Inteligencia y Seguridad Frente Externo En Profundidad Economia y Finanzas Transparencia
  En Parrilla Medio Ambiente Sociedad High Tech Contacto
Frente Externo  
 
25/03/2013 | Obama’s mysterious visit

Caroline Glick

Obama's itinerary will bypass Israel's elected representatives by spurning the invitation to speak before the Knesset.

 

Why is US President Barack Obama coming to Israel today? In 2008, then president George W. Bush came to celebrate Israel’s 60th Independence Day, and to reject Israeli requests for assistance in destroying Iran’s nuclear installations.

In 1996, then-president Bill Clinton came to Israel to help then-prime minister Shimon Peres’s electoral campaign against Likud leader Binyamin Netanyahu.

It is possible that Obama is coming here in order to build up pro-Israel bonafides. But why would he bother? Obama won his reelection bid with the support of the overwhelming majority of American Jews. Their support vindicated his hostility toward Israel in his first term. He has nothing to prove.It is worth comparing Obama’s visit to Israel at the start of his second term of office, with his visit to Cairo at the outset of his first term in office.

Ahead of that trip, the new administration promised that the visit, and particularly Obama’s “Address to the Muslim World,” would serve as a starting point for a new US policy in the Middle East. And Obama lived up to expectations.

In speaking to the “Muslim World,” Obama signaled that the US now supported pan-Islamists at the expense of US allies and Arab nationalist leaders, first and foremost then Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak. Moreover, in castigating Israel for its so-called “settlements”; channeling Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by intimating that Israel exists because of the Holocaust; and failing to travel from Cairo to Jerusalem, preferring instead to visit a Nazi death camp in Germany, Obama signaled that he was downgrading US ties with the Jewish state.

In sharp contrast to the high expectations the Obama White House cultivated in pre-Cairo visit statements and leaks, Obama and his advisers have downplayed the importance of his visit to Israel, signaling there will be no significant changes in Obama’s policies toward Israel or the wider Middle East.

For instance, in his interview with Israel television’s Channel 2 last week, on issue after issue, Obama made clear that there will be no departure from his first term’s policies. He will continue to speak firmly and do nothing to prevent Iran from developing the means to produce nuclear weapons.

He will not release convicted Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard from federal prison despite the fact that Pollard’s life sentence, and the 28 years he has already served in prison are grossly disproportionate to all sentences passed on and served by offenders who committed similar crimes.

As for the Palestinians, Obama repeated his fierce opposition to Jewish communities beyond the 1949 armistice lines, and his insistence that Israel must get over its justified fears regarding Palestinian intentions and withdraw from Judea and Samaria, for its own good.

Given that all of these are positions he has held throughout his presidency, the mystery surrounding his decision to come to Israel only grows. He didn’t need to come to Israel to rehash policies we already know.

Much of the coverage of Obama’s trip has focused on symbolism. For instance, the administration decided to boycott Ariel University by not inviting its students to attend Obama’s speech to students from all other universities that is set to take place on Thursday in Jerusalem. In boycotting Ariel, Obama’s behavior is substantively the same as that of Britain’s Association of University Teachers. In 2005 that body voted to boycott University of Haifa and Ben-Gurion University in the Negev. But while the AUT’s action was universally condemned, Obama’s decision to bar Israelis whose university is located in a city with 20,000 residents just because their school is located beyond the 1949 armistice lines has generated litte attention.

Then again, seeing as Obama’s snub of Ariel University is in keeping with the White House’s general war with anyone who disputes its view that Judea and Samaria are Arab lands, the lack of outrage at his outrageous behavior makes sense. It doesn’t represent a departure from his positions in his first term.

The only revealing aspect of Obama’s itinerary is his decision to on the one hand bypass Israel’s elected representatives by spurning the invitation to speak before the Knesset; and on the other hand to address a handpicked audience of university students – an audience grossly overpopulated by unelectable, radical leftists.

