Too much praise, not enough substance

The announcement sent shockwaves around the planet: President Barack Obama has been awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize for his ‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.’

While it cannot be disputed that President Obama has run a fantastic campaign based on hope, change and peaceful co-existence, very little has been translated from campaign rhetoric into real and lasting change on the ground.

There are those in ultra left-leaning circles who firmly believe that President Obama is deserving of this magnanimous award. President Obama was nominated barely several weeks into his presidency – hardly a substantial period within which to evaluate his performance for this tremendous honour to be bestowed upon him.

There are problems in his being nominated – namely that he is as yet an undeserving recipient and secondly the title may come back to bite him in the near future. When the world was searching for hope, they found a Democrat who promised change, so it made sense to heap as much praise and encouragement on the new commander-in-chief as possible. But a Nobel Peace Prize? This is simply heaping praise on a man who is grossly unworthy of it.

If one were to measure his achievements to date – there are sadly none to speak of. President Obama has promised to open dialogue with a largely skeptical Muslim world. We are yet to see real change in the mindset of everyday Americans in this regard and in the largely disillusioned Arab world. Sure Obama has cultivated the seeds of hope, but the Peace Prize is awarded for actual results achieved, not silky smooth words born of nothing.

We are witnessing the continuing intransigence by both sides in the Mid-East peace process. Indeed in this matter, President Obama’s myopia has gotten the better of him. Israel was not born out of the suffering of the Jewish people from the time of the Holocaust as he so incorrectly alluded at his historic address in Cairo earlier this year. Israel has been the Jewish ancestral homeland since the time of Joshua, several thousand years ago.

Before President Obama can talk peace in the Mid-East (as he is only learning now) there needs to be a unified Palestinian leadership, a denouncement of all terror-related activities against the State of Israel by Palestinians across the board and an acceptance of Israel as the homeland of the Jewish people. Likewise there must be tenable security and a complete freeze on settlement building.

At home, Americans are yet to witness the long-term ill-effects of the massive spending that the Obama Presidency put into effect to arrest the economic crisis of 2008/9 in respect of the stimulus packages. Future generations of Americans are going to be saddled with unprecedented national debt, the likes of which will result in inflationary pressures and more job losses.

The most contentious domestic issue for Americans is the ongoing health care debacle. Obama is trying to deconstruct the very essence of capitalism – the heartbeat of America. By providing healthcare to everyone in the USA at the expense of the taxpayer – like it or not – this goes against the very fabric of the American way. Many Americans – Democrats included – are more than a little uptight about Obama’s drastic moves to ‘right the wrongs’ in society.

But the issue that will put egg on the face of President Obama is one that he would rather not deal with – Iran. Now that the US President is a Nobel Laureate – will that embolden the tyrannical Iranian leadership further? Indeed it seems unlikely that a Peace Prize winner would do anything against an intransigent, terror-sponsoring entity like Iran. If Iran chooses to weaponize its nuclear program, will President Obama have the gumption to unilaterally stand up to the greatest threat the world has ever known?

Mr. President you have erred

The political background against which the 2008 US Elections took place was hardly a predictable one. (R)Senator John McCain of Arizona, a decorated war veteran and proven leader ran against the relatively unknown (D) Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

One major difference separated these two men: Barack Obama’s charisma and political savvy. Senator John McCain certainly fit the bill to be appointed to the highest office in the world, but he lacked the flair and flamboyance of Senator Barack Obama.

While Obama was able to rattle off the right words as effortlessly as greased lightning, McCain would fumble and stutter – not through his inability for structured thought and strategic leadership, but rather through his incompetence as a public speaker.

Obama wooed voters with his dynamic approach. He made use of the internet, public funds and a huge disillusioned base of Bush-era fatigued voters. The failed war in Iraq – often cited as the legacy of the Bush Presidency, was usurped by the Obama administration for all its worth.

Voters needed a scapegoat and all Bush-era doctrine and foreign policy bore the brunt. It was a case of old-school Republican failures vs. an era of Democratic liberalism and inflated government. Obama promised a rapid de-escalation of the Iraq war effort, a focus on education and clean energy, affordable health care, special attention on minority rights and a total break from the past.

