Obama meets with some of Israel's most radical Leftists
He backed Isaac Herzog and Tzippi Livni
in the last election
with an ad campaign that said that 'from the River to the Sea,' all of Israel belongs to the 'Palestinians
.' But Livni and Herzog are far - very far - from being the most radical Leftist Israelis to whom Obama has granted succor. Daniel Greenfield has a rogue's gallery
The Haaretz piece is another exercise in poisoning the well, but it does reveal
some bits of interesting information. The article claims that Obama’s
people, including Susan Rice, are refusing to meet with the Israeli
ambassador. But they’re rather enthusiastic about meeting with assorted
Looking into the records of the entry permits reveals
that several heads of leftist Israeli not-for-profit groups also visited
the White House during 2014. At the end of October there was a visit by
the head of the Geneva Initiative group, Gadi Baltiansky, followed the
next day by a visit by the head of Friends of the Earth Gidon Bromberg.
They met separately with Maher Bitar, director of Israeli-Palestinian
affairs at the White House.
On December 2, left-wing activist Danny Zeidman, whose main interest
is problems related to Jerusalem, met with adviser Gordon. On December
9, attorney Michael Sfard from the Yesh Din human rights group, met NSC
Mideast adviser Lempert.
Those are understated descriptions.
Zeidman is with Ir Amim, a radical left-wing group fighting against the Jewish presence in Jerusalem. It gets its funding from the EU and George Soros.
An Ir Amim blog entry in the Huffington Post (April 27,
2010), appeals to the United States government to, “Threaten [Israel]
with severing diplomatic ties.”
And apparently Ir Amim is much closer to the White House than anyone thought.
Yesh Din is another anti-Israel lefty group funded by the EU and George Soros.
According to Emily Schaeffer, a lawyer on Yesh Din’s
legal team, “Yesh Din was founded to use law as a tool to fight the
Israeli occupation of the Palestinian territories.”
Victor Davis Hansen would tell you that coordinating strategy with groups like Ir Amim and Yesh Din - which are very far from any type of Israeli consensus - is something that Obama does purposefully and as a matter of course
But, in fact, there is a predictable pattern to Obama’s foreign
policy. The president has an adolescent, romantic view of professed
revolutionary societies and anti-Western poseurs — and of his own
ability uniquely to reach out and win them over. In the most superficial
sense, Obama demonstrates his empathy for supposedly revolutionary
figures of the non-Western world through gratuitous, often silly remarks
about Christianity and Western colonial excesses, past and present. He
apologizes with talk of our “own dark periods” and warns of past U.S.
“dictating”; he contextualizes; he ankle-bites the very culture he grew
up and thrived in, as if he can unapologetically and without guilt enjoy
the West’s largesse only by deriding its history and values.
In lieu of reading or speaking a foreign language, or knowing much about
geography (Austrians speak Austrian, the death camps were Polish, the
Indian Ocean Maldives are the politically correct name of the Falklands,
cities along the U.S. Atlantic Coast are Gulf ports, etc.), Obama
adopts, in the manner of a with-it English professor, hokey accentuation
to suggest an in-the-know fides anytime he refers to the Taliban,
Pakistan, or Teheran. Reminiscent of college naïfs with dorm-room
posters of Che Guevara, Obama mythologizes about the underappreciated
multicultural “Other” that did everything from fuel the Western
Renaissance and Enlightenment to critique Christian excesses during the
Inquisition. In truth, what he delivers is only a smoother and more
refined version of Al Sharpton’s incoherent historical riff on
“astrology” and “Greek homos.” Obama refuses to concede that Islam can
become a catalyst for radical killers and terrorists, and he has a
starry-eyed crush on those who strike anti-Western poses and have turned
their societies upside down on behalf of the proverbial people.
For Obama, in the struggle between the Palestinian Authority and
Israel, Israel is a Westernized colonial construct and a proponent of
Western neo-liberal capitalism. The PA and Hamas, in contrast, are seen
both as the downtrodden in need of community-organizing help and as
authentic peoples whose miseries are not self-induced and the wages of
tribalism, statism, autocracy, fundamentalism, misogyny, and
anti-Semitism, but rather the results of Israeli occupation,
colonialism, and imperialism. Obama may not articulate this publicly,
but these are the assumptions that explain his periodic blasts against
Netanyahu and his silence about the autocratic Palestinian Authority and
the murderous Hamas.
In such a landscape, the current Iranian talks make perfect sense. Obama
was in no mood in the spring of 2009 to vocally support a million,
pro-Western Iranian dissidents who took to the streets in anger over the
theocracy’s rigged elections, calling for transparency and human
rights. He snubbed them as if they were neoconservative democracy
zealots. In his eyes, their false consciousness did not allow them to
fully appreciate their own suffering at the hands of past American
imperialists. In Obama’s worldview, the Iranian mullahs came to power
through revolution and were thus far more authentic anti-Western
radicals, with whom only someone like Obama — prepped by the Harvard Law
Review, Chicago organizing, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s pulpit, and the
most liberal voting record during a brief stint in the U.S. Senate —
could empathize and negotiate. Why would Iranian idealists and democrats
be foolish enough to spoil Obama’s unique diplomatic gymnastics?
Traditional analyses deconstruct the Obama administration’s negotiations
over Iran’s nuclear program and are aghast at the naïveté — no stop to
ongoing uranium enrichment, no open or surprise inspections, no
conditions to be met before sanctions are scaled back, no prohibitions
against the marriage of nuclear-weapon technology and
But that is to misunderstand the Obama worldview. He is less worried
about a nuclear Iran and what it will do to a mostly pro-Western Gulf or
Israel, or to other traditional U.S. interests, than about the
difficulties he faces in bringing Iran back into the family of nations
as an authentic revolutionary force that will school the West on
regional justice. (“There’s incredible talent and resources and
sophistication inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful
regional power that was also abiding by international norms and
international rules, and that would be good for everybody.”) Iran will
assume its natural revolutionary role as regional power broker in the
Middle East; and, almost alone, it is not beholden to any Western power.
In some sense, Obama views the rest of the world in the same way as he
views America: a rigged order in which the oppressed who speak truth to
power are systematically mischaracterized and alienated — and in need of
an empathetic voice on the side of overdue revolutionary accounting.
That's why he's meeting with the likes of Daniel Seidemann
and Emily Schaeffer, while refusing to meet with Israel's Ambassador to the United States, Ron Dermer
. The sooner Israelis recognize that this is Obama's view of the world - and that it's not representative of the United States in general - the sooner the harmful hysteria over 'our strained relations with the United States' will die down.
Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, Hamas, Iranian nuclear threat, Palestinian Authority, radical Left, Ron Dermer, Victor Davis Hanson