Actually, we do get it

...Israel will take the steps it needs to take to protect herself despite your attempts to prevent her from doing so. And I hope that a future American president will strengthen the relationship between two peoples that love freedom and democracy that you have worked so hard to tear apart.

Vic Rosenthal..
Abu Yehuda..
04 October '15..
Link: http://abuyehuda.com/2015/10/we-get-it-obama/





I was going to write about the way the US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, was instructed to boycott PM Netanyahu’s speech, but Elliott Abrams beat me to it:

Think of how petty that instruction, which can only have come from the White House, really is. To sit in the seat and listen to Netanyahu isn’t endorsing his remarks, it is the politeness we owe an ally. Deliberate absence recalls the years in which dozens of delegations, Arab and “Third World,” would leave the chamber when any Israeli rose to speak. The Obama administration is still griping about diplomatic errors Netanyahu has made, but a refusal to have the U.S. ambassador listen to his speech is petty and damaging, hinting to anti-Israel delegations that the United States may be willing to let all sorts of anti-Israel measures go without opposition or criticism.

Secretary of State Kerry wasn’t there either. Supposedly he was called away to participate in a video conference with President Obama. Abrams went on to call it a “low point for seven years of Obama diplomacy.”

What strikes me is that there was absolutely nothing to be gained from this exercise. There’s no way Netanyahu can torpedo Obama’s Iran deal, there are presently no negotiations going on with the Palestinian Authority, and Netanyahu isn’t running for office. All it can do is make a statement that the President holds our PM, and therefore our nation, in contempt.

He made this gesture at a time when the Iranian regime almost daily announces that it intends to destroy Israel, and when the Arabs in Jerusalem and Judea/Samaria — incited to do so by PA President Mahmoud Abbas — have stepped up terrorism at all levels, from rock-throwing to stabbings, firebombs and shootings. Four Israelis were murdered this week and numerous others injured or terrified.

We get it, Obama. We get that you don’t like us for deep ideological reasons. We got it last

He Should Only Hope Israel Keeps Complaining

...If there is any real hope that this deal that tacitly recognizes Iran’s right to enrich uranium and leaves in place the infrastructure for making a bomb will actually succeed, it will stem from an Iranian belief that Israel’s rhetoric about using force are credible rather than empty threats. Having demonstrated that he has little interest in putting Tehran’s feet to the fire, there is nothing preventing Iran from reneging on even this weak deal other than the notion that if Obama is not proved right, Israel will strike.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
02 December '13..

In the wake of the Obama administration’s embrace of a nuclear deal with Iran, Washington’s message to Israel has been crystal clear: shut up. The Washington Post reported that President Obama told Prime Minister Netanyahu that he’d like him to tone down the strident criticism of an agreement that he has rightly characterized as a “historic mistake” that legitimizes Iran’s nuclear program and may well bring it closer to a bomb rather than preventing it from accomplishing that goal. But the messages from other sources have been a good deal less polite. Anonymous “senior administration officials” told Israeli reporters that the White House considers the Israeli government’s outrage at having its concerns ignored to be “weak” and dismissed the possibility that Congress would attempt to restrain the president’s rush toward a détente with Iran out of concern for the Jewish state’s safety. The administration’s cheering section in the press has been no less blunt about its disdain for Israel’s fear that a fundamental shift in U.S. foreign policy is being attempted.

Part of this stems from Obama’s hubris. He has always believed in the magic of his personality and appeal and from the start of his first term signaled that he wanted to improve relations with Iran while also demonstrating his belief that the U.S. and Israel had become too close under his predecessor. The impatience he is showing about Israel’s complaints is rooted in anger over the fact that Netanyahu apparently does not trust him, something he appears to consider an act of lèse-majesté. Whether or not the reports out of Kuwait today about the president hoping to visit Iran in 2014 are true, the White House considers Israeli doubts about the president’s vision of a new Middle East to be something of a personal slight.

But if Obama is genuinely interested in making his deal with Iran work rather than it being just one more example of how the ayatollahs have hoodwinked the West, he shouldn’t be discouraging Netanyahu from speaking up. If there is any real hope that this deal that tacitly recognizes Iran’s right to enrich uranium and leaves in place the infrastructure for making a bomb will actually succeed, it will stem from an Iranian belief that Israel’s rhetoric about using force are credible rather than empty threats. Having demonstrated that he has little interest in putting Tehran’s feet to the fire, there is nothing preventing Iran from reneging on even this weak deal other than the notion that if Obama is not proved right, Israel will strike.

President Obama Visits Israel - What to Expect By Barry Rubin

At the end of the meeting, everyone will then state publicly that the talks show the continued strength of the U.S.-Israel alliance and that Obama is a great president and a wonderful friend of Israel. Then Obama will return to Washington to get back to the business of installing or helping anti-Israel Islamist governments in Egypt, Tunisia, Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey; making sure Israel is never too tough against Hamas in the Gaza Strip; and losing credibility with America's anti-Islamist Arab and other friends.

Barry Rubin..
The Rubin Report..
12 March '13..

Jodi Ruderon, the New York Times Israel correspondent wrote about President Barack Obama’s March 20-22 visit to Israel and the Palestinian Authority:

“For more than two years, many Israeli and Palestinian leaders have placed blame for their stalemated peace process not only on one another but on a lack of engagement by the Obama Administration. But now that President Obama and his new secretary of state have signaled plans to visit, both sides still remain skeptical that much will change.”

While I’m grateful that she concluded what I've been saying now for about thirteen years—no progress is going to be made and every knowledgeable person on both sides knows it —I am baffled by the beginning. I have never heard any Israeli or Palestinian, leader or intellectual or just plain individual, ever say such a thing. It is nonsense given the fact that Obama’s strenuous efforts during his first two years in office got nowhere.

