Israeli Journalist: If Obama treated Israel like Reagan did, he’d be impeached
By Julio
Severo
I
came across an intriguing article, by Chemi Shale, in the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz. Shale makes some interesting points about Reagan, who is a
conservative icon and is my conservative hero.
I am
a friend of Israel. But my reason for not visiting Israel is economic. Given a
chance, I would visit Israel.
Certainly,
if I were a conservative president of the United States, I would pay a yearly
visit to the Promised Land given by God to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and their
Jewish descendants.
Above
all, I would have the U.S. government to recognize officially Jerusalem as the
capital of Israel. Incredibly, even though some U.S. presidents, including
Reagan, said that they were friends of Israel, no one of them recognized
Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.
Chemi
Shale highlights other major problematic issues a friend of Israel would never
get involved with, but which Reagan got involved with. He said, “Former
President Ronald Reagan’s confrontations with Israel were harsh and personal,
yet Republican conservatives revere him and the Jews remember him as a great
friend.”
In
his first election in 1980, Reagan earned 39% of the Jewish vote. In his 1984
reelection, he managed to garner just 31%. In comparison, socialist Barack
Obama earned an astonishing 78% of the Jewish vote in 2008, even though Obama
is more pro-Islam and anti-Israel than Reagan.
Not
surprisingly, American Jews
(and Jews around the world) have traditionally socialist political preferences.
Shale
forgot mentioning the cruel case of the Jewish spy Jonathan Pollard, who has spent 29 years of an unprecedented life
sentence in a U.S. federal prison for passing classified information to Israel,
an ally of the United States. The typical sentence for this offense is 2 to 4
years. No one else in the history of the United States has ever received a life
sentence for this offense. He was condemned by the Reagan administration.
Pollard
was not spying for Israeli economic advantage against the U.S. He was spying
just to help to make Israel safe against its neighboring Islamic nations,
because the U.S. did not (and does not) reveal to its “friend” Israel the
military secrets it knew about its other friends: the Muslim neighbors of
Israel that hate Jews.
While
NSA goes unpunished for spying the whole world for suspicious political and
financial interests, a Jewish man was incredibly punished by the Reagan
administration.
As a
Reagan fan, what should I think? I believe that Reagan was a sincere
conservative. He had friendship with prominent evangelical leaders, including George Otis, who delivered a prophecy to
Reagan in 1970 about the U.S. presidency. Otis was a man of God.
Even
with his best political intentions, Reagan was never successful in his efforts
to defeat the disgraceful abortion law, enacted in 1973 in the largest
Protestant nation in the world. Since then, abortion, in any stage, has become
a “sacred” right in America.
There
are powerful dark forces in the U.S. government, and these forces use the U.S.
government to keep a world hegemony, including in the Middle East. No one can
“interfere” in their interests. These forces will not tolerate anyone — Israel,
Russia or other nation — to disrupt their global influence. Possibly, this is
the reason Reagan was so harsh, as pointed by Shale, to Israel. In fact, if we
saw today Obama doing to Israel what Reagan did, Shale thinks we would call him
an “enemy of Israel.”
The blame for Reagan’s
allegedly anti-Israel policies and behavior should be laid on oligarchic
neocons, who use the U.S. and its presidents to keep their hegemony in the
world.
I
wonder: what would neocons have done to Reagan if his administration had officially
recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel? What would they have done to him
if he had put Israel above their hegemonic interests? What would they have done
if he stopped burning incense to them?
If
Reagan was not strong enough to defy these exceedingly bad boys, who will do
it?
Perhaps
Israel should stop recognizing Washington as the capital of the United States
while the U.S. does not recognize Jerusalem. Yet, who is able to stand the
brutish force of the American neocon empire?
Let’s
be honest: Reagan did not act as a real conservative when he gave in to
anti-Israel pro-Saudi Arabia neocons.
The
real conservative should stand against these bad boys, even if defying them
means martyrdom.
With
Obama or Reagan, the supreme oligarchy in the U.S.
government never
recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, always imposes on Israel an
intrusive Promised Land partition and failed peace plans and always, in one way
or other, is harsh to Israel. Because whether a Reagan or an Obama, whether a liberal
or conservative president occupies the White House, powerful oligarchic forces rule
behind them.
