Obama Takes His Rage to World Stage
March 20, 2015
Why is The New York Times lamenting the souring of the personal relationship between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu instead of assuming Obama will subordinate his personal feelings to America’s national interest?
Well, probably because they know he won’t. He’s a man scorned — and he’s getting more and more dangerous. Scorned? Yes, because when you don’t bow to the wishes of a man with his personality, he apparently takes it as a personal affront.
That’s why we read in Politico, “In the wake of Netanyahu’s decisive reelection, the Obama administration is revisiting longtime assumptions about America’s role as a shield for Israel against international pressure.”
You want to know why? Well, let’s let the article speak for itself. It continues, “Angered by Netanyahu’s hardline platform toward the Palestinians, top Obama officials would not rule out the possibility of a change in American posture at the United Nations, where the U.S. has historically fended off resolutions hostile to Israel.”
What, exactly, is this hardline approach that enrages Obama so much that he’s willing to punish America’s best ally in the region?
It is simply that Netanyahu took a strong stance against the establishment of a Palestinian state. Why would he do that?
Well, how about because Palestinians want to extinguish the state of Israel? How about because it would endanger Israel’s national security and very survival? How about because of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s formation of a unity government with Hamas in June and his efforts, in December, to have the Palestinian Authority become part of the criminal court? Are these reasons enough?
Why should Obama presume to judge Netanyahu on that? Moreover, how could he possibly take this personally? Because that’s the prism through which he views the world. It’s all about him.
That’s why Obama was outraged when Netanyahu chose to speak to Congress about the Iranian nuclear threat, which Obama continues to ignore — or, arguably, enable. That’s why he refused to meet with Netanyahu when he was in Washington for that speech — again, putting his petty feelings above our national interests. And that’s also why he has yet to pick up the telephone to call Netanyahu to congratulate him for his electoral victory this week. Incidentally, I believe that’s also why he sent the Churchill bust back to the Brits. It’s about him and his feelings, our relationship with ally Britain be damned.
Be fair. No other president has behaved like this. So don’t defend it.
Obama had the audacity to accuse Netanyahu of partisanship for accepting the invitation to speak to Congress. It was Obama who overtly injected partisanship into that visit, by smearing Netanyahu with false charges of partisanship and attempting — outrageously — to defeat him in his reelection efforts by dispatching his political operatives to Israel.
Do I have proof that Obama dispatched those operatives? Not direct proof. Do I have proof that they had his blessing? He didn’t lift a finger to stop them when he could have, did he?
There is also the fact that Obama is conspicuously taking Netanyahu’s victory as his own personal defeat. Beyond dissing him with no congratulatory call, he is issuing stern, hostile statements.
One administration official said, “The positions taken by the prime minister in the last days of the campaign have raised very significant substantive questions that go far beyond just optics.” The official would not rule out America withdrawing its traditional support of Israel in issues before the United Nations.
Jeremy Ben-Ami, described by Politico as “president of the left-leaning pro-Israel group J Street,” said, “I do think the administration is going to look very closely at the possibility of either joining, or at least not blocking an internationally backed move at the U.N. to restate the parameters for ending the conflict. Netanyahu’s campaign statements (opposing a Palestinian state), added Ben-Ami, “make it a lot easier for the administration to justify going down a more international route.”
Are you getting this? Obama is considering punitive action against Israel because its prime minister, looking out for his nation’s security, would not cow to his demands. This, despite the fact that the Israeli people overwhelmingly agreed with Netanyahu, as they delivered him and his party a landslide victory.
Capping it all off, White House press secretary Josh Earnest unleashed on Netanyahu for allegedly damaging Israel’s democracy and undermining America’s relationship with Israel. Pot/kettle?
It gets worse. Earnest said the “administration is deeply concerned by the divisive rhetoric that seeks to marginalize Arab-Israeli citizens.” Obama is wagging his finger at others for divisive rhetoric — in the very process, no less, of issuing his own.
Still more outrageous, Earnest has said of the U.S. and Israel that “one of the things that binds our countries together so closely is our shared values,” but “these kinds of cynical, divisive Election Day tactics stand in direct conflict to those values.” What pumpkin truck do these people think we fell off of? Please tell me what “shared values” this administration has with Israel.
Is there any question whose side Obama is on anymore? Has he ever rebuked the Palestinians or any enemies of Israel for wishing or acting on its destruction?