Latest Entry: American Pravda and New York's Sixth Crime Family     Latest Comments: Talk Back Here

« Re: Obama to Voters: Drop Dead | Main | Little Barry Thinks He's Carter »

December 1, 2010

JP: Obama's duplicity on Israel Exposed By Wikileaks

Topics: Middle East News and Perspectives, Political News and commentaries

David Horovitz writes in an editor's note at the Jerusalem Post:

[...] THE OBAMA administration, it is now clear for all to see, was not pressing a reluctant Netanyahu to make settlement-freeze and other concessions to the Palestinians in part because it truly believed this would be helpful in generating wider support for tackling Iran.

Not at all. The United States, we now know courtesy of WikiLeaks, was being repeatedly urged by a succession of Arab leaders to smash an Iranian nuclear program they feared would destabilize the entire region and put their regimes at risk. Their priority was, and is, battering Ahmadinejad, not bolstering Abbas.

King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, in 2008, had not urged the US to chivvy those recalcitrant Israelis toward concessions to the Palestinians as a pre-condition for grudging Saudi support for a firmer US-led position against Iran. Anything but. Never mind the Palestinians, the king simply implored Washington to "cut off the head of the [Iranian] snake."

Likewise, with minor variations in the course of the following year, the rulers of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi.

We are now starting to hear, courtesy of WikiLeaks, what Jordan and Egypt had to say on the matter too.

Obama, that is, was not the prisoner of a misconception, convinced in absolute good faith that if he could deliver Israeli concessions at the negotiating table he might stand a greater chance of getting the Arabs on board for the battle with the mullahs. No, he had the diplomatic cables to prove that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was no obstacle to wide Arab backing, indeed wide Arab entreaties, for the toughest possible measures against Iran, emphatically including military action.

Either the president, it can be concluded, was so attached to his misconception that he refused to let the concrete information he had on Arab leaders' thinking get in the way -- sticking to his view of the region in defiance of the facts.

Or, more plausibly, he had internalized full well that he didn't actually need the cover of a substantive Israeli-Palestinian peace process to generate Arab support for tackling Iran'

s nuclear program, but chose to pressure Israel just the same, as a tactic, because he felt Israel was not being sufficiently forthcoming on the Palestinian front.

Read the entire piece here ..

In other words, Obama was lying all along and putting his pro-Palestinian ideological bent (against Israel's existence) ahead of the interests of both the U.S. and Israel. And as Horovitz goes on to point out, we are now 18 months later ... the peace process is deadlocked ... and Iran is indeed a good deal closer to its nuclear bomb(s). More simply put ... using the words of Caroline Glick, we are dealing with a self-consciously radical President who intends to remake the US relationship with the Muslim world.

Related: Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

Posted by Richard at December 1, 2010 8:12 AM

Articles Related to Middle East News and Perspectives, Political News and commentaries: