By Simon Fischler
American President Barack Obama will be remembered by historians as the American President who single handedly destroyed American foreign policy in the Middle-East.
For Israelis, Obama will be remembered as the American President who created the worst relationship with Israel -- even at times hostile towards Israel.
Obama will also be remembered by Israelis as the president who put their country back into the hostile waters of the Middle-East circa nineteen fifties.
President Obama’s Middle-Eastern policy has all but destroyed any chance for peace. The ineptitude of the Obama regime towards its allies has strengthened radical countries and organizations.
Today Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are no longer afraid of the American paper tiger being guided by Obama and his administration.
These governments and organizations have been emboldened by Obama’s misguided, naive and weak Middle-Eastern policy.
Why shouldn’t these radical elements feel cocky?
They have seen American backed leaders fall from power with no help from Obama.
It was Palestinian top negotiator Saeb Erekat himself who said that with George W. Bush the radicals were at least afraid; with Obama they are laughing at him. One must also remember the Palestinian Authority leadership and people like Erekat were not fond of Bush. For Erekat to say such a thing is proof of how badly Obama has destroyed America’s image here in the Middle East.
Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was left to the Hezbollah wolves when they staged an unlawful coup. Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was tossed into the dust bin by Obama the second things got a little hot in the kitchen.
Not very reassuring for other American-backed allies, especially in a region where debts are usually paid in blood.
Is it not funny that Obama and his administration sat by, barely saying word, as freedom-seeking Iranians took the streets, putting their lives on the line, to fight the fraudulent reelection of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?
There were hundreds of thousands of Iranians risking their lives daily in a popular uprising; fighting the most oppressive of regimes, one that makes Mubarak’s Egypt look like Switzerland. This regime also happens to be America’s greatest enemy (which they apparently do not or refuse to recognize) and Obama did not lift a finger of support.
These same Iranians have defied their oppressive regime and taken to the streets once again and all Mrs. Clinton had to say was that the Iranian people should be allowed to protest. Nothing about how the Iranian regime should step aside for true democracy. Looks like it is better to be an enemy of the Obama administration than an ally.
Most Americans, especially those who voted for him, do not understand or refuse to understand that President Obama has put America and her allies in great danger.
As for Israel, there are analysts who believe the resignation of President Mubarak and the U.S.’ failure to stand by him take away Israel’s ability to strike Iran.
In fact it has done just the opposite.
Israelis and the Israeli government have no faith in Obama. They know they have no friend in the Oval office, no matter how many times Obama and Hilary Clinton talk about the supposedly unshakable bond between Israel and America. With the possibility of losing the safety of a peaceful Western border with Egypt, Israel is far more prone to act alone, that is preemptively against the Iranian nuclear weapons program.
Now is the time for Israel to strike Iran’s nuclear facilities, before the citizens of Egypt get the chance to take away the peace treaty that has kept our two nations at peace.
It will take time for the Egyptian military and what is left of Egypt’s government to bring about true democratic elections. If the Egyptian military stands by its words and allows a democratic government to be elected, the peace treaty and its survival will depend solely on the citizens of Egypt. It is to be hoped they will chose a government that will abide by the treaty. As we saw in the past, when the Palestinians went to elections and voted Hamas into power, what we had hoped for was not the reality.
I doubt Israel will wait for this outcome; she cannot put the future of her citizens at risk.
So much for Peace, Mr. President.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Sunday, February 6, 2011
EGYPT'S FUTURE -- WHAT SHOULD ISRAEL BELIEVE? NOTHING!
By Schmoel Yitzhak
If you had a dollar for every theory on Egypt's future, you just might be able to match the figures in President Hosni Mubarak's bank account which now total a few billion bucks.
Nobody in the Arab world knows precisely how the post-Mubarak Egypt will emerge because the variables are endless.
In Israel, it is a different story and I hope that Benjamin Netanyahu is aware of the choices.
The choices are, really, a take-off on the Hollywood comedy, "Dumb and Dumber." Only this time there's nothing amusing about the options.
My title would be "Bad and Bader."
Consider the two "favorites" to displace Mubarak -- Mohamed ElBaradei and Amr Moussa.