McCain was blindsided by his own campaign. They painted him as the humble, decorated war hero of yesteryear. McCain has been toted as a self-made man, a leader of men and a qualified candidate for the world’s highest office. But McCain failed to offer what it was that the Obama campaign was so successfully promoting – Change.
Americans had long grown tired and distrustful of a war effort that was based on false assumptions. There were no WMD in Iraq. It appeared to the public as if Bush and Cheney were pursuing a personal agenda of the old-school Republican think tank: attack Iraq, destroy its infrastructure and seek to impose democratic governance through unilateral initiatives. Bush was a man of action, not scared to act alone when the world dragged its feet. This proved fatal at some points, especially when America’s actions were deemed illegal and expansionist by parties in the region.

Bush acted on his threats and he cautioned the world against the rising threat of Islamic militancy. The EU and other allies of the United States were war weary and they were reluctant to commit themselves to an unpopular military campaign with no end in sight. Britain, a longtime friend of the United States, withdrew its forces followed by other countries. Owing to global protests against the war efforts, rising costs in civilian and military casualties and the enormous financial burden entailed, the war rhetoric was losing support at a geometric rate.

Against this backdrop of declining support for President Bush – all-time low approval ratings ensued – Barack Obama ascended the ranks of the Democrat Party. He brushed passed Hillary Clinton who ultimately had nothing but praise for the new candidate. Obamania had gripped the world. Barack Obama was simply unstoppable. He spoke of change, of Main Street and not Wall Street, he championed the little man and not the corporate, he spoke effortlessly and plainly of the challenges that Americans face on a daily basis.

Then the Achilles Heel of the Republican campaign struck. The Global Crisis of late 2008. Within a short period of time the housing crisis, mortgages banks, sub-prime lending rates, credit crunch and international insurers and financial/investment houses hit the headlines. It wasn’t good news that was awaiting the world. Massive and widespread layoffs and unemployment ensued; corporate bankruptcies by the dozen, home foreclosures, credit drying up and a crisis of unimaginable proportions gripped the global market. Fear and panic swept like a raging wildfire through the hearts of Americans as first their jobs, then their homes and their families’ livelihoods were at stake.

Obama was elected to the highest office. McCain was relegated to the annals of history as the man who challenged, but was ultimately defeated by President Obama. This was the coup de grace of the Obama camp. McCain and his old school Republican friends were seen as the enemy by the American people. Bush and anyone associated with him was a symbol of failure, of unilateralism, of deceit. The Republicans were seen as pro-corporate and against the average working-class American. Obama promised tax-cuts to 95% of Americans, according to his perception of income brackets. McCain could only cling to Obama’s coattails and offer the American public that he would work alongside Obama in the new presidency.

Obama seized on this crisis and presented what appeared like a workable plan to the American people. This came in the form of a massive and unprecedented bailout. Hundreds of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds would be used to prop up banks, insurers, automobile manufacturers and investor confidence. The so-called ‘Toxic Assets’ would be bought up by the massive government expenditure and confidence would slowly begin to return to the global market.

Where were all these funds coming from? How did the Obama administration plan to deliver on such promises? With the fear of the Americans and the grand-plan of the Obama administration Congress soon passed a series of stimulus bills that were unheard of in the history of American legislation. A bailout was proposed, which was in excess of $800 billion with well over a trillion dollars ultimately being spent to kick start the American economy.

President Obama knew that by inflating government bureaucracy, awarding contracts and huge budgets to multiple offices across the nation, jobs would be created. What Obama perhaps failed to take into account was the impact that failure of such unprecedented action might have on future generations of Americans. The money had to come from the coffers of the state – from corporates and small businesses. In Obama's defense, the cost of inaction outweighed the potential pitfalls of a failed stimulus package. The tax-payer dollars were being channeled according to the whims of Congressmen and the President. Obama would scold CEOs for being greedy and chastise them for taking profits while the American people were eating humble pie.

