Powered by WebAds

Tuesday, September 28, 2010


Benjamin Weinthal nails President Obama's misplaced focus on 'settlements.' Stopping 'settlements' won't bring peace to the Middle East. Stopping Iran might give peace a chance.
The hard and uncomfortable dirty work underlying the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, for Obama, is to take a more confrontational posture toward the Iranian regime. A more assertive strategy would entail a waterproof embargo of Iran’s regime, and the formulation of a military strategy to end its illicit nuclear-weapons facilities. Iran’s drive to go nuclear and its financial support of the Islamic terror organizations Hamas and Hezbollah (and the Syrian regime) remain the key impediments to meaningful Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

As Benny Avni wrote in last Friday’s New York Post, “Obama devoted just two paragraphs to Iran” in his U.N. speech and “10 long paragraphs praising the virtues of future Israeli-Arab peace.” All of this helps to explain that the Mideast peace talks are front and center in Obama’s thinking, whereas the highly belligerent mullah regime is a series of footnotes.

The New York Times columnist Roger Cohen perhaps best personifies the fundamentally misguided obsession with settlements instead of the Iranian threat. Cohen, who is considered by many Iranian dissidents in Germany and the U.S. to be a heavyweight appeaser of the Iranian regime, spilled over into a hysterical fit last week and said that, in dealing with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, “Obama must now break some bones to get his way.”

In sharp contrast to Cohen, Clifford D. May neatly captured in his column why Obama and an anonymous former head of a U.S.-allied state have been lulled into a delusional doctrine, i.e., that Mideast talks take priority over Iranian jingoism.
I'm not convinced that stopping Iran will bring peace to this region. That will only happen if it lowers 'Palestinian' demands to a reasonable range, which appears unlikely. But without stopping Iran, there's no chance of peace in this region. Obama just doesn't or won't get it.


At 11:35 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

Without stopping Iran, a successful peace process is a contradiction in terms.

The Obama Administration has its priorities in the wrong order.

Freezing construction in the revanants won't do much for the Middle East's stability; halting Iran's bid for nuclear hegemony would be a much more positive result.

But we're far from seeing Iran seriously dealt with and one shouldn't expect that to change much in the foreseeable future.

At 3:56 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Settlements are not the reason that there's no peace in the Middle East. As George Patton used to say, "A blind man could see it." There were no settlements before 1967, and there was no peace then. The simple reason is that both then and now, the Arabs simply cannot bear to allow the existence of Israel - AT ALL. For them, there can be no peace until Israel is destroyed, at which point they will resume what they've been doing for most of the last 5,000 years, fighting and killing each other.

The Richard Cohens of this world make me sick. It has been said that the worst enemies of the Jews spring from within our people, and he exemplifies this. Clearly, his soul is descended from those who comprised the Mixed Multitude. I don't know why he even bothers remaining a Jew, why he simply doesn't renounce Judaism and convert to Islam or some other religion, so great is his hatred for anything close to authentic Judaism or love of the Land of Israel. Where was his outrage during the hundreds of incidents where innocent civilians, including women and children, were butchered by savages who are not interested in any kind of talks or peace, only in rubbing the blood of "pigs and monkeys" all over their faces? Where was he when the Tomb of Joseph was destroyed? Where has he been as the Waqf has systematically tried to erase evidence of the existence of the Temples?

As for Obama, he can kiss my tuchas...and, apparently, a good part of the American public feels the same way (we'll see in 5 weeks). If there's ever been a Manchurean Candidate, he's it. Before he started living in the White House, I never thought I'd say this, but "compared to him, Carter wasn't so bad of a President" (please, HaShem, forgive me for even this back-handed praise of an enemy of your people).

At 11:52 PM, Blogger Unknown said...

Excuse me, ROGER Cohen, not Richard.


Post a Comment

<< Home