Monday, November 19, 2012

As Israel fights for her life, has Obama abandoned post as leader of the free world?

One of the surest ways for an American to get denounced by both liberals and many conservatives is to claim that President Barack Obama is a Muslim. I'm not guessing one way or the other. But what is perfectly clear is how Obama's actions absolutely sympathize with the radical Muslim movements currently trying to destroy Israel, our best and most important ally in the most dangerous region of the world. 

First came Obama's bow to a Muslim king. Then came his apology on foreign soil for American "aggression" against dictators and terrorists. Then came his proclamation that America is no more a Christian nation than a Muslim one. But these were only the first clues as to where Obama's loyalty seems to lie. 

Last year, as Egyptians cheered the ousting of their dictator president, Hosni Mubarak, Obama's haste to expedite the departure - rather than support Mubarak - showed he lacked concern as to who might replace Mubarak's regime. Given the dangerous region Egypt resides in, and considering that those poised to fill Mubarak's void (e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood) were anything but pro-America, it's a question that should've been soberly weighed. Instead, by ignoring it, President Obama revealed a scary neglect of history and an unsettling question about where his loyalty lies: is it with the U.S. and our allies, or with our enemies?

For all Mubarak's faults, he was a strategic U.S. ally, a known variable in a very questionable region. He honored Egypt's 1979 peace treaty with Israel, and allowed unimpeded commercial passage through the Suez Canal -- a critical waterway which, if blocked, could send an already precarious global economy into disaster. Though Mubarak was no angel, at least the U.S. knew what it was dealing with, which afforded some stability in a volatile region.

In demanding Mubarak's swift departure, Obama not only publicly undermined a key U.S. ally (and by extension sent a terrible message to our other allies about America's commitment to them) but he also recklessly increased Egypt's vulnerability to rule by the Muslim Brotherhood - which Obama should've known would be potentially much worse than Mubarak ever was (just look at the fundamentalist theocracy that replaced the overthrown pro-U.S. Shah of Iran in 1979, thanks largely to President Jimmy Carter's disastrous meddling).

By turning his back on Mubarak, Obama claimed he was merely supporting Egypt's quest for democracy. But a 2010 Pew Research poll revealed how Egypt would likely implement democracy should it obtain it. The poll showed strong Egyptian Muslim support for Sharia law, including stoning adulterers (82 percent); cutting off thieves' hands (77 percent); gender segregation in the workplace (54 percent); and killing people who leave the Muslim religion (84 percent). Meanwhile, 59 percent said they wanted Islamic fundamentalists to shape Egypt's future.

Clearly Obama doesn't understand - or care - that, aside from Israel, which does share common values with America, the Western version of democracy is nothing like the Middle East's take on it. Recall that the Palestinians sought and achieved democracy-like "free" elections in 2006. They promptly elected the terrorist group Hamas, which immediately imposed the same oppressive Sharia law the Egyptians expressed interest in adopting.

Fast forward to the present day. Egypt is now under rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, a virulently anti-American, anti-Israel, Islamist fundamentalist group which last year hinted at a renewed war with our ally Israel and a blocking of the Suez Canal. Despite this, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged Obama accepted the Muslim Brotherhood "without criticism."

Thanks to Obama's warm embrace of this group, the Muslim Brotherhood now also controls much of the Arab world. In response to the Brotherhood-led Arab Spring that was nothing but a call to arms for radical Islam, Obama praised it as an exciting demonstration for Muslim rights. It doesn't seem to faze Obama that the Muslim Brotherhood has sworn, in its own words, that "our work in America is a kind of grand Jihad in eliminating and destroying the Western civilization from within"...and ensuring that "God’s religion (Islam) is made victorious over all other religions.”

Not surprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood is now helping the terrorist group Hamas and head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, as it pummels innocent Israelis with rocket attacks and suicide bombings. It's important to note that, despite how the media are largely portraying it, Israel waited for a week under heavy assault by Hamas before retaliating in the Gaza region - Israel did not initiate anything (these attacks against Israel have been occurring for years, by the way). Hamas claims their beef is that Israel is occupying Gaza. But Israel left Gaza. The only real beef here is that Hamas wants Israel to be destroyed. Period. And Israel has the right to defend herself if attacked. Period.

