Good Morning Iran!

ב"ה
March 22, 2015

March 22, 2015

Now that the Israeli election is over, and Prime Minister Netanyahu has had a resounding victory, I am humored by all of the talk that he and Obama need to reconcile and move forward. This suggestion, well-intentioned as it is by many commentators, is very naive. In fact, it totally misses the mark. While Obama may dislike Mr. Netanyahu personally, as many suggest, the real issue is one of ideology not personality. And Obama's ideology is radically left, pro-Muslim, anti-Israel and anti-U.S., one that Mr. Netanyahu understandably does not share. Obama is critical of, and looks to quash, anyone who does not share his radical views. Look at the despicable way he has treated Mr. Netanyahu (and Israel) for years, including during Israel's war over the summer with Hamas, and his shameful and disgraceful actions since the election ended. He shows the same contempt for American law enforcement. He refuses to compromise or work with Republicans, whether or not they control Congress. In addressing these matters, he is full of arrogance, anger and resentment. In contrast, he warmly embraces anyone or any group that shares his ideology. He has continuously reached out to the worldwide Muslim community in a conciliatory manner. His friendly and passionate speech to the Iranian leaders and people this past week is entirely consistent with his past actions. It was a speech intended to appeal to and rally the Iranians, much like Robin Williams' emotional wake up call every morning to American troops in the movie Good Morning Vietnam. Only Obama's speech was addressed to the wrong side. It is all about ideology. Personality has nothing to do with it.

If the issue was one of personality and not ideology, Obama and his Administration would have welcomed any new Israeli prime minister, one on the right or the left. But there is no way Obama would have supported a candidate who was more conservative than Mr. Netanyahu. Obama was pulling for Mr. Netanyahu's opponent in the Israeli election because Obama believed that a new leftist Israeli government would fall in line with his liberal U.S. and world agenda, including his perilous position on Iran and handing the Palestinians the key to the store in a so-called peaceful two-state solution. The disdain he has of Mr. Netanyahu can hardly be based on personality. What could Mr. Netanyahu ever have done to Obama personally that would warrant such extreme loathing on Obama's part? The answer is nothing. Rather, Obama is used to having his way in transforming the United States, and the world for that matter, and he does not want any obstacles. Aside from the Republican-controlled Congress, Mr. Netanyahu is really Obama's only opposition, as Mr. Netanyahu's speech to Congress earlier this month on the danger of a nuclear-armed Iran illustrated.

Should one believe that it is because Obama is such a big fan of Herzog and Lipni, the losers in the Israeli election, that he pushed and pulled for their victory? Or, is it that they were both critical of Mr. Netanyahu and supportive of Obama and his and their own liberal agenda? The answer is the latter. So much so that there are credible allegations that Obama funneled American taxpayer funds to interest groups in Israel in an effort to defeat Mr. Netanyahu. Imagine that, of all the places in this chaotic world we are living in, Obama chooses Israel, a great ally of the United States and our best in the Middle East, to meddle in and try to change the outcome of an election. Why let the democratic process, the only legitimate one in the region, run its course? This is all the more disturbing based on the claims from Obama and Administration officials that they refused to meet with Mr. Netanyahu when he came to deliver his speech to Congress because they did not want it to be viewed as influencing the Israeli elections. They also admonished Mr. Netanyahu, claiming that his visit and speech were solely for political purposes. Blatant lies are the norm for this president and his Administration.

One only needs to look at the actions and rhetoric of Obama and his Administration in the period of less than one week since Mr. Netanyahu had his decisive victory for more proof of the ideological, not personal, divide between Obama and Mr. Netanyahu. In fact, it is a divide that really exists between Obama on the one side, and Mr. Netanyahu, Israel and Jews in general on the other side.

For starters, there was the lapse of time before Obama called to congratulate Mr. Netanyahu, a courtesy he extended to political rulers of Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt after they took leadership positions. In Egypt, the call was to Mohammed Morsi of the terrorist group the Muslim Brotherhood. And let's not forget the congratulatory call to Putin after he won in what were no doubt fair elections in Russia. To make matters worse, part of the reason, if not the main reason, for Obama's call to Mr. Netanyahu was to voice his displeasure with him, something Rouhani of Iran and Morsi likely did not have to endure.

What exactly was the source of Obama's displeasure? Actually, there were two main reasons. One has to do with Mr. Netanyahu's position on a two-state solution with the Palestinians and the other on some statements Mr. Netanyahu made on voting during the Israeli elections.

