Obama's Ludicrous Proposal to Israel Unpacked / Prof.B.Rubin

June 14, 2011
Could President Barack Obama’s strategy possibly be more obvious to Israel? Not for the mass media, of course, but for Israel. Here’s a summary: Due to the Obama Administration’s ineptness, the Palestinian Authority (PA) is planning to ask the UN to give it unilateral independence in September. But rather than use its leverage against the PA–including pointing out that what it’s doing is contrary to every U.S.-guaranteed agreement that the PA signed with Israel during the last 18 years–the Obama Administration wants to use its leverage on Israel to force it to save Obama.

You see, Obama will find it hard to escape vetoing the PA’s bid in the Security Council before it ever gets to the General Assembly. This will not make Obama or the United States more popular with Muslims or Arabs. So Obama wants Israel to pay the price in exchange for…nothing.

To avoid the PA declaring unilateral independence without making any concessions, Obama wants Israel to accept what amounts to the PA getting independence without making any concessions! But it won’t be unilateral, right? Obama’s plan is for Israel to negotiate, turn over the all of the West Bank to the PA as soon as possible and then negotiate on all the issues with a PA-led state. Of course, that means Israel would give up all of its bargaining chips at the beginning of the negotiation rather than get something for them at the end in exchange for Palestinian concessions.

And, of course, Obama wants Israel to depend on his promises and support, not exactly reliable, right?

What’s really going on is that Obama wants Israel to take enormous risks and give up a huge amount of political capital, thus endangering its citizens and future in order to spare Obama from vetoing the PA’s initiative. And since Obama takes no strong action against the Fatah-Hamas coalition, he’s asking Israel to give these concessions to an interocutor that includes genocidal-minded antisemitic terrorists working with Iran, Syria, and the Muslim Brotherhood.

The argument the Obama administration and its supporters is using–despite being taken seriously in the mass media–is absurd. Namely, Israel must make big concessions to give the PA a state as fast as possible because otherwise the Europeans will support unilateral Palestinian independence at the UN.

But wait a minute! First, if the U.S. government would use real leverage, leadership, and even some arm-twisting, this European action wouldn’t happen. Second, Britain, France, Germany, and Italy have already said they won’t back the PA’s move. So what’s Israel going to do, turn over the West Bank real fast to avoid having Spain and Sweden vote against Israel at the UN? Third, the U.S. government can just veto the plan. Problem over.

If Obama didn’t want to have to veto unilateral independence he should have been pressuring the PA to back down, the UN not to cooperate with this campaign, and his allies not to vote for it. Instead, Obama is seeking the easy way out: have Israel give the PA so much that it gives up the idea voluntarily. Why demand what the United States has already given to you?

And it doesn’t take a genius to understand that the kind of signal Obama is giving the PA is disastrous in other situations. Go against U.S. wishes, sabotage its policies, attack its allies, don’t fulfill your commitments, align with terrorist groups, threaten to do something outrageous…and then the Obama Administration will give in and force your enemies (it’s own allies) to surrender.

Thus, what Obama is doing is ludicrous, trying to get Israel to pay for his mistakes and his refusal to press the PA on anything in exchange for Israel getting nothing and betting its future on a belief that Obama will protect it.

Sounds a bit different from the way the mass media presents things, right? And not bloody likely to happen.

Obama is responsible for the present situation of the conflict

Obama forced Israel to freez settlement building in order to bring Abu Mazen to the table. Abu Mazen did not make use of the 10 months of freeze, and demanded 3 more, with Obama's support.

Thus, Obama gave the PA the excuse not to talk.

Talks mean compromise, but a stste given by the UN means no compromise and the conflict goes on.

The real issue is not the settlement but the PA demand to settle the refugees in Israel and not in the Palestinian state as proposed twice by Israel in 2000 and 2008.

Israel agreed to compensate the PA for the 3% of settlements on the Western Bank.

The demand to settle the refugees in Israel is to eliminate the Jewish state by a Palestinian majority.

Post new comment

  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters (without spaces) shown in the image.