The Obama Strategy, Replace Jewish Influence with Muslim Influence
Comment by Ted Belman
A number of times I have identified this strategy in less exact terms. In yesterday’s article Obama wants to end the legacy I got more specific.Obama wants to destroy the Israel Lobby as defined by Measheimer and Walt. He want’s to sever the relationship that has existed between the American people and Israel.
The following article really spells it out. Chilling.
Obama’s Strategy
By Shalom Freedman, Arutz-7
In an insightful article on his FresnoZionism.org website, the political commentator Vic Rosenthal argues that the Obama Administration has, in effect, denied the Israeli government freedom of operation within areas taken in the 1967 Six-Day War. It has - without yet forcing a withdrawal - contracted Israel back into the `67 lines. This step is in accord with the major strategic operating principle of the Obama Administration in regard to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs, the Jewish world and the Muslim one.
The Administration`s aim is to contract Israeli power and presence in the Middle East, and at the same time to contract the political strength of the Jewish people in the United States and the world. The corollary of that is his will and effort to increase, first of all, Palestinian Arab power in the Holy Land and, secondly, Islamic strength and confidence not only in the Middle East, but within the United States also. There have been many signs and much evidence of this.
In Israel itself, the United States is questioning and making problems for every small move the Israeli government makes. At the same time, the US is working on building a Palestinian military force under General Dayton which might well turn against Israel and its civilian population - as previous forces they built have done. The United States has worked toward free Palestinian movement within Judea and Samaria, and is pressuring Israel to surrender more and more territory to Fatah-run forces.
In regard to the Jewish-Islamic power balance, President Barack Obama was the first president to mention Muslim-Americans as a significant force in American life in his inaugural speech. He not only did this, but also subverted the Jews` traditional place and mentioned the Muslims immediately after the Christians. President Obama has also spoken of seven million Muslims in the United States, a questionable demographic figure, but one larger than the five and one-half million Jews.
In his famous Cairo speech, Obama promised to bring more and more Muslim students to the United States. Apparently, his belief is that this group, once in the United States, will become more amenable to democratic values and promoters of American-style freedom - rather than promoters of the jihadist ideology so many Muslim students already advocate on US campuses.
President Obama does not appear to be prejudiced against Jews as individuals. A disproportionate number of Jews have significant roles in his Administration. Obama is a self-made meritocrat who achieved what he has through his own remarkable abilities. He is a person who always looks for those outstanding individuals who can help him in his work.
However, on the issue of the global communal roles of Jews and Muslims, Obama is influenced not only by his personal background, but by the relative strengths, demographically and politically, of the two groups. There are, after all, over fifty Islamic nations clamoring for the disappearance, or at least contraction, of Israel and one small Jewish State striving to preserve and develop its ancestral homeland. The shift he has made and the trend he has adopted is in accord with the advice given by many of his “realist” and anti-Israel, left-wing political appointees. Obama wants a smaller, more docile Israel and a less influential, smaller Jewish community. The “peace” he envisions is one in which Israel`s existence is accepted and tolerated by those more powerful than it.
Those who are aware of Jewish history - and, in fact, general Middle Eastern history - cannot be as optimistic as Obama about the survival of Israel should his scenario be realized.
Ted BelmanWhat he doesn’t mention is this news item
“Without resolution of Jerusalem, peace could not be achieved,” said Michael Bell regarding the city’s importance to any resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Wednesday at the Center for American Progress.
“It’s fitting that we should be here discussing Jerusalem at the same time President Obama is visiting Riyadh and Cairo as part of his effort to bring a new urgency to resolving the Arab-Israeli conflict and to begin a new chapter on U.S. relations with the Muslim world,” said DeLeon.
Its competing ethnic, religious, and cultural claims are central to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and those claims are the reason why the city is essential to any workable peace plan.
The study concluded that as part of a two-state solution with Jerusalem as the capital of both states, Israel and the future Palestinian state could establish a “special regime” that would charge a third-party international administrator with managing the Old City.
You can see how this fits into Obama’s strategy.
In my 2006 article The Conspiracy to Shrink Israel I extract from a conversation Henry Kissinger had in 1975 with an Iraqi diplomat.
“Kissinger: I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated: And I would say that until 1973 the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed,
We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world
We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions.
I don’t agree Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years Israel will be like Lebanon–struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.
You mentioned new weapons. But they will not be delivered in the foreseeable future. All we agreed to is to study it, and we agreed to no deliveries out of current stocks. So many of these things won’t be produced until 1980, and we have not agreed to deliver them then. .
If the issue is the existence of Israe1, we can’t cooperate. But if the issue is more normal borders, we can cooperate.
Aide: Your Excellency, do you think a settlement would come through the Palestinians in the area? ‘How do you read it? Is it in your power to create such a thing?Kissinger: Not in 1976. I have to be perfectly frank with you. I think the Palestinian identity has to be recognized in some form. But we need the thoughtful cooperation of the Arabs. It will take a year or a year and to do it, and will be a tremendous fight. An evolution is already taking place.
Aide: You think it will be part of a solution?
Kissinger: It has to be. No solution is possible without it. But the domestic situation is becoming favorable. More and more questions are being asked in Congress favorable to the Palestinians.
This has always been the policy and goal of the US government. Obama is just trying to make it happen sooner rather than later.
Jerusalem
Posts
