Israel Matzav

'Most pro-Israel President evah' says he can't defend Israel if 'peace talks' fail

President Hussein Obama told Jeffrey Goldberg on Sunday that he plans to tell Prime Minister Netanyahu that Israel faces a bleak future of international isolation and demographic disaster if it does not endorse the deal that Obama and his Secretary of State - John FN Kerry - want to impose on Israel and the 'Palestinians.'

Obama was blunter about Israel’s future than I've ever heard him. His language was striking, but of a piece with observations made in recent months by his secretary of state, John Kerry, who until this interview, had taken the lead in pressuring both Netanyahu and the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, to agree to a framework deal. Obama made it clear that he views Abbas as the most politically moderate leader the Palestinians may ever have. It seemed obvious to me that the president believes that the next move is Netanyahu’s.

“There comes a point where you can’t manage this anymore, and then you start having to make very difficult choices,” Obama said. “Do you resign yourself to what amounts to a permanent occupation of the West Bank? Is that the character of Israel as a state for a long period of time? Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?”

During the interview, which took place a day before the Russian military incursion into Ukraine, Obama argued that American adversaries, such as Iran, Syria and Russia itself, still believe that he is capable of using force to advance American interests, despite his reluctance to strike Syria last year after President Bashar al-Assad crossed Obama's chemical-weapons red line.

...

“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time,” Obama said. “If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”

This is not the first time that Obama has pulled a fast one while Netanyahu was enroute.  Hopefully, Netanyahu has not forgotten how to respond. Of course, the difference between now and three years ago is that Obama cannot (at least as of now) stand for reelection.

David Horovitz says that this interview was no accident.

The timing could not have been any more deliberate — an assault on the prime minister’s policies delivered precisely as Netanyahu was flying in to meet with him, and on the first day, too, of the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC’s annual tour de force conference across town.

At the very least, that might be considered bad manners, poor diplomatic protocol, a resounding preemptive slap in the face: I’ve just told the world you’re leading your country to wrack and ruin, Mr. Prime Minister. Now, what was it you wanted to talk to me about?

More substantively, the president’s comments reinforce years of grievance that have accumulated in Netanyahu’s circles and some distance beyond, to the effect that the president ignores the inconsistencies, duplicities and worse of the Palestinian Authority and its leader Mahmoud Abbas, while placing exaggerated blame for the failure of peace efforts at the door of the Israeli government.

As they read through the transcript of the interview, Netanyahu and his aides were doubtless bemoaning what they see as Obama’s obsession with settlements, to the exclusion of almost any other issue on which the Israelis and the Palestinians are deadlocked. They would certainly have been lamenting that the president’s public display of disaffection will hardly encourage the Palestinians to adopt more flexible positions on such other core issues as their demand for a “right of return” for millions of Palestinians to Israel. And they might have been wondering if some of the Obama ammunition had been fired precisely now as a mark of his displeasure with AIPAC, the irritating lobby that just won’t keep quiet on pressuring Iran.

Glick disputed Obama's claims vigorously. "The demographic data [Obama] is using to threaten Israel with destruction are phony. Even officials at the U.S. Census Bureau privately acknowledge that demographics work in Israel's favor and to the Palestinians' detriment," she said, noting that Palestinian growth had been inflated.

"When he talks about a permanent occupation, we speak of a permanent liberation. We are not 'occupying' the West Bank of the Jordan. These areas are part of the sovereign territory allocated to the Jewish people by the international community as far back as 1922. They were never granted to anyone else in a legally binding way. 

"More than three quarters of the Jews of Israel believe in incorporating all or parts of the West Bank into Israel on a permanent basis," she added. "We know the two-state peace plan is a lie.

We know the PLO wants to destroy Israel more than it wants a Palestinian state. And we know that we will not lose our Jewish majority if we incorporate the West Bank into Israel. 

"He says, beware and we say, 'Bring it on. We aren't afraid of you.'"

Neither is anyone else.  Although it's amusing that Washington Post editorial that accuses Obama of living in a fantasy world doesn't even mention his obsession with Israel and the 'Palestinians.'

Labels: AIPAC, Barack Hussein Obama, Binyamin Netanyahu, Iran sanctions regime, Iranian nuclear threat, Middle East peace process, settlements

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 4:50 PM