Nature abhors a vacuum, so does power. As Barack Obama fails daily, Binyamin Netanyahu has risen to the challenge of leadership.
Last Thursday and yesterday Barack Obama attempted to force Israel into a negotiating posture which amounts to national suicide. As he did when he ordered an attack on Libya then flew to Rio, Barack Obama dropped his bombs on Israel then flew off to a European vacation. As he did when Bill Clinton came to the White House, Barack Obama waved good-bye and surrendered the floor to Bibi Netanyahu.
We know what European leaders will say and do while Obama visits because we have seen it before – they will pump up his ego with all sorts of public spectacles while privately they mock him. In Great Britain we learn today that the British police have codenamed Obama “Chalaque”. That codename is a Punjabi word which “is sometimes used when we want to denigrate someone who we think is too clever for their own good.”
Chalaque indeed. What boobery is it that challenges someone like Binyamin Netanyahu and then abandons the stage? Tonight Netanyahu will speak with the very group that Obama spoke to yesterday. Tomorrow, Netanyahu will address a joint session of Congress. It is doubtful, despite the polite and warm words that will be utilized at both venues, that Netanyahu will rescind the sharp rebuke he dealt Obama last week.
Some in the hausfrau left applaud Obama’s flog and flee tactic as some sort of brilliant move. They applaud as some sort of three dimensional chess move Obama’s odd behavior. Obama knob polisher Steve Clemons is cited as somehow on to hidden wisdom when he wrote, “I get Barack “Rocky Balboa” Obama now He’s letting Netanyahu kick crap out of him round after round & wearing Bibi down. Obama stays in ring.” Somehow these rarely traveled backyard foreign policy experts do not understand the reaction against Obama’s words is, according to Gallup “overwhelming and bipartisan because support for Israel in the United States has almost never been stronger and is trending towards Israel even more so:” Barack Obama and his Big Media allies think they can fool Americans, but as of a month ago at least 63% say “stick with Israel” not “stick it to Israel.”
It is difficult to discern what the Obama apologists are defending. On the one hand some of them say that Obama said nothing unusual. On the other hand they write that Obama has leveled a masterstroke of foreign policy. The knee-pads clad Peter Beinart rejoiced in the masterstroke contingent of Obama worshipers. Beinart wrote a near incomprehensible essay extolling Obama’s genius which declared “In his Mideast speech, President Obama rejected Bush’s blind allegiance to Israel and put himself squarely on the side of human rights.”
On the side of human rights? Tell that to gay people and women Petey.
Obama defenders really want to have it both ways. They say Obama said nothing new but at the same time it was a brilliant and bold speech and realignment of American policy. Which is it? Even the JournoListers are perplexed and trying to figure out what Obama means or intends to do:
“The tension here is that while Obama advanced the new framework out of “urgency” — and while perhaps, in the medium term, that will be borne out — there’s no accompanying action, no plan or institutional move to restart the peace process and make it real.”
The New York Times is confused too by the foolish flood of words from Mr. Footloose and fancy free:
“WATCHING President Obama deal with the cascading uprisings in the Middle East this year has been a little like watching the Army Corps of Engineers try to stay one city ahead of the Mississippi River floodwaters. Every week, it seems, has brought a new decision: [snip]
The contradictory approaches have startled some of America’s allies. [snip]
Now, as Mr. Obama heads to Europe, the question is: Which American president are they dealing with? The hard-headed pragmatist who bombed Benghazi to prevent a massacre and then violated Pakistan’s sovereignty to knock off Osama bin Laden? Or the former law professor who has now promised 400 million people — among them dissidents in Bahrain and Iran who say they have been abandoned — that “if you take the risks that reform entails, you will have the full support of the United States”?
“This is only part of a doctrine,” said Vali Nasr, who left the State Department a month ago after working with the late Richard Holbrooke on Afghanistan and Pakistan. “It explains the ideal, but he has to couple it with an implementation. [snip]
Mr. Obama’s bet, it appears, is that half a doctrine is all he needs right now. It is a moment when American policy needs coherence, even as Mr. Obama insists that a consistent set of tactics is impossible. [snip]
Still, comparing the Arab uprisings to the American Revolution or the civil rights movement is not without risk.“
Does anyone know what is going on?
We do know that in 2008 Barack Obama flim-flamed Jewish voters and Israel supporters when he went before the same group, AIPAC, and stated that Jerusalem must remain undivided and in safe Israeli control.
We also know that Barack Obama, because of the logic of his statements, demands that Israel be cut in half. By demanding that “The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state” Obama was in effect saying that Israel could not be a contiguous state – it would have to be dismembered If Gaza and the West Bank are made “contiguous” it would require a territorial link that would chop Israel in half. Israel would have to be dismembered.
Netanyahu, to Obama directly, stated the obvious:
“”For there to be peace, the Palestinians will have to accept some basic realities. The first is that while Israel is prepared to make generous compromises for peace, it cannot go back to the 1967 lines,” he said, as Obama gazed intently with a hand under his chin. “It’s not going to happen. Everybody knows it’s not going to happen. And I think it’s time to tell the Palestinians forthrightly it’s not going to happen.”
A number of lawmakers have echoed those concerns, including Reps. Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.) – who warned that the 1967 borders “were were simply not defensible” – and Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), who said the move would threaten Israel’s security. [snip]
Another critic, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah), has promised to introduce a resolution rejecting Obama’s position on Israel’s border lines.
“This is not only ridiculous, but dangerous,” Hatch said this week.”
“Ridiculous” and “dangerous” are good words to describe what is happening in the world while Barack Obama occupies the White House and Air Force One.
Saudi Arabia, disgusted with Obama’s behavior during the Egypt crisis is now looking for new strategic partners, including China. Pakistan too is running away from the United States. “Pakistan has asked China to build a naval base at its south-western port of Gwadar and expects the Chinese navy to maintain a regular presence there, a plan likely to alarm both India and the US.” The Pakistani defense minister referred to “our Chinese brothers” when he confirmed the very provocative move of a naval base near India.
Not only is this an audacious move by China, a port far from Chinese shores, it is a direct challenge to India – nuclear armed India. Obama’s response: proceed with the European vacation.
A well armed terrorist attack against a major Pakistani naval air base in the center of Karachi? No reason to worry, it’s time to vacation. Over one hundred dead from tornadoes in a state that he did not win in 2008 and will not win in 2012? Devastation as far as the eye can see? Time to vacation and drive the car into the ditch, again.
While Barack Obama travels and pubs it up, Bibi Netanyahu is fighting the good fight for the people of Israel. Where’s our Bibi? All we have is a Bobo.