Monday

Obama Working Hard to Leave Israel Defenseless and Alone.


I'm having a hard time discerning if Obama and his administration are simply naive or supremely devious.

After having taken a hands off approach where Iran's nuclear program is concerned the Obama Administration has chosen to aid the enemies of Israel in stripping her of her defenses. Feeding Israel to the lions hardly seems like the smart thing to do. The United States sorely lacks allies in that part of the world and Obama's actions are more likely to be seen as weakness than to garner any cooperation.

Obama is not only playing into the hands of the likes of Ahmadinejad he is sacrificing Israel in the process. This hardly seems sane. Is our leader so desperate to be liked that he would throw a long time ally onto the pyre to court a gaggle of despots and dictators?

It would seem so.

Excerpts from Breitbart.Com:

Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.


It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.


Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.


The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."


But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.




According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."


"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.


"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."


The left-leaning Haaretz daily said Israel had been "sacrificed by the US on the altar of a successful conference" in what constituted "a diplomatic victory for Egypt" which has campaigned against Israel's nuclear arsenal.


Five years ago, the paper recalled, Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, refused to accept parts of a draft document calling on Israel to join the NPT and dismissed the idea of holding talks to create a nuclear-free Middle East -- even at the cost of the conference's failure.


The move draws a line under a long-held "agreement" between Israel and Washington dating back to 1969 under which the Jewish state was permitted to keep silent on its country's nuclear potential while holding back from any nuclear test.


In return, Washington agreed not to exert or allow any pressure on Israel over its nuclear capabilities.


"It is an undeniably negative change to US policy" with regards to Israel's nuclear programme, said Eitan Gilboa, an analyst from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.


Pointing to contradiction between Obama both applauding the resolution and criticising it for singling out Israel, Gilboa said Washington was "losing its leadership role because of the naive and unrealistic" outlook of its president.



5 comments:

  1. This shift in policy over a U.N. resolution does nothing that would either leave Israel "defenseless" or "alone." Doesn't this claim seem a bit hyperbolic to you, Southron?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Good. Except except defenseless and alone means with the most foreign aid and finest military assistance the world has to offer.

    ReplyDelete
  3. How can anyone say that? The US continues to be Israel's strongest ally. If the Zionist state were so great, why does it continue to rely on support from a country by controlling and subverting the countries democratic process through lobbying. And why does Israel want to bite the hand that feeds it, and feeds it oh so well. I'm not sure which is more disgraceful in my eyes, drawing so much support to perpetuate an apartheid state that pays no attention to the international community in which it exists, or if it garners that support and then complains it is not getting enough. Enough is enough, guilt is not the only way to achieve your ends, peaceful communication and coexistence might be an option, that and ceasing the oppression of an entire people.

    ReplyDelete
  4. (1) Zayaan, it appears that you are badly misinterpreting something about American politics. Israel has a very loud voice in U.S. politics, but in no way does Israel "control" or "subvert" the American democratic process through lobbying. It makes its voice heard as a feature of the American democratic process, not in defiance of it.

    (2) Let's not hear any more about Israel's oppression of the Palestinians until we hear a bit more about the oppression of Arabs by Arabs in the rest of the Middle East.

    (3) And finally, as a purely tactical matter, I would suggest to you that if the Palestinians were a bit smarter, they would use the tried-and-true methods of non-violent protest espoused by Ghandi and Martin Luther King rather than the violent methods of Hamas and other terrorist groups, which often do little besides justify a violent response from Israel. They might achieve more success, and faster, if they did.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The text is kinda strange to me. I read about doing something good and author says it is bad, I read about something bad and the author says it is good? If the UN and the entire world wants peace in the Middle East, that is a bad thing? Not having nuclear weapons a bad thing?
    Israel is making so bad moves that the entire world sees them as a manace more than North Korea.

    ReplyDelete

Be respectful or be deleted. Your choice.