But what Obama’s myopia failed to understand was that it was this reality of corporate America that had put America in such a position of dominance in the first place. It was the American capitalism coupled with minimal government involvement in daily life that made the American free market system as successful as it was. The housing bubble had burst and suddenly a quick-fix solution to the unprecedented crisis was being sought. In economics, quick-fix solutions are merely stopgap measures with no strategic timeline. The crisis was fueled by buoyant confidence, which is essentially the perception of people that otherwise drives any stock exchange system.

The Obama camp lay blame squarely on Wall Street and the Bush-era policies that failed to check the activities of these corporations and their accounting practices. Where Bush had failed was in making transparency and accountability more of a priority. But such a series of events could well have occurred under any administration’s watch. Nonetheless Obama seized on this opportunity and promised to clean up house so that Main Street could benefit.

Many Americans feel that President Obama is doing a fine job. They feel that in his first 100 days in office he has achieved the unprecedented. The stimulus package has been passed, moves are afoot to liberalize policies on multiple fronts, the economy is said to be bottoming out. But what President Obama has done is far more than expand the size of the American bureaucracy. He has set in motion a series of foreign policy changes that are likely to change the global political landscape forever.

This is perhaps Obama’s most injudicious political blunder. His desire to be liked and to become a listening partner, not a dictating world power is what has caused the collapse of American dominance. It is crucial to the world at large that America as the beacon of democratic governance, freedom of speech, religion and association maintains its leadership. Exceptionally liberal ideas in Washington are clouding the global waters. This is a dangerous move by the Obama administration and one which is likely to be perceived by America’s enemies as a sign of weakness.

President Obama in his anxiety to break from the Bush administration has allowed the symbolism of America to dramatically weaken. He has personally allowed the image of America to be weakened by his subservience to those he seeks to court. Barring his dubious bowing in front of the Saudi King, his promises to listen and not to dictate terms and his embracing of Hugo Chavez and Cuba’s Castro regime, things are looking ominous from a foreign policy perspective.

Obama who was fiery-hot in favour of Israel’s right to stand against terrorism and Islamic extremism is now trying an even-handed approach which is anything but pro-Israel. His advances towards Iran and its tyrannical leadership are perhaps the most incorrigible foreign policy approaches of all. A known anti-Semite in President Ahmedinejad who is also a sworn enemy of democratic systems of western governance, yet Obama is seeking the friendship and compassion of such a villain.

Instead of using the strength of the international community to apply significant pressure on Iran, the Obama administration is seeking to legitimize the fundamentalist Islamist Iranian leadership by airing conciliatory speeches on Iranian television and inviting the Iranians to participate in all matters of global significance. That the Iranians are seeking the annihilation of the State of Israel and to destabilize Lebanon, Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia is of little significance to President Obama. It is his firm belief that negotiation with a terror-sponsoring nation is the way to achieve peace and bolster America’s global image.

At what cost will America sell her soul to be liked by the radical Islamic world? At the cost of American pride, dominance, freedoms, support of Israel and all democratic governance? At the right of Iran to pursue a cataclysmic nuclear weapons program? At the expense of an arms race in the Middle East? The Mid-East envoy George Mitchell has been dispatched to the region and his calls for a 2 state solution to the Israel/Palestinian issue have been voiced.

What Obama fails to recognize is that the Israeli/Palestinian issue is nothing like the issue in Ireland. The Jews will never surrender the State of Israel to anyone, let alone radical Islamists in Hamas and Hezbollah. That Lebanon is a power cell for the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and that Gaza is their proxy being ruled by Hamas, is not lost on Israel. A viable Palestinian state must not possess any entities that are backed by Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran. Besides if President Obama is willing to overlook Hamas's prestated intent not to recognize Israel under any conditions whatsoever, then the US is making a grave mistake. Israel will never accede to such suicidal concessions. The Obama administration in its anxiety to effect change is forcing an issue which cannot be forced.

Unfortunately those who don’t feel the heat in the kitchen will have to learn through painful experience that there are some issues that require a hard hand in order for change to be effected. As long as Hamas controls Gaza, as long as Iranian radical Islamists fund Hezbollah and Hamas, there will not be a Palestinian sovereign state. There will not be, not because Obama’s liberalism is willing to turn a blind eye to the realities of fanatical Islamism, but because Israel will not allow it.

