Facebook Feed

1 day ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

3 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Obama’s Ten Commandments

Tell me who initiates the meeting and who wants a photo opportunity, and I’ll tell you who has the inferior position. The July 2010 meeting was initiated by Obama, who is concerned about the outcome of the November election and his declining support by Democrats and Independents.  He hopes that a jovial photograph with Netanyahu would obscure severe disagreements, while enhancing his image among Israel’s friends in the USA.  He presumes that Netanyahu will not leverage his (Obama’s) political predicament and the significant support for Israel among constituents and legislators, and will once again commit Israel to concessions.

 

Obama is an ideologue, determined to change the USA and the world, irrespective of his declining fortunes internally and externally.  Obama’s reaction to Netanyahu’s about-face on the “Two State Solution” and the de-facto freeze of construction in eastern Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, demonstrates that concessions do not improve Obama’s attitude toward Israel; they intensify pressure.  Netanyahu’s concessions have not diverted Obama from the following “Ten Commandments” of his world view:

 

1.  End of American Exceptionalism.  Obama does not believe in America’s moral, economic or military exceptionalism.  He perceives the US as a power in retreat, which sometimes abused its super-power role. His appointed legal advisor at the Department of State, Harold Koh, contends that the US Constitution should be interpreted, also, on the basis of foreign legal precedents and that even the Shariah (Muslim) law could find a home in the US. Koh stated that some US actions classify it as a member of the “Axis of Disobedience.”

 

2.  Not Confrontation but Engagement.  Obama is convinced that the globe is not an arena of confrontation, but a platform of engagement with enemies/rivals, including Iran, Syria, Hizballah and Hamas. Hence, strategic partners such as Israel are less relevant.  Moreover, he has cut the budget for the development of new military systems and of missile defense, canceled the deployment of missile defense systems in Poland and the Czech Republic and initiated nuclear arms reduction agreements, which erode America’s posture of deterrence.

 

3.  The UN – the Playmaker of International Relations. Obama is the most UN-like President since Woodrow Wilson, considering the UN as the chief global policy-maker. Accordingly, he appointed Susan Rice – his Guru on international relations who considers Jimmy Carter and Jim Baker her role models – to the UN Ambassadorship with the rank of a Cabinet Member.  He expressed preference for an international investigation of the Gaza Flotilla, supported the anti-Israel resolution by the UN nuclear non-proliferation conference, joined the anti-Israel UN Human Rights Council and awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, who led the anti-Israel and anti-US UN Durban Conference.

 

4.  Not Unilateral but Multilateral.  Obama wants to minimize unilateral – and maximize multilateral – US policies. It subordinates US considerations to multinational common denominator, which is dominated by an anti-US majority.  His advisor on multinational affairs is his personal friend, Samantha Power, a leading opponent of Israel and a proponent of a dialogue with Teheran. 

 

5.  Europe is a Role Model.  Obama aspires to adopt the European state of mind, which is critical of Israel, while appeasing terror regimes. However, global sanity requires a “US Marshall” and not a “European Cop.”

 

6.  Islam is a Partner, not a Rival/Enemy.  Obama has instructed his advisors to refrain from using the terms “Islamic Terrorism” and “Jihadist Terrorism.” He has consistently pandered to Islamic audiences, claiming that the US and Islam share a solid foundation of values.  His top White House Counselor and personal friend, Valerie Jarrett (“Obama’s second brain”) transmits such messages to US Muslim organizations, which support Hamas.  The Quadrennial Reviews of the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security do not use the terms “Islam,” Islamist” or “Islamic.”

 

7.  No Global or Muslim Terrorism.  According to Obama, Counter-Terrorism Advisor John Brennan,  National Security Advisor Jim Jones, Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, there is no “Global Terrorism,” “Islamic Terrorism” or “Terrorists.” Instead, there are “Extremists,” “Isolated Cases” and “Man-Caused Disasters.” They consider terrorism, primarily, law enforcement rather than military challenge. Consequently, they accord terrorists civil rights. John Brennan claims that “Violent extremists [‘terrorists’ in common English] are victims of political, economic and social forces.” One cannot expect operational clarity when there is no moral clarity!

 

8.  The Department of State School of Thought.  While Secretary Clinton has minimal impact on the formulation of foreign policy, the cosmopolitan Dovish school of thought of the Department of State bureaucracy has been embraced by Obama.  The Department of State did not want the establishment of the Jewish State in 1948 and has been a key critic of Israel since then. 

