Like what you've read?

On Line Opinion is the only Australian site where you get all sides of the story. We don't
charge, but we need your support. Here�s how you can help.

  • Advertise

    We have a monthly audience of 70,000 and advertising packages from $200 a month.

  • Volunteer

    We always need commissioning editors and sub-editors.

  • Contribute

    Got something to say? Submit an essay.


 The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
On Line Opinion logo ON LINE OPINION - Australia's e-journal of social and political debate

Subscribe!
Subscribe





On Line Opinion is a not-for-profit publication and relies on the generosity of its sponsors, editors and contributors. If you would like to help, contact us.
___________

Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Barack Obama, the new Chamberlain

By Jonathan J. Ariel - posted Friday, 6 March 2015


Fact checking anyone? “No need, we’re from Fairfax”.

On 4 March, Fairfax’s United States based scribe Nick O’Malley  reported on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to a joint “sitting” of the United States Congress. A later version of the report mentioned a joint “session”.

Before we go on, for my $2.50 I expect a Sydney Morning Heraldreporter in the United States would know that there is no such thing as a joint “sitting” of Congress. There is however a joint “session” and there is a joint “meeting”.

Advertisement

A “Joint Session” takes place when the House and Senate adopt a concurrent resolution. Joint Sessions typically are reserved to hear an address from POTUS.

On the other hand, a “Joint Meeting” takes place when the House and Senate agree to recess and meet together. The purpose of a joint meeting is usually for Congress to hear an address from an important figure, such as a visiting foreign leader.

Putting aside an inability to get his facts straight, O’Malley vigorously downplayed the import of Netanyahu’s speech. Nowhere did Fairfax bring to readers’ attention that while heads of state and heads of governments have addressed joint meetingsmore than one hundred times, only two, count them, one two, two leaders have been honoured with three invitations to do just that: Winston Churchill in 1941, 1943 and 1952 and Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, 2011 and 2015.

Both men represented strong allies of the United States.

Both warned of a catastrophe on the horizon befalling the free world if the world remained asleep at the wheel.

Both spoke to Members of Congress beseeching them not underrate the severity of the ordeal ahead of them; not to minimise the forces ranged against freedom and to be very alert to the enemy’s bitterness, ruthlessness and wickedness.

Advertisement

Churchill of course spoke of Nazi Germany and its allies. Netanyahu spoke of Iran and its allies.

In describing the Nazi menace, Churchill stated, “they (the Nazis) will stop at nothing. They have a vast accumulation of war weapons of all kinds. They have highly trained and disciplined armies, navies and air services. They have plans and designs which have long been contrived...”

72 years later and America is in the same place. Facing similar evil. But its president this time has a different agenda.

And the US is not alone in facing Iran’s wickedness. Much of the world is. Don’t take Netanyahu’s word for it. Just ask the Sunni Arab states of Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Oman, Kuwait and Qatarthat surround Iran just what they think of a nuclear powered Iran. This is what Saudi Arabia, America’s best friend in the Arab world and not noted for championing matters Jewish had to say about Netanyahu’s address.

Fairfaxlike other media groups tried to torpedo the substance of Netanyahu’s message by quoting what would seem to most readers to be the views of an independent observer, Martin Indyk.

Indyk, the Brookings Institution's head of foreign policy stated that: “it was clear the speech had dangerously politicised the alliance and that the relationship between two leaders had deteriorated from bad to toxic”.

The take away? Blame Netanyahu.

Again, Fairfax reported independent of context.

O’Malley failed to mention that Indyk is on the payroll of the State of Qatar, whose support, both financial and political for terror group Hamas is documented. For the US $14 million it invested in Indyk, Qatar expects dividends and indeed has seen dividends. Anti-Israel at times anti-American views have been well articulated by their boy at Brookings. Yes, the very same Indyk who binned his Australian passport in favour of an American one as a condition of serving the Clinton administration.

Seeking objectivity on the topic from Indyk is akin – excuse me while I guffaw - to asking a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, for an opinion on Australia’s strikes at the Caliphate-seeking snake called Da’esh.

In an attempt to ramp up anti-Netanyahu fervour, or merely peddle Team Obama’s bigotry (it’s really hard to tell), O’Malley mentioned that:

Mr Netanyahu, who the Republican House Speaker, John Boehner, had invited to address Congress without notifying the White House – a serious breach of protocol – was interrupted by applause over 40 times.

This relates to the well-worn canard of Netanyahu accepting an invitation to address Congress without the blessing of the President.

The extent of the Left’s shameless allegations of betrayal grew to the extent that even the New York Times reported, incorrectly, that Netanyahu accepted the invitation before the White House had been informed of it.

