Wednesday, March 25, 2015

Which Side Is Obama On?

This morning the Wall Street Journal revisits President Obama’s recent tantrum about the Israeli elections. It makes points that I and many others have already made.

For those who do not grasp the stakes, here they are again:

Yet even if you believe the main challenge in the region is getting Israel to cede more territory to the Palestinians, that day won’t happen until Israelis feel secure. But Israelis can be forgiven for feeling the opposite with a raging civil war in Syria, Islamic State and an offshoot of al Qaeda operating near the Golan Heights, Iranian General Qasem Soleimani leading Shiite militias in Iraq, and a U.S. Administration sounding and acting as if Iran can be a more constructive partner for peace than Israel.

Surrounded by a collapsing Muslim civilization, what would you like the Israelis to do? Does anyone who is not an anti-Semite believe that the Israelis are at fault for the wars that rage in their region?

The ugly prejudice of anti-Semitism scapegoats a small group of successful people and blames them for other peoples’ failures. Why have Jews been a convenient scapegoat? As Prime Minister Netanyahu said, Jews have been far too passive when faced with eliminationist rhetoric and actions.

The Journal editorial continues:

The main threat to Middle Eastern peace today—even beyond Islamic State—is the rise of an imperial Iran using its own troops or proxies effectively to colonize Arab capitals. The prospect of an imperial Iran on the cusp of becoming a nuclear power has all of America’s traditional Arab friends in the region now closer to Mr. Netanyahu’s position on the Middle East than to Mr. Obama’s.

As it happens, the Israelis are not the only ones who understand the main threat to Middle East peace today. The Egyptians understand. The Saudis understand. The emirates and Jordan understand. The French understand. Only our benighted president buries his head in the sand on this issue.

Speaking of the remarks that White House chief of staff Denis McDonough made to J Street—quoted on this blog yesterday-- the Journal said:

In a day when the President’s chief of staff invokes the lexicon of Palestinian terrorists to describe Israel’s democracy, Americans and the world are left to wonder whose side the leader of the free world is on.

It is not a complicated issue. You are either on the side of Western Judeo-Christian civilization or you are on the side of the Iranian and Palestinian terrorists.

Only a stone-cold bigot would find it difficult to choose sides.


Dennis said...


JP said...

I'm going to agree with Dennis.

Obama is on Obama's side.

Leo G said...

I just don't know what to say. Is this guy for real? Can the world survive another 2 years of this?

Sam L. said...

Stone cold bigot? That's...raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacist!

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

Every day I get the news and I'm astonished by something Obama and/or his Administration does. It's actually quite amazing. Every. Single. Day. I really cannot gauge what he is up to or what his endgame is. Some have suggested he wants a deal with Iran to be a "legacy" achievement. But how much of an achievement would it be to allow our greatest global enemy to expand its influence over a region that is so critical to our interests? It's so thoughtless and ridiculous that there must be some other calculus we're not considering. For example, did Obama receive credible intelligence that Putin was making a serious play for Iran and we're trying to trump his influence with our own? If that is the case, the Iranians must be enjoying themselves immensely. And if this is the case, we have blundered so magnificently in our regional strategy as to seem like the foreign policy minds in a place like Turks & Caicos. What's in it for us? I cannot see anything at all. What's Valerie Jarrett get from this? After all, she was born in Iran.

There was a time when I thought I had Obama figured out. I thought he was a classic Lefty, narcissistically romanticizing the plight of "the little guy with no voice." But his affinity for the Iranian regime totally turns that kind of dogma on its head. He might not like Israel, whose existential fears might not be of interest to him. But Iran's ambition to be the Middle East hegemon is clear. Iran's foreign policy has no alignment with our interests, on any level. And the Iranian theocracy gives no room for alliance with the Left's secular ambitions. Obama's refusal to support the protesters during Iran's 2009-10 "Green Revolution" was remarkably strange. Did we not have the moral courage to engage and support freedom in Iran?

What gives? I'm getting tired of being astonished.

Ignatius Acton Chesterton OCD said...

So which side are we on? Israel's? Really? Are we even taking sides? Obama's pettiness with Israel is indicative of something much more insidious and corrosive. It reflects a disconnection from our spiritual roots. The rot goes deeper than just one man.

