May 4, 2009
Sacrificial Lamb: Obamacle Sets Up Israel as Fall Guy
This was so unexpected, so out of the blue, that when I read it, you could have knocked me over with a 2,000-lb anvil:
Israel is concerned about remarks White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel made during a closed-door meeting Sunday with 300 major donors of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.
While expressing unwavering U.S. support for Israel, Israeli media reported that Emanuel also said confronting Iran depends on making progress in negotiations seeking to create a Palestinian state.
Does Emanuel believe that such an implied threat will actually cause Israel to reverse course, with newly elected (for the second time) Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu abruptly transmaugrifying into former Prime Minister Ehud Barak? No; say what you will about Rahm Emanuel, he is not one of the pie-eyed fantasists with which the president has surrounded himself.
Nor does anyone else expect such a result... not even CBS:
Israel's hawkish new government flatly rejects that linkage. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran as a threat to the existence of the State of Israel -- a separate and far more pressing threat than that of the Palestinians. Netanyahu will make that clear when he meets President Obama in two weeks at the White House....
Netanyahu has also said "Israel will not allow Iran to acquire nuclear weapons -- with all the implications." In other words, Israel would consider a unilateral, preemptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities as a last resort.
And the citizens of the state of Israel would never permit Netanyahu to go "wobbly" on them; they elected Likud over Kadima's Tzipi Livni for precisely that reason:
The Israeli public at large is also skeptical about U.S. talks with Iran. A poll by Bar-Ilan University in Tel Aviv shows that, while 60 percent of Israelis have a favorable opinion of President Obama, only 32 percent approve of his policy regarding Israel.
So what on earth is going on here? Why does the Chief of Staff to President Barack H. Obama make such a point of publicly linking the two issues? I can think of only one reason: Emanuel believes that his boss' attempt to bully Israel into caving to Palestinian demands (pushed not only by Obama but also the raft of brazenly anti-Israel and antisemitic members of his administration) is doomed to failure... so Rahm Emanuel is already setting Israel up as the scapegoat.
When talks to create a "two-state solution" collapse again -- as they invariably do, given that only one side has any interest at all in there being two sovereign states west of the Jordan River -- the administration plans to blame Israel for Barack Obama's failure. The One the Palestinians and Eurolefties Have Been Waiting For may even lead a crusade against Israel in the court of world opinion, perhaps even refusing to veto some of the continuous anti-Israel resolutions that splash into the U.N. like sewage into a septic-tank.
That will serve three purposes:
- It will overjoy the Jew-hating Left in both the United States and in Europe, leading to an outpouring of money and electoral support for B.O.;
- It will make it easier for Obama to hold his unconditional-appeasement talks with Iran, Hezbollah, and al-Qaeda;
- And it will give the president someone to point his finger at in respose to all the bloody horrors that will befall the Middle East (and the rest of the world) when Iran tests its first working nuclear missile.
With one cold-blooded, narcissistic set up, Emanuel could bring about a Middle-East war the likes of which the world has never seen before, possibly resulting in the complete destruction of Israel and the energy and economic collapse of the rest of us. Interesting, considering the Chief of Staff's last name.
Hatched by Dafydd on this day, May 4, 2009, at the time of 7:21 PM
TrackBack URL for this hissing: http://biglizards.net/mt3.36/earendiltrack.cgi/3617
The following hissed in response by: Baggi
Color me skeptical but I actually think the motiviation behind the remarks were the product of immaturity. Something we've seen quite a bit of out of this administration.
Didn't Netanyahu recently say that there would only be progress with the Palestinian's after Iran was dealt with? Not an exact quote of course, but along those lines.
This is the administrations way of saying, "Nyah Nyah, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you!"
So they just reversed it, thinking themselves clever. "Oh yeah?! Well then. We won't do anything about Iran until you do something about the Palestinians. So there!"
I'm sure they stuck their collective tongue out also.
The following hissed in response by: Da Coyote
I really, really want to be on the jury when we try Rahm. As in I'd pay to be on it.
The following hissed in response by: Geoman
The Israelis voluntarily gave up Gaza, and what did that get them? Shelling, violence, and instability. If the Palestinians couldn't make anything from Gaza, why oh why would Israel consider handing over the West Bank? The two state solution died when Hamas was elected in Gaza. That's it. Kaput. Over.
Peace has ALWAYS been about the actions of the Palestinians, not the Israelis.
The following hissed in response by: Jewel Atkins
Geoman, go further back. Israel gave up the Sinai, is planning on giving up Judea and Samaria, doesn't do much in the way of protecting its religious shrines from vandalization. When is enough enough, already?
The above hissed in response by: Jewel Atkins at May 5, 2009 8:40 PM
Post a comment
Thanks for hissing in, . Now you can slither in with a comment, o wise. (sign out)(If you haven't hissed a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Hang loose; don't shed your skin!)
© 2005-2009 by Dafydd ab Hugh - All Rights Reserved