The history of what actually happened between 2009 and 2011 has been forgotten, just as the Palestinian torpedoing of peace between 1993 and 2000 has been forgotten. Obama tried, the Arab states wouldn't help, the Palestinians threw pie in his face (as I wrote at the time), and Israel offered full cooperation. Since then, the Palestinian Authority is strutting with its newly received--from the UN General Assembly--state. Contrary to the 1993 Oslo agreement, this was achieved without any compromise, concessions, or agreement with Israel. So on top of everything else, the PA feels no motivation to negotiate anymore, not that it did much since 2000. But should we all try? Sure, just don't do any more damage and in your own interest don't waste too much time and money.

All of this should be merely academic since we are told that Obama's visit will focus on Syria and Iran. So what does Israel want to tell Obama and what is he likely to offer or do?

Ettinger- On US-Israel relations, Livni doesn't get it

Yoram Ettinger
Yisrael Hayom
14 August '11

http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=330

Kadima Chairwoman Tzipi Livni, in an interview with The Atlantic magazine, has "endorsed the idea that pressure from President Obama on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is a service to Israel."

In the interview, Livni showed a lack of comprehension over how much Israel can maneuver under U.S. pressure, the impact of the Palestinian issue on U.S.-Israel relations, the ideological gap between Barack Obama and the U.S. public and Congress and the fundamentals of the U.S. political system.

According to Livni, the Netanyahu-Obama disagreement "puts [U.S. Jews] in a situation in which they need to choose a side, and they don't want to be in this situation ... It's a nightmare, because we are actually on the same side. It's not Israel vs. the U.S. and vice-versa. We cannot afford this. This is something new. It forced American Jews to take sides."

Really?

U.S. pressure has been an integral part of U.S.-Israel relations since 1948. The U.S. imposed a military embargo on the country and considered financial sanctions, prodding Prime Minister Ben Gurion to refrain from declaring independence, to accept a U.N. trusteeship and the internationalization of Jerusalem, to end "occupation of the Negev" and to absorb and compensate Palestinian refugees. In 1967, President Lyndon B. Johnson warned Prime Minister Levi Eshkol against preemptive war, annexation of Jerusalem and construction of Ramat Eshkol. In 1981, Ronald Reagan threatened Prime Minister Menachem Begin with an embargo and a diplomatic crisis should Israel bomb Iraq's nuclear reactor. From 1948-1992, Israeli prime ministers generally defied U.S. pressure, but (and therefore) strategic cooperation surged dramatically. The U.S. prefers allies that produce – rather than consume -- national security, irrespective of defiance.

Livni considers the Palestinian issue a central axis of U.S.-Israel relations. But, these relations evolve around the axis of shared values, interests and threats. Hence, the upgraded security cooperation following the 1970 Israeli-induced rollback of Syria's invasion of Jordan, notwithstanding the rift over the 1949 lines as part of the "Rogers Plan." Two major strategic memoranda of understanding and a series of legislation were signed between 1983 and 1992, in spite of disagreements over the 1982 War in Lebanon, the "Reagan Plan," the First Intifada and the Bush-Baker hostility toward Israel, and due to Israel's contribution to the U.S. defense industries, war on terrorism, missile defense and posture of deterrence. A critical mass of U.S. policy-makers realize that U.S.-Israel ties constitute a two-way, mutually-beneficial street, regardless of the Palestinian issue.

Livni is oblivious to the impact Obama's worldview has had on U.S.-Israel relations. Obama considers the Holocaust – and not the 4,000 year-old Jewish history – as Israel's moral foundation, classifying Israel as part of the "exploiting" Western World and the Arabs as part of the "exploited" Third World. He is moving closer to the Muslim world and the U.N. and aims to clip Israel's wings morally, strategically and territorially. He does not view Israel as a strategic asset and believes that the prescription for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict is comprised of the 1949 lines, exchange of land, repartitioning of Jerusalem, dismantling of all Jewish settlements in Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights and the resettlement of some Palestinian refugees in Israel.

Contrary to Jerusalem's conventional wisdom, a U.S. President is not omnipotent on national security affairs and is not "the government," but only one among three equal arms of government. Congress – a bastion of support for Israel – has the "power of the purse" and can initiate, suspend, change and turn around policy. Its power is most evident during economic crises and is important as we approach the 2012 election. In 2010, Congress – the chief axis of U.S. democracy and a systematic supporter of Israel – stated that Obama's worldview represented a minority among voters and elected officials.

In order to advance U.S.-Israel relations, Israel's political elite is advised to study the U.S. political system, upgrade ties with Congress – the most authentic representative of the public – and refrain from statements that add fuel to the fire of U.S. pressure on Israel.

If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.

Obama officially divorces Israel

Fresnozionism.org
15 April '10
Posted before Shabbat

The administration-friendly New York Times today published a story entitled “Obama Speech Signals a U.S. Shift on Middle East” (dictated by) attributed to “unnamed White House officials” which I think we can take as an ‘official’ statement of the administration’s policy. It’s worth dissecting the key portions.

When Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States,” he was highlighting a change that has resulted from a lengthy debate among his top officials over how best to balance support for Israel against other American interests.

Mentioning the need to “balance support for Israel against other American interests” tells us two things:

1.our interests not only diverge from those of Israel, but in some sense are at odds with them; and,

2.we intend to change the degree to which we support Israel.

By “other American interests,” what is meant is the desire to improve relations with the Arab nations and perhaps Iran; the administration appears to believe that this can be accomplished by reducing our support for Israel.

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.
.