First, let me try something on you, then we'll see where we should go from here. It is that I suspect I have a problem with my girlfriend because she says she likes me, yet she does the things that tell me she does not. And I have a whole host of reasons which I call infractions to prove my suspicion. For example, she has ten pairs of shoes, nine of which are black and one brown. And believe it or not, last Wednesday she wore a black pair instead of the brown even though she knows I like her better when she wears brown shoes on Wednesday. Also, when we sit in a restaurant, instead of looking at me or the food all the time, she would take a few glances – if only for a fraction of a second – away from me or the food; and this, in the span of one hour or two. You get the idea and so I do not need to give you the whole list of infractions.
So now I ask you this: What do you think of me? A jerk you say? I agree. But the thing is, I'm not like that. You want to know who is? The Jewish lobbyists. When they wish to own something as they do America at this time, they want it for themselves in whole and in part, lock stock and barrel, from head to toe, from dawn to dusk, for better or for worse, in good times and in bad, for ever and ever till infinity and past it to the next infinity and beyond that. One of those who specialize in keeping track of the American infractions towards Israel and the Jewish causes, is Dan Senor. When he writes something, he always gives you a litany of the little things that the American President does which, in his view, constitute serious infractions -- as serious as neglecting to wear brown shoes on a Wednesday, for example.
He did it again. On March 5, 2012 (today) the Wall Street Journal published his latest list under the title: “Why Israel Has Doubts About Obama” and the subtitle: “Even Democrats have publicly questioned U.S. statements and policies toward America's most important Mideast ally.” What flares up your bile as you read the stuff is that it goes down your throat like a chutzpah brew that is served in a glass of hubris. He begins by calling President Obama immodest for saying that his “administration has done more in terms of the security of … Israel than any previous administration.”
Senor takes this as being the presidential equivalent of “I love you Israel and I have your back” to which he replies in the name of Israel: “You love me, my ass. If you did, you would wear brown shoes on Wednesday.” In fact, he dismisses Obama's assertion by attributing America's largess to someone else: “...there has been increased U.S. funding for Israeli defense … the bulk of which comes from … a 10-year commitment made by … W. Bush … in 2007.”
So then, what else would satisfy these people if not just the security of Israel? you ask. And they tell you without shame, fear or reluctance that they expect nothing less than presidential high treason of country in return for a bribe. And Senor is so certain that the lobby is already getting this much from American presidents, he does not ask for it anymore. On the contrary, he explains why Obama is attributing to himself Bush's largess toward Israel by offering this analysis: “Monday he [Obama] meets with … Netanyahu … know[ing] that he lost a portion of the Jewish vote … With the election nine months away, he's scrambling to win back Jewish voters and donors.” In other words, he says matter-of-factly that in the style of the most primitive of Third World traditions, American presidents of both parties betray their country for money and foreign political support.
Now he tells you what really bugs him and what he really, really wants: “...a key element of Israel's security is deterrence [which] rests on … the perception … that Israel will defend itself, and that … America will stand by Israel.” This would be like me telling my girlfriend she cannot glance away from me because people in the restaurant will perceive such act as being a sign there is daylight between us; and perception is what counts. To avoid that dreaded possibility, she must remain visually fixated only on me or her plate at all time.
Now comes the litany of the things that Senor believes the Obama administration did to upset that order. The first came in October of 2011 when Leon Panetta raised questions about Israel -- questions that Senor characterizes as being provocative. Here is that moment: “Is it enough to maintain a military edge if you're isolating yourself in the diplomatic arena?” This would be like the girlfriend telling me to find a few more friends and have a real life with them, not just depend on her attention, her love and the fact that she is so rich and powerful, I fully depend on her in everything that sustains me. It is scandalous that she would think in these terms. What kind of relationship she wants with me? An open marriage?
Senor now sheds a tear or two: “The president's stern lectures to Israel's leaders were delivered repeatedly and very publicly at the United Nations, in Egypt and Turkey, all the while he did not make a single visit to Israel to express solidarity.” And speaking of Turkey, Israel's past lover, he says this: “Indeed, almost every time the Obama administration has scolded Israel, the charges have been repeated by Turkish officials.” Like a tender moment in a noon time soap opera, you feel like sopping at Israel's heartbreak. A moment of silence please: sop, sop, sop. Or is it whine, whine, whine?
Senor goes on to discuss a few more such incidents which took place in November and December of 2011, as well as in January and February of 2012. But having loaded the readers with a heavy dose of emotional content, he now provides the comic relief. Like me saying to the girlfriend: “I'm not the only one saying this about you, even your mother is saying it,” Senor reveals this tidbit of truth: “...Obama dismissed critics … as 'actors who want to … drive a wedge … between [him] and the [Jews].' But … these criticisms have been leveled by Democrats.”
To show how, he gives you another litany, this time of democrats such as Sen. Robert Menendez who lambasted administration officials. There were also the leading democrats, Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Steny Hoyer who felt compelled to speak out. There was Sen. Charles Schumer who used even stronger language to respond to things terrible he heard, and finally there was the turncoat Senator Joe Lieberman who said of Obama: “...he's handled the relationship with Israel in a way that has … unsettled the Israelis.”
He ends by voicing concern that if re-elected, Obama will be even more one sided in his approach toward Israel. But he promises him a pat on the back if “...he will stand by Israel...” Senor then says that Obama came close to promising this much in his speech to the AIPAC crowd (yesterday), and he hopes that “this is the beginning of a policy change and not just election year rhetoric.”
In the meantime, Dan Senor is now advising the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney. I wonder how he is telling them to commit acts of high treason for the benefit of Israel and hope to get away with it.
So strange a democracy America has become; let's cross our fingers and hope for the best or at least avoid the worst.