Standing with Israel
I try very hard to keep my cool while going through the process of reading many articles each week and deciding which ones are the most relevant for that week’s newsletter. But three pieces posted on Ynet.com this Saturday nearly made me blow a fuse.
The first is ‘Israel must mend regional relations‘. At a speech given to the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta “warned Israel against viewing the Arab uprisings rattling the Middle East as an excuse to enter a defensive crouch.” Panetta is encouraging Israel specifically to reach out more to Turkey, Egypt and Jordan. Could it be that Mr. Panetta is deliberately ignoring the fact that Egyptian elections have assured Islamist domination in that country? According to Israel National News The Muslim Brotherhood captured more than 40% of the vote and the hardline Islamist Salafist Nour Party received 20%. According to Middle East expert Dr. David Buk’i, “Israel’s worst fears regarding its relationship with Egypt are coming true before its eyes!”
Second, Panetta exclaimed, “With full confidence that the United States is willing and capable of ensuring that Israel can safeguard its security as it takes the risks needed to pursue peace, now is the time for Israel to take bold action and to move towards a negotiated two-state solution.” Full confidence? With these reassuring words, meant to hold onto the Jewish vote back home, Mr. Panetta is obfuscating the feeble track record of the United States when it come to ensuring Israel’s security in times of crises. As P. David Hornik put it, “There’s an inglorious history of the United States and Europe leaving Israel to fend for itself against threats, sometimes even existential ones.”
Third, demanding that Israel take risks for peace and bold actions is getting old. These ultimatums have been aimed at Israel for years, yet when is the last time that you heard, “the Palestinians must take risks and bold actions for peace”? Could there be a bit of a double standard here?
Finally, Panetta saved some choice language for Israel. Asked specifically what Israel should do first (in taking bold actions), Mr. Panetta replied, “Get to the d★✗✲ table” — that is, return to negotiations. This statement totally defies all logic given that Mahmoud Abbas has done everything in his power to avoid negotiations with Israel including unilaterally going to the UN to secure Palestinian statehood.
The second article also relates to Panetta’s speech at the Saban Center: US cautions Israel against solo military op in Iran. Adrian Blomfield, Jerusalem correspondent for Britain’s Telegraph, reported on a private meeting with Panetta, PM Netanyahu and Defense Minister, Ehud Barak. Panetta said that President Obama demanded an unshakable guarantee that Israel would inform the United States before taking any military action against Iran. In Mr. Blomfield’s words, “The two Israelis were notably evasive in their response, according to sources both in Israel and the United States.” This obviously does not sit well with the Obama administration, but given the existential dangers Israel is now facing, she cannot afford to depend on a “friend” who behaves like an enemy.
The third article is another reality-bender: ‘Jew-hate stems from conflict‘. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of course! Ignoring historic Muslim hatred of Jews which dates all the way back to Muhammed himself, Howard Gutman, American ambassador to Belgium,
theorized that, “growing global anti-Semitism is linked to Israel’s policy towards the Palestinians.” He even invented a distinction between what he labels “traditional anti-Semitism” and “Muslim hatred for Jews” which hypothetically stems from the ongoing strife between Israel and the Palestinians. In his view “an Israeli-Palestinian peace treaty will significantly diminish Muslim anti-Semitism.”
Gutman is a lawyer by training, is Jewish and played a major role in fundraising for the Democratic Party. He was appointed to the post by President Obama. It is clear that Mr. Gutman is only parroting the party line of the Obama administration.
The American envoy’s above speech to a group of Jewish lawyers from across Europe was poorly received. The speaker who followed Gutman, German attorney Nathan Gelbart, sharply rebuked the ambassador when he said: “The ‘Israel critic’ will never state ‘Jews go home’ but is questioning the legality of the incorporation of the State of Israel and therefore the right for the Jewish people to settle in their homeland. He will not say the Jews are the evil of the world but claim that the State of Israel is a major cause for instability and war in the region. There is no other country, no other people on this planet the ‘Israel critic’ would dedicate so much time and devotion as to the case of Israel.”
Despite the obvious antipathy of this administration toward Israel, President Obama defended his Middle East policy at a recent fundraiser in New York:
“I try not to pat myself too much on the back, but this administration has done more for the security of the state of Israel than any previous administration,” Obama said. “We don’t compromise when it comes to Israel’s security … and that will continue.”
The only attendees at that event who might have really believed the president’s words are those who get their news exclusively from The New York Times or mainstream network news. The better informed public (like you, dear reader) can draw its own conclusions. I would encourage all of you to view the latest Youtube video from the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Obama – The Anti-Israel President.