New York Times Makes It Official: Obama Has Shifted U.S. Policy Against Israel
By Jonathan Tobin
forwarded with major commentary by Emanuel A. Winston,
Freeman Center Middle East Analyst & Commentator
April 22, 2010
President Barack Hussein Obama’s policy toward the Jewish Nation/State of Israel is ominously hostile. Some will recall that Adolph Hitler developed a plan to blame the Jews for Germany’s economic collapse into Super Hyper Inflation.
Never mind the twisted logic that the minuscule population of Jews had mysteriously caused the Deutschmark to become worthless paper which was printed by the tonnage by Hitler’s regime. The people were in pain over the government’s mishandling of the economy and welcomed Hitler’s demand to blame the Jews.
Presently, Obama’s regime is similarly printing tonnage of green paper money while at the same time spending trillions America doesn’t have. Someone must take responsibility for a proud nation in free-fall over the mortgage fiasco, initiated by Freddie Mac and Fannie May who pushed lending to poor voters who not only didn’t have a credit rating but could never pay a monthly mortgage fee.
Many were in a welfare category which Obama understood very well as he was an experienced 'community organizer' who wanted indigent people to have a house paid for by working taxpayers - or the so-called rich who were already paying most of the nation’s taxes.
Obama and the Left Liberal Democrats needed voters in the black and Latino communities who would flock to unaffordable mortgages where ‘somehow’ they wouldn’t really have to pay. But, they were joyfully delighted to vote for a President who looked like them...one of their own...who promised to take the savings of those who worked and give it to the non-working poor. This was called "re-distribution of wealth".
But, every Rainbow touches the ground and disappears. Now the only problem was to find someone to blame for
bankrupting the country. As Hitler did, the logical choice was the Jews who had nothing to do with the German nation’s failure. But, who would listen to the denial of the Jews when a great charismatic orator told the crowds that it wasn’t their fault or the fault of the State, it wasn’t the fault of the good German people - it was the Jews. Hitler had Joseph Goebbels, the newspapers, the radio and the judges in the courts to pick up the idea that the German nation was suffering - because of the Jews.
Now it’s 2010 and Barack Hussein Obama is whipping up the idea that the Jews of Israel are somehow not complying with Obama’s idea of national suicide for Israel. Since the hard-working Jews of Israel and the Jews of America are really one, clearly, the imminent further collapse of America’s dollar and her high unemployment meet the test and logic of Hitler’s policies of prodding good Germans into a rage against the Jews. Why not employ the same plan to explain away Obama’s failure in managing the American economy?
It really doesn’t matter where the fuse is lit, people in pain will accept any rationale to explain away their hurt, their lost money and their lost security. They always need to blame someone else.
Note! The attack against Goldman-Sachs, directing the peoples’ anger at Wall Street - despite the revealed facts that the start of America’s collapse was in the American government and the deliberate continuation of the Welfare State policy by the politicians behind Fannie May and Freddy Mac as well as those "community organizers" - like Barack Hussein Obama who was ‘guiding’ ACORN.
Now we have OBAMA-CARE Welfare with working taxpayers’ money picking up the bill in a planned transfer-of-the-wealth scheme bragged about by Obama in his election campaign which is beyond the wildest dreams of America every actually paying off the huge debt that it costs. But yet, Obama, Pelosi, Reid and the Democrats are spending frantically with money America doesn’t have - except for the newly printed dollar which is worth less and less.
Obama is following Hitler’s plan to devalue the dollar through Hyper Inflation which must come soon and using devalued dollars to pay off the humongous national debt. But, Obama still needs someone to blame besides himself and the Democrats. That process started within the first days of Obama taking office as he attacked the Jewish Nation/State of Israel to light the fuse of Hitlerian Jew Hatred.
Jewish World Review April 19, 2010 / 5 Iyar 5770 The New York Times Makes It Official: Obama Has Shifted U.S. Policy Against Israel
By Jonathan Tobin
If there were any lingering doubts in the minds of Democrats who care about Israel that the president they helped elect has fundamentally altered American foreign policy to the Jewish state's disadvantage, they are now gone. The New York Times officially proclaimed the administration's changed attitude in a front-page story last week that ought to send chills down the spine of anyone who believed Barack Obama when he pledged in 2008 that he would be a loyal friend of Israel.
In the view of the paper's Washington correspondents, the moment that signaled what had already been apparent to anyone who was paying attention was the president's declaration at a Tuesday news conference that resolving the Middle East conflict was "a vital national security interest of the United States." Mr. Obama went on to state that the conflict is "costing us significantly in terms of blood and treasure," thus attempting to draw a link between Israel's attempts to defend itself with the safety of American troops who are fighting Islamist terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. By claiming the Arab-Israeli conflict to be a "vital national security interest" that must be resolved, the "frustrated" Obama is making it clear that he will push hard to impose a solution on the parties.
The significance of this false argument is that it not only seeks to wrongly put the onus on Israel for the lack of a peace agreement but that it also now attempts to paint any Israeli refusal to accede to Obama's demands as a betrayal in which a selfish Israel is stabbing America in the back. The response from Obama to this will be, the Times predicts, "tougher policies toward Israel," since it is, in this view, ignoring America's interests and even costing American lives.
The problem with this policy is that the basic premise behind it is false. Islamists may hate Israel, but that is not why they are fighting the United States. They are fighting America because they rightly see the West and its culture, values, and belief in democracy as antithetical to their own beliefs and a threat to its survival and growth as they seek to impose their medieval system everywhere they can. Americans are not dying because Israelis want to live in Jerusalem or even the West Bank or even because there is an Israel. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, that catastrophe would certainly be cheered in the Arab and Islamic world, but it would not end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, cause Iran to stop its nuclear program, or put al-Qaeda out of business. In fact, a defeat for a country allied with the United States would strengthen Iran and al-Qaeda.
But undeterred by the facts and the experience of a generation of failed peace plans that have always foundered not on Israeli intransigence but rather on the absolute refusal of any Palestinian leader to put his signature on a document that will legitimize a Jewish state within any borders, Obama is pushing ahead. In the view of unnamed administration officials who have helpfully explained Obama's policies to the Times, it is now only a matter of time before the president puts forward his own peace plan. And as the debate on health care illustrated, Obama will attempt to shove his diktat down the throats of the Israelis, whether the vast majority of Americans who support Israel like it or not.
As the Times notes, there is a great irony to Obama's blazing anger at the Israelis and the urgency with which he views the issue. It comes at a time when the overwhelming majority of Israelis have "become disillusioned with the whole idea of resolving the conflict. Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government has long been skeptical about the benefits of a peace deal with the Palestinians. But skepticism has taken root in the Israeli public as well, particularly after Israel saw little benefit from its traumatic withdrawal from Gaza in 2005." In other words, after countless concessions made to the Arabs at Oslo, and in subsequent accords and after offers from Israel of a state comprising Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem were refused by the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008, most Israelis have finally figured out that the other side doesn't want to end the conflict. And they are baffled as to why Obama and his advisers haven't come to the same all too obvious conclusion.
But with the Obama administration now so passionately committed to hammering Israel even as it apparently neglects to take action to stop Iran's nuclear program, the question remains what will be the response of pro-Israel Democrats. As Obama draws closer to all-out diplomatic war on Israel's government, the obligation for principled Democrats to speak up in open opposition to these policies cannot be avoided. While many Democrats have sought to confuse the issue or avoid conflict with the president, stories such as the one on the front page of the Times makes it clear that sooner or later, pro-Israel Democrats are going to have to decide whether partisan loyalties will trump their support for the Jewish state's survival.