But in a sickening display of shameless propaganda, Palestinians are parading a dead child (killed by Israeli retaliation) in front of television cameras to show the "evil" Israeli mentality. Israeli soldiers are trained and try their best to target only military and terrorist sites so as to avoid harming innocent people. But Hamas makes that tough considering they intentionally place their own military launch sites next to mosques, playgrounds, factories and other places that are heavily populated by women, children and other civilians. It's bad enough Hamas uses child suicide bombers to deliberately attack Israelis in civilian places without warning, but they have no problem putting innocent children and women in front of the military targets they know Israel will retaliate against. They then want the rest of the world to feel sorry for them because of it.

Though Obama is showing politically expedient support for Israel - in other words, saying only what he minimally needs to in order to play both sides - his actions, from failing to condemn the Muslim Brotherhood's rapid ascension to power in the entire region, to Hamas' role in terrorism in general, make his support suspicious at best. And let's not forget his multiple rejections of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's requests to meet. In fact, in a 2009 UN speech, Obama shockingly and without precedent portrayed US support for Israel as contingent upon Israel's giving in to Palestinian demands, despite Palestine's rejection of Israel's right to exist. Does this seem like a man who really cares about Israel's plight, or has Obama's dismissive attitude toward Israel and terrorism merely emboldened Israel's - and our - enemies?

As Israel fights for survival, Iran - another vocal foe of Israel - is likely within months of obtaining nuclear weapons, which should scare the wits out of everyone. Israel and western civilization are in desperate need of protection, but it seems Obama doesn't recognize this and in this failure to do so, he has essentially abandoned his post as leader of the free world in favor of those who want to destroy it. Apparently it is now up to Benjamin Netanyahu to step up to that role as Israel fights to remain free. As he does so, I hope we can all somehow let Netanyahu know that America stands with Israel, even if our own president won't.

What do you think?  Click on the comments link in the bar below to share your thoughts. No registration necessary.


  1. Would you agree with this assertion:

    If the people of a country want democracy, and if they would pursue interests that oppose our own once they become a democracy, they should not have democracy.

  2. Not if the word "democracy" is used as a flimsy cover for wanting to then impose their views on the rest of the world, as those who use "democracy" to impose Sharia do. You have to be smart about what certain regions of the world really stand for. You can't willy nilly gush all over their "desire for democracy" and be a dunce about what they'll do with it at the same time. This isn't kindergarten. This is the most dangerous part of the world and anyone who doesn't realize that - like Obama clearly doesn't - is living in Toyland.

  3. Just trying to figure out what anonymous's statement above has anything to do with the facts. Did Julie say anywhere that democracy shouldn't be established? She only pointed out what some people have done with their so-called democracy. It's like anonymous can't see the dire situation presented by the facts so has to obfuscate the issue by asking a question that is a non sequitur just to deflect attention away from reality to something that is not even relevant. Deal with the topics at hand, if you can, but if you can't, don't try to ask questions that have no bearing on anything. It's completely useless.

    1. Egypt has a democratically-elected republic, not a "so-called democracy". Morsi was elected by the people along with many other Muslim Brotherhood officials. The people of Egypt want something that we don't like, and their election earlier in the year shows that. If people get elected through free elections that we don't like (and keep in mind the Muslim Brotherhood is fairly popular in Egypt, according to Pew), what should we do about it?

      Under Mubarak, certain groups (the Muslim Brotherhood being one) were not allowed to run, and corruption was rampant under Mubarak (including more voter fraud and intimidation than one would think possible). That system was not one where a citizen could vote for whomever they wanted. The new one is a more free system - though the party being voted in isn't necessarily in favor of total freedom.

      It seems to me that their election process is democratic and free. As for the Muslim Brotherhood, they have said they are in favor of free market capitalism, believe that they shouldn't have a religious state, and do allow women or Christians to hold office even if they don't propose any of those candidates themselves. It's obvious they don't like Israel, which I don't approve of, but if it's what the Egyptian people want, shouldn't they have it?

    2. I think the comments above were speaking not so much about that these countries shouldn't have what they want, but that it shouldn't be US policy to support anything that could ultimately harm US interests, including our allies, like Israel. If one group actively is saying they want to destroy Israel, such as the MB, then the US should not support that regime from taking over the existing one. LIke the article states, Mubarak was no angel, but he kept things stable, now it's in chaos. Maybe we should've stuck with the "devil we knew", not risk getting a whole new and untested one. But nobody is saying the US should stop a country from voting for something, just not actively promote it from a smart foreign policy perspective. That's how I take it anyway.