If a civilization believes in nothing greater than itself, it will stand for nothing. We live in a time of material abundance and religious decline. We have trendy "spiritualities" that impose no self-discipline, where believers seek a divine presence and miraculously come up with one that expects nothing of them, save loving nature and spouting mantras about how "mean people suck" (excluding themselves, of course). Amidst all the global insanity, we observe Christendom's hasty abandonment of Christianity, which connects us to Judaism and the Jews.

We've replaced our shared faith with a religion of buying more stuff... where avarice is a form of civic virtue. We've replaced Jesus of Nazareth with the worship of self. After all, "I deserve it!" And self as god is the genesis of non-belief, because we all know that, in the end, we're not worth it. Without the wisdom of a true adult in the room, we are left to follow nothing but our own ambition, pleasure, conquest, etc. As our society abandons the transcendent, there will be another civilization whose cosmology animates their actions in a powerful way. These are the people who will bring the apocalypse to the infidel neighborhood near you. There won't be enough bullets, drones or cyber-weapons to stop such an oncoming horde. Who will fight for something greater than themselves? "More stuff" is not a cause worth fighting for. The West today believes in collateralized debt obligations and never-ending government entitlements. We delight in material distractions, digital pleasures, and a blissful denial that evil can and does exist in the world. "I'm okay, you're okay." No, we're not okay. We will not stand up to face evil if we don't believe it exists. After all, facing evil might negatively impact non-defense stock prices. There is something seriously wrong. We are fast becoming agnostic degenerates with no spiritual or philosophical moorings. "Anything goes" creates a moral vacuum, and nature abhors a vacuum. As we broadcast our entertainment filth around the globe, societies will push back. If we keep pushing, they'll protect their way of life. If we believe in nothing, if we stand for nothing, peoples who do believe in something will take us on. And we'll beg the conquerors to let us keep our glowing boxes. Those who will stand for the integrity of Christendom are "bitter clingers." Reactionaries. Stupid religious wackos. Fringe people. People who don't even have a college degree. (Spit-spit)

Katielee4211 said...

It isn't at all astonishing if you answer the question with the answer that seems to be the one everyone wants to avoid. He's on Iran's side. America and American's are his enemy. When you consider where his loyalty lies, everything he does makes sense.

I ask myself this: If I hated this country, what would I do to destroy her?

What would you do?

Ares Olympus said...

Apparently former Secretary of State James Baker (George H. W. Bush) has risked becoming a stone-cold bigot for dare questioning Netanyahu's political tactics.

"Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists." - War president George W. Bush, September 20, 2001

Black and white thinking is the best way to avoid thinking.

Ares Olympus said...

Oh no, a Therapist has offered his services to Obama and Netanyahu!
...After the initial evaluation and assessment, the therapist identified three classic family dysfunctions that exist in the relationship between Barack and Bibi: enmeshment, triangulation, and emotional cut-offs.

Enmeshment occurs when families have weak boundaries. Members of enmeshed families do not respect the privacy of other family members and are constantly in their personal lives, resulting in overdependence. This causes family members to have little autonomy and a lack of independence. The continuous unhealthy involvement in each other’s lives, including interfering in local political issues, has created enmeshment between Barack and Bibi resulting in a diminished sense of personal independence and achievement.

Triangulation is a process that occurs when family members with a strained relationship use their relationship with a third party as a means to gain access to or influence the family member with whom they have the strained relationship. This process results in the third party being pulled into the conflict, creating an unhealthy triangle, and furthering and magnifying the family turmoil. Instead of trying to influence one another by talking openly about their problems, both Barack and Bibi have made it a habit to involved third parties in their fight. Barack has used his Secretary of State and is considering using the United Nations to influence Bibi while Bibi has reached out to John Boehner and the GOP to influence Barack.

The therapist also identified the presence of emotional cut-offs in the relationship, which is when rivaling family members distance themselves from each other, ignore each other, or avoid any open discussions about difficult issues. This is done to try and reduce the anxiety associated with the conflict. This cut-off is evident in the frequent occurrences of Barack and Bibi ignoring each other and their inability to openly communicate about their disagreements.

The therapist suggested that treatment should involve learning how to openly communicate, renegotiating their role in each other’s lives, and redefining their existing boundaries. Overtime, the treatment would lead to them having greater autonomy in their lives, not needing third parties to influence one another, and reengaging each other.

Mr. President and Mr. Prime Minister, for the sake of world peace, call me. My couch is waiting.