Obama Focuses on Settlements

The settlement issue is as the article pointed out Obama trying to create 
better relations with the Arabs and all the Muslims, but his tying the
challenge to his eligibility to be the president and sealing ALL his 
records is an attempt to put those who want the truth with conspiracy nuts 
who find hidden agendas where there are none. Don't be taken in by these 
tactics. Those who have doubt about his citizenship do not necessarily 
agree with other conspiracies, but the Obama scam is clearly a coverup of 
the truth and his agenda is to bring down the U.S. from the inside. Fight 
back. Follow the links at http://inyourface.info/links/

Hank


The following is the the American Thinker:


June 10, 2009
Obama and the Settlements
By Richard Baehr
Why is Barack Obama spending so much time focusing on Israeli settlements 
in the West Bank? Two thoughtful explanations of the widening dispute on 
the settlements issue have been developed  by Dore Gold and George 
Friedman.

What is clear is that Obama has chosen to pick a fight with Israel. 
Friedman argues Obama has chosen his fight carefully, on an issue on which 
the Jewish community both in Israel and the US is split, and therefore 
resistance will be weaker. The question of course is why? Is it because 
Obama believes he will now get more support in the Muslim world for US 
actions in Iraq and Afghanistan if he appears to be cutting Israel loose? 
How likely is this?  What kind of support in each country does Obama 
expect to get if only Israel froze settlement growth?  Could it be that 
the policy people around Obama actually believe a resolution of the 
Israeli Palestinian conflict is within reach if only settlement activity 
were totally frozen?  I have trouble believing this level of navet exists 
in the Administration, given the number of people who have been involved 
in failed peace processing efforts over the last few decades.

I think the real key to understanding the policy shift is the linkage the 
Administration has laid out between Israeli Palestinian negotiations 
(which the Administration is arguing depends  almost exclusively on an 
Israeli halt to settlement activity) and the effort to prevent Iran from 
becoming a nuclear power. It is my belief that the Obama team has thrown 
in the towel on stopping Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Obama will 
never use military force for this, and the Administration's new engagement 
approach seems to have been developed as if we had all the time in the 
world to reach an agreement with Iran.

So in order to provide an excuse for the Administration's failure to stop 
Iran, they will make Israel the reason for this happening-- Israel refused 
to stop settlement activity. The Palestinians were then unable to reach a 
deal with Israel. And US allies in the Arab world world, and in Europe as 
well as Russia and China, were then unwilling to pressure Iran with 
stepped up sanctions to stop its nuclear program. So it is all Israel's 
fault.

The Obama team can then hope for the Israelis to be disgusted enough with 
the poor state of Israel's relations with the US and Iran's new nuclear 
reality that they throw Netanyahu out of office. Then a more compliant 
Israeli prime minister can take over, and give away the West Bank to the 
PA for nothing.

What is particularly disgusting is that two court Jews in the 
administration -- Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod -- appear to be the 
primary forces encouraging Obama to stick it to Israel  . They have 
calculated that American Jews are so blindly liberal, and in rapture to 
the almighty Obama that Obama can push Israel around without doing damage 
to his standing in the Jewish community.

Sadly they may be right in their assessment. Where are the major Jewish 
organizations to push back? Where are the Jewish Democrats in the Senate 
and House challenging a President of their own party when he sells out 
Israel?  I guess that would require a spine.

It is also sad to see Hillary Clinton, who many of us thought would be 
much better on US Israel relations than Obama during the campaign last 
year, turning into the loyal warrior for Obama on this initiative, knifing 
Israel at every opportunity.  She has gone back to the future, and we can 
see her again hugging and kissing Suha Arafat after the Palestinian first 
lady trashed Israel in a speech Clinton attended years back. It was easy 
for her to play the ber Zionist as a Senator in New York, and in her need 
to corral Jewish campaign cash for her failed Presidential run. Her 
loyalty to the US Israel relationship is as thin now as it was in the 
early 90s.

There is a fourth possibility -- that Obama simply wants to be loved by 
the Muslim masses around the globe. He has determined that separating the 
US from its long historic close friendship with Israel is a small price to 
pay to achieve this.  It is frightening to consider that the current 
policy shift might be occurring for narcissistic reasons and not strategic 
ones. Frank Gaffney suggests that there may be something to this argument, 
in that Obama is transforming himself into America's first Muslim 
President, much as Bill Clinton was hailed as the first black one.

Regrettably for Israel, none of this is a laughing matter.

Richard Baehr is cheif political correspondent of American Thinker.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obama_and_the_settlements.html