The ‘Israel’ Solution
Vol: 103 Issue: 27 Tuesday, April 27, 2010
President Obama’s Syria policy of rapprochement instead of confrontation was questioned by a Congressional panel in the wake of charges that Syria shipped SCUD missiles to Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Syria’s government denied the report, saying that Israel made it all up as a pretext for a military strike.
While Syria was denying the shipment altogether, Hezbollah issued a statement confirming the Shipment That Never Was consisted of old, worn out SCUD missiles that Hezbollah claims are ‘unusable’.
While Syria denied it and Hezbollah confirmed it, Washington was preparing to return its ambassador to Damascus — after a five-year absence.
But the designated envoy, Robert Ford, still awaits confirmation by the full Senate, and while Obama may trust Syria’s intentions, many senators thankfully do not.
“It’s like they just spit right in our face,” said Republican Representative Dan Burton, citing a raft of moves by Syria that seem calculated to spark a war with Israel.
US Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman faded the heat on behalf of the administration, insisting it was time to return the ambassador, saying Washington needed a direct line to Syria’s leadership as it makes decisions that could have serious regional implications.
“Syria has made mistakes before,” Feltman said. “We need to be making our message to him loud and clear and directly.”
“Do we actually have a policy toward Syria, and is it in our best interest? What are we doing?” Democratic Representative Eliot Engel asked.
If there has been any message telegraphed to Assad since Obama assumed office, the message has been, “You’ve got a friend in Washington, DC.”
That would be a great message to send — to a friend.
Obama expressed his warmth for the UK by pointedly shipping a bust of Winston Churchill, a gift from the British government, back to the British Embassy.
During his Apology Tour ’09, Obama gave the Queen an iPod and Prime Minister Gordon Brown a DVD collection as representative tokens of how important that alliance is to his White House.
On the other hand, Syria has been a state sponsor of terrorism for the past forty years. Syria’s fingerprints are all over some of the most reprehensible terrorist attacks in living memory. The Syrian government is no less dedicated to the destruction of Israel than are its clients, Hezbollah and Hamas.
Syria is itself a client state of Iran, which uses Damascus as a weapons distribution center for the various terrorist groups aligned against Israel.
Iran is also supplying weapons and materiel to the Taliban and Iraqi insurgency for use against American forces in those countries.
So one can draw a line directly from Damascus south to the terrorist groups of the Bekaa Valley and on to Israel; or a line east directly from Damascus to Tehran — which branches out into both Iraq and Afghanistan where it threatens Americans.
And a third line from Damascus through Tehran to Pyongyang, where both countries go for their long range missiles and nuclear technology.
This line from Pyongyang runs through Seoul, over to Tokyo, and from there to the American West Coast.
The revelation of the SCUD missile transfer forced the administration, albeit reluctantly, to put the plan to return the ambassador to Damascus on temporary hold.
Temporary? Until when?
The administration’s foreign policy, such as it is, is so foolish – and so dangerous – that one almost hopes that the White House is as incompetent as it appears to be.
Because the alternative possibility – that it is deliberate and calculated – is even more chilling. It would mean that the administration is distancing our friends and coddling our enemies on purpose.
Obama’s Israel policy is unfathomable to anyone except the Palestinians, who recognize it as virtually identical to their own policies. Mahmoud Abbas is on record as saying exactly that.
Obama invited Mahmoud Abbas for an official visit to the White House over the weekend. According to Abbas, while he was there, he laid down the law to Obama.
“Since you, Mr. President and you, the members of the American administration, believe in this, it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution – impose it,” Abbas said on Saturday. “But don’t tell me it’s a vital national strategic American interest … and then not do anything.”
By embracing the Palestinian demand for Jerusalem, Obama has cut the legs out from under Israeli negotiators who find themselves with nothing to negotiate over. Obama has already declared all of former East Jerusalem as ‘occupied’ Palestinian territory.
(“East Jerusalem” includes both the Temple Mount and the Jewish Quarter.)
Obama dispatched former Clinton ambassador Martin Indyk to deliver the bad news to the Israelis. Speaking on Israeli Radio to ensure the widest popular audience possible, Indyk delivered Obama’s thrust directly into Israel’s back.
“If Israel is a superpower and does not need $3 billion in military assistance and the protection of the US, and the efforts of the US to isolate and pressure Iran, than go ahead and do what you like. If you need the US then you need to take American interests into account.”
That seems pretty clear. “You’ll do things our way or we’ll step back and let you die.”
To underscore the message and ensure that everybody knows where America now stands, Indyk also wrote an op-ed for publication in the New York Times.
“This is no longer just about helping a special ally resolve a debilitating problem. With 200,000 American troops committed to two wars in the greater Middle East and the U.S. president leading a major international effort to block Iran’s nuclear program, resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has become a U.S. strategic imperative,” wrote Indyk.
Did you catch that? The reason that America is as war is because of its support for Israel. This has become the new ‘narrative’ (ie; lie) being inserted into Democrat talking points.
It isn’t because the jihadists hate America – it’s because they hate Israel. Indyk wanted Israel to be sure and get the message, which he rephrased from his speech for repetition in his Times column.
“Given Israel’s dependence on the United States to counter the threat from Iran and to prevent its own international isolation, an Israeli prime minister would surely want to bridge the growing divide. Yet the shift in American perceptions seems to have gone unnoticed in Jerusalem”.
The message to Israel, like so many of this administration’s miscalculations, may well backfire, which is one reason I’m not sure if I am witnessing breathtaking incompetence or deliberate calculation.
If it is deliberate calculation, then the only possible explanation is that part of Obama’s redistributive change policy is the redistribution of power from the West to the Islamic Middle East.
There is a reason why the US narrative for the war is being recast as retaliation by the Islamic world for supporting Israel’s right to exist.
Obama and his crew have already decided that the war can’t be ‘won’ in the traditional sense, at least in part due to the reluctance to admit who the enemy really is.
While realpolitick demands some kind of solution to America’s problem, Political Correctness demands a solution that won’t anger the world’s billon-plus global Muslim population.
I’ve heard this argument before. Caiaphas argued for the execution of Jesus on the grounds that “It was expedient that one Man should die for the people, that the whole nation perish not.”
The Obama administration has evidently made a similar calculation. It’s a simple, although naïve plan. It comes down to defeating the Islamic hordes opposed to Israel’s existence — or the Islamic hordes defeating Israel, in which case it is a problem solved.
It is betrayal most foul, and it makes one sick at heart with shame. But it is also entirely consistent with Bible prophecy.
“And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” (Zechariah 12:3)
Obama has clearly decided to shake off the burden and let the problem solve itself.
I would have bet that this kind of betrayal of Israel by America would not have been possible during the Church Age. I felt sure there were enough Christians remaining that no American president would dare turn his back on Israel until after the Rapture.
But I admit, I didn’t anticipate anybody like Barack Obama, either.