By: Y.K. Cherson
Just hours before the expiration of the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas, US President Barack Hussein Obama II, speaking before the leaders of African and American countries, called on the “international community” to ensure the “end of the Gaza blockade.” This is nothing more than an effort to stop Israeli control over the never-ending Hamas attempts to enter more lethal arms to Gaza in order to be able to murder more Jews. It remained a secret, in exactly what manner the “international community,” with Hussein Obama at the head, is going to envisage this murder, but Hamas at once caught the ball– and in the early morning the next day, renewed missile attacks on Israeli cities, declaring that the mandatory condition of any ceasefire treaty with Israel will be “to put an end to the blockade of Gaza.”
The following day, Obama developed and clarified his position in an interview to Thomas Friedman of The New York Times, known by his hostile approach to the State of Israel. At first, Hussein Obama informed the American public that the Arabs have the right to the Land of Israel, because “they have legitimate claims, and this is their land and neighborhood as well.” He then complained that Netanyahu had much more support in Israel than he, the US President, has in USA, and as a result, Netanyahu would hardly agree to Obama’s demands for more “painful concessions” – that in the end get painful only for Israel, but are always good for Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran.
Obama’s complaint was again immediately heard and interpreted correctly, and the coalition of Israeli Left-wing parties attempted to organize in Tel Aviv a manifestation against the war on Hamas. Because of the threat of missile attacks by that same Hamas, the police did not permit the manifestation, which caused an uproar among the organizers who accused the Israeli government of “oppressing freedom.”
Hanin Zoabi, an Arab Knesset Member who praises Hamas terrorism and is equally esteemed by the terror group.
Maybe it would be better for Israel to grant the permission; with luck, if Hamas struck, it could save Israel the presence of such unpleasant personages as Zehava Gal-On of Meretz, Yariv Oppenheimer of Peace Now and- with a bit more luck, who knows, even Hanin Zoabi.
Hamas, fueled by how the American President and Israeli Left evidently support its strenuous efforts of killing Jews, hurried to declare that it would never agree to a ceasefire if all its demands are not met.
And it’s not Obama’s poor professionalism of an amateur in international policy that push him to torpedo the efforts by Egypt and Israel to stop the war. It’s not even Obama’s particularly hostile attitude toward the Jewish State, although it’s beyond doubt that no other President harmed USA-Israeli relations more than Mr. Hussein Obama. It’s the US current resident of the White House’s GENERAL LINE about the situation in the Middle East, it’s Obama’s POSITION. And this general line is, although perverted, logical and coherent. It finds the manifestation not only in the defense of interests of Hamas and its allies, but also in the support Obama rendered to the Muslim Brotherhood who toppled Egyptian President- and obvious US ally- Hosni Mubarak in 2011, and then in an actual rupture of ties with the new secular Egyptian President Al-Sisi who declared the Muslim Brotherhood illegal in the Country of Pyramids .
It can be seen also in Obama’s criticism of Bahrain for quelling Shi’a terrorism. But most clearly Obama’s vision of the future Middle East is seen in his stubborn attempt to establish close ties with Ayatollah’s Iran, turning a blind eye on the evident ambitions of Teheran to get a nuclear bomb. Moreover, in order to get Iran, Obama is ready to even put at risk US relations with America’s traditional Middle Eastern allies: Israel and Saudi Arabia. Obama made an obvious stake on “political Islam,” being it the Sunni variant including the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliated groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad- or its Shi’a variant personified by Iran.
Political Islam is pragmatic. It is not hindered by some innovations and even some “democratic ideas” and is ready to use them for achieving its main goal. But the goal remains the same: Islam must rule the world.
Salafi ideology, unlike Political Islam, is more… I do not even know what word would be more appropriate for describing something that in the XXI century proclaims its goal to restore the Caliphate: maybe romantic? But, call it anything you wish; it is absolutely unrealistic. And this utopian and fundamentalist Islam that plans to establish the Caliphate on the ruins of Iraq and Syria denies anything that is not “the original source of Islam”- except the modern weapons to kill infidels, of course.
