President Barack Obama belatedly gave a high five to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose Likud Party won a decisive victory in last week’s elections. But like a lot of things Obama “accomplishes” this one comes with the familiar Barackian asterisk: Obama didn’t mean to give Netanyahu props; instead Obama thought he was criticizing the prime minister.
“I indicated to him that given his statements prior to the election, it is going to be hard to find a path where people are seriously believing that negotiations [with the Palestinians] are possible,” said Obama according to the New York Times. His comments came in relation to Netanyahu’s campaign promise not to allow a Palestinian state. Ever.
The New York Times complains now about the campaign statements: “Obama Says He Told Netanyahu That Talk Before Election Hurt the Peace Process.”
To which I ask: What peace process?
The same one that’s been going on for 50 years? The same one that has had familiar ups and downs? The same peace process that wars have been fought over?
I can not today imagine a better endorsement of the validity of Netanyahu’s approach to the peace process than Obama in a snit over it.
Because if anything is certain in life, it is this: Obama’s approach to most everything is fatally flawed by his biases.
His economic biases; his family biases; his racial biases.
Obama’s a walking compendium of biases that would normally require EEOC intervention with some sort of remedial sensitivity training. But of course it’s been waived for him because he has a phone and a pen.
Obama almost all but said “down with the Jews” while opposing Netanyahu’s electoral victory.
But there came that asterisk, again.
Instead of hurting Netanyahu’s chances Obama gave it the best shove imaginable: Most countries resent outside, foreign meddling in their elections. Israel is not exception, and Obama, being the master politician he is—gag—should have known better than to interfere.
A guy capable of the calm, deliberate approach that the Obama acolytes claim he is capable of never would have made that mistake. Only a guy who calmly knows all the answers, as Obama does, even before the questions are asked, is as capable of compiling as many asterisks as Obama has.
His Mideast and defense policy is full of them:
He claimed to end the Iraq War* --as if what’s going on there now is the march on Selma.
He claimed to have a more successful Afghan strategy*-- which only led to 70 percent of all casualties sustained by American troops in that barren country.
He armed ISIS*, the Muslim Brotherhood*, Al Qaeda in Libya*, and Iran*-- all of these are “bad guys” by the way.
At least they are to folks outside of the Executive branch of the government.
He also told Russia, the same Russia that is now goose stepping over Ukraine and making threatening growls at Lithuania and Poland, that after his reelection in 2012 he’d be more flexible*. Russia took him at his word and waited to take over Ukraine until Obama now looks like a pretzel with his flexibility.
Given the man’s track record on foreign policy, I find it comforting that Obama offered Israel counsel and Israel had the good sense to reject that counsel.
Obama doesn’t deserve another Nobel Prize for attendance.
The first Nobel prize was silly. The next would cause lives.
But when has Obama ever cared about lives when his prized peace prize is at stake?