Jewish World Review June 5, 2009 / 13 Sivan 5769

Obama's Arabian dreams

By Caroline B. Glick

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | US President Barack Obama claims to be a big

fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia
and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the
centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard
truths. Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his
so-called address to the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's

address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected
political convenience.

Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the
need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of
religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these
issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy
prescriptions.

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their
intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very
mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as
moderate and responsible.

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common
Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He
ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal
and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming
that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing
this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of
women in the Islamic world.

So too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian
religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the
problems of tyranny.

In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his
disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress;
tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally
fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the
Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and
moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

On the surface Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive
Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and
anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that
America's ties to Israel are "unbreakable."

Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually
accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign — and therefore unjustifiable —
intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel,
Obama legitimized it.
The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was
established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed
about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral
rights to the Land of Israel.

This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the

legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long
before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations
mandated the "reconstitution" — not the creation -- of the Jewish commonwealth in
the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.

But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic
truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly
that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history." He then
explicitly tied Israel's establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-
serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal, and moral
justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel
itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of
Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He
similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves.
Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral
heights of slave rebellions and the civil rights movement by referring to it by
its Arab euphemism, "resistance."

But as disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama's rhetoric was, the policies he
outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two
sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First he
announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in
Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second he said that
he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a
nuclear energy program.

Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy
will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection however, it is
clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed,
their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is
so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting
them may be.

The administration's policy towards Jewish building in Israel's heartland and

capital city expose a massive level of hostility towards Israel. Not only does it
fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush
administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli
and American governments not to embarrass each other.

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about
Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about
Hezbollah’s projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal
political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran
and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region.

As Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his interview last week with the
Washington Post, in light of the administration's hostility towards Israel, the
Palestinian Authority no longer feels it is necessary to make any concessions
whatsoever to Israel. It needn't accept Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It
needn't minimize in any way its demand that Israel commit demographic suicide by
accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as full citizens. And it needn't
curtail its territorial demand that Israel contract to within indefensible
borders.

In short, by attacking Israel and claiming that Israel is responsible for the
absence of peace, the administration is encouraging the Palestinians and the Arab
world as a whole to continue to reject Israel and to refuse to make peace with the
Jewish state.

The Netanyahu government reportedly fears that Obama and his advisors have made
such an issue of settlements because they seek to overthrow Israel's government
and replace it with the more pliable Kadima party. Government sources note that
White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel played a central role in destabilizing
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's first government in 1999, when he served as an
advisor to then president Bill Clinton. They also note that Emmanuel is currently
working with leftist Israelis and American Jews associated with Kadima and the
Democratic Party to discredit the government.

While there is little reason to doubt that the Obama administration would prefer a
leftist government in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the White House is attacking
Israel primarily to advance this aim. This is first of all the case because today
there is little danger that Netanyahu's coalition partners will abandon him.

Moreover, the Americans have no reason to believe that prospects for a peace deal
would improve with a leftist government at the helm in Jerusalem. After all,
despite its best efforts, the Kadima government was unable to make peace with the
Palestinians as was the Labor government before it. What the Palestinians have
shown consistently since the failed 2000 Camp David summit is that there is no
deal that Israel can offer them that they are willing to accept.

So if the aim of the administration in attacking Israel is neither to foster peace

nor to bring down the Netanyahu government, what can explain its behavior?

The only reasonable explanation is that the administration is baiting Israel

because it wishes to abandon the Jewish state as an ally in favor of warmer ties
with the Arabs. It has chosen to attack Israel on the issue of Jewish construction
because it believes that by concentrating on this issue, it will minimize the
political price it will be forced to pay at home for jettisoning America's
alliance with Israel. By claiming that he is only pressuring Israel in order to
enable a peaceful "two-state solution," Obama assumes that he will be able to
maintain his support base among American Jews who will overlook the underlying
hostility his "pro-peace" stance papers over.

Obama's policy towards Iran is a logical complement of his policy towards Israel.
Just as there is no chance that he will bring Middle East peace closer by
attacking Israel, so he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by
offering the mullahs nuclear energy. The deal Obama is now proposing has been on
the table since 2003 when Iran's nuclear program was first exposed. Over the past
six years, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected it. Indeed, just last week they
again announced that they reject it.

Here too, to understand the President's actual goal it is necessary to search for
the answers closer to home. Since Obama's policy has no chance of preventing Iran
from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is apparent that he has come to terms with the
prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. In light of this, the most rational explanation
for his policy of engaging Iran is that he wishes to avoid being blamed when Iran
emerges as a nuclear power in the coming months.
In reckoning with the Obama administration, it is imperative that the Netanyahu
government and the public alike understand what the true goals of its current
policies are. Happily, consistent polling data show that the overwhelming majority
of Israelis realize that the White House is deeply hostile towards Israel. The
data also show that the public approves of Netanyahu's handling of our relations
with Washington.

Moving forward, the government must sustain this public awareness and support. By
his words as well as by his deeds, not only has Obama shown that he is not a
friend of Israel. He has shown that there is nothing that Israel can do to make
him change his mind.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the

media considers "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just
click here.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center
for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The
Jerusalem Post. Comment by clicking here.