BIBI THE MAN VS BAMBI THE BOY

In Election 2008, 78% of American Jews voted for Barack Obama. That was when he sold himself as a friend of Israel, in fact, promising a delegation of Jews that Jerusalem would never be split, not while he was president. Barack Obama backtracked on that promise days later. But there were plenty of other warnings that Barack Obama might not prove to be the true friend of Israel that he purported to be. After assaults from the right revealed a growing list of Obama associates who are known Israel detractors, the Obama aura took a hit with Jews. Days before the election a worried Obama went so far as to leak that should he be elected, Jewish Rahm Emmanuel would become his chief of staff, such an announcement prior to a win a break with tradition.

I was in the Jewish shtetl of Florida those days before election 2008. Obama’s poll numbers were showing that Jews were worried. So he corralled his onetime nemesis and longtime friend of the Jewish community, Hillary Clinton, to post an editorial in the local papers, vowing for Barack Obama’s “Jewish” character. I recount these events in my book, A YEAR IN MY PAJAMAS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA, the Politics of Strange Bedfellows.

Obama went on to win the election handily with the full support of the Jewish community. But not long after he was seated in the White House, the Jewish president became the Muslim Barack Hussein Obama in the eyes of many Jews, when he refused to break Challah with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu and made him enter the White House through the backdoor.

Thus reality came home to roost and it was tough for many Jews to absorb the seemingly hostile president who had begun to pressure the Israeli’s on an array of concessions, while making no such demands on the intransigent Palestinians. Reports circulated and continue to do so that Obama and Netanyahu don’t particularly care for one another. Of course only those close to them know the truth; at the end of the day what does it matter anyway?

What does matter are these still unanswered questions: Is President Barack Obama inherently anti-Israel, anti-Zionist, anti-Semitic? Is Barack Obama a closet Muslim, a man whose sympathies therefore lie with the Palestinians? As the President of the United States, is President Obama acting out of a concern for American interests and its long-term ally Israel? Or is Obama willing to sell-out Israel because he feels that the Arabs are controlling America’s economic destiny these days, since they control the vast amount of the world’s oil, and the price of oil will ultimately effect Obama’s reelection. Is Obama being held hostage by the Arab states to do something about the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and if he does not, they will see to a higher price for oil? As absurd as some of these questions may sound, they are questions often raised by the public at-large.

Overtime, it appeared that the relationship between the two leaders had improved. But just when it appeared so, along came Obama’s speech last week in which he essentially told Israel that he would be the one to dictate the terms of the peace talks. Clearly, his Thursday speech was meant to steal Netanyahu’s thunder which would come this week in his speech to AIPAC and the joint session of Congress, while Obama was off in Europe schmoosing with British royalty and the G-8.

Indeed Obama changed the conversation, wittingly or unwittingly (which will be argued in the history books, I’m certain), stating that from here on in the ’67 lines would be the basis for an independent Palestinian state with mutual land swaps. Vey ist mier. If you’re paying attention to the story, you know what happened next. It wasn’t pretty. Conservatives went after Obama and accused him of everything they could possibly throw at him. The left defended him to the point of losing their credibility as their response was their typical knee-jerk it’s all Israel’s fault, the meme of the left these days, and apparently that of their leader, Barack Obama. The center, which didn’t like what Obama said/did, took the posture that Obama can pontificate all he wants because the chances of the two sides sitting down with one another any time soon, considering the new alliance between the Palestinian suit and tie terrorist organization led by Abu Mazen and the terrorist group Hamas have joined forces to take down Israel.

All that being said there are two points that need to be addressed here. The first: Why does Obama speak to the Jewish people as if they are children and only Barack Obama knows what is best for them? That is certainly the tone he used to address AIPAC Sunday, and one assumes is the tone he is using when he addresses Prime Minister Netanyahu in private. The tone is offensive particularly from a man who only two years ago had zero foreign policy experience.

