Obi's Sister

What else do you expect? The LSM in America is state run; you’ll rarely, if ever, read a dissenting opinion about The Won. Pravda, but with Nordstrom ads.

Caroline Glick at The Jerusalem Post points out Obama’s glaring inconsistencies in Middle Eastern policy. Just read the whole thing, I’ll wait.

Back now? Let’s reiterate:

Most of Obama’s administration has proven their incompetence, irrationality, arrogance and uncouthness, time and time again. US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are no exception. Why vote to veto Lebanon’s lengthy resolution on Jewish property rights, then condemn your action in so vetoing?

Perhaps in the UN this is normal behavior, but isn’t arguing with yourself, especially in public, a surefire for the men in white coats to pay a visit, restrain you and then cart you off to a padded room?

(All the below emphasis is mine)

BUT BEYOND the basic falseness of Rice’s statement, her condemnation of her own vote to veto the resolution, and Clinton’s similar statements, serve to send a series of messages to the states in the region that are devastating to US regional posture.

Obama is sticking to his plan of weakening America, both domestically and abroad. He doesn’t understand (or either secretly supports) that Palestinians learned long ago that the best way to fight Israel is not in the streets, but internationally.

To advance this aim, the Palestinians seek to isolate Israel internationally by criminalizing it in international arenas. The Palestinians have made intense use of all UN bodies to achieve their goal. With automatic majorities in nearly every UN body, the most obvious impediment to the Palestinians’ bid to criminalize Israel and thus bring about its international isolation is the US’s Security Council veto.

Since the Palestinians first began using the UN to criminalize Israel in the 1970s, it has been the consistent policy of all US administrations to use the Security Council veto to either vote down anti-Israel initiatives or remove them from the agenda by threatening to veto them.

Until now. The cunning Palestinians saw their opportunity in Obama. And they used him to further their agenda of destroying Israel.

Friday’s vote was months in the making and it was clearly inspired by the Obama administration’s own policies.

Since entering office, the president has been outspoken in his view that Jews must be denied their property rights in Jerusalem neighborhoods outside the 1949 armistice lines, and in Judea and Samaria. Obama has repeatedly plunged US-Israel relations into crisis with his unprecedented demand that the Netanyahu government adopt his discriminatory policies and deny Jews the right to their property in these areas.

Obama’s obsession with barring Jewish property rights provided the Palestinians with the opening to undermine US support for Israel at the Security Council. By putting forward a resolution condemning Israel for upholding Jewish property rights, the Palestinians forced Obama to choose between his principles and the US alliance with Israel.

As the Palestinians rightly saw things, the resolution put them in a win-win situation. Had he allowed the resolution to pass, Obama would have given the Palestinians a strategic victory. If he vetoed the resolution, he would be decried as a hypocrite and thus provide the Palestinians with new justification for refusing to participate in US-mediated negotiations with Israel. Since their goal is to delegitimize Israel, the Palestinians have no interest in negotiating a peace deal with its government.

This scenario sends some disturbing messages from the US to the world at large and the Middle East in particular:

First, it signaled that it is deeply unserious.

Second, it signaled to the Palestinians that, while blocked by popular US support for Israel from joining them, the administration supports the PA’s political war against Israel. That is, Obama told the Palestinians to continue this war against Israel.

Third, the administration told Israel – and all its other allies – that in the era of Obama, the US is not a credible ally. Not only does this message weaken America’s allies, it emboldens the likes of Iran and Syria and the Muslim Brotherhood who are increasingly convinced that the US will not stand by its allies in a pinch.

Finally, by standing by as Abbas pushed forward with the resolution despite Obama’s repeatedly stated opposition, the president showed all actors in the region that there is no price to be paid for defying the US. Obama did not announce that he is ending US financial support for Fatah. He did not state that the US is ending its training of the Fatah forces. Instead, he sent Rice before the cameras to tell the world that he agrees with the Palestinians, who just slapped him in the face.

Most Americans wonder how a sitting President can turn his back on Israel, one of America’s staunchest allies. The answer is clear.

The question is why is the administration behaving this way? The obvious answer is that it really does side with the Arabs against Israel. Pushing this view is the fact that since taking office, Obama has been consistently hostile to Israel and its strategic interests.

There is another possible explanation, however: That the administration is simply too incompetent to understand the significance of its actions. This explanation appears increasingly credible in light of the US’s ham-fisted handling of the revolutions raging throughout the Arab world.

Simply.Too.Incompetent.

And where is the American media on this? Like all things, if it casts their god in a bad light, they won’t touch it.