In the past, US presidents have spoken before audiences of Israeli leftists in order to elevate and empower the political Left against the Right. But this is the first time that a US president has spurned not only the elected Right, but elected leftist politicians as well, by failing to speak to the Knesset, while actively courting the unelectable radical Left through his talk to a university audience.

Clinton constantly embraced the Israeli Left while spurning the Right – famously refusing to meet with then prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu in 1997 while both leaders’ jets were parked on the same tarmac at Los Angeles International Airport.

Clinton’s assiduous courtship of Israel’s Left enabled him to portray himself as a true friend of Israel, even as he openly sought to undermine and overthrow the elected government of the country.

But Clinton always favored leftist politicians – Shimon Peres and Ehud Barak – over rightist politicians. He did not spurn leftist politicians in favor of even more radical unelectable leftists.

So what does Obama seek to achieve with this novel practice? Clearly he is not attempting to use the opportunity of addressing this audience to express contrition for his first term’s policies. In his interview with Channel 2, Obama spoke of the instability on Israel’s borders – but never mentioned the key role he played in overthrowing Mubarak and empowering the Muslim Brotherhood, thus emptying of meaning Israel’s peace treaty with the most populous Arab state.

He never mentioned that his feckless handling of Syria’s civil war ensured that the moderate opposition forces would be eclipsed by radical Islamists affiliated with al-Qaida, as has happened, or expressed concern that al-Qaida forces are now deployed along Syria’s border with Israel, and that there is a real and rising danger that Syria’s arsenals of chemical and biological weapons, as well as its ballistic missiles, will fall into their hands. Indeed, Tuesday it was reported that the al-Qaida infiltrated opposition attacked regime forces with chemical weapons.

Obama will not use his speech before Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s most outspoken critics to express remorse over the hostility with which he treated Israel’s leader for the past four years. He will not admit that his decision to coerce Israel into suspending Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria in his first term gave the PLO justification for refusing to meet with or negotiate with the Israeli government.

So since he doesn’t think he’s done anything wrong, and he intends to continue the same policies in his second term, why did he decide to come to Israel? And why is he addressing, and so seeking to empower the radical, unelectable Left? Obama’s speech in Cairo to the Muslim world was held at the Islamist Al-Azhar Univerity. By speaking at Al-Azhar, Obama weakened Mubarak in three different ways. First, Al-Azhar’s faculty members regularly issue religious rulings calling for the murder of non-Muslims, prohibiting the practice of Judaism, and facilitating the victimization of women. In stating these views, Al-Azhar’s leadership has demonstrated that their world view and values are far less amenable to American strategic interests and moral values than Mubarak’s world view was. By speaking at Al-Azhar, Obama signaled that he would reward the anti-American Islamists at the expense of the pro-American Arab nationalists.

Second, in contempt of Mubarak’s explicit wishes, Obama insisted on inviting members of the Muslim Brotherhood to attend his speech. In acting as he did, Obama signaled that under his leadership, the US was abandoning its support for Mubarak and transferring its sympathies to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Finally, by addressing his remarks to the Muslim nation, Obama was perceived as openly rejecting Egyptian nationalism, and indeed the concept of unique national identities among the various Arab states. In so doing, Obama undercut the legitimacy of the Egyptian regime while legitimizing the pan- Islamic Muslim Brotherhood which rejects nationalism in favor of a call for the establishment of a global caliphate.

As subsequent events showed, the conditions for the Egyptian revolution that brought the Muslim Brotherhood to power were prepared during Obama’s speech at al-Azhar.

It is possible that in addressing the unelected radical Left in Jerusalem, Obama seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Israeli government. But if that is the plan, then it would bespeak an extraordinary contempt and underestimation of Israeli democracy. Such a plan would not play out the same way his Egyptian speech did.

There are two possible policies Obama would want to empower Israel’s radical, unelectable Left in order to advance. First, he could be strengthening these forces to help them pressure the government to make concessions to the Palestinians in order to convince the Palestinian Authority to renew negotiations and accept an Israeli peace offer.

