ACT for America
P.O. Box 12765
Pensacola, FL 32591
www.actforamerica.org

Every President’s administration sends signals about its foreign policy intentions by the people the President selects and the various statements they make. The Obama administration’s intentions are becoming clearer and clearer to discern. The message to the world: America has been arrogant. The message to Muslims: America has been arrogant. The message to Israel: See below.

There is a difference between acknowledging mistakes and communicating weakness. The Obama administration is, unfortunately, repeatedly communicating weakness to those who mean us harm. One could understand pursuing such a policy if there were historical precedent for it actually working. If the goal of the Obama administration is to secure lasting peace in the Middle East that includes safety and security for Israel, and if its goal is to secure peaceful co-existence with radical Islamists, the paths he is following will fail.

Not because any of us wishes they would fail, but because, as George Santayana wrote, “He who does not know history is condemned to repeat it.” We’re reasonably sure most Brits wanted Neville Chamberlain to succeed when he declared after his meeting with Hitler that he had secured “peace in our time.” Why did he fail? Because he refused to acknowledge the reality of the evil he was dealing with and deluded himself into believing such evil could be appeased with accommodations and concessions.

Obama's Signal to Israel: Submit
By Mona Charen
May 12, 2009 / 18 Iyar 5769
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/charen051209.php3

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In early April, Vice President Biden was asked if the administration was concerned that Israel might strike at Iran's nuclear facilities. "I don't believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that," Mr. Biden replied. "I think he would be ill advised to do that."

A few weeks later, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton explained the administration's solution to the threat of an Iranian bomb: "For Israel to get the kind of strong support it's looking for vis-a-vis Iran, it can't stay on the sideline with respect to the Palestinians and the peace efforts … they go hand in hand."

And on May 10, National Security Adviser James Jones spelled it out further: "We understand Israel's preoccupation with Iran as an existential threat. We agree with that. … By the same token, there are a lot of things that you can do to diminish that existential threat by working hard towards achieving a two-state solution."

By what reasoning has the administration decided that pushing Israel to permit a new Palestinian state would — in any way — diminish the threat from Iran? Do they believe that Iran's (or I should say the Iranian leadership's) genocidal hostility toward Israel is the result of lack of progress toward an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza? Will the Iranian leadership, which has characterized Israel as a "cancerous tumor," declared that "Israel must we wiped off the map," and promised that "Israel is destined for destruction and will soon disappear" is going to change its mind if Israel enters into negotiations with the Palestinians?

Continue reading