombs and refueling planes — in exchange for Israel’s agreement not to attack Iranian nuclear sites, Israeli newspaper Maariv reported Thursday.
President Obama reportedly made the offer during Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to Washington this week.
Under the proposed deal, Israel would not attack Iran until 2013, after US elections in November this year. The newspaper cited unnamed Western diplomatic and intelligence sources.
The craven cynicism and jaw-dropping incompetence of Mr. Obama in international affairs and governance could not be more starkly demonstrated. With Israel facing nuclear obliteration, with Iran on the verge of starting a Middle Eastern nuclear arms race, with World War III in the offing—to say nothing of economic Armageddon for America and the world if all of this comes to pass–and with these threats looming in weeks or months rather than years, Mr. Obama tries to prevent Israel from acting in national self-defense so he can win Jewish votes and keep his Progressive base happy. And more, he denies Israel the weapons he hasn’t the courage and wisdom to use, making it more likely that when Israel is forced to attack, it will be less effective than it could be with the support of more effective weapons.
Thank goodness Israel is our ally. I was about to say “how would Mr. Obama treat him if he was our enemy?” Tragically, he would treat Israel much, much better. One might even be tempted to think Mr. Obama wanted to see Israel ravaged.
And speaking of our enemies, they have been listening to Mr. Obama and have no doubt what he’s really saying. As The Guardian noted:
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has described comments by the US president, Barack Obama, about the need to dampen the drumbeat of war as a diplomatic ‘window of opportunity,’ the Iranian state news agency IRNA has reported.
‘We heard two days ago that the US president said that [they] are not thinking about war with Iran. These words are good words and an exit from delusion,’ Khamenei was quoted as saying.
Israel is our sole, stable democratic ally in the Middle East. Mr. Netanyahu seeks our help in ending a deadly threat to his nation and ours and to the entire world. A handful of nuclear weapons could essentially destroy Israel and could easily cause hundreds of thousands of American casualties while wreaking economic devastation. Such weapons need not be delivered by missile or aircraft. Iran has made clear and unmistakable threats to destroy Israel and to attack America, and has, in fact, been killing thousands of Americans since declaring war on us during the Carter hostage debacle.
For the investment—Mr. Obama is big on making “investments”—of a small number of advanced conventional bombs, air-to-air refueling assets and related materials, Mr. Obama could greatly increase Israel’s effectiveness in damaging or destroying Iran’s bomb making capabilities. With direct American military assistance, any such attack would be far more effective, and Iran’s ability to retaliate anywhere could be significantly degraded. Even if Israel is forced to attack alone, Iran—which is even now at war with us and killing our people—would surely strike at us in every possible way. We cannot avoid this conflict; we’re not Switzerland. In fact, one of the reasons Switzerland can afford to be Switzerland is because we’re America—until Barack Obama.
Instead of supporting Israel, instead of doing what is necessary to—at the very least—hinder a deadly, unprecedented threat to Israel and America, Mr. Obama’s overriding concern is to avoid any military action until after the election. He has Israel’s back, which considering his preference for leading from behind is at least, consistent.
If Mr. Obama had any leadership skill, if he understood anything about diplomacy—smart or otherwise—he would never have made such a pathetic attempt at appeasement and diplomatic extortion. He should have known that Mr. Netanyahu would never accept such terms. He should have known the fate of nations takes precedence over the political fortunes of any man. Mr. Netanyahu understands these issues; Mr. Obama, the community organizer, the creation of the Chicago political machine, a Marxist and narcissist of debilitating proportions, does not.
We face a situation of Mr. Obama’s making where there are no good, happy choices. Because his “open hand” and his feckless, serial threats have allowed Iran to build its nuclear bomb making capability to near-fruition, we are faced with two options: attack Iran or do nothing and ensure that Iran will produce nuclear weapons.
When inevitably Israel attacks, we will be drawn into the conflict on Iranian terms and on the defense. Should Mr. Obama fail to fully and completely support Israel when the Iranian reprisals begin, the consequences for America and the world will be immediate and devastating.
Mr. Netanyahu—and the Iranians—has every reason to believe that despite his tough talk, Mr. Obama is nothing but talk. The Israelis would be fools to rely upon Barack Obama, and they surely are not fools. They know they’re alone in this conflict, and we can only hope that they will pull off another Entebe or Osirak-like miracle, for we are likely to understand—very soon and unmistakably—that the wages of hope and change are disaster, for Israel, America and the world.
I have little doubt that most Americans do have Israel’s back. It would seem that Mr. Obama doesn’t even have America’s.