Nobody said ill of Obama.

By Ted Belman

The Centre for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan U. had a conference yesterday on American-Israel Relations. I was there and can tell you I enjoyed every minute of it. I am waiting to find out if the videos of the speeches will be put on line or given to me to post.

That is not to say that I agreed with every speaker. One of the most outrageous things said was in answer to my question of what will it take to abandon the two-state solution. One speaker addressed my question by saying that Netanyhu accepted the two-state solution just after taking office and that I couldn’t expect the international community to propose any other solution. The truth of the matter is that Netanyahu wasn’t given a choice.

In private, I asked Elliot Abrams what would happen if Netanyahu changed his mind and favoured annexation rather than two states. He said all hell would break loose. In his address he noted that the influence of Saudi Arabia is waning do to new found oil reserves offshore from Brazil and East Africa. Only 10% of America’s oil comes from Saudi Arabia. He also said that Saudi Arabia has no quarrel with Israel and looks upon her as its protector in the line up against Iran.

Abrams shared with me another thought. He said that their was considerable opposition from the state department to Bush’s vision speech on ’02 when he proposed a Palestinian state subject to numerous stringent pre-conditions. The opposition was not to the creation of a state but to the pre-conditions he made it subject to.

I told him about what is happening in Area C and he asked me to send him reading material on it. Perhaps he will write it up.I hope to arrange an interview with him when he returns to the US.

One speaker suggested that all presidents follow the policies of their immediate predecessor regardless of their pre-election rhetoric. But Abrams took the position that often President’s do their own thing. To make this possible that always appoint advisers from outside the Sate Department when formulating policy. Which is true enough but it flies in the face of the first statement. The American position regarding Israel has been a constant either because the State Department is a constant or because the interests of the US are a constant.

Bill Schneider of CNN fame explained Jewish voting proclivities by saying that Jews vote their values, not their interests as do many other groups. In another question I put, I noted that, contrary to voters voting their values, the state department votes US interests. My question was whether we can expect a lessening in the animosity of the state department to Israel in line with the lessening of the power of Saudi Arabia. I did not get a satisfactory answer.

Another speaker, I think it was Abe Forman, said we shouldn’t allow Israel to become a wedge issue. It should remain a non-partisan issue. This doesn’t make any sense to me at all but democrat keep repeating it. This speaker went on to show the huge divide in support for Israel by Republicans v Democrats. The democrats are obviously worried about this, thus, want to minimize it.  From my point of view, the Republicans should shout it from the roof tops. The only result will be that the Democratic Party will move closer to the GOP so as to so as to lessen the divide.

Another question I asked was why is obama in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad. No one answered this question.

Nobody said ill of Obama.

June 19, 2012 | 9 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

9 Comments / 9 Comments

  1. “He also said that Saudi Arabia has no quarrel with Israel and looks upon her as its protector in the line up against Iran.”

    Fine. Let them show it — up front — by signing a Treaty of Peace with the Jewish State.

    Saudi Arabia, which (like Yemen) contributed combat attachments to the invading Arab forces in the War of Independence

    — and which provided active assistance (military and financial) to the frontline Arab powers in the 1967 War

    remains, to this day, in a formal state of war with Israel — based on the original, Arab League declaration of war.

    A Sa’udi treaty would indicate a genuine desire for a paradigm shift.

    Anything short of that is, at-best, moment-to-moment jockeying for geopolitical position — largely worthless, and should be taken with a grain of salt.

  2. silverdog Said:

    Obama, like Bush in his second term, will show us what he really is made of once he is reelected. And that’s what scares me.

    What scares me is that to a great extent he’s already shown us what he’s really made of. I won’t articulate what I expect out of a 2nd term, if he gets one.

  3. He said all hell would break loose. In his address he noted that the influence of Saudi Arabia is waning do to new found oil reserves offshore from Brazil and East Africa. Only 10% of America’s oil comes from Saudi Arabia. He also said that Saudi Arabia has no quarrel with Israel and looks upon her as its protector in the line up against Iran.

    I have a question. If it isn’t Saudi Arabia who is pressuring for a ‘palestine’?

    Why if, Saudi influence is falling, is there pressure on Israel? It either means that Saudi Arabia never was the pressuriser,if only 10% of US oil is OPEC. Either it influences or it doesn’t. Which is it? This article doens’t make sense.

    If it doesn’t why is the US beginning with Bush, pressuring for a ‘palestine’? Does it mean that the USA that wants ‘palestine’? Not that I ever considered the US an ally.

  4. Another question I asked was why is obama in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad. No one answered this question.

    The candidate is US educated. You could even say the Muslim Brotherhood is the true Western party, they’re all educated in the West. Like it or not, the West will cozy up the MB.

  5. @ silverdog:

    I am a Political atheist. I don’t care who is the President of the US but my rule is no second term for any president. No American president can do irreparable harm to Israel in a single term especially these days when electioneering begins almost a year and a half before the elections.

    From Israels POV only 1 term presidents are desirable and it almost does not matter from our standpoint who is elected or from which party.

  6. Ted Belman

    The truth of the matter is that Netanyahu wasn’t given a choice.

    I reject any position that excuses BB or any of his predecessors for actions and policies because they were given no choice. There is always a choice along with the consequences of that choice. I have asked tens of times what consequences to Israel if Israel defies the dictates of any American President and especially the current President. I am still waiting for an answer. How about you Ted? You are the one constantly trying to excuse or justify BB’s weaknesses and treachery. What could or better what would Obama have done if BB did not tow the line?

    In private, I asked Elliot Abrams what would happen if Netanyahu changed his mind and favoured annexation rather than two states. He said all hell would break loose. In his address he noted that the influence of Saudi Arabia is waning do to new found oil reserves offshore from Brazil and East Africa. Only 10% of America’s oil comes from Saudi Arabia. He also said that Saudi Arabia has no quarrel with Israel and looks upon her as its protector in the line up against Iran.

    What does “all Hell would break loose” mean? Israel could tighten the screws on the PA, which would break them in due course. Israel could publish all the graft of the Pali leadership like how much they are stealing, who stole how much and what, and where the money is being stashed or invested. Refusing to import Pali agricultural produce. Cease paying tax rebates according to Oslo and Paris agreement which have long expired and not been officially renewed.

    The Saudis have mostly reneged on their financial commitment to the Palis. But saying that the the Saudis have no quarrel with Israel shows that

    Abrams is not only a fool but a liar as well. Even if I were concede that the Saudis would like to see Israel take care of the Iranians for them, they have not let up for a second their below the public radar of financing every anti-Israel organization (NGO’S), student campus anti-Israel organizations, The promotion of ant-Israeli UN sponsored resolutions and the primary State Dept foreign influence Lobby, (anti-Israel at it’s core). The vast amt of weapons purchased from America and other countries that they can’t maintain or use by themselves are meant as an Egyptian reserve when the Egyptians decide to go to war with Israel.

    Abrahams should know that it was never the historic 10% of Saudi imported oil that gave the Saudis so much power and influence in America. American oil companies sell Saudi Oil to many counties besides America and they in turn wield enormous influence in all strata of the Washington bureaucracy. America could easily make up a 10% deficit if they were to lose Saudi oil by increasing the purchases from all other sources.

    Saudi Arabia the home of Wahhabi Islam, and supported and financed by the Saudi royals is ideologically and theologically anti-Israel, and the primary supporter of terror against Israel surpassing even Iran.

    If Abrams is not the fool I believe him to be, then he is pushing an agenda, like the Saudi suicide plan for Israel. Why anyone today would respectfully listen to or credit failed state dept. and presidential advisors, or professional diplomats with a negative track record is beyond me.

  7. “Another question I asked was why is obama in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood at home and abroad. No one answered this question.”

    Obama, like Bush in his second term, will show us what he really is made of once he is reelected. And that’s what scares me.