Our problem with President Barack Obama is that he is good, benevolent, decent, straightforward, and genuine, and many other words and expressions can be used to describe him along the lines of these mentioned above. These all translate into the fact that the man has a good moral character, and that he is honest, moderate and fair. But these qualities are required among good neighbors in a street, and are not the requirements of statesmanship. When opponents or rivals discover that the U.S. President is 'not tough enough', they would not attribute this to his good morals and integrity, but would instead consider it a weakness that they can exploit and use against him. Ever since Obama entered the White House, he has been trying to appease the Republicans, and to pursue a conciliatory policy between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. However, the results show that he did not manage to win over a single foe of his policies (very few Republicans have liberal inclinations; however, even this would be out of personal conviction rather than persuasion in the President's views). The Republicans oppose him in reducing defense spending, even when they want to cut all other spending. Yesterday, the Weekly Standard – a mouthpiece of the neoconservatives – was attacking Obama on this very issue, on the issues of Obama's healthcare plan and Medicare, and on the issue of the pulling out of American troops from fighting America's losing wars. They are even against him with regard to his stance on Israel, even when he had expressed his support for Israel at the AIPAC meeting, which Ronald Reagan himself refused to attend in 1988. But I will leave the U.S. President to sort out his own domestic problems, and talk instead about what interests me, in terms of his foreign policy. He has practically given Israel everything, but did not get anything in return from its advocates, except perhaps further antagonism. I will attempt below to give the reader examples, or outlines, with the least amount of explanation: - The Likudnik commentator Charles Krauthammer in the liberal Washington Post said that the peace process means that Israel gives up land, which is tangible, while the Arabs (he is afraid to say Palestinians) make promises, which are “ephemeral”. I say here that the peace process means exactly the opposite. The entire land belongs to the Palestinians, and they are willing to forfeit 78% of it to the thieving Khazari Jews. Further, this extremist rejected land swaps even if they were mutually agreed, because this would be binding for Israel. In a previous article, Krauthammer made a reference to President Obama's speech at the State Department, and considered his talk about Iraq to be a victory for the Bush Doctrine. But this doctrine belongs to the ash heap of history. Obama spoke of a multiethnic Iraq and pluralistic democratic rule, and that simply does not exist at all in Iraq today. - Jackson Diehl, the editor of the op-ed section in the same newspaper, is yet another Likudnik extremist. He said that President Obama's talk of land swaps was a gaffe. The title of his article was then echoed by one of the most despicable American extremists, Alan Dershowtiz, the advocate of Israel and its crimes and terrorism. The titles of both their articles spoke of Obama's ‘gaffe', in a show of telepathy and their common sources of inspiration. In other words, the advocates of the extremist apartheid government in Israel want Israel to retain the land. - The Likudnik newspaper the Washington Times said that Obama's plans for peace in the Middle East will lead to a war. This is while a known Likudnik website, Frontpage magazine, published an almost endless series on Obama's gaffes and mistakes, claiming things such as he is subservient to the Islamic world, while he in fact gives Israel a free pass on everything. It was also claimed that he threw Israel to the dogs. (I want to be objective here, because the English expression does not mean that the Arabs or Muslims are dogs, but the expression intends to say that Obama had abandoned Israel or failed it.) The website claimed that the march of the Palestinians and their supporters to the borders of Occupied Palestine on 15/5 to commemorate the Nakbah was an invasion of Israel, and reproached the protesters whom the site claimed have caused their own ruin with their hands, and surely not because the neo-Nazi occupation army shot the unarmed protesters. - The prolific writer Thomas Friedman himself was not spared the hostility of the Likudniks. He wrote an objective article entitled Bibi and Barack in the New York Times, in which he talked about the failures of the Israelis and the Palestinians in seeking peace. He also said that Netanyahu did not do much effort to find ways to reach peace but rather avoided it. As a result, the same extremist website attacked Friedman twice, and said that his talk was tripe, and then attacked him again in another article published afterwards. In such a situation, what good does it do if Obama continues to appease the extremist supporters of each and every war against Arabs and Muslims? Their stance was explicit as stated by the terrorist Likdunik Danny Ayalon, in an article published by the New York Times about the land of Israel, i.e. Palestine. He suggested that Netanyahu annex the settlements and not “forfeit” land to the Palestinians, even though it is they who would be forfeiting land. There can be no peace for Obama with these people, nor peace for us with them. [email protected]
