Obama's Two State Tantrum
By Daniel Greenfield
SultanKnish.Blogspot.com
Obama’s two terms showed us that he was a sore
winner. Israel’s election showed us that he is even
more of sore loser. Ever since Netanyahu survived an
election that he was supposed to lose, Obama has
been throwing a floor-pounding, siren-shrieking and
high-kicking tantrum over the Jewish State.
Its
latest kick and shriek had White House Chief of
Staff Denis McDonough sidling into the toxic
atmosphere at the D.C. conference for the
anti-Israel lobby J-Street to berate Netanyahu.
In attendance at the conference were such luminaries
as Saeb Erakat, the PLO negotiator who had called
Netanyahu a “filthy war criminal” and claimed that
Hamas is “a political, not a terrorist movement.”
Also featured was Nabila Espanioly of Hadash,
formerly the Israeli Communist Party. Nabila, a
former Communist activist who had accused Israel of
“State Terrorism”, told J Street about the need to
fight “against fascism and against racism inside
Israel.”
Other notables included Maha Mehanna, who had called
Israel’s war against Hamas a “crime against
humanity”, Peter Beinart, who wanted Obama to punish
Israel and freeze the assets of its Minister of the
Economy, and Matt Duss, who once compared Israel’s
blockade of Hamas in Gaza to “segregation in the
American South.”
The comparison would have been on the nose if it had
been the KKK being segregated.
Finally there was James Baker, the former Secretary
of State and senior partner for the law firm the
Saudis hired to defend themselves against lawsuits
from 9/11 victims, who had famously said, “F___ the
Jews. They don’t vote for us anyway.”
Denis McDonough’s appearance at the J Street
hatefest could be taken as, “F___ the Jews, they’ll
vote for us anyway.”
The dead-eyed McDonough threw the rabid anti-Israel
audience its red meat by warning that, “An
occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must
end.”
He continued the administration’s pretense of being
offended by Netanyahu’s election rhetoric about the
absence of any partner for peace to create a
Palestinian state with, insisting that “We cannot
simply pretend that those comments were never made,
or that they don’t raise questions about the Prime
Minister’s commitment to achieving peace through
direct negotiations.”
Netanyahu made his commitment to peace clear when he
agreed to release 104 terrorists, some of whom had
murdered children, as a precondition demanded by PLO
leader Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas sabotaged the Kerry
attempt to start negotiations anyway and Kerry
predictably blamed Israel. But that’s part of the
administration’s consistent position that Israel is
always wrong.
Obama’s people are still complaining about
Netanyahu’s election comments and his breach of
protocol in addressing Congress. But what are
Israelis supposed to make of Obama’s Chief of Staff
addressing a conference that featured apologists for
Hamas and supporters of boycotting Israel?
What message does it send when the White House Chief
of Staff attacks the Prime Minister of Israel at an
event featuring enemies of Israel? Barack Obama is
certainly no stickler for integrity in election
rhetoric.
When he first ran for the White House, he
appeared at AIPAC and vowed that, “Jerusalem will
remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain
undivided.”
Once in office, Obama berated Israel for building
“settlements” in Jerusalem, one of the oldest cities
in the world. Last year his spokesman claimed that
building in Jerusalem would distance Israel from
“even its closest allies.”
At AIPAC he had told the audience that, “There is no
greater threat to Israel — or to the peace and
stability of the region — than Iran. Now this
audience is made up of both Republicans and
Democrats, and the enemies of Israel should have no
doubt that, regardless of party, Americans stand
shoulder to shoulder in our commitment to Israel's
security.”
Then he went on to push a deal that would let Iran
go nuclear while his propagandists denounced
Republicans opposed to the sellout as “traitors”.
Most recently he had Iran delisted as a terror
threat.
Obama’s double standard has been to hold Netanyahu
to the most extreme interpretation of his remarks
while giving himself a pass. That same pass is also
good for Iran and the PLO.
The liberal line on the PLO’s Palestinian Authority
and the Iranian regime has been to ignore their
rhetoric. No matter how many times the PLO
celebrates the murder of Jews and calls for the
destruction of Israel; Obama never warns that he is
“reassessing” his relationship with the terrorist
group.
Iran’s Supreme Leader just said, “Death to America”,
but that won’t impact the negotiations. The White
House explained that was “intended for a domestic
political audience”. When Netanyahu says something
during an election that the White House doesn’t
like, the fact that it was intended for a domestic
audience doesn’t matter. But when Iran’s leader
calls for “Death to America”, we can just ignore
that because it surely doesn’t reflect his deeper
feelings on destroying America.
Terrorist regimes are treated as untrustworthy when
it comes to their rhetoric, but absolutely reliable
when they negotiate. The same Ayatollah who calls
for “Death to America” is supposedly lying to his
own people, but his representatives will be
absolutely honest when they pledge not to build a
bomb. The Palestinian Authority shouldn’t be paid
attention to when it calls for destroying Israel,
but should be relied on when it signs on the dotted
line no matter how many agreements it broke in the
past.
When Iran threatens America, it’s just posturing.
When the PLO threatens Israel, it’s empty rhetoric.
But when they negotiate, suddenly we can trust our
lives to the word of these “liars”.
Iran and the PLO benefit from the same double
standard that Obama does. We’re not supposed to
believe what they say in public, but we’re meant to
have faith that they are honest in private.
Netanyahu however gets whacked with the other side
of that standard. The same political hack who
shamelessly told AIPAC that he supports a united
Jerusalem and then even more shamelessly took it
back, pretends to be morally outraged that Netanyahu
would slam a PLO state during an election.
Either an uncharacteristically modest Obama thinks
that Netanyahu is better than him, or he’s being a
shameless hypocrite. Given his sordid history,
hypocrite is the safest bet.
Obama’s international doubletalk has gotten so bad
that John Kerry actually had to tell the Russians to
ignore Obama’s public statements about Russia. While
Obama can’t “pretend” that Netanyahu’s “comments
were never made”, the Russians are supposed to
pretend that his comments were never made. The
Israelis are supposed to pretend that Obama never
said anything about a united Jerusalem. So which
comments does Obama really mean? Who knows.
Maybe
he could color code them to indicate which of his
comments he doesn’t mean, which of his comments he
really doesn’t mean and which of his comments he
only heard about from the media.
Israel isn’t the barrier to a Palestinian state. The
PLO and Hamas can’t even get along long enough to
form a state or hold an election. Blaming Netanyahu
for actually addressing these facts is the height of
cynicism from an administration that until recently
avoided investing its energies in peace negotiations
because it knew that was a dead end.
Obama doesn’t really believe in a Palestinian state.
He’s throwing a two state tantrum because it gives
him a convenient angle of attack against Netanyahu.
The Israeli election was about either forcing out
Netanyahu or isolating him. Having failed at the
first, Obama is defaulting back to the second.
This isn’t about peace. It’s about fighting and
winning a political war against Netanyahu in order
to free Obama to secure his nuclear deal with Iran.
Obama claims that Netanyahu has shown that he is
untrustworthy when it comes to peace. Instead he
urges us to trust our lives to an Ayatollah who
calls for “Death to America”, but doesn’t ‘really’
mean it.