Barne Defines National Security Interests

A phrase at the end of President Obama’s news conference on Tuesday was a stark reminder how the President views the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, of the far-reaching shift his presidency means to US Foreign Policy, and how aggressively he intends to push the Israelis for a 'peace agreement'.

The United States has a moral obligation to prevent the death of the five million Jews that live in the Middle East. Failing, faltering, or even telegraphing that the United States is no longer committed to the preservation of this peaceful people among their Arab neighbors is a moral failing on the part of this administration. In a recent poorly thought out comment, the President made the blunder of airing his frustration over being unable to force what he wants on a free people. Usually this kind of frustration is directed toward the American people, but in this case it was directed toward the Jews of Israel.

"Mr. Obama declared that resolving the long-running Middle East dispute was a “vital national security interest of the United States”

No one can resolve the long running Middle East dispute, Mr. President, because the Islamic Arabs and Islamic Persians that arm them do not want a resolution to the dispute. Unless of course that resolution invloved the utter destruction of Israel, and the massacre of all her people. Demanding peace in a conflict where one side clearly rejects peace is either foolish, heartless or both. It would be like insisting Elin Woods keep fidelty alive and well in her marriage. All the good will in the world on her part will not change the troubled thinking of Tiger. He may turn a page, and I hope he does, but there is nothing that Elin can do to make it so.

Presenting things that are out of ones control as being imperative as a vital US national security interest pressures those we have influence over. Now, one could say it equally pressures the Palestinian Authority with the threat of withdrawal of US support, but clearly the President is not doing that. And even if he did, what are the odds such a position would make a difference to their leadership? No, it is clearly Israel that this thickhead of a president intends to hamstring.

"Mr. Obama said conflicts like the one in the Middle East ended up “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure” — drawing an explicit link between the Israeli-Palestinian strife and the safety of American soldiers as they battle Islamic extremism and terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere."

It's Israel's fault that we have troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's an interesting notion you have come up with, Mr. President. Novel, really, and from it the notion falls that if Israel were to go away than our troubles with the Islamists that want to kill us and subjugate us would go away too. The survival of freedom and democracy in the Middle East is hindering our own bliss.

Well Mr. President, Israel's security may not be of much importance to you, but it is most certainly of importance to me, and to many of the citizens of this nation. What you are willfully ignoring is that the Israelis are a peaceful people. They simply want to be left alone. They are also a great ally to the United States in a region of the world where we have significant national interests at stake and few allies we can count on. Pushing around the Israelis, telling them it makes you angry that they would be building houses in their nation's capitol, and acting as though the nation that has to abide suicide bombers, random rocket attacks and the constant threat of terrorists is the impediment to peace is to admit you are over your head, and are hoping no one notices.

Don't forget to leave the door unlocked for Otis.