The Alien in the White House

Posted by on Monday, June 14, 2010 · 4 Comments 

 The following quote is from an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal authored by Dorothy Rabinowitz.  Politically, she’s a necon:

Mr. Obama is not merely our first post-racial president, he is our first post-American president. He believes in the third-world narrative that western civilization, most especially the United States and Israel, is the source of misery suffered by all non-Europeans. He agrees with the narrative that says the United States is a racist, colonialist oppressor that has lived too wealthy for too long due to its theft of the world’s finite resources. He believes that the planet itself has suffered because of us. He supplicates himself — and us –when he bows in the presence of other third-world leaders. He is not merely an alien, he may in fact be an enemy. He does not care for the history of this great nation, and he most certainly does not care for the people who live in it.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703302604575294231631318728.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read#articleTabs%3Darticle

You may wonder what exactly prompted this, after all, it seems that Obama has really been pretty busy trying to burnish his image in the wake of the gulf oil disaster and has been a tad too busy here of late to to run around with “third world narratives” concerning the US and Israel.  What gives and why is Rabinowitz so ticked off at him?

Well, this is continuing fallout between Obama and the Israelis beginning with the insult of announcing more settlements on Palestinian land during vice president Joe Biden’s visit to the middle east a couple of months ago and continuing with the fallout from Israel’s attack on the aid flotilla of two weeks ago killing nine people.  In response to the flotilla attack,  Obama had a sit down with Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority (P.A.) to dole out  $ 400 million of aid and announce that the continued blockade of Gaza was “unsustainable”.  He called for “new conceptual framework” to address the situation in the Gaza strip.

To be honest, these are just baby steps.  First of all, Abbas’ Palestinian Authority doesn’t even run the Gaza Strip, the duly elected Hamas does,  but no one can talk to them because they’re considered a “terrorist organization”, a designation that Israel uses to engage in extrajudicial assassinations while using their election as a justification for the entire blockade of Gaza to begin with.  Hamas wound up getting elected mainly because they were more effective in addressing the needs of the people and didn’t have the same problems with corruption as the P.A. did.  George Bush and the Likud party were directly responsible for the election of Hamas as they didn’t want to deal with the PA when Yasir Arafat was alive and continued the same thing with Abbas, but now want to deal with him now that Hamas is in charge of the Gaza Strip.  What makes sitting down with Abbas so stupid is that he and the PA only effectively rule in the West Bank and have no control over Gaza.   So in effect, Obama sitting down with him is little more than a photo op and an opportunity to make a statement.  It’s a start, but is really nothing but a baby step.

But baby step or not, any slight movement towards a more even US hand in the middle east will be met with fierce resistance by the neocons, whose entire platform largely involves support of Israel’s expansionist policy that’s  heretofore been  financed courtesy of the US taxpayer. Rather than question the whether the American president is an “alien”, Rabinowitz and the rest of these neocons need to be questioned about their divided loyalties and whether or not they’re aliens.  The last time I checked, we only have 50 states and Israel is not the 51st state and there’s absolutely no obligation that America has to finance nor politically support its expansionist policies. Last time I checked, Obama doesn’t maintain dual citizenship unlike the probable case with Rabinowitz and her minions.   It is those who have the dual loyalties divided between America and another nation who are the “aliens”and the recent flotilla incident is awakening many people to this fact.   

US policy, for the sake of America, needs to move towards a more even hand in the middle east and if that means that the US and Israel wind up parting ways, so be it. 

Related Posts

Filed under Politics · Tagged with , ,

  • http://withintheblackcommunity.blogspot.com Constructive Feedback

    [quote] support of Israel’s expansionist policy that’s heretofore been financed courtesy of the US taxpayer[/quote]

    Brother Greg L:

    Put me down as one of those dastardly “Supporters Of Israel”.

    If given the choice between supporting Israel or the array of nations that surround her, plotting on Israel’s demise the choice is clear.

    Ironically those who believe in the “even hand” approach in the situation (which translates into hammering Israel as we would Iran / Iraq) fail to see that even if we truly adopt this policy – with the hopes of showing the people in the region that indeed America is a “fair judge” this won’t buy us anything. They would still be interested in cutting our throats as we are the “Infidel” and “Evil Empire”. Ironically some on the left in America have the same view. (I call them “Anti-America Americans”.)

    I have been reading your views on Israel without commenting Greg. Here is my challenge to you – go look at the map that has been called classical Palestine and then ask yourself why is it that Israel is so contested while the greater expanse of “Palestine” – that being Jordan and Lebanon and Syria are able to live without challenge of their legitimacy as a nation?

    Israeli expansion is the logical conclusion that with Gaza and the West Bank (and Golan Heights) being in such close proximity to the core state of Israel.

