In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.
But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel’s nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.
This development is highly suspect for two reasons. The first is the timing. Does anyone believe that this is honestly a coincidence, coming directly off of the most recent – and most vicious – series of attacks by the President of the United States against the Israeli Prime Minister?
Yashar and Wanderman, write:
Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel’s sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.
There is no doubt that Obama’s Jewish sycophants will ignore, or deflect, this particular development just as they ignore, or deflect, all the various ways within which Obama likes to kick Israel in the head.
What is perhaps most worrisome is the apparent disinterest on the part of the Jewish Left, if not the Left, in general, toward the soon to arrive Iranian Jihad Bomb. They may not get it for two or three years, or it could even be as long as ten, but it is coming. And it is coming, at least in part, because Obama is enabling it.
As has often been noted, Obama has a rather strange diplomatic style that was perhaps first noticed when he insisted upon handing a bust of Winston Churchill back to the British. That was a rather rude gesture to one of America’s closest allies, but it was mere foreshadowing of what was to come.
Obama has the tendency to spit at friends of the United States while embracing its enemies. His warm embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his cold shoulder toward Israel clearly demonstrate this unusual and counterproductive tendency which remains a mystery for people all around the world.
Our friend Anne, over at Anne’s Opinions, has finally concluded that Obama does, in fact, wish to see Israel dismantled as the national home of the Jewish people. She writes:
Along comes this interview (h/t Zvi) in the New English Review with Prof. Richard L. Rubenstein, no intellectual lightweight, who rather shockingly (at least for some people) comes to the conclusion that Obama is a revolutionary, and that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Since that is too much of a task to carry out by himself – and there is no way that the American people or Congress would agree to such a thing – he is enabling this at the hands of Iran and its proxies.
Not so long ago I would have recoiled from such a claim in disdain, thinking it to be a delusional conspiracy theory, along with all the other theories that claimed that Obama was a Muslim, not born in the US, a Communist, etc. I used to ascribe to the adage “Do not ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence” and was of the opinion that Obama’s surreal politics stemmed from naivete and inexperience. (Emphases mine.)
Having determined that Obama is neither naive, nor inexperienced at this point, Anne concludes that the answer to Obama’s behavior in regards Israel is simply malice. He wants Israel hobbled or gone.
Here was my take in the comments:
Obama went to university, and studied with people like Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, that taught him post-colonial theory, within which Israel is cast as an imperial interloper that has unjustly subjugated the “indigenous” population.
If this is the root of his hostility toward Israel, which I suspect it is, it may very well be that he honestly believes that if only Israel would “end the Occupation” – whatever exactly that means – and that the “Palestinian” people be allowed their freedom to pursue their national destiny, then the conflict would end and Israel could live in peace as the Jewish homeland.
I do not know if this is what he believes, but something along these lines is entirely plausible.
Like millions of other progressives, it’s not that he thinks Israel should be dissolved as the Jewish State, it’s just that he honestly believes that Israel is immoral and needs to reform.
Think Peter Beinart, for example.
Anne pointed out that whatever the source of Obama’s disdain for Israel, it is nevertheless exceedingly dangerous and she is absolutely correct.
The problem is not merely that Obama does not like Israel – and he doesn’t – it is that by enabling an Iranian bomb he is laying the ground for a nuclear arms race, if not a nuclear holocaust, in that part of the world.
The dispassion with which so many Obama supporters follow this story is disquieting. The impression that one gets in reading the western-left press is that they honestly do not care one whit whether Iran gets the bomb or not.
Many would argue that it is only fair that if the US has the bomb and Israel has the bomb and these other countries have the bomb, why should not Iran get it, as well? Others would suggest, rightfully so, that if we were Iran we would want the bomb as a defensive measure and I have no doubt that when the Iranian government considers its strategic-military place in the world a nuclear shield looks mighty attractive.
While it may very well be in Iran’s national interest to gain nuclear weaponry, it is most definitely in the national interest of both the United States and Israel (not to mention Europe and the entire rest of the planet) to prevent Iran from gaining that technology.
Unfortunately, Barack Obama seems to disagree.