Israel Matzav

Obama patronizes Israel (again) and threatens too

Jeffrey Goldberg reports that President Obama has decided that he - and not the democratically elected Israeli government - knows what's in Israel's best interest, and that building in E-1, which will be part of Israel even if God forbid there is ever a 'Palestinian state,' is not in Israel's best interest.

When informed about the Israeli decision, Obama, who has a famously contentious relationship with the prime minister, didn’t even bother getting angry. He told several people that this sort of behavior on Netanyahu’s part is what he has come to expect, and he suggested that he has become inured to what he sees as self-defeating policies of his Israeli counterpart.

In the weeks after the UN vote, Obama said privately and repeatedly, “Israel doesn’t know what its own best interests are.” With each new settlement announcement, in Obama’s view, Netanyahu is moving his country down a path toward near-total isolation.

And if Israel, a small state in an inhospitable region, becomes more of a pariah -- one that alienates even the affections of the U.S., its last steadfast friend -- it won’t survive. Iran poses a short-term threat to Israel’s survival; Israel’s own behavior poses a long-term one.

If most Israelis felt Obama was in our corner, there might be something about which to talk,. But we don't. Obama is obsessed with the invented 'Palestinians' - as is most of the American Left - and the average Israeli now tunes him out completely. He has zero credibility here. Most Israelis see the continued security cooperation as being foisted on Obama by the Congress and by the American people. If Obama had the choice, most Israelis believe he would long since have cut us off.

That message is reinforced by the nominations of Chuck Hagel, John 'al-Quds' Brennan and even by the nomination of John F.N. Kerry. Most Israelis see those nominations as being driven by Obama's hostility not just to Netanyahu, but to Israeli itself.

Now come the threats....

But it is in terms of American diplomatic protection -- among the Europeans and especially at the UN -- that Israel may one day soon notice a significant shift. During November’s vote on Palestine’s status, the U.S. supported Israel and asked its allies to do the same. In the end, they were joined by a total of seven other countries, including the Pacific powerhouses Palau and Micronesia.

When such an issue arises again, Israel may find itself even lonelier. It wouldn’t surprise me if the U.S. failed to whip votes the next time, or if the U.S. actually abstained. I wouldn’t be particularly surprised, either, if Obama eventually offered a public vision of what a state of Palestine should look like, and affirmed that it should have its capital in East Jerusalem.

Most Israelis won't be surprised by this. But as a practical matter, I'm not sure how much difference it will make. Will the UN send troops here to fight? Can Obama vote for such an action in the UN Security Council? Basically, he's telling us that our options are suicide now (a 'Palestinian state') or suicide later (UN action against us). Between the two, I would opt for suicide later and hope that something happens in the interim or that the world doesn't really hate Jews enough to decide that it is going to extirpate the only Western democracy in the Middle East.

What could go wrong? 

Labels: Barack Hussein Obama, E-1, East Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, settlements, two-state solution

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 9:01 AM