Will Israel Be Left To Go It Alone?

While U.S. President Barack Obama seemingly drags his feet in crafting a Middle East policy that directly involves Israel, Iran and the Palestinians, signs are pointing to the real possibility that newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Israeli people will be mostly toughing things out on their own.

Yesterday, Netanyahu met for the first time face to face with Barack Obama. The prime minister made it clear that he was willing to begin negotiations for peace with the Palestinians as soon as they were willing to acknowledge and honor Israel’s right to exist. He also would not commit to a two state solution, one he does not want and one that Obama has indicated he wants to see.

On the other side, Obama has a problem both at home and in Israel. More than likely Obama does not have the support at home to promote his agenda with Iran, Israel, Hamas, Palestine and basically the entire Middle East. Just as disturbing is the fact that it now appears Israelis overwhelmingly see Barack Obama as anti-Israel. According to the results of a recent poll printed in the Jerusalem Post, only 31% of Israelis view Obama as pro-Israel.

Besides the 31% who labeled Obama pro-Israel, 14% considered him pro-Palestinian and 40% felt he was neutral. The other 15% declined to provide an opinion for the poll

If you are wondering how that compares to former President Bush’s approval of the Israelis, his rating was 88%. It may be that the longer Obama stalls in taking a definitive position, the lower that number may fall.

Even though Barack Obama says he hasn’t taken any options off the table, he appears weak in any attempts he has made to negotiate with Iran and the Arab world in general. Now with Israel not viewing Obama as a friend and the president still clinging to hope that he can negotiate with terrorists, does Obama have any leverage at all?

Pat Buchanan says Netanyahu and Israel really only have three options and none of them look very encouraging.

One option is to annex the West Bank, which Buchanan says would ultimately end up with Israel absorbing a population of Palestinians that in time would outnumber Jews. A second option is basically ethnic cleansing, which I would have to agree with Buchanan, this is something the U.S. could not support.

The third plan is one that seems to be Netanyahu’s option – no Palestinian state and to retain control over the West Bank to make sure that what happened with Hamas in Gaza doesn’t happen there. This plan of course has it’s problems, the biggest being that this would essentially isolate the Palestinians.

Netanyahu understands that Israel is always a target and that as many times as they have tried to negotiate peace and give up territory and yield to the demands of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Palestinians and pressures from the West, they continue to be shot at, grenades launched into settlements, car bombed and rockets fired at them.

When you have never spent everyday of your existence wondering who will be killed by a terrorist today, it is easy to suggest concessions for peace. I suggest that Netanyahu and the Israeli people have a much better understanding of reality than Barack Obama who believes in negotiating with those who want to kill Jews and Americans.

So we are still left with the big question. Where will the United States come down on the issue of protecting Israel from those bent on her destruction? It is believed that Barack Obama will announce to the world those plans in a speech scheduled for June 4, 2009 in Cairo, Egypt. Mark that day on your calendar. It could be one of the biggest days in world history.

Tom Remington

Further Signs Of Deterioration Of U.S. – Israel Relations

Over the past few days I have been bringing you stories that have at a minimum made us all wonder just how strongly U.S. President Barack Obama supports Israel. With President Obama insistent that he can negotiate with Iran, many are left wondering what Obama is willing to give up in order to appease Iran.

Yesterday we learned that Obama’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emanuel, told the world that Israel needed to begin serious negotiations directed at a two-state solution with the Palestinians. Only a day later, V.P. Joe Biden told a pro-Israel lobby at AIPAC meetings, that Israel had to work toward a two-state solution.

The idea of Israel and Palestine living side by side in two separate states isn’t a new idea. As a matter of fact, President George Bush conceded that that might be the solution to the years of war and needless killings. The problem often in these negotiations is how to divide the land.

So far Obama’s warmth toward Israel hasn’t come shining through in any fashion and today, we read in the Washington Times that some, as well as perhaps even the new Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, are wondering if Obama is going to place demands on Israel to give up its nuclear weapons along with Iran.

President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.

The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.

Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said at a meeting of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty at the UN that Israel should join the treaty. The treaty states that only 5 nations will be allowed to have nuclear weapons – U.S., France, Britain, China and Russia.

For that to happen, it would mean that the U.S. would no longer avoid acknowledging that Israel has nuclear arms. If the U.S. were able to force Israel into giving up nukes, this would leave a tiny island of maybe 5 million people surrounded by hundreds of millions who vow to wipe her off the face of the earth.

History has shown us that Israel, should they agree to any treaty, will honor that treaty. Other nations have an abysmal record of upholding treaties with Israel.

Is President Obama radically changing the relationship the United States has had with Israel for many years? Ed Morrissey of Hot Air says that he believes the reason Obama hired on Rose Gottemoeller as Assistant Secretary of State was because of her stance on Israel and that Obama fully understood her comments made about Israel signing on to the NPT. This being their policy on Israel.

The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.

From this perspective it becomes disturbingly frightening that Obama seems to have a position on Israel that is more like that of just another country. I can understand why Israelis are wondering if this new administration will support Israel in real time of need.

We have to once again ask the question, are we leaving Israel to fend for itself?

Tom Remington