Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Obama Agonistes: Or, why my back porch is an Obstacle to Peace

Over all, I was pleased with Bibi Netanyahu's speech. I was especially pleased with his academic correction of Obama's distorted view of Israel's genesis. (His father must be very proud.)

It was very hard for Netanyahu to pronounce the words 'Palestinian State' (as it was for a lot of us to hear them). Furthermore, fulfilling the conditions that he set down would create a tolerable situation. True, the Arabs will not (in the near future) accept them. However, I don't think the PM was being disingenuous. These really are minimum requirements for our survival. If the Arabs aren't willing to engage them, they will simply have missed another opportunity (and shown that nothing short of our disappearance will satisfy them).

Obama's reaction, though, was really very disappointing. He was only slightly supportive, and remains obsessed with settlement construction (as if that's what is holding everything up). I can only conclude the following:

1) He is a radical, Leftist ideologue, who forgets that politics is the art of the possible.
2) He has swallowed the entire Arab/Muslim line and cannot (or will not) see beyond it.
4) He has no respect for Israeli democracy, insofar as the positions enunciated by the PM reflect a broad consensus (aided and abetted in this by the hofjuden Rahm Emanuel, IPF and 'J Street')
5) He thinks he's the unfettered ruler of the United States and the rest of the world.
6) He is dangerous for World Peace, in his naive approach to would be World Powers.

The United States Constitution is based upon an intricate set of checks and balances. World Diplomacy is similarly structured. Hopefully, we will soon see the checks to his messianic zeal.
[As to what Israel should do, aside from support its Prime Minister, I think this warrants thought.]

2 comments:

Anonymous said...

methinks you exaggerate, to the point of hysteria.
obama understands politics *very* well.
he has not swallowed the muslim line whole, and has made statements sympathetic with israels cause. he just has a mistaken belief that the muslim world thinks like the western world, and a compromise can be worked out; it cant, as things stand.
he has not undermined bibis position, he just disagrees with it. [incidentally, insofar as prominent and influential israelis have little respect for israeli democracy -- i think here of justice aharon barak and the editor of haaretz, specifically his statements to condi -- why should barak?]
megalomania is a common side-effect of the presidency; no reason he should be different from many others in this regard.
#6 is just over the top. it is rhetoric without substantiation. jeff, you have a lot to say, but it is difficult to take you seriously if you make statements like this.

Jeffrey Woolf said...

1) I really am not hysterical, only deeply concerned. There is little in my posting that hasn't been said by others (Glick, Pipes, Kramer and others).

2)As Motti Kedar pointed out, his Cairo Speech is carefully tailored to Muslim theological requirements. His statements of support for Israel are easily squared with Muslim theology. Furthermore, his justification for Israel's existence based upon the Shoah calls our very legitimacy into question.