No American president can or should attempt to dictate to our staunch ally Israel the terms of peace.But a little over a year ago, both Obama and Rahm were singing a different tune--and did not seem the least bit shy about dictating to Israel
. Instead, back in April 2010, it was all about Obama, and how he was going to make his mark on foreign policy--and Obama was not going to let Israel get in the way:
...By describing the long-running conflict as a threat to American security, he [Obama] effectively adopted the argument of Gen. David H. Petraeus, his Middle East commander, who recently warned that the region’s troubles created a dangerous environment for American troops stationed in nearby Iraq and elsewhere in the area. “It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower,” he said. “And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”And of course, there was Rahm Emanuel, backing up Obama--making clear that Israel being a 'staunch ally' was of secondary importance:
He [Obama] knows that personal relationships are important, but you’ve got to be cold-blooded about the self-interests of your nationOuch.
So enjoy this new 'pro-Israel Obama' while you can, because we all know it is only a temporary hiccup until after the presidential elections in 2012 and Obama doesn't need the "Jewish vote" any more.
Unless of course the American people themselves wake up to the "self interests" of our nation.
Technorati Tag: Obama and Rahm Emanuel.