As a result, Abbas has consistently refused to sit down for negotiations with Israel, leaving it to the US to force more unilateral concessions.
Obama is now at it again, now refusing to definitively drawing a red line for Iran nor visiting Israel to show that his claim to have Israel's back has any meaning.
As Michael Rubin puts it, Is Obama Repeating Truman’s Error? Rubin gives a key portion of a 1950 speech given by then-Secretary of State Dean Acheson, laying out US interests in Asia.
The key, however, was not what Acheson mentioned, but what he left out:
Acheson continued to advise those states not covered by the defensive perimeter to resist on their own or rely on the United Nations. “It is a mistake, I think, in considering Pacific and Far Eastern problems to become obsessed with military considerations,” he explained.Now, over 60 years later -- is history repeating itself?
Kim Il Sung heard Acheson’s speech and interpreted his omission of South Korea (and Taiwan) from the defense perimeter as a green light to attack South Korea six months later. Had the Truman administration signaled an unshakable commitment to South Korea, it might have impacted Kim’s thinking.
- What is Iran, which has consistently disregarded the Obama administration, going to make of Obama's decreased interest in its activities?
- What is the Arab world, whose interests in Iran's attempt at nuclear superiority concerns it far more than the issue of Israel and Palestine, supposed to make of Obama's failure to listen to their advice to attack Iran and destroy its nuclear facilities?
- What is Israel to make of Obama, who talk's the talk about having Israel's back but is satisfied to just throw money at it -- money already promised to Israel by Bush during his term
- What are Jewish voters supposed to make of Obama?
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!