There is considerable perversity
in recent words issued by members of the Obama administration. But
perverse -- which means wrongheaded or improper -- does not do it for me today.
And so, pernicious.
The president of the US has spit
in the face of the prime minister of Israel, and I do not take this
lightly. In the best of circumstances, what has transpired would be
rude beyond imagining. But in this instance the action is pernicious -- highly
injurious or destructive.
Credit:
Toxichominoid
~~~~~~~~~~
Prime Minister
Netanyahu, aware of the movement of Iran towards nuclear capacity, has
been deeply troubled of late by what he perceives as the failure of the
president to respond to the threat with adequate seriousness.
On Sunday, he attempted, not for
the first time, to reach out to the Americans with a request
for a stated red line. By this he meant a step, to be defined by the
US, beyond which Iran would be warned not to go in its nuclear
development.
The problem, said Netanyahu, was
that the Iranians didn't take Western intentions to stop them seriously.
If there were a specific red line they might be more inclined to pay attention,
and to halt their efforts. There was no guarantee, said the prime
minister, but there was a chance.
Clearly, Netanyahu, who is widely
known to favor a hit on Iran, was attempting to secure US cooperation
that might shift the dynamics and buy some time. The front page of
yesterday's JPost citing Netanyahu as saying that Israel
was "discussing" the red lines with the US.
~~~~~~~~~~
Following this, Secretary of
State Hillary Clinton, in Russia, responded to a question about red lines
in an interview with Bloomberg Radio. There will be no red lines, she
declared, for negotiations are "by far the best approach...we’re convinced that
we have more time to focus on these sanctions, to do everything we can to bring
Iran to a good-faith negotiation."
Rest assured, she could not have
taken this incredible stance without a nod from the White
House. "Bring Iran to good-faith negotiation"? Neither she nor
Obama can possibly believe this. Negotiations have failed and there is no "good
faith" with these Iranians.
Last night, State Department
spokeswoman Victoria Nuland reiterated this position, saying, "It is not
useful to be ... setting deadlines one way or another."
~~~~~~~~~~
What's driving this is still those
damn elections. It would not be enough, you see, simply to stall on
actually setting a red line. It becomes important to make it clear to
the American electorate that no such line was even being remotely considered
by the president.
Why? Because if there
is a red line, then there must be an implied threat: If you cross the line,
we will act to stop you. This might make some voters
nervous.
~~~~~~~~~~
So, make Netanyahu look foolish
for having said that red lines were being "discussed." And hang Israel out to
dry. No problem.
~~~~~~~~~~
The response by the Israeli
government has been pretty much what you might expect. After a day of
silence, an Israeli official came forward to say, "These sorts of statements
will not stop Iran's centrifuges from spinning; unfortunately, the opposite
could be true. This won't deter Iran, but could put it at
ease."
~~~~~~~~~~
Ruthie Blum, writing in Israel
Hayom today, says of Clinton's words (emphasis added):
"Right there is reason enough for President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad and his mullahs to pray to Allah for an Obama victory on Nov.
6. It is precisely why Americans must not let that
happen."
~~~~~~~~~~
Today is 9/11. There will be
memorials and speeches marking the horror of that day, and memorializing its
thousands of victims.
But in the end
we must ask what the US has learned. The answer: Not much, if
anything.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Anne Bayefsky, in her piece, "The
White House hands Iran's Ahmadinejad a global megaphone," asks a similar
question:
"Just a few days after the
9/11 anniversary, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will travel to New York
City. Once he arrives he will be handed a platform to incite violence and
hostility from the center of the UN universe, but a few miles from Ground Zero.
"This is a man who openly advocates genocide, brazenly endeavors to commit terrorist attacks on American soil, kills and kidnaps Americans abroad, brutalizes his own people, sponsors terrorism around the world, and is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb.
"On 9/11 we need to ask why. Why is he being given this global megaphone?"
"This is a man who openly advocates genocide, brazenly endeavors to commit terrorist attacks on American soil, kills and kidnaps Americans abroad, brutalizes his own people, sponsors terrorism around the world, and is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear bomb.
"On 9/11 we need to ask why. Why is he being given this global megaphone?"
~~~~~~~~~~
What has astounded me, and will
continue to leave me breathless (and sick at heart), is the continued insistence
on the part of some American Jews that Obama is truly devoted to Israel.
This week an ardent Obama fan sent
me a piece by Edgar Bronfman, former president of the World Jewish
Congress. Wrote Bronfman:
"And today, Obama continues to implement a comprehensive
pro-Israel agenda that has made Israel safer and more secure...
"And this is also why Obama has
taken such a strong stand against the Iranian nuclear program."
This is so thoroughly and deeply
not the case that I am at a loss to understand what Bronfman's agenda might
be. Or the agenda of some others as well.
There can be no response to this
other than hard facts. If I remain sick at heart it's because I have come
to understand how thoroughly irrelevant facts are for some of Obama's
fans.
~~~~~~~~~~
Clinton also said in her interview
that:
“[The Israelis are] more anxious
about a quick response because they feel that they’re right in the bull’s eye,
so to speak."
An expression of touching concern
not well received by those of us who indeed are in the bull's eye.
~~~~~~~~~~
And meanwhile the world moves
on without blinking an eye. UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon
gave a speech to the UN Human Rights Council yesterday. He began with
a statement endorsing moral equivalencies -- although the way he phrased it was
that "human rights violations" must be responded to in "an even-
handed manner, without disproportionately emphasizing any one
situation..."
He then proceeded to devote equal
time to the bloodbath in Syria and Israel's blockade of Gaza (which in fact is
only a blockade at sea, as humanitarian and consumer goods are permitted in by
land on a daily basis). At the very same time, he managed to avoid
mentioning genocidal threats by Iran, probably because Iran is only abusing
Israeli human rights.
~~~~~~~~~~
Israel is not without friends,
however, and it is on this happy note that I close.
Canada, which has proved to be our
staunchest friend, has ended diplomatic ties with Iran. Last Friday,
Canada's Minister of Foreign Affairs, John Baird, announced that Canada had
closed its Tehran Embassy and given Iran's diplomats in Ottawa five days to
leave.
Baird, citing its nuclear
program, its hostility toward Israel and its military assistance to Assad in
Syria, called Iran the biggest threat to global security.
Imagine, a nation with a moral
compass that works. Extraordinarily refreshing and
encouraging. Now if other nations would just follow Canada's
example.
~~~~~~~~~~
©
Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by Arlene Kushner,
functioning as an independent journalist. Permission is granted for it to be
reproduced only
with
proper attribution.
This material
is transmitted by Arlene only to persons who have requested it or agreed to
receive it. If you are on the list and wish to be removed, contact Arlene and
include your name in the text of the
message.
No comments:
Post a Comment