Barack Obama: A Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

Mike L.

(Cross-Posted at Israel Thrives)

WASHINGTON – US President Barack Obama told Orthodox Jewish leaders on Tuesday that PA President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority may be too politically weak to deliver a peace agreement and that he fears that the window of opportunity for a deal is closing.

If an opportunity for a negotiated end of hostilities between the Arabs and Jews in the Middle East is closing it is, in part, because of Obama's own behavior. The counterproductive demand for "total settlement freeze" drove Mahmoud Abbas up his tree where he resides to this day. Obama put Abbas in a position in which he could not afford to be seen as softer on Israel than the American president and thus refuses to negotiate.

Nevertheless, Obama said he intends to continue to promote the two-state solution. In a meeting with Orthodox Union leaders at the White House Obama said that he had been consistent in his support for Israel throughout his first term as president.

Continue to support the two-state solution? He never supported it to begin with. In fact, it is Obama who has done much to undermine any possibility of a negotiated two-state agreement. This may not have been his intention, but it was his effect. Furthermore, Obama has been anything but consistent in his support for Israel. On the contrary, Obama has been arbitrary and capricious, not consistent. One cannot tell Jewish people where they may be allowed to build housing for themselves in the ancient Jewish capital of Jerusalem and then claim to be supportive of Israel. It simply does not work that way among any but the most dhimmitudenous among us.

Obama said that differences with Israel were in part due to the quirk of history of a centrist US government and a right-wing Israeli government coexisting. He noted that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wanted to act without restraints, but that most leaders wanted the same.

It's debatable just how "right-wing" the Netanyahu government is, given the fact that it supports two states for two peoples and it is equally debatable just how "centrist" the Obama administration is. In any case, does Obama think that Netanyahu is his untrained poodle that wants to act without restraints? What an unbelievably imperious remark. So Netanyahu wanted to "act without restraints" and it was Obama who needed to restrain him? Restrain him from doing what, exactly?

Nevertheless, he stressed that he and Netanyahu got along well. He noted that his statement on settlement construction freeze was based on the position of the four previous administrations.

The first sentence in the above paragraph is a lie and the second one is a deception. Anyone who has been following Israel-US relations knows that Obama dislikes Netanyahu, which is why he could say to French President Nicolas Sarkozy, "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!" when he thought the mic was off.

More importantly, while previous US presidents may have opposed the settlements it was only Obama who turned a freeze on settlement construction into a precondition for negotiations, thus ruining any possibility for an end of hostilities. Obama. No one else.

Obama noted that both Israel and the Palestinians felt the US pressure to reach a compromise which created tensions. He stressed that although Israel felt it was the only one being pressed, Washington did the same with the Palestinians. Obama added that the fact that the US was more responsive toward Israel created a problem with the Palestinians.

More nonsense.

While Obama demanded that Israel cease construction even within existing settlements he asked nothing of the Palestinians other than that they show up for negotiations. He didn't even require them to stop inciting their own people with genocidally racist Jew hatred.

Obama stressed that his commitment to Israel could not be questioned but that he could not be expected to agree with Israel on all matters.

Well, this much is certainly true. We can't expect Obama to agree with Israel on all matters. For example, Israel is generally opposed to the Muslim Brotherhood because the Brotherhood is historically derived from, in part, Nazi Germany and wishes to impose Sharia throughout the entire region, which would make Jewish people, once again, either dhimmis or dead.

Obama is not opposed to the Brotherhood and referred to the rise of radical Islam throughout the Middle East as a good thing.  Think of Rosa Parks, he said.

So, no, we cannot expect Obama and Israel to agree upon everything.

That much is certain.