And the larger question that I would like an answer to is why is this president continually getting in public dust-ups with Prime Minister Netanyahu and a large segment of world Jewry?
It’s unseemly. Spats amongst friends shouldn’t reach the public. But it is the reality, a reality that speaks to a huge failing on the part of the President of the United States.

I don’t buy into this administration’s jazzy line that good friends can have spats but it doesn’t mean anything. It very much does on the world stage. It plays into the hands of our ally Israel’s enemies. For this and for the reasons stated above, I blame the president for the current worldwide efforts to de-legitimize Israel. And I note that in their joint press op following their reported spirited private meeting last week, I saw none of the surliness present in Bibi Netanyahu in their joint statements before the press corps following their reported Bibi was the mensch: earnest, sincere, poetic, and heartfelt. The president’s posture, on the other hand, was a familiar one. He displayed it all too often during the primary debates when his nemesis then was Hillary Clinton. He appeared peevish, annoyingly professorial, and he imposed an air of superiority to an equal head of state. In a word: he came off as a shmegegge…which is bad, but not as bad as the code name Scotland Yard has given the president during his visit to the UK: Chalque, the Punjabi word meaning Smart Alec.

Oy vey! It seems the truth.

THE GILO MONSTER, WHAT ABBAS DOESN'T GET

While Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was sticking it to President Obama with the announcement that Israeli would be expanding the Gilo settlement in Jerusalem (See: below), it should be pointed out that he was also sending a very important message to the Palestinians.

Netanyahu has said all along that he wants to negotiate with the Palestinians. He wants to sit down for talks without pre-conditions. Of course, we all know that President Obama and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas have insisted on a complete halt of expansion of Israeli settlements in order to appease the Palestinians and Arab putting the oil-pressure on the U.S., as a pre-condition to talks.

But Netanyahu didn't give Obama what he wanted. He gave a lot, but it wasn't enough for Abbas or Obama.

So, Bibi announced that Israel would be expanding settlements in Gilo, located in East Jerusalem. This sent the American President into apoplexy. The infuriated Abbas now wants to declare a Palestinian State without the Israeli's agreement.

While you can be sure that Jewish haters in the UN might sanction such a move, most won't as it would completely eradicate the notion that the world body garners any significance.

The U.S., despite its "dismay" at Netanyahu's announcement, immediately said it would not.

So here's the bottom line: Bibi's message to Abbas is that the more the Palestinian's delay sitting down with Israel for talks, the less there will be to talk about. You can just hear Netanyahu saying: We will grow and your dream will shrink.

Are you listening Abbas? Obama?

ISRAEL'S NETANYAHU GIVES OBAMA THE FINGER

Yesterday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu proved to the world Jewish community that President Barack Obama is no friend of Israel's. And the media seems to have missed what may be the most outrageous behavior of Obama's since becoming the President of the United States.

When Israel announced that it would move forward with the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem, it knew full-well what Obama's reaction would be. The president went apoplectic.

Netanyahu's announcement on Gilo was Bibi's version of giving President Obama the finger. It was also Netanyahu's way of sending the signal that he thinks that POTUS is weak and can easily be trifled with.

But, more importantly, Netanyahu was showing the world Jewish community exactly where Obama stands in terms of his support of Israel.

True, the United States has never formally accepted Jerusalem as Israel's capitol, or formally accepted the unification of the city that was made possible by the Six-Day War. As much as the U.S. routinely protested settlement-building in the West Bank, it never made an issue about expanding neighborhoods in Jerusalem.

There stood a tacit agreement between Israel and its U.S. ally that Jerusalem was off the table as a bargaining chip between Israel and the Palestinians. And that’s where Obama parts company with his predecessors.

Which is why Netanyahu did what he did after his disastrous meeting with Obama last week in which POTUS apparently told the Prime Minister of Israel that he would no longer stand with Israel on ANY issue, including Jerusalem. The U.S. was now fully-backing the Palestinians...unless (my guess, of course) Netanyahu completely stopped the expansion of all settlements in the West Bank.