While Obama indicated in his interview with Channel 2 that this is his goal, it is absurd to believe it. Obama knows there is no chance that the Palestinians will accept a deal from Israel. PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor Yasser Arafat both rejected Israeli peace offers made by far more radical Israeli governments than the new Netanyahu government. Moreover, the Palestinians refused to meet with Israeli negotiators while Mubarak was still in power. With the Muslim Brotherhood now in charge in Cairo, there is absolutely no way they will agree to negotiate – let alone accept a deal.

This leaves another glaring possibility. Through the radical Left, Obama may intend to foment a pressure campaign to force the government to withdraw unilaterally from all or parts of Judea and Samaria, as Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. If this is Obama’s actual policy goal, it would represent a complete Europeanization of US policy toward Israel. It was the EU that funded radical leftist groups that pushed for Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005.

And in the past week, a number of commentators have spoken and written in favor of such a plan.

The is truth we don’t know why Obama is coming to Israel. The Obama administration has not indicated where its Israel policy is going. And Obama’s Republican opposition is in complete disarray on foreign policy and not in any position to push him to reveal his plans.

What we can say with certainty is that the administration that supports the “democratically elected” Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and did so much to clear all obstacles to its election, is snubbing the democratically elected Israeli government, and indeed, Israel’s elected officials in general. Obama’s transmission of this message in the lead-up to this visit, through symbols and action alike does not bode well for Israel’s relations with the US in the coming four years.

Jerusalem Post (Israel)

 


Otras Notas Relacionadas... ( Records 1 to 10 of 3605 )
fecha titulo
30/01/2014 Qué ha hecho y qué le falta por hacer a Obama en su segundo mandato
18/12/2013 El hombre que derrotó a Obama
17/12/2013 Kerry forces Israel’s moment of decision
13/12/2013 US - The budget deal and Washington’s new politics of compromise
10/12/2013 Limitar los riesgos
20/11/2013 Otro punto de vista sobre JFK
18/11/2013 Who are the REAL extremists: The tea party or Obama and the New Democrats?
18/11/2013 Can a crippled HHS react in time to a killer virus?
11/11/2013 EEUU - Moderados contra el Tea Party
10/11/2013 Obama, en manos de sus enemigos


