Barak's Bridge To Barack
So if the Obama administration wants a new Israeli prime minister, who are they eying? And, conversely, who is eying the Obama administration for nods of support? Prepare to learn at least one answer.
The Obama administration's snubbing and outright unseemly disrespect to Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu has been well documented. Regarding an apparently planned and arranged ambush involving Turkey and Egypt during the president's nuclear summit, I asked on behalf of the Israelis, "Et Tu, America?"
While Israel exposed and avoided the intended hostile ambush centered around its ambiguous nuclear deterrent, the hostility continues unabated, much of it from the Obama administration.
This lead me to expand on the subject and conclude: The Obama administration is seeking to discredit Netanyahu both within American and Israeli audiences. The aim, it would appear, can only be to weaken him to the point that Israelis begin calls for a new election and select someone that the Obama administration sees eye to eye with on their version of the peace process.
Who might that be? Try Ehud Barak, part of Israel's political left wing Labor Party and a Netanyahu cabinet choice that had that squarely in mind. Ehud Barak beat Netanyahu and won the Israeli prime ministership in 1999, only to lose it to Ariel Sharon in 2001. This puzzle piece begins to fit very nicely with the well-founded theory above.
Defense Minister Ehud Barak said there is no reason for a war to break out this summer, but Israel must recognize that the world will not put up with decades more of Israeli rule over the Palestinian people.
In a Memorial Day interview with Israel Radio on Monday morning, Barak said "there is no other way, whether you like it or not, than to let (the Palestinians) rule themselves."
Barak said Israel has enough power and security to allow for a two-state solution, and if such a solution should fail, the world will know that it was not Israel's fault.In addition, Barak told Israel Radio that the recent alienation from America is harmful to Israel, and must be stopped. Growing gaps with the United States, Barak explained, can be narrowed by embarking on a peace initiative that tackles all the big issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians. [Emphasis added.]
It should not be lost on readers that it was Ehud Barak who campaigned on and eventually enacted the Israeli withdrawal from Southern Lebanon, now dominated exclusively the Hizballah terrorist group. Keep that in context of his above quotes.
Is this the gentle beginning of the domestic Israeli move on Netanyahu by the country's political left? The Obama administration constructed the "gaps," and Ehud Barak is appearing to begin positioning himself as the bridge. The "Netanyahu Crossing" must be closed, the logic will more directly begin to spell out, in favor of "Barak's Bridge to Barack." Others will likely test the waters seeking support and ultimately unofficial endorsement from the American administration. But for now, Ehud Barak is the front runner.
During the campaign, Candidate Obama relentlessly derided the Bush administration's foreign policy as "arrogant" and "meddling." Such criticism was always hollow, just like wails against "special interests" in Washington. The term is always used when the speaker has presented specific "special interests" he believes the audience dislikes. Said speaker's own "special interests" are, of course, something else entirely.
So too evidence of this administration's own "arrogant" and "meddling" foreign policy moves. They're really not that. They're something else. Which is about like saying you're drinking ale, not "beer." In order to buy into the mess, you've certainly got to be drinking something.
Whether it's one man's ale or another man's beer, we should hope that Israelis abstain entirely.