President Obama is keen to embrace all of America’s longstanding enemies in Hugo Chavez and his ilk. Chavez, the leftist freedom fighter is a virtual dictator in Venezuela. Coupled with him is the communist enterprise of Cuba under Raul Castro. Add the ever growing list of dictators and human rights abusers across Latin America and one seriously has to ponder what it is that President Obama really stands for. What are the values he espouses, besides flashing a wide-eyed grin at leaders across the table. If it is for freedom, democracy and civil liberties then that message has gone horribly awry in the actions he has personally undertaken and the alliances he is trying to forge.

There can be no negotiations with terrorist-supporting entities or the states which harbor them. And there can certainly be no dialogue with states intent on fast-tracking a deadly nuclear weapons program with the intent of annihilating other states in the region. Furthermore in the America's, there can be no courtship of countries seeking to undermine and destabilize American influence in their region of the world. Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Cuba have been doing this by seeking to threaten America with the formation of anti-American powerblocs in the region.

The economic policies of Barack Obama seem to make sense by and large, but his world-perspective is severely myopic and is going to cost America and the entire free world dearly. The only hope is that his policy of widespread appeasement and weakness will not bring forth a terrifying Armageddon scenario.

Gaza Violence

As world condemnation of Israel's assault on Gaza grows, Iran starts making some noise

The citizens of southern Israel have been under threat of rocket fire from neighboring Gaza for several years already. While most of the projectiles have failed to cause fatalities, they are succeeding as a preferred terrorist weapon.

The aim of the rocket barrages that continue to pummel southern Israel is this: to show Israel that Hamas is determined to sew the seeds of destruction in Israel. The terrorist organization is unperturbed by Israeli firepower. Their strength sprouts from their misguided perception of freedom fighting. The more of their own they bury the greater their support base grows.

Any international observer who believes that Hamas is a fad or not a serious threat to Israel is sorely mistaken. Hamas is a well-structured outfit, funded, trained and supplied by radical Islamists in Syria and Iran. Hamas does not care for the Palestinians - they are merely their cannon fodder to serve the greater agenda - Israel's destruction. As a proxy territory of Iran, Gaza will do Tehran's bidding, much like Hizballah in southern Lebanon.

That Israel has been called to task regarding their targeted bombardment of Hamas terror cells, infrastructures, weapons caches and institutions is a sham. Israel has attempted to target specific entities in Gaza. Contrast this with Hamas' indiscriminate bombing of Israeli towns, cities and other random locations. There is no legitimacy for the Hamas operation. They claim to be fighting for the Palestinians when in fact they are placing them in harm's way by dragging Israel into a war.

Hamas broke the 6 month truce. They shelled Israel and continue to do so. It appears as if Ahmedinejad is itching for a fight and Hamas is just the tonic the doctor ordered. With Hassan Nasrallah in the north readying his fighters and the Muslim Brotherhood stirring up protest rallies in Egypt and elsewhere, the world is teetering on the brink of mayhem.

Israel - at least in the eyes of Arabs and their sympathizers - has no right to react to rocket fire. They should take it on the chin and allow Hamas to continue their pyrotechnics extravaganza. Such thinking is unheard of in any country. The Israeli government has been entrusted with the unenviable task of protecting its citizens from terrorist assaults.

With such an unfriendly neighborhood this task is exceptionally difficult. To date there have been over 400 Palestinians killed and over 2000 wounded. International pressure is mounting against Israel to halt its bombardment of the densely populated Gaza. Rocket launch sites, terror cells and Hamas homes have all been hit hard by a ruthless Israeli air assault into the coastal territory.

The next move appears to be the decision as to whether to invade Gaza or to stay out. With just 3 weeks to go before President-Elect Obama gets sworn in, it's anybody's guess what Israel will do. A land assault will have serious ramifications, what with threats of anti-tank missiles and growing Muslim protests the world over.

Israel has a job on its hands and again it's not on the battlefield but in the media. Is Israel's quest a legitimate one? Can Israel expect sympathy when it has exponentially greater firepower and ability?

These are some hard issues that the Jewish state has to contend with.