That pair of Arab "leaders" offer different platforms and divergent supporters but they share on common belief -- a hatred of Israel.
Determining which is the bigger phony is like making a dessert choice between cyanide and poison gas. No matter how you shake it, they're both death warmed over in a Brooks Brothers suit.
ElBaradei is cloaked in a few layers of pseudo-respectability. He is the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
After all, he is a Nobel Peace laureate and if you believe in the Nobel Peace prize then you also believe in Dumbo, the flying elephant, and Pinocchio's ability to tell the truth without his nose becoming the size of a cane.
ElBaradei's other claim to "fame" -- better to call it infamy -- was his former position as the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Having ElBaradei insuring that Iran develop a peaceful nuclear program was roughly equivalent to appointing a wolf to guard the hen house.
Throughout his UN stint ElBaradei did just about everything to aid the iranian nuclear program short of providing Mullahs with America's atomic blueprints on a silver platter.
But the UN being the UN, ElBaradei's administration was allowed to move along on its perfidious path without meaningful challenge from either the European Union or any of the other self-styled "objective" world organizations so willing to tell Israel how to protect itself.
It's fascinating to note how ElBaradei suddenly assigned himself the title of "Egyptian opposition leader" since most insightful political observers report that he has virtually no following in Egypt where he has spent precious little time in recent years.
The man sure has connections because he wound up on NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday spewing the usual assortment of lies so easily accepted by the naive -- or is it stupid? -- American media.
ElBaradei's big lie was his assertion that Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was "rock solid" and would remain so no matter who succeeds Mubarak.
That reminds me of the Japanese ambassador to the United States at the White House on December 7, 1941 telling America's Secretary of State Cordell Hull that Nippon's relations with Uncle Sam are nothing but ginger-peachy. Meanwhile Emperor Hirohito's airplanes were bombing Pearl Harbor, destroying the U.S. fleet and killing thousands of Americans.
There's nothing cheaper than diplomatic talk.
Bibi surely knows better than to believe ElBaradei or any of the other Arab stooges jockeying for power in the wake of endless rioting in Cairo.
Stooge B happens to be Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary, who becomes a potential Mubarak successor merely because of his cozy position with Arab diplomats.
Unfortunately, his friendship toward the only democracy in the Middle East could be defined as somewhat to the left of zero. Jerusalem will get no favors from Moussa.
Which brings us to the question: is there an Egyptian figure on whom Netanyahu can rely?
Could it possibly be Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman who -- in an attempt to save Egypt -- recently has met with opposition groups such as the officially banned Muslim Brotherhood?
If you believe in long, longshots, there's an outside chance that Suleiman might -- just might -- take a reasonable stance toward Israel. But reality tells me that the Brotherhood won't let that ever happen.
As a matter of fact, why should any Egyptian leader be expected to do Bibi any favors when you consider how perfidious the American administration has been?
One month Barack Obama is hugging Mubarak and the next month he's figuratively stabbing the beleaguered Egyptian leader in the back.
Then there's the America's Secretary of Defeat, Hilary Clinton, who now is cow-towing to the Muslim Brotherhood as if the MB is as peaceful as Costa Rica.
All the Muslim Brotherhood would like is to see Israel eliminated from the face of the earth -- same plank as Hamas and Hezbollah -- and now we see the ever-appeasing Clinton giving the Brotherhood a sisterly pat on the back.
A realistic, rational Israeli leader must understand that -- in terms of Egypt's eventual fate - Israel has no friend in the White house nor in Europe and certainly not in Cairo.
If Bibi is as insightful as I hope he is, Israel's policy should work from a worst-case scenario while fervently hoping for the best.
The reality of Cairo demands a realistic response in Jerusalem!
If you had a dollar for every theory on Egypt's future, you just might be able to match the figures in President Hosni Mubarak's bank account which now total a few billion bucks.
Nobody in the Arab world knows precisely how the post-Mubarak Egypt will emerge because the variables are endless.
In Israel, it is a different story and I hope that Benjamin Netanyahu is aware of the choices.
