Commentary by Dr. Patrick Slattery — When Barack Obama became president six years ago, his two top aides were the dedicated Zionists Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. In the days leading up to his inauguration, he refused to comment on Israel’s sadistic and cowardly bombardment of Gaza, sending a clear message that an Obama administration would continue the established American tradition of sheltering Israel from the consequences of its atrocities.
As president, Obama has given Israel pretty much everything its wants. Billions in annual aid, wars against Syria and Libya, drones strikes everywhere, and continued diplomatic protection. And, or course, he has continued and expanded Jewish privilege in the United States, rivaling Bill Clinton in his appointments of Jews to top posts in government. So what should one make of this “rift” that has emerged between Obama and Netanyahu? Is it merely a tempest in a teapot?
As much as Obama has been a mega Zio president, in all fairness he has resisted pressure from the crazies for a war with Iran. You know that McCain was chomping at the bit to bomb Iran (he even sang about it!), and Romney probably would have gone along as well. But of course, to say that pressure for war with Iran comes only from Jews does not mean that ALL Jews want such a war. The more “cunning” among them understand the folly, and Obama is siding with this faction of American Jews.
But what about fall out from Netanyahu’s humiliating crashing of Congress against Obama’s wishes and Netanyahu’s campaign promise not even to lend a fig leaf of verbal approval of the fantasy of a “two-state solution.” The Reuters article below indicates that Obama will take some sort of retaliatory measures — perhaps abstaining on a UN vote condemning one or another of Israel’s frequent atrocities.
These UN votes in and of themselves are inconsequential, but the news that they make will help focus attention on Israel’s unacceptable behavior, and this makes our job of educating the public to Jewish supremacism easier. Furthermore, it deserves mention that, thanks in large part to Minister Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam, many facts about Jewish misbehavior get wider circulation in the black community, and so any public squabble between Netanyahu and the adopted favorite son of the black community will help educate African Americans to the fact that Jews are not the great friends of blacks that Jews would have them believe.
While blacks have little in the way of their own media for propagating ideas and information, they tend to feel less restrained by political correctness and have less to lose materially, so could be a great help in chipping away at the all-important taboo of talking about Jewish power. –ps
President Obama Says Bibi Recalcitrance Makes It ‘Hard To Find’ Path to Peace
U.S. Still Backs 2 States — Dismay at Arab ‘Droves’ Remark
In a fresh rebuke to Benjamin Netanyahu, President Barack Obama said the Israeli leader’s pre-election disavowal of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict makes it “hard to find a path” toward serious negotiations to resolve the issue.
In an interview with the Huffington Post, Obama also scolded Netanyahu over his remarks about Arab Israelis voting, making clear that the deep rift in relations between Israel and the United States, its most important ally, is not ending anytime soon.
In the interview, conducted on Friday and published on Saturday, Obama described his Thursday phone call with Netanyahu, two days after the Israeli leader was re-elected.
“I did indicate to him that we continue to believe that a two-state solution is the only way for the long-term security of Israel, if it wants to stay both a Jewish state and democratic,” Obama said, in his first public comments on the issue.
“And 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 are possible.”
The worst crisis in decades in U.S.-Israeli relations was worsened by Netanyahu’s declaration just before Tuesday’s election that there would be no Palestinian state on his watch. Netanyahu sought on Thursday to backtrack from that.
“Well, we take him at his word when he said that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership, and so that’s why we’ve got to evaluate what other options are available to make sure that we don’t see a chaotic situation in the region,” said Obama, whose administration sponsored failed talks aimed at creating a Palestinian state that would exist peacefully side-by-side with Israel.
The White House had said after Obama’s call on Thursday that the president had told Netanyahu Washington would “reassess” its options on U.S.-Israel relations and Middle East diplomacy.
In the interview, Obama also expressed dismay over Netanyahu’s Election Day warning to his supporters about Arab Israeli voters going to the polls “in droves.”
“We indicated that that kind of rhetoric was contrary to what is the best of Israel’s traditions, that although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly,” Obama said.
Obama underscored his support for Israel’s security, saying he would make sure that military and intelligence cooperation continues in order to keep the Israeli people safe.
“But we are going to continue to insist that, from our point of view, the status quo is unsustainable. And that while taking into complete account Israel’s security, we can’t just in perpetuity maintain the status quo, expand settlements. That’s not a recipe for stability in the region,” Obama said, referring to the current state of affairs with the Palestinians.
The United States provides $3 billion in military aid annually.
Netanyahu’s tense relations with Obama have been strained over U.S. efforts to reach an international agreement with Iran to curb Tehran’s nuclear program. Ties worsened when Netanyahu accepted a Republican invitation to speak to the U.S. Congress two weeks before the Israeli election to criticize Obama’s quest for such a deal. Democrats assailed the speech as an insult to the presidency and a breach of protocol.
Read the original article here.