Obama with Iran’s Rouhani
If the political Islam of the Muslim Brotherhood can be conditionally called an analogy of Stalin’s dictatorship and Ayatollah’s regime is similar to the Soviet “developed Socialism” of the Brezhnev era, then Militant Islam with its Caliphate restoration idea-fix is the Military Communism of Trotzky. And Obama offers to America and the world a very “logical” choice: of course, we must support Political Islam!
And why not the secular regimes, like Mubarak’s or Al-Sisi’s Egypt, or Assad’s Syria, or Saddam’s Iraq, or even Qaddafi’s Libya? Because they are tyrannies, says our brave paladin of freedom, Hussein Obama, and we, as a Bastion of Freedom and a Champion of Democracy, cannot support tyrannies.
So for 40-plus years, the USA could support Egypt and could supply weapons to Iraq, and the problem of their tyranny did not trouble America’s political establishment in the least- but with Obama, it started to trouble them to such an extent that America was supporting crazy fanatical Islamist rebels in their attack on Assad to such an extent that only a direct threat from Russia and Saudis to start massively supplying Assad with weapons stopped Obama from repeating in Syria the Libyan scenario? The rule of the Muslim Brotherhood would be more democratic and freedom-orientated than the “tyranny” of Mubarak? Are you sure?
Why is Obama so obsessed with the idea of making the Middle East Islamic? Is it a result of his Muslim roots, or his studies in a Muslim school, or living in a Muslim country for many years at a “tender age”? I leave the answer to psychiatrists who will without any doubt get very interested in Hussein Obama’s personality once he leaves the post of the President of the United States of America. But that he IS obsessed with this idea and that his exaggerated sympathies to Islam go against the interests of the USA is beyond doubt.
Just a glance at those who give Obama advice:
Muhammad Elibiari, a senior Department of Homeland Security advisor, recently tweeted that a Caliphate is inevitable and compared it to the European Union. Elibiary has a history of pro-Muslim Brotherhood advocacy and has close ties to a Hamas financier. He is also known as a great fan of Ayatollah’s regime.
Another Obama advisor- and another Muhammad, this time, Muhammad Magid, is the President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), an organization that just a couple of years ago was accused of being a cover and a laundry for Muslim Brotherhood fundraising activities in favor of Hamas. In spite of that, in 2011, President Barack Obama appointed this guy to serve in a Countering Violent Extremism Working Group with the DHS. On January 22, 2013, Magid took part in the inaugural ceremonies of President Obama.
Here you can find information about more Muslims in Obama’s Administration and about their “hard work” for the benefit of the United States of America.
And this list is far from being complete; in Obama’s Administration there are more Muslim fans, and many more.
However, in spite of the efforts of Hussein Obama and his Muslim advisors, the Muslim Brotherhood lost both in Egypt and in Syria. But Iran, due to our restless “Champion of Democracy,” is successfully crawling out of the crisis- without giving an inch of his ambitious nuclear project. And Qatar goes on funding the Muslim Brotherhood, while Hamas is also afloat, as well as Hezbollah.
It remains unclear how all this can benefit the US, but Hussein Obama is evidently not going to pull back a gear on his projects of bringing peace to the Middle East by passing it into the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood and Iranian Ayatollahs. It means that the next two years left to a liberal American sweetheart in the White House will not be calm.
The dominant hope in the Middle East is that this guy’s ideas leave with him after 2016.
Hit the road, Hussein!
There Is No Draw in Religious Wars
Obama, Iran, and Nuclear War
America Is Going Muslim
US Foreign Policy: Maybe a Bikini Would Help?
Modern America and the Boiling Frog
“I Want to See More Dead Jews”
Obama Is No Friend to Israel
Obama’s Golf Swing Must Be Good
Americans Support Israel
US Terrorism Database Has Doubled