The Democratic Party’s war on Israel has expanded in recent days, from the gauntlet thrown down by Susan Rice to the half-truths told by John Kerry at a House hearing yesterday (Bibi and the war on Iraq) to the members of Congress who have abandoned Israel to participate in the Obama-led boycott on the Israeli Prime Minister’s speech. Make no mistake about it, this crisis between Israel and the administration has been created entirely by this president and his Democratic supporters.
This split serves Obama’s goals, that of ensuring that Benjamin Netanyahu loses the upcoming election, stopping Israel from damaging his sell-out to Iran, and driving a wedge between the American people and Israel so he can bully the Jewish State into an unfavorable deal with the Palestinians.
Yesterday Kerry ridiculously contented that Netanyahu can’t be trusted on Iran because in 2002 he testified before Congress in support of a war in Iraq. It’s a great argument for widening the wedge between anti-war Democrats and Israel, but since Kerry voted for the same war resolution when he was in the Senate, how can we trust him? Even more than that, if one reads his 2002 congressional testimony at the House Government Reform Committee (and I did) his testimony was more nuanced than that.
Yes, Netanyahu said that Saddam Hussein had nukes, as did every intelligence agency in the world. But what Bibi also said was that if Saddam was toppled, Libya’s Qaddafi would give up his nukes (he did) and Iran would become destabilized — which it was. (Remember the Green Revolution, which Obama refused to support?)
Netanyahu also outlined the only way to win the war on terror, a method that Obama has long since forgotten:
If I had to say what are the three principles of winning the war on terror, it is like what are the three principles of real estate: location, location, location. The three principles of winning the war on terror are the three Ws: winning, winning, and winning.
Israel and the Obama administration have distinct objectives in the spat between the two governments. As mentioned abovem Obama’s goals are ensuring that Netanyahu loses the upcoming election, etc. Netanyahu’s goals are far less political: He seeks to prevent the 8-plus million Israelis from getting nuked into oblivion. Perhaps it is because Obama’s actions against Bibi are political, he can’t see Netanyahu’s speech as having anything less than the same nefarious politicking.
Each of the twenty-two members of Congress who are boycotting the Netanyahu speech and each of the members of Congress who haven’t spoken out against the Obama anti-Israel attacks (think Chuck Schumer, Steve Israel, Jerrold Nadler, Kirsten Gillibrand) may feel in their hearts they are pro-Israel. But their actions, or lack thereof, are very anti-Israel.
Cross-posted at The Lid