The choices are, really, a take-off on the Hollywood comedy, "Dumb and Dumber." Only this time there's nothing amusing about the options.
My title would be "Bad and Bader."
Consider the two "favorites" to displace Mubarak -- Mohamed ElBaradei and Amr Moussa.
That pair of Arab "leaders" offer different platforms and divergent supporters but they share on common belief -- a hatred of Israel.
Determining which is the bigger phony is like making a dessert choice between cyanide and poison gas. No matter how you shake it, they're both death warmed over in a Brooks Brothers suit.
ElBaradei is cloaked in a few layers of pseudo-respectability. He is the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
After all, he is a Nobel Peace laureate and if you believe in the Nobel Peace prize then you also believe in Dumbo, the flying elephant, and Pinocchio's ability to tell the truth without his nose becoming the size of a cane.
ElBaradei's other claim to "fame" -- better to call it infamy -- was his former position as the United Nations nuclear watchdog. Having ElBaradei insuring that Iran develop a peaceful nuclear program was roughly equivalent to appointing a wolf to guard the hen house.
Throughout his UN stint ElBaradei did just about everything to aid the iranian nuclear program short of providing Mullahs with America's atomic blueprints on a silver platter.
But the UN being the UN, ElBaradei's administration was allowed to move along on its perfidious path without meaningful challenge from either the European Union or any of the other self-styled "objective" world organizations so willing to tell Israel how to protect itself.
It's fascinating to note how ElBaradei suddenly assigned himself the title of "Egyptian opposition leader" since most insightful political observers report that he has virtually no following in Egypt where he has spent precious little time in recent years.
The man sure has connections because he wound up on NBC's Meet The Press on Sunday spewing the usual assortment of lies so easily accepted by the naive -- or is it stupid? -- American media.
ElBaradei's big lie was his assertion that Egypt's peace treaty with Israel was "rock solid" and would remain so no matter who succeeds Mubarak.
That reminds me of the Japanese ambassador to the United States at the White House on December 7, 1941 telling America's Secretary of State Cordell Hull that Nippon's relations with Uncle Sam are nothing but ginger-peachy. Meanwhile Emperor Hirohito's airplanes were bombing Pearl Harbor, destroying the U.S. fleet and killing thousands of Americans.
There's nothing cheaper than diplomatic talk.
Bibi surely knows better than to believe ElBaradei or any of the other Arab stooges jockeying for power in the wake of endless rioting in Cairo.
Stooge B happens to be Amr Moussa, the Arab League secretary, who becomes a potential Mubarak successor merely because of his cozy position with Arab diplomats.
Unfortunately, his friendship toward the only democracy in the Middle East could be defined as somewhat to the left of zero. Jerusalem will get no favors from Moussa.
Which brings us to the question: is there an Egyptian figure on whom Netanyahu can rely?
Could it possibly be Egyptian Vice President Omar Suleiman who -- in an attempt to save Egypt -- recently has met with opposition groups such as the officially banned Muslim Brotherhood?
If you believe in long, longshots, there's an outside chance that Suleiman might -- just might -- take a reasonable stance toward Israel. But reality tells me that the Brotherhood won't let that ever happen.
As a matter of fact, why should any Egyptian leader be expected to do Bibi any favors when you consider how perfidious the American administration has been?
One month Barack Obama is hugging Mubarak and the next month he's figuratively stabbing the beleaguered Egyptian leader in the back.
Then there's the America's Secretary of Defeat, Hilary Clinton, who now is cow-towing to the Muslim Brotherhood as if the MB is as peaceful as Costa Rica.
All the Muslim Brotherhood would like is to see Israel eliminated from the face of the earth -- same plank as Hamas and Hezbollah -- and now we see the ever-appeasing Clinton giving the Brotherhood a sisterly pat on the back.
A realistic, rational Israeli leader must understand that -- in terms of Egypt's eventual fate - Israel has no friend in the White house nor in Europe and certainly not in Cairo.
If Bibi is as insightful as I hope he is, Israel's policy should work from a worst-case scenario while fervently hoping for the best.
The reality of Cairo demands a realistic response in Jerusalem!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)