11/16/2008 (9:19 pm)
The election passed less than two weeks ago, but already we’re seeing the pro-Palestinian slant of the Obama Administration producing immanent war in the Middle East.
The Obama campaign went to great lengths to lie to the American public about its intentions for Israel and Jerusalem, and to distance itself from the impression that the sightings of pro-Palestinian advisors Robert Malley and Zbigniew Brzezinski meant Obama would favor the Palestinians. I wrote, and others wrote, that Obama was lying about his position, and that he was strongly pro-Palestinian. The press covered for him.
This afternoon, Gateway Pundit posted a succinct summary of news reports claiming that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas declared publicly that Israel must withdraw to its pre-1949 borders, as proposed by the Saudi peace plan, or face war.
Why are they doing this now? Do we really have to ask?
It’s not just that Barack Obama, who insists there is only one President, reportedly told Abbas the Israelis “would be crazy” to reject the Saudi plan. Caroline Glick, Deputy Managing Editor of the Jerusalem Post and coordinator of negotiations with the PLO for the Israeli government, reported at length on the signals from within the Obama transition team indicating a strong pro-Palestinian position, in stark opposition to his pre-election moderation.
…[Obama's] aides and advisers are signaling that he intends to move US foreign policy in a sharply different direction from its current trajectory once he assumes office.
And they are signaling that this new direction will be applied most immediately and directly to US policy toward the Middle East.
Early in the Democratic Party’s primary season, the Obama campaign released a list of the now-president-elect’s foreign policy advisers to The Washington Post. The list raised a great deal of concern in policy circles, particularly among supporters of the US-Israel alliance. It included outspoken critics of Israel such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under president Jimmy Carter, and Robert Malley, who served as a junior Middle East aide to president Bill Clinton. Both men are deeply hostile to Israel and both have called repeatedly for the US to end its strategic alliance with Israel.
In the months that followed the list’s publication, the Obama campaign sought to distance itself from both men as the president-elect’s advisers worked to position Obama as a centrist candidate…
Due in large part to media credulousness, Obama’s new image as a centrist was widely accepted by the public. And it is likely that he owes a significant portion of his support in the American Jewish community to the campaign’s success in distancing Obama from men like Brzezinski and Malley.
BUT NOW that the campaign is over, it appears that as his critics warned, Obama’s moves toward the center on issues relating to the Middle East were little more than campaign tactics to obscure his true policy preferences.
Two days after his election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius gave a sense of the direction in which Obama will likely take US foreign policy. And, apparently directed by Obama’s campaign staff, Ignatius based much of his column on his belief that Obama’s foreign policy views have been shaped by his “informal” adviser, Brzezinski.
Based on what Brzezinski and Obama’s “official” campaign told him, Ignatius wrote that the two major issues where Obama’s foreign policy is likely to diverge from Bush’s right off the bat are Israel and Iran. Obama, he claimed, will want to push hard to force Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians as soon as he comes into office. As for Iran, Obama plans to move immediately to improve US relations with the nuclear-weapons-building ayatollahs.
As for Malley, an aide of his told Frontpage magazine this week that acting on Obama’s instructions, Malley traveled to Cairo and Damascus after Obama’s electoral victory to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Assad that “the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests.”
In a related story, Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his election, Obama’s advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in order not to harm Obama’s chances of being elected.
Check that last comment again: the Obama campaign was sending unofficial envoys to Hamas, Egypt, and Syria even while he was lying to the American press. This is just what we said he was doing; none of us who watched Obama with objective eyes are the least bit surprised by the duplicity, which seems to be a signature mark of his character. Obama is, as far as we can tell, an habitual liar.
Be that as it may, Obama is also a pro-Palestinian radical, and the terrorists surrounding Israel know it, having heard it from his own campaign. And now that they know the United States will be pressuring Israel to accede to their demands in the interests of “peace,” their demands are escalating already.
America, we warned you, and you elected him. Welcome to the Age of Obama.
3 Comments »
Comment by Ken
so my worst fears regarding Obama throwing brave little Israel to the wolves are coming true.
This alone was reason enough to vote for McCain.
I must admit I am baffled that Obama garnered so many Jewish votes.
Obama enjoyed massive Jewish support, despite controversies … Exit polls from the November 4 election indicate that 78 percent of Jewish voters chose Obama over his Republican rival John McCain …
Who says Jews are Smart?
By Jonathan Rosenblum
Arab-Americans overwhelmingly support Senator Barack Obama for president. So do Jewish-Americans. One of these two groups either does not care much about the Arab-Israeli conflict and/or is stupid. My money is on the Jews.
To think that many American Jews have voted in a president who may facilitate a second holocaust … unfathomable.
To all who voted this black supremacist Marxist into the highest office in the land, shame on you!
Does anybody else out here fear we are watching something unfolding of biblical proportions?
Comment by Phil
American Jews for the most part are culturally tied to the Democratic party, and most of them could not even imagine themselves pulling the lever for a Republican. Consequently, Obama calling himself a moderate, as implausible as most of us here on the right found it, was enough to cajole them into doing what they ordinarily do.
Meanwhile, I would not count on Israel going quietly into the night. It’s been a long time since I paid even slight attention to Bible end-times prognosticators, I regard that stuff as a waste of time, but I think I’ll read up on a few of them in the coming weeks.
Comment by Ken
Looks to me as if Obama is gearing up to govern from the hard left, where he is philosophically situated. I am hoping that mainstream America will come to realize that Obama is not a moderate, and that the media intentionally avoided really vetting him. Corrective action can then be taken in the next election.
As for Israel, I know they are a strong nation that will not go quietly into the night. But I firmly believe there is a global jihad going on, and Israel is target #1, a democratic canary in the coal mine, so to speak. Israel deserves our unqualified support as a friend and ally living in a very bad neighborhood. Obama’s roots and inclinations are, unfortunately, much too favorably slanted towards the bad neighborhood. The creation of a Palestinian state will be the creation of a terrorist state, and will not abate the blood lust of the Islamic states for the destruction of Israel.