But on 30 January, the Times issued a correction: \

An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister BenjaminNetanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.

Soon after, the Washington Post hit the story hard and broadcast the Times’ rejection of the hitherto Obama narrative.

Funding must be very tight at Fairfax. After all, O’Malley seemingly didn’t have the couple of bucks to buy and read those two newspapers, both highly respected by the far-left-of-centre set. Or did he, like many in Team Obama, not want the fact to interdict his bias? I guess we’ll never know.

Let’s not forget that the NYT corrected its false reporting over a month before O’Malley’s story was posted. Hmm.

Such misreporting only deceives readers that the state of the relationship between the United States and Israel, its only reliable ally in the ugliest corner of the world, which granted, is in bad or even terrible shape, is all Netanyahu’s fault.

The deception has worked. Wonderfully. It has distracted the world from Obama’s menu of concessions to the mullahs on the nuclear issue.

Unfortunately however for the Obama boosters, an examination of the facts reveals the toxicity of the relationship between the US and Israel was caused by actions other than Netanyahu’s eagerness to speak up about the New Chamberlain’s drift to appeasement of Iran’s mullahs.

The evidence has the former community organiser’s grubby fingerprints all over it.

It is Obama who has upended what has been for many decades US Middle East Arab policy, promising early on to put distance between Washington and Jerusalem.

He believed that peace has not dawned in the region because the U.S. and Israel were far too close, especially under George W. Bush.

And put distance he did.

Arguing over development applications for houses in Jerusalem ballooned into oceans of animosity between the two nations. No other US president has been so unfavorably disposed towards Israel’s housing construction.

Obama hoped that such ostracization and humiliation of the Jewish State would tempt the Palestinians to move towards a final peace settlement. But he lucked out.

The unelected so-called “President” of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, saw the Obama Administration for what it was and what it remains: an appeaser of Palestinian terror. The PA recognised the deep wells of support it had in the State Department and at the United States’ mission to the United Nations. It gambled that such wells will only deepen over time. It was proven right and the PA has ramped up its demands accordingly.

Here are just four examples of why the relationship between the two republics is in the toilet. Two of appalling PA behaviour and the subsequent White House responses. And two White House generated instances of anti-Israel and pro-Iranian bigotry.

First, the PA made peace with the terror group Hamas. This is a violation of the framework for peace talks. How did Obama respond? Don’t wait up. His response isn’t arriving any time soon.

Second, the PA asked for a seat at the United Nations. This violates the “Oslo Accords” commitments made by the Palestinians. Again, not a peep from the community organiser.

Third, during last year’s conflict between Israel and Hamas - the legitimately elected terror group that governs Gaza - the Wall Street Journalreported that the Obama administration pulled the rug from under the Israelis’ feet by cutting off the resupply of ammunition. What a lovely way to tray an ally, pal!

Fourth, notwithstanding his promise that any deal with Iran would forbid the latter from keeping its nuclear program, a bunting of white flags dangling from the Oval Office reveal that at best any agreement will allow Iran (after sitting tight for 10 years) to go ahead and weaponise.

Many not caught up in the cult of Obamania and who read history can see parallels between Obama and Chamberlain and between Iran and Nazi Germany.

 

The President of the United States is many, many things, but a fool he is not.

It takes a special kind of talent including incompetence mixed with prejudice and a tin ear to history for an American president to appease America’s enemies and anger America’s allies.

Obama has done what no other president has ever managed: to unitethe likes of Jerusalem, Cairo, Riyadh, Amman, Manama and Abu Dhabi in (politely or impolitely, publically or privately) condemning him for seeking a “peace in our time” while Iran’s mullahs merrily continue on their road to acquiring the bomb.

Now that’s a helluva legacy Mr President.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. All


Discuss in our Forums

See what other readers are saying about this article!

Click here to read & post comments.

33 posts so far.

Share this:
reddit this reddit thisbookmark with del.icio.us Del.icio.usdigg thisseed newsvineSeed NewsvineStumbleUpon StumbleUponsubmit to propellerkwoff it

About the Author

Jonathan J. Ariel is an economist and financial analyst. He holds a MBA from the Australian Graduate School of Management. He can be contacted at jonathan@chinamail.com.

Other articles by this Author

All articles by Jonathan J. Ariel

Creative Commons LicenseThis work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Photo of Jonathan J. Ariel
Article Tools
Comment 33 comments
Print Printable version
Subscribe Subscribe
Email Email a friend
Advertisement

About Us Search Discuss Feedback Legals Privacy