Obama goes aggressive


In what could be considered a targeted take-down of Israel’s Prime Minister, as we have come to expect from the petulant and jealous Barack Obama, the American President was interviewed by less-than-enthusiastic-about-Israel Jeffrey Goldberg (and he didn’t mention Jay Pollard either) on the eve of Benjamin Netanyahu’s US visit and the AIPAC Conference.
Some of Obama’s gems:
"Do you perpetuate, over the course of a decade or two decades, more and more restrictive policies in terms of Palestinian movement? Do you place restrictions on Arab-Israelis in ways that run counter to Israel’s traditions?”...
Well, I guess it depends on the Arabs.  If they wish peace and a life of coexistence, there is no need for restrictions, restrictions that save lives and assure Israel’s security.  As for Arab-Israelis, if they want to be traitors to Israel, to act in a subverted manner towards the State, they will be restricted.
PSouza, White House
...“If you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction -- and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time…If Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.”
Contiguous?  Well, Gaza is going to be separate from Judea and Samaria no matter what.  And as for that hint to E1, Maaleh Adumim and the link to Jericho stays.
...This is not a situation where you wait and the problem goes away. There are going to be more Palestinians, not fewer Palestinians, as time goes on. There are going to be more Arab-Israelis, not fewer Arab-Israelis, as time goes on...
That demographic threat, pushed prominently here and there, is simply wrong and the numbers are there to prove it.
...I have not yet heard, however, a persuasive vision of how Israel survives as a democracy and a Jewish state at peace with its neighbors in the absence of a peace deal with the Palestinians and a two-state solution. Nobody has presented me a credible scenario...
Menachem Begin signed off on autonomy.  There’s confederation with Jordan.  And a two-state solution, Mr. President, is an existential security threat to Israel as well as a destabilizing influence in the region.
...I believe that Bibi is strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it. If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible...
Persuasive and plausible and credible options and solutions exist but Obama, stuck in his radical outlook frame cannot accept them because of how he views the Arabs. The figures he has been given are wrong.  His assumptions are incorrect.  His vision is dark.
The use the adjective "aggressive'' is outright inimical.  His references to internal Israeli matters is disturbing.  Why cannot the PA’s Abbas recognize a Jewish state?  Why didn''t he respond to that mopratoprium on YESGA construction?  Why was there Arab terror in pre-1967 Israel when there was no "occupation" or any Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria - areas where there had, actually, been a Jewish presence for centuries despite our lack of political and military control in our homeland?
As for managing international fallout, Ukraine will permit Obama to exhibit whether Israel can really trust him and his policies and his reactions.
His thinking, his vocabulary and his orientation all point to someone who is not quite as well informed on the issues as a President should be or one who really does appreciate what is Israel, Zionsim and the region''s realities.  And that bodes ill not only for Israel, but for America as well.