Rare is the American president with true strategic comprehension of the
convoluted intricacies of the Mideast’s assorted disputes, especially the one
arising from the implacable Arab refusal to accept a sovereign Jewish state in
what they consider their lebensraum (one of Hitler’s favorite terms claiming
entitlement to “living space” for his superior race).
The wisdom or
imbecility of any given US president is inevitably as good as that of the aides
who whisper in his ear. But some have unquestionably displayed greater capacity
for preposterousness than others. It may be a mere accident of history or the
result of left-wing proclivities, but the greatest inanities have of late
emanated from Democrats – the present White House resident and his two living
Democratic predecessors, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
grasp of the Mideast is so skewed and so predisposed to support the Arab/Muslim
narrative that he liberally subscribes to its copious falsehoods as part of his
multicultural, moral-relativist, postmodern aggrandizement of the Third World.
His fawning Cairo address in 2009 was just the preview of coming
THE LESS said about Carter the better. Suffice it just to
note that yesteryear’s selfprofessed honest broker, who had subsequently
slandered Israel as an apartheid state, happens to be the closest ideologically
to Obama and most like him in terms of abysmal failure as the leader of the free
Then comes affable Clinton, who manages to endear himself to all
and sundry as a more pragmatic product of the Democratic Party machine and even
a good friend of Israel. For all we know he may have convinced himself that he’s
indeed the Jewish state’s outstanding chum. His utter immodesty surely leaves
little doubt in his mind that he knows better than us what’s best for us. But
does arrogance endow him with exceptional insight? Hardly. His colossal
pretentiousness is only matched by his cluelessness.
Hence he maintains
that the greatest obstacle to Mideast peace are Israel’s Russian immigrants.
Arab potentates probably agree and would like to be rid of “Israel’s Russians”
as much as of any trace of Jewish presence in this land. Yet their genocidal
hate and terror-mongering aren’t named by Clinton as obstacles to
His problem is the makeup of Israel’s population. It’s who we are
that gets his goat.
According to Slick Willy’s astute analysis, Russian
immigrants constitute “the hardest-core people against a division of the land.
This presents a staggering problem. It’s a different Israel. Sixteen
percent of Israelis speak Russian.”
Clinton frets about who’ll confront
the settlers as, heaven forfend, “an increasing number of the young people in
the IDF are the children of Russians and settlers.”
It’s not that the
former American commander- in-chief is satisfied with other components of
Israeli society either.
“Moroccans,” for example, are too “rightof-
center,” though they aren’t quite as disruptive an element as Russians. The
Moroccans’ desire for “normal lives” (presumably as distinct from Russians) can
turn them into “swing voters,” who might support the Israeli party of Clinton’s
Clinton’s unconcealed officious intrusion into a fellow
democracy’s internal processes is of course nothing new. He was always
unabashedly partial to Israel’s Labor Party – the only tolerable Israeli voice,
to judge by Clinton’s non-too-objective past rhetoric and record. Ehud Barak was
his outright darling and Clinton spared no effort to help him defeat Binyamin
Netanyahu in 1999. Indeed Clinton did for Barak what few American presidents
ever dared openly do even for their most promising foreign
Clinton pulled out all stops in his baldfaced intervention in
Israel’s domestic politics, boosting Barak in a fashion unseen since the CIA’s
blatant interference in Italy’s post-World War II election. Brashly,
Clinton didn’t even bother to cover up his tracks but dispatched his own spin
doctors, private pollsters and campaign strategists to get Barak
After Barak’s 1999 win, Clinton could hardly contain his glee.
On the eve of Barak’s first Washington visit as prime minister, the eager
American host quipped that he’s “as excited as a kid awaiting a new toy.” It was
pretty demeaning to look upon the leader of an allied independent state as a
plaything, but Clinton greeted with pomp and circumstance a guest whose success
constituted the American president’s own personal triumph. With incomparable
hutzpa and outrageous meddling, Clinton made Barak’s battle his own.
Clinton echoes assorted self-promoted experts (generally with an ax to grind)
who rationalize that it’s not Labor’s policies which were its downfall, but the
composition of the electorate. Clinton blames Israel’s objectionable voters for
frustrating his wishes. It may be childish, churlish and petulant, but it’s
essentially the familiar psychological phenomenon of transference.
not been raised high on the pedestal of statesmanship and omniscience, Clinton’s
bizarre gibberish might all be chalked up to his personal
However, as in Carter’s case, asinine humbug gains inordinate
currency when spouted by exalted, supposedly supersavvy senior luminaries. It
therefore sways more impressionable minds and is exploited to greater effect by
unscrupulous propagandists than would otherwise be the case.
is that Clinton’s careless prattle would delegitimize aliya just as much as
Jewish settlement has already been delegitimized. Since the advent of Zionism,
the Arab subtext had been that whatever betokens Jewish life and vitality in
this land perforce undermines harmony and bliss. Bottom-line priority – weaken
Jewish interests in the Jewish homeland.
Clinton could, albeit
unintentionally, reinforce that. Disapproving of Israel’s newcomers, he appears
to furnish new impetus with a new twist to the old Arab agenda – the need to
keep immigrants from altering Israel’s landscape.
with the preferences of Israel’s electorate is reminiscent of Kurt “KuBa”
Barthel, secretary-general of East Germany’s Writers Union and the DDR’s
propaganda ace during 1953’s popular proletariat uprising. It was the first such
mutiny inside any USSR satellite. What rankled most was that many of the
protesters were communists and the very blue-collar laborers whom the party
purported to represent.
KuBa was especially cross with construction
workers who marched down Berlin’s Stalinallee. “You should be ashamed of
yourselves,” he chastised them. “You’ll have to behave very well in future
before your shame is forgotten... The people,” he judged, “had forfeited the
confidence of their government.”
With paternalistic condescension he
advised them to “go to sleep at 9 p.m. like good children. The Soviet army and
comrades of the German People’s Police are standing on guard for you and for
Communist KuBa despaired of the
proletarians. Democratic Clinton despairs of participants in Israel’s
Bertolt Brecht’s reply to KuBa, in a short poem entitled
“Solution,” could well apply also to Clinton’s father-knows-best airs:
“...Wouldn’t it be simpler,
In that case, for the government
To dissolve the
And elect another?”
Wouldn’t it be simpler for Clinton to dissolve the
Israeli people and elect another population (more to his liking) in its stead?