    Pre-1967 Map
    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Peace/borders.html

    This “Rogue State” of Israel is surrounded by people who are bent on its destruction. One might think that it is just to allow INDIVIDUALS in the Dominican Republican to arm themselves with missiles that are traditionally assigned to government controlled military and thus plead “innocent” when individual citizens carry out “International acts of war” by firing missiles into Haiti. For the government of Haiti, however, a missile from D.R. need not have the words “Property Of The Government Of The Dominican Republic” stenciled upon its side. It only needs to know that there exists a security threat and that the neighboring government has failed to regulate the actions of its own citizens.

    With that said – YES I DO BELIEVE THAT ISRAEL OVER REACTS. No doubt about it it is based on HATRED. I assure you that this sentiment is mutual.

    The key point is that the specific region – like it or not has lines that are settled. Until some their party can come in and insure that the “international” hostilities are settled – Israel would be foolish to back off and pretend that if they allowed these neighboring areas to go unregulated that their long term survival will be assured.

    I would be in favor of restoring the 1967 border and the withdrawal of all Israeli occupation forces IF the governments of these areas regulate the actions of these groups waging NGO war on Israel.

    • Greg L

      CF,

      Thanks for your comments. Here’s my response:

      As you know, I don’t try to label my views or myself politically, but on this issue, I do find myself in the libertarian camp.

      If Israel wishes to expand, occupy the land of others and behave in Nazi like fashion when it comes to the human rights of others, then they should finance it 100% themselves. I’d have a problem with their behavior even if self financed, but it’s particularly a problem given that the per capita aid they get from the US taxpayer is higher than any other nation’s. (We can’t afford to aid anyone other than ourselves at this point). Let them finance their own behavior and leave us out of it. If such a scenario were set up, you’d see them find a path towards peace.

      The only borders that Israel will accept are the new ones it’s drawing with its current settlement and land confiscation activity. The current rulers of that nation aren’t going to consider going back to their 1967 borders and unfortunately, with the Congress having been purchased, there’s absolutely no pressure emanating from the US for them to do so.

      Fairness or just our butting out of the situation and letting Israel and it neighbors settle their differences is a far better approach than our one sided support of Israel no matter what it does. This is so because we get painted or associated with its actions. There is growing recognition of this even among heads of the US military that Israel’s behavior complicates our relations with other states not only in the region but outside. An even policy includes disarming Israel of nukes if you’re going to insist that Iran not have them. This can not harm us and can only help us, but above all, we need to butt out.

      To be sure, there are religious zealots who see us as the great satan just as you have folks here that see every muslim as some terrorist. But we have meddled and interfered in the affairs of other nations in ways that we’d never accept here in our own. We’d never accept some other nation interfering in our affairs by supporting a coup here, yet that’s what precisely we did in Iran and in other places around the globe. Many times it’s not a matter someone just hating on us to be hating on us, but because of incessant meddling and interference most of our own citizens have no clue on which prevents them from seeing events in context. Now I don’t suggest that the Arab nations don’t have their own issues and not everything can be laid at the feet of the US or Israel, but what we’re going to find is that our ability to finance this meddling will be ending anyway, and I’d just as soon see it end sooner rather than later.

      The drive to attack Iran, that’s being driven by Israel, is sheer folly and madness. That will trigger WWII with Russia and China on the side of Iran. So, this is something that’s not just limited to the middle east and if they want to attack them, I say let them go for it, but dragging us into it should not be allowed. What we need are folks who are standing up for our interests and if it gets down to choosing between Israel and America, for me those choices are mutually exclusive. I’m down with what benefits my own nation and it’s clear that Israel’s interests aren’t necessarily that of America’s. We’d be wise to cut them loose and let them go it alone. We don’t have 51 states.

  • Greg L

    CF,

    This low opinion is almost entirely a function of our policy in the region. We give one sided support to an expansionist regime (Israel), are currently engaged in two unpopular wars and have a history of incessant meddling in the affairs of the nations over there. I’d argue that these things don’t promote a positive opinion of US policy, but strangely enough, US culture remains popular among Arabs. I believe this shows a demarcation in their minds between the policy they don’t like and the culture that they do. Of course, you do have folks that don’t like either.

    The problem I have with the “peace through strength” approach is its fallaciousness. We could stop spending on the military tomorrow and not spend another dime for the next 10 years and we’d still have a sizeable advantage over our closest potential adversary. The only thing “peace through strength” supports is the business models of the weapons manufacturers and those who finance them. So this adversarial relationship with the Muslims has its base in economics as related to the military industrial complex, the system of finance and the resources that exist in those lands.

Page 1 of 11