Probably,
Chemi Shale is like most Jews around the world: socialist. But his words in the Haaretz should be examined:
Imagine if Israel
would launch a successful preemptive strike against a country that is building
a nuclear bomb that threatens its very existence, and the American president
would describe it as “a tragedy”.
And then, not
only would the U.S. administration fail to “stand by its ally,” but it would
actually lend its hand to a UN Security Council decision that condemns Israel,
calls on it to place its nuclear facilities under international supervision and
demands that it pay reparations (!) for the damage it had wrought.
And then, to add
insult to injury, the U.S. president would impose an embargo on further sales
of F-16 aircraft because Israel had “violated its commitment to use the planes
only in self-defense.”
Can you imagine
the uproar? Can you contemplate the brouhaha? I mean, if [Republicans believe]
that President Obama is throwing Israel under the bus — what would they say
about a president who actually turns his back on Israel in its greatest time of
need? That he hurled Israel over the cliff with a live grenade in its pocket
and into a burning volcano?
And what if that
very same president, only a few months later, would decide to sell truly
game-changing sophisticated weaponry to Saudi Arabia, an Arab country that is a
sworn enemy of Israel? And not only would this president dismiss Israeli
objections that these weapons endanger its security, but he would actually
warn, in a manner that sent shivers down the spines of American Jews, that “it
is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy.”
I mean, what
words would be left to describe such behavior, after the entire thesaurus’
arsenal of synonyms for “insult” “perfidy” and “knife in the back” have been
exhausted to describe the official White House photo of President Obama talking
to Prime Minister Netanyahu with his shoes on the table?
And what if this
same president — you know who I’m talking about by now, but let’s keep up the
charade — what if this same president, time after time after time, not only
failed to exercise the U.S. veto in the UN Security Council to block
anti-Israeli resolutions, but actually joined Muslim and Communist and other
heathen countries in supporting Security Council decisions that condemned
Israel for assassinating well-known terrorists; for annexing territories that
Michele Bachman has clearly stated belong only to Israel; for killing violent
jihadist students at Bir Zeit University; for waging war against the enemies of
Western civilization in Lebanon; and even for “Israel’s policies and practices
denying the human rights of Palestinians.” Denying the human rights of
Palestinians? Who wrote that?
Especially when
that president called for a settlement freeze that “more than any other action,
could create the confidence needed for wider participation in these talks”;
when he threatened a reluctant Israeli prime minister in an official letter
that “the relationship between our two countries is at stake”; when the same
Israeli prime minister — that this president couldn’t stand, by the way — is
forced to ask why the US is treating Israel as if it was a “banana republic”;
when this Administration’s secretary of defense doesn’t veil his criticism of
Israel before a pro-Israeli crowd at the Saban Forum, but actually tells
Congress in open session that the Israeli leader “is not a moderate”; or when
the White House spokesman — Marlin Fitzwater, for God’s sake — says that the
Israeli “occupation” actually “damages the self-respect and world opinion of
the Israeli people.”
And finally
imagine if this president not only never once visited Israel, despite being
eight years in office, but he even balked at visiting a concentration camp, as
Obama did after his speech in Cairo. You want to know why? Because — take a
deep breath — because the Germans “feel that they have a guilt feeling that’s
been imposed upon them.” Poor things.
But wait, I’m not
finished yet. So where does this president insist on going, despite
overwhelming Jewish objections and an emotional last-minute appeal by Elie
Wiesel in the name of Holocaust survivors? To lay a wreath at a ceremony
commemorating the memory of the soldiers of the Waffen SS, a Nazi unit
designated as a criminal organization at the Nuremberg trials, whose soldiers
committed countless war crimes, including the razing of the Warsaw Ghetto, and
murdered hundreds of thousands of Jews. And what does this president, this
American idol of Republican conservatives, this righteous gentile of right-wing
Jews, what does he have to say about these Nazi war criminals? That “they were
victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
NOW, SERIOUSLY,
can you even begin to imagine what mayhem would break out if Obama would say
such an insensitive, obtuse and borderline Holocaust-denying sentence? Can you
picture the earthquake of rage and the tsunami of venom that would
spontaneously and simultaneously erupt?
Portuguese
version of this article: Jornalista
israelense: Se Obama tratasse Israel como Reagan tratou, ele mereceria
impeachment
Source: Last Days Watchman
Recommended Reading:
No comments:
Post a Comment