On the first point, Obama and his Administration were outraged that right before the election Mr. Netanyahu claimed that he could not currently support a two-state solution with the Palestinians, and they accused him of changing his position on the matter. Mr. Netanyahu later clarified that his statement before the election did not contradict his 2009 position in support of a two-state solution. In fact, in his 2009 speech, Mr. Netanyahu's claim to be in favor of a two-state solution was conditioned on having a real peace partner that recognized Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. This peace partner is no where to be found. Additionally, as Mr. Netanyahu correct posits, since 2009, the volatile region of the Middle East has somehow become even more chaotic and it would be suicidal for Israel to relinquish all control of the West Bank. Although Obama and his Administration choose to pretend that these two justifications do not matter, they are critical and fully support Mr. Netanyahu's current position.

First, as Mr. Netanyahu has now said, and, in fact, has been saying to those who actually are willing to listen, Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, which governs only one of two groups of Palestinians, is not a true partner for peace. Instead, Abbas has chosen as his partner the radical Islamic terrorist group Hamas, which governs the other faction of Palestinians and has sworn to destroy Israel and consistently demonstrates its desire to do so. Abbas has been offered, as had his predecessor, over 90% of Palestinian demands, but turned them all down. He makes only one-sided demands; there is no compromise. Yet, it was Abbas, perhaps taking his cue from Obama's lead and believing he could get everything he wanted without any compromise, who chose to walk away from the existing framework for peace, partner with the radical Hamas terrorist group and appeal directly to the United Nations. Abbas refuses to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Six years later, Mr. Netanyahu is still waiting for a real partner for peace and he does not have one. He made that clear then and now.

Mr. Netanyahu also understands that to relinquish all control of the West Bank at this time jeopardizes Israel's very existence. While this has always been a concern, the events unfolding globally serve as the writing on the wall that such action must now be avoided at all costs. Even if he was a true partner for peace, which he is not, Mr. Abbas is 80 years old. He will not live forever. And it is likely that long before his last natural days on earth, he would lose control of any new Palestinian-controlled territory to any of a number of radical Islamic terrorist groups. It could be IS, which has been given free rein in its effort to violently establish an Islamic caliphate. Or it could be Iran, which already has its radical Islamic terrorist group proxies of Hezbollah on Israel's northern border, and Hamas in Gaza. This is in addition to the the ever-increasing threat Israel faces from radical Islamic terrorist groups in the Golan Heights and Sinai. Critical to the analysis is the recognition that Hezbollah filled the void in Lebanon after Israel withdrew from that territory and Hamas filled the void in Gaza after Israel unilaterally and unconditionally handed over that territory to the Palestinians. The latter move precipitated a civil war between Fatah, now controlled by Abbas, and Hamas, which saw the more radical Hamas victorious in Gaza. So what gratitude did Israel receive from the Palestinians for this one-sided show of good faith? Rockets and missiles consistently fired by Hamas from Gaza targeting Israel and its population with absolutely no repercussions from the international community, including Obama and his Administration. We are learning similar painful lessons now with the rise of IS following Obama's full troop withdrawal from Iraq, despite the warnings from political and military experts for him not to do so. With the Middle East and Africa in turmoil, Iran aggressively competing with IS to establish an Islamic caliphate and radical Islamic terrorist groups running wild in the region, now more than ever is not the time to experiment with Israel's safety, survival and existence when the outcome is all too clear.

Instead of appreciating the obvious concerns of Mr. Netanyahu and Israelis and supporting our ally, this president and his Administration have the audacity to dismiss and disparage them. Why? Because it is about ideology and not personality. You can tell from the disdain and contempt that they have for Mr. Netanyahu and Israel. How dare they defy Obama and his wishes to see the oppressed Palestinian people finally get their due after years of terrible suffering? Why let history tell the real story? Why should Israel's existence stand in the way of Obama's pro-Muslim ideological beliefs? It is just yet another myth, one of many in a region of the world that is home to countless myths, that it is a personality issue at play here between Mr. Netanyahu and Obama. Do not believe it. It is all about ideology.

Then there is the whole voting controversy. Mr. Netanyahu had to try to win the Israeli election by not only defeating his political opponents, but also by combatting foreign campaigns that used both people and money to support his opponents. Of course, that is not the controversy. Obama and his Administration seem to have no problem with those actions, even amid allegations that they were part of it. Instead, Obama and his lackeys were outraged (again) that Mr. Netanyahu tried to appeal to his right-leaning base of voters in the election by pointing to the anticipated strong turnout by Israeli Arabs who were being pushed (literally bussed) to vote by outside forces, including Islamists. Again, and as Americans are now accustomed to, any means to get minorities out to vote is perfectly acceptable. In fact, it is commendable. It is just when the Jewish politician appealed to his Jewish constituents in Israel that there was a problem for Obama and his Administration who took terrible offense to what they viewed as Mr. Netanyahu's "racist" actions. Why? Because it is about ideology.

