|
Saturday, 17 April 2010
Rubenstein: Obama and the "vital national interest'
 Dr. Richard L. Rubenstein writes.
 Thanks to the New York Times article, “Obama Speech Signals a Shift on Middle East,” (April 15, 2010), we now are reasonably certain that the President regards resolving the Middle East conflict as a “vital national security interest of the United States.” The article further depicts the President as convinced that the Israeli-Arab conflict is “costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.” It is not unlikely that the article was the administration’s way of signaling a drastic change in American policy toward Israel. It is far more convenient to signal a policy change in the New York Times than in an official statement by the White House or the Department of State, but other governments are sure to take notice and adopt their policies accordingly.I have been reading some of the writings of Barack Hussein Obama lately in preparation for a major lecture in Nashville in June. The more I read, the more convinced I become that he is perhaps the most brilliant American president in memory, and for that reason, Israel’s most dangerous enemy. The way he secured passage of the health care bill should offer a hint of how he will operate against Israel. He didn’t get everything he wanted in this first round, but he’ll be back for more. Friends of Israel may console themselves with the fact 76 senators, including 38 Democrats, signed a letter to Secretary of State Hilary Clinton implicitly rebuking the Obama administration for its confrontational stance toward Israel, but Obama has shown that he knows how to make legislators walk the plank, so to speak, when he has determined that a vital interest-his own or the nation’s-is at stake. And, he has laid the groundwork by defining his version of the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as “vital national security interest.” Few legislators will be able to withstand the criticism should they vote against such an “interest.”
Admirers of Obama’s policies on the Middle East might recall the response of Franklin Delano Roosevelt towards Hitler’s “Final Solution.” To repeat something I wrote about in December 2009: The command decision to do nothing about Europe’s Jews during World War II, such as the refusal to bomb Auschwitz when U.S. planes were flying almost over it, or refusing to specify that Jews were Hitler’s chief victims at the 1943 Bermuda Conference, rested ultimately with Franklin D. Roosevelt’s, not John J. McCoy or Breckinridge Long. Long played an especially destructive role. He was a long-time friend and supporter of FDR, dating back to the Wilson administration. He contributed generously to FDR’s 1932 campaign and was appointed Ambassador to Italy by the newly-elected president. During the war, Long served as Assistant Secretary of State for Immigration and Refugee Affairs, where he pursued a policy of denying Jews available visas and keeping them bottled up in Hitler’s Europe fully aware of the fate that awaited them. In June 1940 he wrote an intra-department memo: "We can delay and effectively stop for a temporary period of indefinite length the number of immigrants into the United States. We could do this by simply advising our consuls to put every obstacle in the way and to require additional evidence and to resort to various administrative devices which would postpone and postpone and postpone the granting of the visas.” Long also claimed that his policies had the full support of his old friend FDR. On October 3, 1940, he wrote in his personal diary: “So when I saw him [FDR] this morning the whole subject of immigration, visas, safety of the United States, procedures to be followed; and all that sort of thing was on the table. I found that he was 100% in accord with my ideas. He said that when Myron Taylor, [the President's personal representative to the Vatican], had returned from Europe recently the only thing which they discussed outside of Vatican matters was the visa and refugee situation and the manner in which our Consulates were being deprived of a certain amount of discretion by the rulings of the Department...The President expressed himself as in entire accord with the policy which would exclude persons about whom there was any suspicion that they would be inimical to the welfare of the United States no matter who had vouchsafed for them and irrespective of their financial or other standing. I left him with the satisfactory thought that he was wholeheartedly in support of the policy which would resolve in favor of the United States any doubts about admissibility of any individual.”
Roosevelt also worked to thwart congressional resolutions favoring an eventual Jewish state during the war. Given the powerful opposition of men like George Marshall, Dean Acheson, John J. McCoy, etc to Truman’s determination to recognize Israel. It is hardly likely that, had Roosevelt survived and been president in 1947 and 1948 instead of Truman, there would have been a Jewish state.
In 1945, I could never understand why Abba Hillel Silver deeply distrusted Roosevelt and was a Republican. I do now. The Jews loved Roosevelt as he cooperated with the British in keeping Jews bottled up in Hitler’s charnel house. Today many Jews love Barack Hussein Obama. Unfortunately, there is no one in Obama’s circle to turn him around as Henry Morgenthau did with FDR. We will need all the savoir faire and cunning of our best brains- especially when they start to accuse us of dual loyalty as they have already with Dennis Ross- to counter a president whose policies could easily lead to genocide, whether intended or not. Posted on 04/17/2010 4:04 PM by Richard L. Rubenstein
Comments
18 Apr 2010
Vincent How many lives would have been saved if FDR would have allowed the bombing of the tracks and roads leading into Auswitz? 18 Apr 2010
mm i've hosted richard here in aspen and totally agree with what he writes, he is a great american thinker... 18 Apr 2010
Miles Portman IT HAS BECOME PAINFULLY CLEAR TO ME, A JEW, THAT PRESIDENT OBAMA DOES NOT HAVE THE SYMPATHY OR THE COMPASSION FOR THE iSRAELI PEOPLE AND THEIR CONSTANT STRUGGLE TO SURVIVE THE STATED INTENTION OF THE MOSLEM WORLD TO DRIVE THE JEWISH STATE FROM THE FACE OF THE EARTH, HE, OBAMA HAS ROOTS IN THE MOSLEM FAITH AND HE HAS LISTENED TO POISON FROM THE REVEREND WRIGHT FOR MANY YEARS----IT'S ALL SHOWING NOW, HE, OBAMA IS FAR FROM IMPARTIAL AND I TURLY HOPE HE IS A ONE TERM PRESIDENT--FOR MANY REASONS. 19 Apr 2010
Carl Goldman What about his Chief of Staff (R. Emmanuel) who is Jewish? |