Obama's "enforcer" blackmails Israel

http://tinyurl.com/cwuraw
Emanuel's blackmail: 'Give up half your country or die'May 05, 2009 by I. Matsav
According to Israeli media reports,...Rahm Emanuel told a closed-door meeting of 300 top AIPAC donors on Sunday that thwarting Iran's nuclear program is contingent on 'progress' on the 'Palestinian' front. In other words, if we don't get going on giving away half the country, the Obama administration isn't even going to try to thwart Iran....Israeli TV reports said Monday that Emanuel made the comments in a closed-door meeting the previous day with 300 major AIPAC donors. Last month, ...Hillary Clinton warned Israel that it risks losing Arab support for combating threats from Iran if it rejects peace negotiations with the Palestinians...Clinton said Arab nations had conditioned helping Israel counter Iran on Jerusalem's commitment to the peace process. I wasn't happy about Clinton's remarks...but she was talking about support from Arab countries for attacking Iran, and I don't think anyone here really expected...any support from Arab countries. ...But Emanuel is apparently talking about support from the United States for an attack on Iran. This is pure blackmail.
****Of course it is! But that's Emanuel's job: he's the enforcer for the ObaMafia. He's the most dangerous guy in Washington because he's the most effective operative in the White House (perhaps the whole government, since he was, likewise, in Congress and getting Democrats elected.) He doesn't make policy but will enforce and effectuate any of Obama's policies.Consider: Arab support is at best temporary and at worst (and most likely ) worthless. Obama support is, similarly, completely untrustworthy, as has been the State Department since the 1940s, and as even the Bush Administration was before this one. Who could imagine that the "two-state solution" doesn't seem to include a JEWISH state? Israel gave away strategic land and initiatives and got intifadas, rockets and nothing good. Who can even argue that the U.S. would deliver on any "contingent" effort?To do things the way Emanuel outlined is illogical and absurd.
The proper and only response is that, if there is to be linkage, the contingency must work the other way: Stop Iran first and THEN committed negotiations along the line that Obama wants. Meanwhile, Israeli self-interest should be the only criterion for Israeli policy.Netanyahu and Lieberman can be trusted to negotiate appropriately.If one is to believe (Sec of Defense) Gates, the U.S. will only slow Iran down and not stop it. Thus, Israel is asked to make PERMANENT concessions in return for help in making a TEMPORARY delay. The art of diplomacy is to find a polite way to say SCREW THAT!
.....
Others have decried this situation
http://tinyurl.com/c2z672
and especially how past U.S. support for Israel has dwindled to nothing in the age of Obama. Yoda is old and recalls the past accurately: 'twas not as these would have one believe ( perhaps even as they believe.)
In 1948, the U.S. EMBARGOED all arms sales to the MidEast despite the fact that the U.K. was arming the Jordanians to the teeth and all of the Arab countries were well supplied ( whether well managed and led is another story). Only Czechoslovaka's Skoka Words could be relied, probably thanks to the U.S.S.R.; that and Irish gun-runners ( who had little use for the British ) facilitated the War of Independence rather than the episode of annihilation. In those days the U.S. position was characterized as "Arms for the Arabs; sneakers for the Jews."
What happened next? Eisenhower leaned on Britain, France and Israel to reverse the gains of the 1956 Sinai action.
But surely, some think to recall, the U.S. supported Israel in the 1967 War. Actually, LBJ had solemnly promised to keep open the Gulf of Aqaba after Nasser had threatened and then closed it in an act of war... and the U.S. RENEGED! It was only AFTER the Six Days War that the U.S. stepped in to take the place of France as Israel's primary supplier of materiel and probably only because the Soviets were busily resupplying Egypt and Syria and would have achieved hegemony in the MidEast. To say that the U.S. supported Israel in the Six Day War is not correct.
When Israel was attacked suddenly in the Yom Kippur War of 1973, she almost succumbed, being down to two days' worth of munitions and having suffered grievous losses of planes, tanks and men. Why Nixon resupplied Israel ( but only ) at the Eleventh Hour is probably due to fear that pushing Israel to the wall might have produced Draconian results ( although never admitted or proved, Israel was reputed even then to have nuclear weapons ).When Israeli passengers were singled out in the French airplane hijacking of July 1976, no one did anything until the Israelis raided Entebbe in a dramatic long-distance rescue.When the Israelis bombed the Osirak Reactor in 1981, the U.S. led in condemning Israel and the action. The putative U.S. support for Israel, now in abeyance in the Obama Administration, was something less than strong in all the crises up to the present time. Is a "contingent" necessary but not sufficient condition worth compromising Israel's territorial and strategic integrity further, for possible U.S. action against Iran? One well might think NOT! ****