It is the same ideology that Obama and his Administration are spreading throughout the United States, like some rapidly-growing disease. What is so incredible is just how deceitful this president is in promoting that ideology. The divisiveness that he has brought to this country is striking. Even more remarkable is that he has no issue with appealing to his base by any means whatsoever and regardless of who he offends in the process. I guess it is acceptable behavior as long as your constituents are minorities. And it does not end there. At the very same time that he is criticizing and threatening Mr. Netanyahu and Israel for the way Mr. Netanyahu reached out to his political base in the election, he is spewing the notion of making voting in the United States mandatory for the sole purpose of having everyone's voice heard in elections, particularly minorities. Is this not appealing to your political base, a base that he wants to include as many illegal aliens as possible. And this at a time when he is looking to legalize illegal immigrants and change illegal immigration laws without Congressional action, something he previously admitted, many times, that he is not authorized to do. He is obviously trying to change the outcome of elections in America going forward any way he can. Most Americans are strongly against that, but no matter to him. If he desperately wants to transform America beyond the wishes of its people, why would he care what Israeli Jews think? The more he can align the Israeli left and Israeli Arabs to vote for those who share his interests, the better it is for him. It is about ideology not personality. It truly is amazing that Mr. Netanyahu can smile and stomach lectures from Obama on Obama's concerns about the racist treatment of Israeli Arabs in these circumstances, much like the lecture on there being too many casualties in Gaza when Israel was defending itself against an unrelentingly barrage of unprovoked attacks during its war with Hamas.

As the fallout continues, now comes word that Obama's chief of staff will meet with J-Street, a far-left Jewish lobby group, to try to get them to be more proactive in supporting Obama's policies toward Israel and critical of Mr. Netanyahu and his government. As if they do not do enough damage now. What is truly amazing is just how open and obvious Obama is. Anyone or group that has a different opinion or beliefs is shunned. For the next two years (assuming he decides to follow the law and leave office) he will be on an even more radical path to fundamentally transform America. His pen and phone remarks are his way of saying the same thing. America better be prepared to weather the storm. Again, this is all ideology and has nothing to do with personality.

Need more proof? At the same time that Obama and his Administration were reprimanding Mr. Netanyahu and Israel, hardly controlling their outrage, radical Islamic terrorists, likely IS, slaughtered innocent civilians in Tunisia. Where was the outrage from them on this? Or IS' slaughter in Yemen killing and injuring hundreds? Nothing. These constant brutal killings do not receive any outrage or emotion from the president or the Administration. What is the strategy of Obama and his Administration to combat IS? Well, they are working on that. Still. Apparently, it is not important enough to develop a strategy. Yet, immediately after the Israeli election, Obama and his Administration were reevaluating their position on Israel. Alarmingly, not just their position on Mr. Netanyahu, but also on Israel. One such suggested way they would fundamentally transform their relationship with Israel is by taking a new path in the United Nations, one that fully supported the Palestinians. All of this rhetoric opens the door to the radical Islamic loons who do not need any reason at all to look to kill Israelis and Jews. Even the suggestion that the United States will not be standing with Israel can only serve to encourage these maniacs to continue their aggression.

Obama and his Administration will use all of the destructive commotion they have caused around the Israeli election as yet another ruse to go it alone on the proposed nuclear deal with Iran. They have made it clear that they do not care about what Mr. Netanyahu thinks of the deal or what dangers it holds for Israel. They do not intend to involve Congress. They seem to prefer to go to and through the United Nations, ignoring the different branches of government that exist in America. And why wouldn't they? New reports of the details of the deal are very consistent with the bad terms of the deal that Mr. Netanyahu outlined in his speech to Congress. The left was all too quick to point out that the details were not known. Liberals preferred to wait until after the agreement was signed before discussing it, just like with Obamacare. They support the message from Obama and his Administration to just trust them. No need to involve Congress or listen to the legitimate concerns of the leader of a great ally. Just trust what they say even as they are bashing, admonishing and badmouthing those very people. But as more of the details are confirmed, it will become clearer and clearer, even to the blind, that Obama and his Administration should not be trusted in such a dangerous and dire situation.

On the other hand, I believe that Obama was very sincere in his Good Morning Iran appeal. He was all smiles as he wished the Iranian leaders and people a happy new year, spoke their language and touted the terrific contributions they have made to civilization for thousands of years. He even quoted a Persian poet. This all came very naturally for him as he oozed warm and friendly emotions for our enemy, in stark contrast to the animosity he has and shows for our friends. In fact, he basically told the Iranians "not to pay any attention to that man behind the curtain", a reference to those in the United States and Israel, among others, who are worried about the deal. I think the Iranians can and should trust Obama as he has their best interests in mind, as he made clear in his speech. It is after all about ideology and not personality.