Weisberg: Obama should shit on Israel to show how much he loves them...

...in another example of talking tough to our allies, but remaining soft on our enemies...

Obama's reluctance to comment on the goings on in Iran and his "tough" rhetoric on Israel gives us an inner look on how he views the two nations. During the power stuggle in Iran, there is talk among the punditry whether Obama will press forward demanding a seat at the mullah's table, even if the mullah's hold on to power. To me, this issue is political dead letter. If the president ignores this event and presses forward demanding the crumbs from the mullahs, the thought that he champions freedom and democracy for all people will ring hollow. It seems inconsistent for the president to demand Israel to freeze its settlements in the West Bank, to end Palestinian resentment, and yet give a pass to the oppressors in Iran.

In the latest issue of Obama Newsweek, Jacob Weisberg essentially blames the US's unconditional support of Israel as the reason for built up Arab resentment in the area. He discusses how Carter and Bush 41 demanded concessions from Israel before they would deal with them, and believes Obama, as evidenced in his "Cairo speech," is doing the right thing by demanding even more concessions from the Israelis, to avoid being seen as blocking the peace process. Reagan, Clinton, and Bush 43, he says, encouraged Israel's worst tendencies, by believing Israel had a claim to the West Bank, based on the Bible, refusal to talk to the PLO, neglecting the peace process and condoned Israel's "military mismanagements." I do know that President Bush (43) did encourage a "two-state" solution to assuage the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, because he felt that it would also help in the War on Terror.

Weisberg takes time to make certain his readers know that Obama isn't anti-Israel by noting that Rahm Emmanuel, the White House Chief of Staff, has an Israeli father and once served as a civilian volunteer for the Israeli Army, and that many of Israel's supporters happen to be on "Obama's side." He calls on the president to continue to pressure Israel, but missing from his article is a need to effectively pressure Israel's enemies...like Iran. It's not only conservatives who are cautioning the president against a misguided approach to the conflict, but some Democrats as well. Sometimes, the rebuking of a friend is necessary...but not at the expense of pandering to its foes. This could be the reason that Obama is seen, by some, as anti-Israel...not a "friend in need," as Weisberg puts it.

As with all things about Obama's supporters, they do give him an excuse if the Israeli-Palestinian conflict continues to fail...that "the odds overwhelmingly favor failure" (now, isn't that reassuring?). The conflict could be over overnight if pressure is applied to the group that continues to foment the divide, and from what I've seen in my 30 years, is that Israel has shown time and time again, their desire for peace. What they've received in return are a barrage of missile attacks, threats to "wipe them off the face of the map," and a president who believes, like 9/11 Truthers about the US, that Israel is bringing this crisis on itself.

I'm sure that Obama supporters will see nothing wrong about forcing a "regime change" in Israel, while they want us to "shhh" about one possibly occurring in Iran...

Have a great day...