Obama's Policy

Obama's Policy

The history books will teach us that political science is like riding bicycles.  A country that does not go forward falls.  No, such falls do not always result in collapse, alas; such a country will always find  itself in a worst position in relation to its expectations. The twentieth century – as do other previous centuries – is inflated with examples that substantiate the above conclusion. A country considered – justly or wrongly - a burden on other nations, its ability to survive is always questionable and challenged.

The story of  Pre-World War 2 Czechoslovakia, does not need elaboration. Adolf Hitler - in contradistinction to the leaders of the Sudetenland - refused even to negotiate directly with the Czech leadership. All “negotiations” were conducted via the “European powers” – England,  France and Italy.  Édouard Daladier, Benito Mussolini and – of course – Navil Chamberlin managed to appease The Third Reich on account of  Czechoslovakia. Prague failed to offer an alternate plan, nor did it manage to convince the French to abide by the agreement signed between the two countries – following World War 1- according to which France was supposed to protect the independence and security of Czechoslovakia. When the leaders of the Sudeten arrived for their last meeting with President Edvard Beneš, the latter presented them with a white paper carrying only his signature at the bottom of the page. He told them to add whatever they wished, he will agree. The leaders refused and withdrew for instructions from Berlin.

The United States’ credibility in keeping its international undertakings is not the nicest of pages in the “book of America”. Its undertakings are always conditioned – even if they are not so stated. Israel experienced threats of the implementations of these “unmentioned” conditions. Gerald Ford threatened Israel with “reconsideration” of US policies and undertakings towards Israel. So did   George Bush the father, not to mention the hostility of Jimmy Carter.

Alas,  Israel “is not alone”. The list of foreign affairs failures from the end of World War 1 has one element in common. “the turning of the back”.  In October 1956, the US had a diplomatic war with England, France and Israel for invading Egypt. While president Eisenhower was bullying the three democracies thus supporting Egypt’s Nasser – who by then was USSR’s man in The Middle East – The Warsaw Pact forces invaded Hungary. Although American agencies – inclusive of CIA - encouraged the rebellion and promised financial and military support, The USA turned its back and watched the rebellion be crushed by Russian tanks in silence. The USA bullied its friends but did not challenge its enemy. The contradiction between US foreign policy in Egypt and the one in Hungary is stunning. But The USA expressed the same attitude when Cubans exiles invaded Cuba under the umbrella of the CIA.While the invaders were fighting Castro’s forces, and turned its back on CIA’s promise to support the exiled Cuban, many of them were left to die on the beaches.

What would have been the results of the 1973 Yom Kippur War between Israel and Egypt, if Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger did not prevent Israel from encircling both the 2^nd and 3^rd Egyptian Armies? It was the US that prevented Israel from gaining a clear cut victory, notwithstanding the fact that it was Egypt and Syria who started the war on the holiest day of the Jewish colander.

Henry Kissinger

The US can “fight” or bully its friends, making its enemies “feel” victorious. It cannot press their enemies. For 444 days The US Embassy in Teheran was under “students’ control”. The USA could not release the hostages. The US cannot fight al-Qaida, the anarchy in Iraq, or in Afghanistan, or the deteriorating situation in Pakistan. The peace negotiations between North Vietnam and Henry Kissinger in Paris in 1973 was just another example.

There is no truth in president Obama’s statement that he is pressing the Palestinians. We did not see anywhere how he humiliated Chairman Abu Abbas. He dares not because The president knows he might lose The Palestinians.

Obama demands that Israel does not built in Jerusalem so as not to have facts determine the solution before negotiations are conducted. That is a core of the conflict between the USA and Israel. Why is the same demand not imposed on the Palestinians? How come the Palestinian can built thousands of houses without waiting for negotiations [or for building licenses], how come the US is silent about the Muslim attitude to Jewish Archaeological findings on Temple Mount which they treat like The Taliban? Why, before negotiations commence, should Israel allow Palestinian offices to be opened in Jerusalem? The president will bow to Palestinian dictates and will force Israel. As when the US is facing a diplomatic conflict between its enemies and its allies, many a time it acts against its friend.

Just recently, Hamid Karzai – the Afghani president – was asked by the US ambassador in Kabul to release his brother Ahamad Walli Karzai from all political influence. According to the ambassador, the brother – a corrupted drug dealer who controls the south of the country – compromised even the war against al-Qaida. The president refused. The USA withdrew its demand.

Obama’s attitude to Israel encourage its enemies. Some of them might think that US support will be lacking in any future violent conflict, which will encourage Israel’s enemies to escalate tension.

The president is playing with fire.  He just does not know he is.

Zalli Jaffe