Yesterday we spoke of Obama's speech given in Cairo and some of the reactions from the left and the right that were not favorable.
Today I see more reactions, but I am left with something at Israel Matzav, written by Carl in Jerusalem:
I wouldn't characterize this as the end of the American strategic alliance with Israel. But I would say it's on hold until at least January 2013 and that we Israelis are going to have to muddle through on our own.
The good news is that survey after survey here shows that Israelis recognize Obama for what he is and are rallying around our government. In his first five months in office, Obama has overplayed his hand. If there is no strategic alliance of which to speak, there is no competition between our relationship with America and doing what we see as best for Israel.
He is referring to a peace written by Caroline Glick, titled "The End of America’s Strategic Alliance with Israel?"
Obama claims that this policy will increase prospects for peace. But this is untrue. As Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his Washington Post interview last week, Obama’s trenchant campaign against Jewish construction in these areas has convinced the Palestinians they have no reason to be flexible in their positions towards Israel. Indeed, Obama’s assault on Israeli construction and his unsubstantiated, bigoted claim that the presence of Jews in Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem impedes progress towards peace ensures that there will be no agreement whatsoever between Israel and the Palestinians.
After all, why would the Palestinians make a deal with Israel when they know that Obama will blame Israel for the absence of a peace agreement?
What are the ramifications of Obama's words and naive belief that he can stop Jihad Extremists by bowing down to them and kissing their asses?
Israel unites around their leaders.
The only silver lining for Israelis from the president’s speech in Cairo and his general positions on the Middle East is that Obama has overplayed his hand. Far from bending to his will, a large majority of Israelis perceives Obama as a hostile force and has rallied in support of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu against the administration. This public support gives Netanyahu the maneuver room he needs to take the actions that Israel needs to take to defend against the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran and to assert its national rights and to defend itself against Palestinian terrorists and other Arab and non-Arab anti-Semites who wish it ill.
For decades Israel has had to stay it's hand, has had to back off on the eve of victory, so to speak, because America insisted on it. Israel has had to compromise their own security to please America and the International community when missiles rained down on their heads they had to watch the world call their defense of their country "disproportionate."
Charles Krauthammer discusses the myth, or to better phrase it, the outright lie Obama uttered in his speech in Cairo, specifically the one about settlements:
In his much-heralded "Muslim world" address in Cairo yesterday, Obama declared that the Palestinian people's "situation" is "intolerable." Indeed it is, the result of 60 years of Palestinian leadership that gave its people corruption, tyranny, religious intolerance and forced militarization; leadership that for three generations rejected every offer of independence and dignity, choosing destitution and despair rather than accept any settlement not accompanied by the extinction of Israel.
That's why Haj Amin al-Husseini chose war rather than a two-state solution in 1947. Why Yasser Arafat turned down a Palestinian state in 2000. And why Abbas rejected Olmert's even more generous December 2008 offer.
In the 16 years since the Oslo accords turned the West Bank and Gaza over to the Palestinians, their leaders built no roads, no courthouses, no hospitals, none of the fundamental state institutions that would relieve their people's suffering. Instead they poured everything into an infrastructure of war and terror, all the while depositing billions (from gullible Western donors) into their Swiss bank accounts.
Obama says he came to Cairo to tell the truth. But he uttered not a word of that. Instead, among all the bromides and lofty sentiments, he issued but one concrete declaration of new American policy: "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements," thus reinforcing the myth that Palestinian misery and statelessness are the fault of Israel and the settlements.
Blaming Israel and picking a fight over "natural growth" may curry favor with the Muslim "street." But it will only induce the Arab states to do like Abbas: sit and wait for America to deliver Israel on a platter. Which makes the Obama strategy not just dishonorable but self-defeating.
Glick is right, Israeli's will back their leader and say the hell with Obama and America and while this might not be the best thing for America in the long run, it is the best thing for Israel.
Just as Americans want their president to do what is best for America, Israeli's have the right and the obligation to do what is best for them and their security and they will back their Prime Minister when he chooses to do so, without America's interference.
If bombs rained down on America from any side for almost a decade, killing our people, you can bet your ass we would respond and respond strongly, yet we have held Israel back from putting and end to it once and for all.
That is not a friend, that is not an ally....that is a hindrance.
JPost discusses the new campaign against Obama in Israel, the one calling him out on what he is proving to be, an anti-Semite:
The protest was only a part of a wider campaign launched by activists on Wednesday, in which they will try to counter the American stance by portraying Obama as an anti-Semite whose policies would harm the Jewish state.
Over the coming days, activists plan to hang posters throughout the country of Obama wearing a keffiyeh, flanked by the words, "Anti-Semite," and "Jew-hater," written in red in both English and Hebrew. Another poster published by the campaign shows Obama shaking hands with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad against a background of a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion.
The Jewish National Front, which is backing the protests, said in a statement: "We decided to launch a campaign against the president of the United States and to say that Barack Hussein Obama is bad for the Jews."
"From the moment that he entered the White House, we have been feeling anti-Semitism and hatred toward Israel," the statement continued. "We have a number of plans, among which are demonstrations in the US and protests in front of the consulate and homes of the ambassadors."
The Obama administration, perhaps understanding he overplayed his hand, has started backtracking already:
The official acknowledged that Obama may have missed an opportunity during his speech to speak about the Jews' historical connection to Israel, framing Israel's legitimacy instead only within the context of persecution and the Holocaust.
He stressed that Obama had spoken about the Jews' historic connection to the land in the past.
"It was certainly not a deliberate omission this time," he said.
I call bullshit.
Not only do I believe that was a deliberate omission, because of the venue the speech was given at, but I think Obama would rather have his PR people do damage control than to have the courage to say it himself when it would have counted for something. In Cairo.
.
