The delaying game of the 1930s has taught the world nothing.
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR) may very well have told Jewish leaders who came to him pleading for his help in the rescue of the trapped Jews of Europe in the early 1940s something similar to what was uttered by President Barack Obama last March at the AIPAC conference in Washington: “There should not be a shred of doubt by now: when the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.” Like his Democratic Party predecessor, Obama has expressed comforting words to Jewish leaders, but has refrained from taking decisive action that would substantiate his words. An example of which is the last round of sanctions against Iran that were brought to the President's desk in December 2011 by Senators Menendez (D) and Kirk (R), and endorsed in the Senate 100-0, that President Obama sought to change the language of and diminish its intent.
Republican U.S. Congressman Hamilton Fish (R-NY) accused FDR in the 1940s, as news of death camps was unfolding, of “spiritual anesthesia” for not taking a stand to save the European Jews. FDR’s silence according to Fish may have been the deciding factor in Hitler’s execution of the “Final Solution.” Fish argued that had “FDR made a definitive announcement out of the White House, it might well have stopped the megalomaniac Hitler or at least brought home the truth to the German and Polish people, most of whom probably knew little of Hitler’s extermination policy.”
In a similar vein, had Obama made a definitive statement that declared America’s “red lines” on Iran’s nuclear weapons development, and the consequences for Tehran of crossing such lines, the present situation, which threatens the lives of six million Jews in Israel and elsewhere, would not have arisen.
Instead, Obama dispatched the chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey to express opposition to a unilateral Israeli military action against Iran. Dempsey said in London, “I don’t want to be complicit if they (Israel) choose to do it.”
The Obama administration, according to the September 3, 2012 Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, “Informed Iran via two European nations, that it would not back an Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, as long as Tehran refrains from attacking American interests in the Persian Gulf.”
In late March of this year, former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton told Fox News that the Obama administration leaked a story which revealed that Israel had been granted access to airfields in Azerbaijan located along Iran’s northern border. Bolton was responding to a Foreign Policy magazine article, and stated on Fox “I think this leak today is part of the administration’s campaign against an Israeli attack on Iran.” He went on to say that a strike from Azerbaijan “would be much easier for the Israelis than a strike launched from their own country—jets could stay over their target longer and worry less about refueling.” Bolton added, that “tipping the Israelis’ hand by revealing very sensitive, very important information could frustrate such a plan.”
In his book, Obama’s Betrayal of Israel, author Michael Ledeen provides evidence that President Obama is uninterested in Israel’s security and that he constantly sends messages to the world to that effect. Ledeen writes that Obama personally attended a ceremony awarding the Presidential Medal of Freedom to (Israel basher) Mary Robinson. She is the former Irish PM and the UN official who presided over the infamous Durban Conference in 2001.
Obama’s claim that American support for Israel is “unbreakable” is either naïve or disingenuous. Clearly, one cannot claim to be dedicated to Israel’s security and at the same time advocate a Palestinian State. Hamas declares its intentions to eradicate the Jewish state openly and regularly, while in Ramallah, Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas seeks a unity government with Hamas, and rejects direct negotiations with Israel.
Earlier this year President Obama authorized $192 million to go the Palestinian Authority. He lifted the ban on financial aid to the Palestinian Authority imposed by the U.S. Congress, claiming that it was “important to the security interests of the United States.” Similarly, Obama continues to support the Muslim Brotherhood regime in Cairo with $1.2 billion in U.S. taxpayer money. At the same time, Obama is refusing to meet Netanyahu later this month, following his humiliating treatment of Netanyahu on a previous visit to the Obama White House.
Israelis, according to Ledeen, get the picture, and in a recent poll, only 4% of Israelis said that they thought President Obama’s policies were supportive of Israel. In other words, 96% considered Obama unfriendly towards Israel.
There are two ways to implement the destruction of Israel; one is to enable Iran to acquire nuclear weapons and tie Israel’s hands by preventing it from striking Iran preemptively while there is still time. Obama, it seems, is doing all that he can to make sure Iran gets the time it needs to produce a nuclear bomb. The useless 5+1 talks with Iran certainly bought time for Iran, and the U.S. sanctions imposed against Iran have had some impact on the Iranian economy, but didn’t halt Iran’s race towards a nuclear weapon. Obama is as well aware of these facts just as FDR knew of the gas chambers in Auschwitz. Another way of undermining Israel is by fostering a terror-prone Palestinian State.
In a recent interview on Israel’s Arutz Sheva, former Israeli Ambassador to the U.S. Zalman Shoval said that Israeli and U.S. interests diverged when it came to Iran. “We need to get used to the fact that, as usual, we are alone.” A diplomat, Shoval was careful not to point a finger at Obama but the implications of Obama’s policies are clear. Shoval did however compare the current situation with the days before the Six Day War, when Israel received no support from the Johnson Administration, and was told point-blank by President Johnson that if Israel took the initiative and attacked Egypt, it would have to suffer the consequences, despite the fact that Egypt had committed an act of war by closing off the Straits of Tiran.
The difference today, as compared to 1967, is that Israel’s enemy – Iran - might use a nuclear weapon that could incinerate a sizeable portion of Israel.
According to Shoval, the U.S. knows that it must prevent Iran from going nuclear - not to save Israel, of course, but to save its strategic position in the world, and in the Middle East in particular. Eventually, Shoval said, the U.S. will act, but by the time they do it may be too late. The U.S., he added, wants to put off the confrontation with Iran for a year or two, but every delay gives the Iran another advantage. Obama, as Shoval sees it, is much more interested in being reelected than dealing with the Iranian threat. And, should he be reelected, his domestic concerns, i.e. the economy, will trump national security issues such as Iran.
The Iranian-based Press TV reported on September 11, 2012 that “The U.S. rebuffed Israel over Iran ‘red lines’.” Prime Minister Netanyahu had called for the U.S. to declare "red lines" over Tehran’s nuclear program on Sunday (9/9/12), warning that in the absence of such a statement Iranian officials would not take seriously Washington’s implied threat of military action. “The sooner we establish one, the greater the chances that there won’t be a need for other types of action,” he told Canada’s CBC News. Asked on Sunday (9/9/12) whether the administration would set out red lines or deadlines, Hillary Clinton, the U.S. Secretary of State replied on Bloomberg Radio that “We are not setting deadlines.”
In an entry in Assistant Secretary of State Breckinridge Long’s dairy on October 3, 1940, he noted that President Roosevelt (FDR) supported his policy of encouraging U.S. consulates to “postpone, and postpone and postpone” the granting of visas to European Jews. This is reminiscent of Obama’s policy of postponing action against Iran. The results may be the same, the betrayal of Israel’s Jews.
Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.