Netanyahu refused to budge and the Gilo announcement was the result of the outrageous pressure Obama has consistently placed on Israel while making ZERO demands on the Palestinians since becoming president.

Regardless of where anyone stands on the issue of expansion in the West Bank or in Jerusalem, one should be concerned over Obama's bullying of a long-time ally. Obama is not a mediator in this fight; he has taken the side of Israel's enemies: The Arabs (for oil), The Palestinians (to assuage al Qaeda), and in a de facto way, The Iranians (out of fear), by giving them the gift of time.

A couple of weeks ago, NY Times writer Tom Freidman suggested that everyone should stop trying to mediate an end to the conflict between the Israeli's and Palestinians. His reason: the two parties weren't ready for a solution. I don't think this is true of the Israeli's. They have bent over backwards to make concessions to no avail.

One thing is certain, there can be no solution with the wrong mediator leading the negotiations, and that is absolutely, what we have here.

It is for this reason that if I were Netanyahu I would refuse to further conversations with Obama at the helm. But since, of course, this is unrealistic, Netanyahu instead gave the president of the United States the finger in his announcement that Israel would begin the expansion of Gilo.

After all, what could POTUS do? Have his press secretary come down on Israel? And that's exactly what Robert Gibbs did do.

But now Jews worldwide know exactly where President Obama stands. And it is not with Israel.

UPDATE: Iran says no to sending uranium abroad.

Halli Casser-Jayne is the author of A YEAR IN MY PAJAMAS WITH PRESIDENT OBAMA, The Politics of Strange Bedfellows. You can read more of her opinions @ http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
c. 2009 Reprints with permission.

IT'S ABOUT OIL, STUPID and ALL THE SLICK PLAYERS

Rest assured that many Jews, American and Israeli, were thrilled when they learned that President-elect Barack Obama had picked Jewish Rahm Emanuel to be his chief-of-staff.

Notwithstanding the fact that Barack Obama, far from stupid, picked Rahm Emanuel at an opportune moment, just as the election was about to take place and Obama, who needed the Jewish vote, was having a difficult time closing the deal.

Emanuel, also not stupid, had worked for Bill Clinton and had been a Hillary supporter. And although Emanuel and Obama are both part of the Chicago gang, Emanuel stayed with Hillary until it was clear she wasn't going to be the Democratic Party's nominee. He's a most loyal fellow that Rahm Emanuel.

So about Emanuel and loyalty and influence. One wonders of the meshuganah position taken by the Obama administration on the issue of the Middle East. Was the new approach to Israel Obama’s idea and Emanuel was being the loyal soldier? Or was Emanuel part and parcel of the stupid, tough new approach to Israel? For that matter, how much of a hand did Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have in the failed approach? We'll have to wait to see, I guess, for one or the others' memoirs.

But here we are today, and the situation in the Israel vs. Palestinian long saga is a stupid mess. The Obama-Emanuel-Clinton approach to put the pressure on Israel backfired, although PM Bibi Netanyahu now insists that Israel's relationship with Washington isn't as bad as the press reports it is. I would guess the White House asked Netanyahu to push this stupid new meme in consideration for something else.
Because we all know that there is no love lost between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the Obama administration. Whatever, another memoir is in the making.

So, here we are in this stupid mess. Obama's hapless foray into Middle East politics has only made matters worse. The Arabs are mad at us again, the Palestinian Authority’s President, Mahmud Abbas, is truly threatening to leave  (I say, truly, because Abbas has  said this before). But this time, his departure could leave a vacuum and give the stupid terrorist organization Hamas exactly what it wants, more power over the unfortunate Palestinian people than before.

So what next? NY Times reporter Tom Friedman suggests that it is time to back off from trying to get negotiations back on track as the two parties themselves seem disinterested in reaching peace.

