Four separate stories mostly unrelated, only one made big news, three were barely covered by the mainstream media…. but when you put them together they tell a frightening story.
This narrative should be titled, What Israel Would Face in a Second Obama Administration.
The first story was widely reported…President Obama’s open mike gaffe. On Monday at the Nuclear Security Summit in Seoul, South Korea, President Obama whispered to Russian President Dmitri Medvedev that he would have “more flexibility” to deal with controversial issues such as missile defense after the 2012 elections, and that incoming Russian President Vladimir Putin needs to give him “space.”
Tuesday saw Ari Fleischer former George Bush press secretary debate Obama’s deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter about the gaffe. Fleischer asked Cutter if can she assure us that the president has made no other statements like that to, say, Arab leaders or Palestinian leaders, ‘Give me space and after the election I’ll have more flexibility to deal with Israel?’ Can you assure us he’s not done that?”
Cutter gave a long-winded answer that had nothing to do with the question
Wednesday a state department official refused to acknowledge that Jerusalem is part of Israel, not East Jerusalem, she refused to acknowledge that ANY part of Jerusalem was in Israel. Here is the transcript originally published in the Washington Beacon and virtually ignored elsewhere:
Q: Yesterday there was a bit of a kerfuffle over an announcement that was made by the department about the travel of your boss.
Is it the State Department’s position that Jerusalem is not part of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Well, you know that our position on Jerusalem has not changed. The first media note was issued in error, without appropriate clearances. We reissued the note to make clear that undersecretary, acting undersecretary for—our—Kathy Stephens will be travelling to Algiers, Doha, Amman, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem. With regard to our Jerusalem policy, it’s a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through the negotiations between the parties.
Q: Is it the view of the—of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, notwithstanding the question about the embassy—the location of the U.S. embassy?
MS. NULAND: We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem.
Q: Does that—does that mean that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Jerusalem is a permanent-status issue. It’s got to be resolved through negotiations.
Q: That seems to suggest that you do not regard Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Is that correct or not?
MS. NULAND: I have just spoken to this issue –
MS. NULAND: — and I have nothing further to say on it.
Q: You’ve spoken to the issue –
MS. NULAND: Yeah.
Q: — but (haven’t answered ?) the question. And I think there’s a lot of people out there who are interested in hearing a real answer and not saying—and not trying to duck and say that this has got to be resolved by negotiations between the two sides.
MS. NULAND: That is our –
Q: What is the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: Our policy with regard to Jerusalem is that it has to be solved through negotiations. That’s all I have to say on this issue.
Q: What is the capital of Israel according –
MS. NULAND: Our embassy, as you know, is located in Tel Aviv.
Q: So does that mean you regard Tel Aviv as the capital of Israel?
MS. NULAND: The issue on Jerusalem has to be settled through negotiations.
Q: I just want to go back to—I want to clarify something, perhaps give you an “out” on your Jerusalem answer. Is it your—is it your position that all of Jerusalem is a final-status issue, or do you think—or is it just East Jerusalem?
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further to what I’ve said 17 times on that subject. OK?
Q: All right. So hold on. So I just want to make sure. You’re saying that all of Jerusalem, not just East Jerusalem, is a final-status issue.
MS. NULAND: Matt, I don’t have anything further on Jerusalem to what I’ve already said.
The fourth story comes from Israeli paper YNET:
The United States is leaking information to the media in order to avert an Israeli strike in Iran: The US Administration recently shifted into high gear in its efforts to avert an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the end of the year. The flood of reports in the American media in recent weeks attests not only to the genuine US fear that Israel intends to realize its threats; moreover, it indicates that the Obama Administration has decided to take its gloves off.
Indeed, in recent weeks the Administration shifted from persuasion efforts vis-à-vis decision-makers and Israel’s public opinion to a practical, targeted assassination of potential Israeli operations in Iran. This “surgical strike” is undertaken via reports in the American and British media, but the campaign’s aims are fully operational: To make it more difficult for Israeli decision-makers to order the IDF to carry out a strike, and what’s even graver, to erode the IDF’s capacity to launch such strike with minimal casualties.
This report was written by Ron Ben-Yishai an award-winning Israeli journalist and war correspondent. John Bolton agrees with Ben-Yishai
Watch the latest video at <a href=”http://video.foxnews.com”>video.foxnews.com</a>
Now put the four stories together.
President Obama tells the Russian president to give him some space because once he doesn’t have to run again he will have have more flexibility. Obama’s deputy campaign director avoids answering whether or not the President has made similar assurances to Israel’s enemies. It would have been very easy for her to say, of course not.
The state department refused to say that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, which is no change…but they also refuse to say that any part of Jerusalem even the part inside the “green line,”was part of Israel.
And finally, we learn that President Obama is “sneaking around” behind Israel’s “back,” to sabotage the possibility of an Israeli strike against Iran (which Israel has not yet decided to do).
Is this Obama’s pre-election foreshadowing of what he will do once he has the flexibility of not having to run again? Is Obama sabotaging Israel under the radar today and waiting to do even worse more blatantly later? Is the subtle shift in the US position on Jerusalem a signal of the pressure Obama wil deliver in a second Obama administration?
The only way we will know for sure is if he is re-elected…but if (God-Forbid) that happens, for Israel (and for the United States) it will be too late.