BILL SIEGEL: CAN IT BE ISRAEL?
http://www.familysecuritymatters.org/publications/detail/could-it-beisrael?f=must_reads
President Obama continues to dawdle in staking out a strategy to deal with the threat from ISIS which has been readily apparent for at least a year. Some attribute his resistance to incompetence and/or a complete misunderstanding of the workings of the region and Islamic based terror; others to a lack of interest in foreign affairs generally. Some suggest he is waiting for his administration to give him options to choose from (and George W. Bush was derided for declaring himself “the decider”).Perhaps Obama’s need to blame everyone but himself is causing him to take extra time to work out a strategy that will take years to implement- transferring responsibility for any failure onto the next president.
Is it at all possible, however, that Obama’s foot-dragging is, at least in some small part, shaped by the possible collateral effect any strategy might have on his policy toward Israel? Could he be concerned about the potential loss of his self-proclaimed high ground with respect to Israel? Throughout his presidency, Obama and his two Secretaries of State have treated Israel with a puzzling particularity, or perhaps more accurately, disdain. Over simplified, America is entitled to defend itself in a multitude of ways but Israel, because it is deemed the “cause” of all discord in the Middle East, must change itself rather than forcibly change its Arab and Palestinian neighbors. Likely, Obama formed most of his approach to the Jewish state from the Israel hating academia, “clergy,” and Muslim Brotherhood associates he has surrounded himself with; polished by a corrupt elite media that for decades can only paint one picture of Israel- that of the oppressive “occupier” engaged in apartheid over innocent Palestinian victims whose natural homeland was illegally taken. Obama, heralded for his unmatched IQ which would finally restore the world to an intelligent footing, should, of course, know that each word in this description is patently false.
Apparently not, as his relationship with Israel and its Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu, has reflected a deep hatred, Obama’s rhetoric notwithstanding. Having shown his obsessive preoccupation with defanging Israel while keeping up appearances that he is a “friend,” Obama may be limiting his potential responses to ISIS to those he is comfortable approving for Israel. And that leaves him with little.
ISIS, for these purposes, is no different from Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Republic of Iran or any number of other local Arab states that seek Israel’s destruction. (Even the supposed “secular” PLO/Fatah/Palestinian Authority that Western elites delude themselves are motivated not by Islamic supremacism and Jew hatred but by mere Western notions of money and corruption, are fully in line with the ultimate elimination of any Jewish state. One need only look at the media the PA for decades foisted upon Palestinian children to realize that generations will have to be rehabilitated if any notion resembling Western “peace” is to become acceptable). If Obama is to seek to destroy ISIS, can he really demand that Netanyahu act differently? If Obama is to arm the Kurds and others to fight ISIS, what right does he have to withhold arms and supplies from Israel to fight their Jihadic enemies? If he is trying to develop any nuanced differences between his policies for the US and Israel, time is surely required to bend common sense so far.
Obama has always sought to reduce terrorism to a criminal violation as distinct from war. He has demanded that “Islam” be taken out of the equation completely. His administration has not only disallowed any mention of Islam in connection with terrorism; it has purged the government of all training manuals and other materials that explain Islamic ideology and it has given Obama’s Muslim Brotherhood cronies the authority to determine what is acceptable. He is not alone. For a half century, the Western world has been able to turn its head from Palestinian terror by swallowing a narrative that Palestinians are merely acting in the nature of justifiable criminality in which Islam is irrelevant except as crowd pacifying and/or recruiting propaganda.
Worse, following the beheading of two Americans by ISIS, Obama, along with the United Kingdom’s Prime Minister David Cameron, wrote in an oped, “[t]he utterly despicable murders of two American journalists by ISIL [aka ISIS] are but the latest evidence of a brutal and poisonous extremism that murders indiscriminately and risks exporting terrorism abroad.” Murders? Even Obama’s loyal “cleaner,” Attorney General Eric Holder, will be unable to find a way to serve Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi with a criminal complaint ordering him to show up for arraignment next Monday morning. And not even Jimmy Carter, much less the likes of the New York Times or NBC, can purify ISIS of its Islamic essence. ISIS has declared an Islamic Holy War and is advancing just as Islam’s Prophet Mohammad would advise. These are acts of war, a Holy War that we are in, whether Obama likes it or not. Yet, the UN-loving West begs to judge Israel as part of a “cycle of violence” that, if only Israel would give up settlements, give back more land, expose itself to Palestinian control and so forth, this understandable murderous behavior would cease. Wars, especially Holy Wars, simply do not end like that.
Obama has made “there is no military solution” an ideological mantra; not to mention a further rationale for slashing the US military budget. Instead, we are to rely upon a fantasized “international community” that shares “universal values” and norms which demand that all parties avoid violence at all costs. There is always a negotiation for every conflict. This fantasy holds together his administration’s insistence that Israel negotiate a two state solution because, as he likes to pontificate, “everyone knows where the deal comes out.” Everyone, that is, except the Palestinians and other Arabs that will never cease at a negotiated end short of the complete annihilation of the Jewish State. Nor will ISIS allow this fantasy to dominate much longer.
In fact, there is ONLY a military solution to the Holy War waged against both Israel and the US. Common sense tells us that troops on the ground, American and otherwise, will be necessary to destroy ISIS. To reach such goal there is no way to avoid ruthless and sometimes inhumane combat; conduct that will inevitably trouble Westerners incorrigibly lost in the delusion that “good” people have advanced far past violent behavior. Yet, should Obama unleash the requisite overwhelming force necessary to obliterate ISIS, Israel’s use of its military will never again so easily be made to appear overbearing, much less evoke the farcical concept of “disproportional force.”
Obama has been stressing the importance of piecing together an international coalition to fight ISIS. This part Bush 41, part Samantha Power “Responsibility to Protect” component has a curious consequence. If such international approval is a prerequisite for US action, where does that leave Israel which will never be able to formulate any consensus to protect it from Palestinian and foreign terror among the pure anti-Semitic UN and Organization of Islamic Cooperation? To the contrary, consensus will likely be gathered to place an international force in Israel to protect Palestinians from Israel. Unfortunately for the president who has hinted that he will in the future insist that Israel turn over the West Bank to international forces, such forces have proved fully useless in Syria and most everywhere else. True Jihadic enemies (whether ISIS or HAMAS, Hezbollah, or even the future PA) will move through international forces established to “protect” Israel faster than Obama can get through eighteen holes.
The ISIS debacle also places pressure upon traditional borders. ISIS’ territory already fails to acknowledge the existing borders of Syria and Iraq. Obama has tried to uphold the integrity of borders even when it interfered with the pursuit of al-Qaeda. For the most part, he stayed out of Pakistan knowing it harbored many of our enemies in Afghanistan He has drawn a line (of some color) against crossing into Syria to battle ISIS leaders and command and control sheltered there. Could it even be possible that one aspect of Obama’s thinking, (along with part cause for his reputed hesitancy in killing Osama bin Laden in Pakistan), was that he might lose some moral authority when objecting to a possible Israeli raid on Iranian nuclear facilities?
If Obama is to truly address the threat to America, he will have to make a major showing of sealing US borders from ISIS invasion. To the contrary, Obama, aided by Holder, has done everything he can get away with to turn our borders into a porous sieve. If he reverses in any way to secure our borders it will be tougher for him to continue to attack Israel for doing all it needs to protect its borders. Obama will have a hard time continuing to make entry into the US more difficult for an Israeli requiring a visa than for a European Muslim who needs no visa. He will have a hard time diffusing arguments that turning over the West Bank, even to the foolishly labeled “moderate” Mahmoud Abbas, is the least bit responsible given the topography, the water sources, and the access to the free flow of weapons that will characterize the land behind then Palestinian borders.
Does it stretch credulity beyond reason to think that a US president’s policy formulation could be so [anti-]Israel centric? Let’s hope so. Still, Obama continues to thumb the eye of Israel. From the recent flight ban on Tel Aviv airport activity to his delaying Hellfire missile and other parts deliveries to Israel, the Gaza battle does not seem to have made a dent in his anti-Israel temperament.
As they come into the sights of ISIS and other similar threats, many Arabs and their governments are better understanding the realities Israel faces. Let’s hope Obama does as well.
Bill Siegel is the author of The Control Factor – Our Struggle to See the True Threat published by Hamilton Books.
Comments are closed.
