In Part I of this series I mentioned that Netanyahu made two comments at the end of his campaign for reelection that upset Obama and the left. The first was about the creation of a Palestinian state. The second was his urging Likud party voters to get out and vote because Arabs were "streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations." So let's be honest - honesty being something with which Obama and the mainstream media do not concern themselves. Arab voters tend to be left wing; Netanyahu's party is right wing. Obama and other foreigners were likely assisting in busing Arabs to the polls in order to defeat Netanyahu. (The US Senate is currently investigating whether Obama, through the State Department, improperly funneled money to groups in Israel seeking to defeat Netanyahu.)
The result of Netanyahu's statement was an assault from the Obama Administration and the mainstream media accusing Netanyahu of racism. Let us not forget that Netanyahu is a politician. The polls in Israel had predicted had a very tight race, with early polls suggesting Netanyahu would lose. So it was no surprise that he tried to use any means to get his party loyalists to vote.
Here is Harry Reid in 2011, as Senate Majority leader: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Leader of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, made a similar comment by claiming that there was "nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So there you have Reid and Wasserman-Schultz playing the race/ethnic card.
But let us not leave Obama out of this mix. During his first campaign in 2008 he said this: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." So just who does everyone think Obama had in mind when he talked about those small townspeople. Whites, that's who. It was whites who Obama accused of having antipathy to those not like them and to immigrants. He did not have to say the word "white," it was clear about whom he was speaking.
But let's get back to those Arab voters in Israel. Here is what one Israeli Arab Member of the Knesset has said: "If, as citizens, we boycott the parliament, this would mean that we also boycott the struggle because when we entered the Knesset we do not enter to promote relations with Israel, but instead to struggle against Israel." And: "...we are against the very definition of the state." Most of the Arabs in the Knesset would be very happy to speed the end of Israel's existence as the sole Jewish state in the world, and to effectuate the creation of yet another Muslim run state.
The 3/21/15 New York Times ran a front page article entitled "Israeli Leader Further Divides American Jews." The reality is that liberal American Jews are split with regards to their affinity for Israel. Most conservative Jews are highly supportive of Israel. But the liberal Jews are just as likely to be anti-Likud (Netanyahu's party) as they are to be anti-Republican. So no great surprise.
Of greater interest, perhaps, was another front page story in yesterday's Times, entitled: "At White House, A Sharper Tone With Netanyahu." After all, Obama is already plenty annoyed at Netanyahu for daring to challenge his appeasement of, er-negotiations with, Iran. Imagine the nerve of Netanyahu, the only world leader to suggest that allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability is a bad idea, especially so for the existence of Israel.
But Israel can rely upon the security guarantees of the US, right? Just like Ukraine could? Or would that be like the "red line" Obama drew with respect to Syria's use of chemical weapons? The truth is that the entire world knows that since Obama came into office nobody can rely upon the US. Notwithstanding the effort by Netanyahu to step back from his comments, the White House is not willing to meet him halfway. Rather, the Times article says that "the White House is stoking the acrimony."
I guess there is one thing the world can rely upon with the Obama Administration - if you were an enemy before you will now be treated as an ally; and if you were an ally before, you are on your own now.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment