Obama is a redistributionist of money and power
He is redistributing power in the ME from the strong to the weak
Remember that the LAT refuses to release a tape it had of a dinner in support of “Palestine” that Obama attended. I wonder what could have been so toxic that the LAT, ostensibly a believer in the right to know and freedom of the press, would decline to release the tape. Readers are asked to speculate on what the tape might have contained. Actually, you don’t have to speculate. I am reliably informed that the Audio tape clearly picks up the toast “death to Israel”.
In the fall of ’08 Palin said
“It must be nice for a candidate to have major news organizations looking after his best interests like that,” “In this case, we have a newspaper willing to throw aside even the public’s right to know in order to protect a candidate that its own editorial board has endorsed. And if there’s a Pulitzer Prize category for excelling in kow-towing, then the L.A. Times, you’re winning.”
Palin attacked Obama on what she called his “assortment of friends from Chicago.” She described Khalidi as “another radical professor from the neighborhood who spent a lot of time with Barack Obama going back several years.” She referred to the Times’ reporting about Obama having been at a party for Khalidi in 2003, where Khalidi described Israel as the perpetrator of terrorism. At this same speech she shared the stage with Joe the Plumber who had previously answered in the affirmative tha he believed that “Obama would be the death of Israel”. Ted Belman
No love in an Obama second term
By Richard Baehr, ISRAEL HAYOM
In March 2007, Ali Abunimah, the founder of the Electronic Intifada, a virulently anti-Israel website, published an important article that was almost entirely ignored by the mainstream media. The article, “How Barack Obama Learned to Love Israel,” appeared just months after U.S. President Barack Obama officially launched his campaign for the presidency.
Abunimah argued that Obama learned to “love” Israel because of the promise of Jewish campaign contributions for his candidacy, first in his run for the U.S. Senate in 2004, then for the White House in 2008. Abunimah wrote the article after hearing Obama’s first major speech to an AIPAC group, in which he claimed Obama said all the good stuff that is music to the ears of liberal Jewish donors. While Israel may not be the most important issue for most liberal Jews (abortion rights and social justice certainly rank far higher) there is at least a threshold test with regard to support for Israel, and Abunimah argued that Obama passed it with flying colors.
Abunimah claimed that Obama had not always been so outspokenly pro-Israel. As a state senator representing the neighborhood surrounding the University of Chicago, Obama had appeared often at Palestinian and Arab events, and had called for a more “even-handed” American approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict:
“Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago including a May 1998 community fundraiser at which Edward Said was the keynote speaker. In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others, Obama was forthright in his criticism of U.S. policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”
Abunimah recounts how Obama apologized to him for not being more upfront in support of the Palestinians during his Senate campaign:
“Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more upfront.” He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and U.S. policy, “Keep up the good work!”
Being too upfront about one’s support for the Palestinian cause was not a tonic for winning the Democratic nomination for senator or president. Nor was making too much about the fact that Obama’s close friend, Palestinian Professor Rashid Khalidi and his wife, had babysat Obama’s children. When Obama lovingly saluted Khalidi at a farewell dinner before Khalidi left the University of Chicago for Columbia University, The Los Angeles Times refused to make a transcript of his comments at the dinner public.
Nor was it helpful for too many people to know the history of Obama and his wife and then later their children, sitting in Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s church for many years, listening to his bitter harangues against America and Israel. This was all information that could have proven toxic to the Obama campaigns. The connection to Reverend Wright nearly killed Obama’s presidential campaign in 2008, when ABC reporter Brian Ross broke the unofficial media blackout on Reverend Wright and described what anyone with a modicum of curiosity could have easily uncovered – that Wright was an anti-Semite, and an Israel hater, who seemed to loathe his own country, blaming it for every misfortune that had ever hit the black community. “Blacks should sing God Damn America, not God Bless America,” Wright ranted.
Obama took office with large supportive majorities in Congress and an almost unparalleled hubris for a public official in terms of his self-perceived power to heal his own country, and the entire earth. It was therefore not surprising that Obama believed that he had the magic elixir to cut through the stalemate in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, and finally bring the conflict to an end. The magic, of course, was Obama himself. There had never been a Barack Obama before to navigate the conflict (or for that matter to “engage” with the Iranian mullahs).
Now, nearly three years into the Obama presidency, we can see that Obama’s early and sustained obsession with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has proven to be an unmitigated disaster if a final peace between the parties were his goal. By immediately demanding a complete Israeli settlement freeze as a precondition for restarting talks between Israel and the Palestinians, including a freeze on the “natural growth” of settlements, including neighborhoods of Jerusalem, and communities that former President George W. Bush had acknowledged would remain a part of Israel in any peace agreement, Obama effectively scuttled any chance of substantive talks. He provided an excuse for the Palestinians to wait him out. Obama was demanding something of Israel that even the Palestinian Authority never had, and at the same time ignoring all the agreements already reached in which settlements were defined as a final status issue to be negotiated directly by the two parties. This approach enabled the Palestinians to refuse to talk, counting on Obama to deliver Israeli concessions on a platter before talks began.
Then Obama sprung his 1967 borders approach while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington, D.C. While the White House loudly broadcasts its security assistance to the Jewish state, as an answer to critics of its pressure on Israel on the peace process, only the Obama true believers are today unaware of the chill that has developed in U.S.-Israeli relations, something largely absent in the last 20 years. It is not by accident that the president has failed to visit Israel during his term, despite dozens of trips abroad in less than three years.
The president is, at heart, a redistributionist. He is unhappy with inequality, be it in terms of income, wealth or power among nations. We have never before had a U.S. president who was comfortable with U.S. decline so long as the pie was distributed more evenly, both at home and abroad. The redisributionist lens provides a good explanation, I think, of how Obama sees the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Israel is powerful, and the Palestinians are weak. Israel, therefore is the one that needs to make concessions. And just as the government is the right vehicle to redistribute wealth and income from the rich to the poor, the U.S. or the U.N. is a suitable vehicle for redistribution in the Middle East conflict.
A corollary to the Obama worldview is that the powerful are in the position they are because of how they have behaved; aggressively, even criminally, and due to advantages they had in the “game.” So it is “just” for them to be relieved of some of their ill-gotten gains. Obama, in his speech in Cairo, related how Israel was created due to European guilt for the Holocaust. What he did not say openly, but undoubtedly believes, is that the Palestinians were innocent victims of the land grab by which Israel was created. This view is not at all uncommon in the halls of colleges and universities around the country; places where Obama spent much of his adult life. Throw in a pinch of community organizing, Bill Ayers, Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, and Reverend Wright, and you have a pretty toxic mix when it comes to the radical milieu in which Obama formed his worldview.
For the next twelve months, the president will be constrained by the need to win Jewish votes and collect Jewish campaign cash. But if he wins again, in a second term, Obama can be Obama, rather than the panderer in chief of his re-election effort. The president who argued for more distance between the U.S. and Israel in a meeting with top officials of Jewish organizations will really get to create some space.