 

9.  The Centrality of the Palestinian Issue.  Obama avers that the less-than-100 year old Palestinian issue is the root cause of the 1,400 year old Middle East turbulence, the core cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism and the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict.  He has adopted the Arab contention that the Holocaust – and not 4,000 year history – constitutes the moral foundation of the Jewish State.  It implies that Jews were persecuted by the Nazis and were – supposedly – given land at the expense of the Palestinians…

 

10.  Yes, We Can!   Obama is confident that each problem has a solution, which he is able to obtain.  He assumes that pressure must be applied in order to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict.  However, democracies (e.g. Israel) are very susceptible to pressure, while dictatorships (e.g. the PA and the Arab regimes) are less susceptible. 

 

President Obama’s adherence to his “Ten Commandments” demonstrates the unbridgeable gap between him and Prime Minister Netanyahu.  Will Netanyahu learn from past mistakes, leverage the sweeping support of Israel by the American People and on Capitol Hill and refute Obama’s assessment that Netanyahu is easily persuaded to transform Red Lines into Pink Lines?




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

US-sponsored anti-Israel UN Security Council statement – acumen

*The US’ co-sponsorship of an anti-Israel UN Security Council Statement reflects the return of the State Department’s worldview to the center stage of US foreign policy-making. This was the first time, in six years, that the US enabled the UN Security Council to act against Israel.

*This is not merely a worldview, which is highly critical of Israel, as has been the case since 1948, when Foggy Bottom led the charge against the re-establishment of the Jewish State.

This worldview has systematically undermined US interests, by subordinating the unilateral, independent US national security policy (on Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Palestinian issue, etc.) to a multilateral common denominator with the anti-US and anti-Israel UN and international organizations, as well as the vacillating and terrorists-appeasing Europe.

*It has sacrificed Middle East reality on the altar of wishful-thinking, assuming that the establishment of a Palestinian state would fulfill Palestinian aspirations, advance the cause of peace, reduce terrorism and regional instability; thus, enhancing US interests.

*However, the reality of the Middle East and Jordan and the rogue Palestinian track record lend credence to the assumption that a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River would doom the pro-US Hashemite regime east of the River, yielding traumatic ripple effects, regionally and globally:

^Replace the relatively-moderate Hashemite regime with either a rogue Palestinian regime, a Muslim Brotherhood regime, or other rogue regimes;
^Transform Jordan into a chaotic state, similar to Libya, Syria, Iraq and Yemen, which would be leveraged by Iran’s Ayatollahs to intensify their encirclement of the pro-US Saudi regime;
^Convert Jordan into a major arena of regional and global Islamic terrorism;
^Trigger a domino scenario into the Arabian Peninsula, which could topple all pro-US, oil-producing Arab regimes;
^Imperil the supply of Persian Gulf oil, which would be held hostage by anti-US entities, catapulting the price at the pump;
^Jeopardize major naval routes of global trade between Asia and Europe through the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Suez Canal;
^Intensify epicenters of regional and global terrorism and drug trafficking;
^Generate a robust tailwind to US’ adversaries (Russia and China) and enemies (Iran’s Ayatollahs, the Muslim Brotherhood and ISIS) and a powerful headwind to US economic and national security interests.

*The State Department assumes that Palestinian terrorism – just like Islamic terrorism – is driven by despair, ignoring the fact that Palestinian terrorism has been driven (for the last 100 years) by the vision to erase the “infidel” Jewish entity from “the abode of Islam,” as stated by the charters of Fatah (1959) and the PLO (1964), 8 and 3 years before the Jewish State reunited Jerusalem and reasserted itself in Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).

*Aspiring for a Palestinian state, and viewing Israel’s control of Judea and Samaria as an obstacle to peace, ignores the Arab view of the Palestinians as a role model of intra-Arab subversion, terrorism, corruption and treachery. Moreover, the State Department has held the view that the Palestinian issue is the crux of the Arab-Israeli conflict and a central to Arab interests, which has been refuted by the Abraham Accords. The latter ignored the State Department, sidestepped the Palestinian issue and therefore came to fruition.

*The State Department overlooks the centrality of the Palestinian Authority’s hate education, which has become the most effective production-line of terrorists, and the most authentic reflection of the Palestinian Authority’s worldview and vision.

*The State Department has also taken lightly the Palestinian Authority’s mosque incitement, public glorification of terrorists and monthly allowances to families of terrorists, which have documented its rogue and terroristic nature (walk), notwithstanding its peaceful diplomatic rhetoric (talk).

*The State Department’s eagerness to welcome the Palestinian issue in a “red carpet” manner – contrary to the “shabby doormat” extended to Palestinians by Arabs – and its determination to promote the establishment of a Palestinian state, along with its embrace of Iran’s Ayatollahs and the Muslim Brotherhood, have been interpreted by rogue regimes and organizations as weakness.

Experience suggests that weakness invites the wolves, including wolves which aim to bring “The Great Satan” to submission throughout the world as well as the US mainland.

Support Appreciated

 




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb