While Jews in the U.S. voted mainly for Obama, he had made clear, and I wrote about it, how he was going to tilt American foreign policy to "respect" (read that as "submit to") the Islamic world. I know that they got swept up in the utopianism of "change" and the distaste for George Bush. However, I believe that history will judge them as critically as the Jews in the United States during the Shoah are judged for abandoning their brethern in Europe. Notwithstanding all of the voices supporting Obama, I still believe that his pro-Arabism could be a turning point in the decline of the United States, far more important than economic problems.
Yet, even though I foresaw it, I still am dismayed to read how quickly this is going to happen, and I know what the effects will be initially on the Jews of Israel, and afterwards on the rest of the "Free" World.
Ultimately Obama's submission to Islamism is far more dangerous than the Bush/Cheney oil based dealings with the Saudis. Americans have a limit on what they will do for money, and ultimately they know that their dealings with Arab oil sheiks is not important enough to sacrifice Jewish lives. However, when people like Obama reject the financial basis for philo-Arabism, and turn it into a Tolerist "respect" for the Islamist "value" system, we Jews are in deep trouble, because as we are now seeing on campus and in street protests, Jews are equated to Nazis and thus are no longer morally "equivalent" to their enemies (as much a moral travesty as that is) but in fact are held to be lower than the terrorists who target civilians. Obama's reaching out to the Islamists will result in a change in American culture and not a good one.
If we Jews ourselves cannot see this, how can we expect others to help us?
As is often the case, Caroline Glick from the Jerusalem Post, writes so well about the Obama problem:
Honest Obama and Iran
By Caroline B. Glick
|
||
|
http://www.JewishWo
Obama's first phone call to a foreign leader was to PLO chieftain Mahmoud Abbas last Wednesday morning. And this past Tuesday, Obama gave his first television interview as president to al-Arabiya pan-Arabic television network.
In that interview Obama explained the rationale of his approach to the Muslim world. "We are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest," the new president said.
Obama distanced his administration from its predecessor by asserting that
rather than dictate how Muslims should behave, his administration plans, "to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions
that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at
least of achieving some breakthroughs.
In short, Obama argues that the root of Islamic world's opposition to the US is its shattered confidence in America's intentions. By following a policy of contrition for Bush's "cowboy diplomacy," and acting with deference in its dealing with the Muslim world, then in his view, a new era of US-Islamic relations will ensue.
Obama's honesty was a hot subject during the presidential campaign. Many
analysts claimed that he was a closet moderate who only made far leftist pronouncements about "spreading the wealth
around," and meeting with Iran "without preconditions,
Others argued that Obama was a man of his word. From his voting records in the Illinois Senate and the US Senate, and in light of his long associations with domestic and foreign policy radicals, these commentators predicted that if elected, Obama's policies would be far to the left of center.
Judging by Obama's actions since entering office last week, it appears that the latter group of analysts was correct. Obama is not a panderer.
Between his economic "stimulus" package, which involves a massive intrusion by federal government on the free market; his decision to close the US military prison at Guantanamo Bay; his dispatch of former Senator George Mitchell to the Middle East to begin pushing for a Palestinian state two weeks before Israel's general elections; his announcement that he will begin withdrawing US forces from Iraq; his repeated signaling that the US will no longer treat the fight against Islamic terrorism as a war; and his attempts to engineer a diplomatic rapprochement with Iran, Obama has shown that his policy pronouncements on the campaign trail were serious. The policies he outlined are the policies with which he intends to govern.
On a strategic level the most significant campaign promise that Obama is wasting no time in keeping is his attempt to diplomatically engage with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is the central sponsor of the global jihad. Hizbullah, Hamas, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad are all Iranian proxies. And, as is becoming increasingly undeniable, al Qaida too enjoys a close relationship with the mullahs.
The 9/11 Commission's final report noted that several of the September 11 hijackers transited Iran en route to the US. And in recent weeks we learned that after spending the past six years in Iran where he played a major role in directing the insurgency in Iraq, Osama bin Laden's eldest son Sa'ad has moved to Pakistan.
Beyond its sponsorship of terrorism, due to its nuclear weapons program Iran is the largest emerging threat to global security. Together with its genocidal rhetoric against Israel, its calls for the destruction of the US, and its incitement for the overthrow of the governments of Egypt and Jordan, among others, Iran is the single largest source of instability in the region. Moreover, as US Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Iran is working actively in South and Central America to destabilize the Western Hemisphere.
Obama caused an uproar when during a Democratic primary debate last spring he said that he would meet with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. In subsequent months, he sought to soften his declaration. It is now apparent that his statement was not a slip of the tongue. It was a pledge.
The Iranians for their part have reacted to the new president with a mixture of
relief and contempt. On November 6, two days after the US election, Ahmadinejad sent a congratulatory letter to Obama.
Ahmadinejad'
In his missive to Obama, Ahmadinejad laid out Iranian preconditions for a diplomatic engagement with America. Among other things, Ahmadinejad demanded that the US send all its military forces back to America. As he put it, the US should, "keep its interventions within its own country's borders."
Ahmadinejad further hinted that the US should end its support for Israel and
withdraw its forces from Iraq and Afghanistan. In his words, "In the sensitive Middle East region... the expectation is
that the unjust [US] actions of the past 60 years [since Israel was established] will give way to a policy encouraging
the full rights of all nations, especially the oppressed nations of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan.
The Western media made much of the fact that some conservative press organs in Iran condemned Ahmadinejad for sending the letter. They claimed that this meant that Ahmadinejad himself was tempering his animosity towards the US in the wake of Obama's election. But in fact, most of the conservative media in Iran viewed the letter as an attack against Obama who they attacked with racial slurs.
Sobh-e Sadegh, published by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and controlled by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei wrote in an editorial on November 10 that negotiations with Obama would only be worthwhile if, "coexistence with a nuclear Iran and acceptance of its regional role are part of the US negotiating position."
On November 11, Borna News Agency, which is aligned with Ahmadinejad called Obama "a house slave."
In general, Iran's government controlled media outlets reported that
Ahmadinejad'
This week Ahmadinejad made Iran's preconditions for negotiations even more explicit. In statements at a political rally on Tuesday, and in a television interview given by his advisor on Wednesday, Ahmadinejad said that Iran has two conditions for engaging Washington. First, the US must abandon its alliance with Israel. In his words, to have relations with Iran, the US must first "stop supporting the Zionists, outlaws and criminals."
The second condition was communicated Wednesday by Ahmadinejad'
Notably, also on Wednesday, the US-based International Institute for Strategic Studies released a report concluding that Iran will have a sufficient quantity of highly enriched uranium to make an atomic bomb in a matter of months.
To summarize, Iran's conditions for meeting with the Obama administration are
that the US abandon Israel, (which as Ahmadinejad reiterated at his annual Holocaust denial conference on Tuesday must be
annihilated)
For its part, the Obama administration is signaling that Iran's conditions haven't swayed it from its path towards a diplomatic engagement of the mullahs. In her first statement as US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice said Tuesday, "We look forward to engaging in vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran."
And in his al Arabiya interview, Obama implied that the US may be willing to overlook Iran's support for terrorism when he referred to Iran's "past" support for terrorist organizations. Obama placed a past tense modifier on Iranian sponsorship of terrorism even through just last week a US naval ship intercepted an Iranian vessel smuggling arms to Hamas in Gaza on the Red Sea. Due to an absence of political authorization to seize the Iranian ship, the US Navy was compelled to permit it to sail on to Syria.
The most sympathetic interpretation of Obama's desire to move ahead with diplomatic engagement of Iran in spite of the mullocracy's preconditions is that he has simply failed to countenance the significance of Iran's demands. If this is the case, then it is apparent that Obama remains convinced that the US is indeed to blame for the supposed crisis of confidence that the Islamic world suffers from in its dealings with America. By this reasoning, it is for the US, not for Teheran to show its own sincerity, because the US, rather than Teheran is to blame for the dismal state of relations prevailing between the two countries.
If in fact Obama truly intends to move ahead with his plan to engage the mullahs, then he will effectively legitimize — if not adopt — Teheran's preconditions that the US end its alliance with Israel which Iran seeks to destroy, and accept a nuclear-armed Iran. And under these circumstances, Israel's next government — which all opinion polls conclude will be led by Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu — will have to adopt certain policies.
First, in keeping with his campaign rhetoric, Netanyahu will have to make preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons his most urgent priority upon entering office.
And second, to withstand US pressure to allow the Obama administration time to develop its ties with Teheran, (time which Iran will use to build its first nuclear bomb), Netanyahu will need to form as large and wide a governing coalition as possible. All issues that divide the Israeli electorate between Right and Left must be temporarily set aside.
In the age of Honest Obama, Israel is alone in recognizing the necessity of preventing Iran from acquiring the means to destroy the Jewish state. Consequently, Netanyahu's government will need to proceed with all deliberate speed to take whatever actions are necessary to prevent Israel's destruction.
__._,_.___