Otras Notas del Autor
fecha
Título
01/11/2023|
21/03/2021|
24/06/2020|
22/07/2018|
10/07/2018|
27/05/2018|
30/03/2018|
30/03/2018|
26/12/2017|
03/07/2017|
02/07/2017|
18/02/2017|
14/01/2017|
04/01/2017|
03/12/2016|
02/12/2016|
01/10/2016|
29/08/2016|
11/06/2016|
23/04/2016|
05/02/2016|
18/10/2015|
01/08/2015|
04/07/2015|
16/05/2015|
16/03/2015|
29/11/2014|
22/10/2014|
20/10/2014|
14/10/2014|
06/10/2014|
19/09/2014|
12/09/2014|
28/08/2014|
22/08/2014|
10/08/2014|
18/07/2014|
22/06/2014|
22/06/2014|
09/05/2014|
30/04/2014|
21/04/2014|
13/01/2014|
17/12/2013|
21/10/2013|
06/10/2013|
01/09/2013|
24/08/2013|
21/08/2013|
03/08/2013|
08/07/2013|
27/05/2013|
20/04/2013|
14/11/2012|
22/10/2012|
22/10/2012|
03/09/2012|
25/08/2012|
19/08/2012|
13/08/2012|
04/08/2012|
11/06/2012|
11/06/2012|
22/04/2012|
10/10/2011|
10/10/2011|
25/09/2011|
25/09/2011|
21/09/2011|
15/09/2011|
15/09/2011|
19/08/2011|
14/08/2011|
06/08/2011|
02/08/2011|
28/07/2011|
24/07/2011|
02/07/2011|
02/07/2011|
29/06/2011|
29/06/2011|
28/06/2011|
28/06/2011|
18/06/2011|
18/06/2011|
14/06/2011|
14/06/2011|
10/06/2011|
10/06/2011|
31/05/2011|
31/05/2011|
26/05/2011|
26/05/2011|
04/05/2011|
04/05/2011|
02/05/2011|
02/05/2011|
08/04/2011|
08/04/2011|
22/03/2011|
10/03/2011|
06/03/2011|
20/02/2011|
06/02/2011|
22/01/2011|
12/01/2011|
08/01/2011|
01/01/2011|
29/12/2010|
25/12/2010|
23/12/2010|
19/12/2010|
26/11/2010|
22/11/2010|
16/11/2010|
06/11/2010|
03/11/2010|
13/10/2010|
10/10/2010|
04/10/2010|
22/09/2010|
15/09/2010|
04/09/2010|
04/09/2010|
28/08/2010|
28/08/2010|
22/08/2010|
22/08/2010|
18/08/2010|
18/08/2010|
13/08/2010|
07/08/2010|
31/07/2010|
31/07/2010|
27/07/2010|
24/07/2010|
14/07/2010|
10/07/2010|
10/07/2010|
06/07/2010|
02/07/2010|
01/07/2010|
27/06/2010|
19/06/2010|
12/06/2010|
08/06/2010|
01/06/2010|
29/05/2010|
27/05/2010|
25/05/2010|
19/05/2010|
16/05/2010|
08/05/2010|
04/05/2010|
30/04/2010|
26/04/2010|
17/04/2010|
11/04/2010|
01/04/2010|
14/03/2010|
28/02/2010|
15/02/2010|
13/12/2009|
13/12/2009|
15/11/2009|
15/11/2009|
05/11/2009|
27/10/2009|
20/09/2009|
16/09/2009|
06/09/2009|
22/08/2009|
22/08/2009|
19/08/2009|
11/08/2009|
11/08/2009|
02/08/2009|
02/08/2009|
14/07/2009|
14/07/2009|
08/03/2009|
08/03/2009|
07/03/2009|
07/03/2009|
03/03/2009|
03/03/2009|
01/03/2009|
01/03/2009|
22/02/2009|
10/01/2009|
02/01/2009|
19/11/2008|
19/11/2008|
28/10/2008|
28/10/2008|
06/10/2008|
06/10/2008|
25/09/2008|
25/09/2008|
23/04/2008|
16/04/2008|
04/04/2008|
12/03/2008|
18/01/2008|
12/01/2008|
23/11/2007|
27/10/2007|
10/10/2007|
25/09/2007|
20/09/2007|
28/08/2007|
16/07/2007|
14/07/2007|
03/07/2007|
01/06/2007|
01/06/2007|
30/04/2007|
30/04/2007|
17/04/2007|
17/04/2007|
13/04/2007|
13/04/2007|
03/04/2007|
22/03/2007|
17/03/2007|
28/02/2007|
25/01/2007|
25/01/2007|
10/01/2007|
10/01/2007|
30/12/2006|
30/12/2006|
22/12/2006|
22/12/2006|
17/12/2006|
17/12/2006|
06/12/2006|
06/12/2006|
07/11/2006|
24/10/2006|
18/10/2006|
29/08/2006|
02/08/2006|
07/07/2006|
21/06/2006|
21/06/2006|
15/05/2006|
28/03/2006|
24/01/2006|
21/01/2006|
09/01/2006|
19/12/2005|
11/12/2005|
21/11/2005|
13/11/2005|
27/09/2005|
27/09/2005|
11/09/2005|
23/08/2005|
31/07/2005|
25/07/2005|
18/07/2005|
26/06/2005|
08/06/2005|
24/05/2005|
15/05/2005|
19/04/2005|
19/04/2005|
06/04/2005|
06/04/2005|

ver + notas
 
Center for the Study of the Presidency
Freedom House