Sep 13, 2012

Obama's Israel Policy



Israel survives in a dangerous part of the world.  Israel is too small of a country, and it's enemies too numerous, for any miscalculations regarding it's security.   Before the tragedy unfolded in Libya on Tuesday, Netanyahu spoke out about Iran. "Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel,"    Obama has declined to meet with Netanyahu later this month, citing scheduling conflicts. Apparently for Obama, another campaigning opportunity comes first,  and Israel's security is somewhere further down the list.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

I thought it was an appearance on David Letterman that was more important that the Netanyahu meeting.

Bethlehem Native said...

@Anon 11:32AM:
Anything is more important to Obama than Israel.

ironpigpen said...

Obama is an absolute disgrace.

Are you an 'righteous' independent who is offended by that?

Great!

Please be my guest and go ahead and vote 0-bama --- again.

ROLF OELER

Anonymous said...

There is one very inconvenient fact that many of you are overlooking in this discussion. The Israeli military although one of the best in the world does not have the proper aircraft, bases, equipment and conventional weapons systems to mount the sustained air campaign against Iran that would be necessary to take out Iran's nuclear development capacity for the long run. A couple of Israeli long distance bombing attacks may hurt Iran but it won't accomplish Israel's strategic goal of ensuring a nuclear free Iran. The only country in the world that could possibly accomplish this is the United States and the only force that could possibly keep the vital Strait of Hormuz sea lanes open from Iranian retaliation is the US Navy. Unfortunately the United States is not in an economic position to fight another war of choice at this time unless the American people are prepared to go to a full war footing and pay the taxes and young peoples blood necessary to do so. I sympathize with Israel because they really have no good choices in dealing with Iran. I also understand why Obama is reluctant to go all in with US forces and become involved in what would be at a minimum a regional war far more difficult to fight than Iraq and at worst the start of WWIII.

michael molovinsky said...

@7:26, once iran develops the weapon, it is too late from israel's point of view. i believe that israel will go it alone, if necessary. obama's misunderstanding of the middle east is becoming apparent, even as i write this reply.

doug_b said...

I might be the best source here - worked for NASA, USAF, Navy, in Comp Sci...

We are at the point with the Barbarians, the Vanadals that ruined Rome. We can allow them to rule, or we can rule them.

I say that people who live in the 11th Century have to give up, expire.

It's evolution. For us people in the 21st century to be 'opened minded' is a farce.

Obama is a farce, and empty suit.

Anonymous said...

MM...Israel may well decide to go it alone. The critical question however is not how they start it but rather whether they have what it takes militarily to end it in a manner that gives them the long term strategic advantage of nuclear hegemony in the region. A number of people with far more military expertise than me have concluded that a unilateral Israeli air war against Iran is no sure positive outcome in the sense that it will achieve Israel's strategic goal of keeping Iran nuclear free in the long term. The Israeli people are likely to suffer heavy casualties if this war does indeed start. Netanyahu owes it to his own people and country to be sure Israel can win before he kicks over this hornets nest.

michael molovinsky said...

it is generally agreed that obama desperately wants no action against iran before the election. netanyahu's request for a redline might actually be a request for a guarantee of action after the election. sanctions seem to have failed in deterring iran.