Other scholars advocate helping the Palestinians economically so they will have an infrastructure from which to build a future and with it the psychological consequence of being proud of that structure, not to mention the base from which to form a nation.

I heartily agree with both approaches, particularly the last. The people who call themselves Palestinians, unlike the Jewish émigrés to the territory that is now Israel, seem incapable of understanding the need to build their infrastructure for their future state on their own, and sadly, are too often thwarted by their own (Hamas).
Where a true difference can be made, I suggest, is not by a U.S. intervention between the Israelis and Palestinians. but instead, by the real source of power in the region, the Arab nations.

The Arabs insist that they want a homeland for the Palestinians and that they want peace between the two old foes. Yet, they do nothing but offer stupid talk and insist upon Israel making all the sacrifices both in her land and in her security.

Why haven’t the allies ever asked the Arab nations to stand up and take responsibility for the Palestinians? There is an easy answer. The great and powerful United States and the other super powers are afraid to, stupidly intimidated by the oil rich nations who hold oil over us all, their weapon of mass destruction.

In fact, let’s call it what it is: the U.S. and its allies are engaged in an undeclared economic war with the oil rich Arabs. 9/11 was one of the battles of that war. Our strike on Iraq, a lame counter-move. The rise in oil prices in 2007/2008 an economic lob by OPEC and our current economic downturn the collateral damage of the last OPEC salvo.

The truth is that the Palestinians are their people, and the Arab Nations should have the responsibility of helping them have their own homeland, either by absorbing them within the borders of one of their countries, or giving them their own plot of land.
The West Bank is not the place for a Palestinian homeland; it simply isn’t going to work there and to think it ever will is just plain stupid.

For purely economic reasons, no American president wants to pressure the Arabs, even President Obama the man who got himself elected by promising us change we can believe in.

Instead, Rahm Emanuel and his President Obama have in their zealousness to try something new, victimized the victims, the Israeli’s, and missed the point entirely. New for the sake of new is meaningless. More importantly, did they really miss the point? Or are they, like their predecessors, too cowardly to address the reality?

And, by the way, forget health care for now. With 17.5% of Americans unemployed, why hasn’t Obama made job creation the number one issue on his plate, and the creation of a project to end our dependency on Arab oil, which would create new and sustainable jobs part of a jobs plan? This is not a stupid question.

There are TWO victims in this mess created by selfish heads of state and the Arab nations. Thanks to Mr. Obama and Rahm Emanuel’s tactics, we are all aware that one is the Palestinians. Their plight is the result of the world trying to right its wrong against the FIRST victims, the Jews and their struggle against Anti-Semitism.

It was the Jew’s victimization at the hands of anti-Semites as well as world guilt, that resulted in the people who call themselves Palestinians plight, leaving them with choices they were unwilling to make, including being magnanimous to a people long mistreated by the world.

Still, all of the history ignores the current fact that the Israeli’s are still victims, despised world-wide and by surrounding nations that refuse to recognize their existence. And with the equal goal of destroying The Jewish State.

Are Israeli's better off than the Palestinians? I’m not sure. Compare them to the kid who lives in a mansion and from the outside looks like she has it all. Only inside she’s being terrorized by an abusive father.

Which leaves us to the reality that the Palestinian’s own people, the Arabs, have only nominally stood up for their own and in many ways have contributed to their dilemma by refusing to offer those who don’t want to live in Israel a place in their rightful world.

Lately, the Saudi’s, the Jordanians and the Egyptians have been offering lip service to President Obama pretending to want to be a party in the solution of the Palestinian issue.

Of course, it’s all oil-derrick smoke and mirrors. Until we start putting the OIL-pressure on the Arabs nothing will change. What’s that old saying? If you keep on doing the same old thing the same old way you get the same old STUPID result.

As I said, it’s about oil, STUPID. President Obama and Rahm Emanuel know this because neither of the two men are, in fact, stupid?