Yasser Arafat's incremental conquest of Israel was learned at the feet of the North Vietnamese in 1970. The Vietnamese told the Arab leadership that they accepted the fact that victory in Vietnam would take many years, during which it would be necessary to temporarily accept the division of the country into two states, while they worked for a shift in the balance of power. In this, the Vietnamese were smart enough to permit the Americans to save face. They had no intention of respecting the agreements they signed with the United States; the point was to provide political cover for the American retreat.Today, Barack Obama is giving the Arabs the same opportunity as Nixon gave the Vietnamese. Obama told a Muslim audience in Cairo in the first months of his administration that America's support for Israel was "unbreakable," even as he moved to compel Jerusalem to cede even more territory to its enemies. In, this new broadside, Michael Ledeen asks why the Obama administration has chosen this course, and examines what this betrayal means for Israel and the world at large.
A BRIEF CRITIQUE OF THE ADMINISTRATION'S POLICIES TOWARD ISRAEL
Michael Ledeen is a contributing editor at National Review Online and a blogger on Pajamas Media, as well as the author of 'Accomplice to Evil: Iran and the War Against the West,' 'The War Against the Terror Masters: Why It Happened, Where We Are Now. How We'll Win,' etc.
He begins this 2009 booklet by stating, "The long-standing U.S.-Israel alliance ... has, in fact, been seriously strained by this administration... Israelis certainly get the picture. In a recent poll, only 4 percent of Israelis said they thought President Obama's policies are supportive of Israel." (Pg. 1)
He suggests, "As he pushes Israel away from the American embrace, Obama has undertaken to make peace with Iran, whose genocidal hatred for America and Israel and bloody war against both requires a very different policy." (Pg. 7) Later, he adds, "both Israel and the United States have every reason to challenge the Iranian regime, nukes or no nukes. Iran would be a mortal threat to Israel even if there were no nuclear weapons program. The mullahs' drive for atomic bombs makes the threat a matter of life and death." (Pg. 30)
He contends, "despite his impressive academic background, the president often has shown ignorance of the central elements of the Middle East, from the content of Islamic and Jewish doctrines to the basis for the Jewish claim to the land of Israel, and the role of violence in world history." (Pg. 16-17)
This brief booklet contains a compact assortment of arguments, as is a useful introduction to the matter.