Obama Is Not Good For Israel

Published in The Kansas City Jewish Chronicle

During his presidential campaign Barack Obama repeatedly proclaims his support for Israel. But judging his true stand on this matter while he is pursuing Jewish votes and donations seems naïve and unproductive, especially since Obama has proven to be a very eloquent campaigner who is well guarded and self-disciplined with his words and statements.Examining his statements concerning issues other than Israel — such as those on Iraq, terrorism and dealing with Iran and other evil regimes — reveals an ideological outlook that is not good for Israel. An Obama presidency would endanger Israel’s security by restraining it in its war for self-defense, by pressuring it to give up its strategic assets, and would enable Iran to conclude its nuclear weapons program through endless and fruitless negotiations.

• Obama believes in negotiating without preconditions with evil regimes; McCain does notObama has stated repeatedly that he is willing to meet and negotiate without preconditions with Iran’ leaders, Ahmedinejad or the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, in order to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear program and end its support of terrorism. Moreover, Obama has said that Iran is “tiny” compared to the Soviet Union” and “does not pose the same threat.”However, this “tiny” state poses a bigger threat because it is religiously suicidal and has been busy exporting its violent Islamic revolution. Iran, by financing and arming their Hezbollah and Hamas proxies, has gained dominance over Lebanon and Gaza. Through its Baathist and Mahdist allies, it has extended its influence to Syria and Iraq. An Iranian threat already looms over Persian Gulf oil supplies and European cities within missile range. That threat would grow, particularly if Obama orders the immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and the Gulf.An American offer to engage in dialogue with Iran is likely to be interpreted as a sign of American weakness and appeasement. Public opinion in the Middle East would conclude that America has at last surrendered to the reality of Iranian rule and Islamic jihad. The damage to U.S. regional and global influence and deterrent power could prove irreversible. It could be the catalyst for the resurgence of Islamic extremism and Al-Qaida.

The victory achieved against Al-Qaida by the surge in Iraq will be soon forgotten.How long after the U.S. starts dialoguing with Iran will Obama suggest that Israel should follow suit and negotiate with Hamas, even without them recognizing Israel’s right to exist?Furthermore, dialogue with Iran presents the danger that Iran will use it as camouflage to complete its nuclear ambitions. It might duplicate the North Korea model of negotiating with the U.S. by agreeing to suspend nuclear activities and then renewing them at the first opportunity.The former head of the U.N. weapons inspection team in Iraq, David Kay, stated recently that Iran is two to five years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon, an opinion that Israeli intelligence shares. Only a military strike will be able to cripple and delay the program.Finally, how can we elect a leader who does not think it is morally wrong to meet Khamenei, who has repeatedly called Israel “a cancerous tumor” that “needs to be removed from the Middle East, “ or to meet Ahmedinejad, a Holocaust denier who called Israel a “stinking corpse” that should “be erased from the map.” He recently repeated in the U.N. General Assembly the old-age anti-Semitic libel of the Protocols of Elders of Zion: that Jews control the financial markets and are the cause of the economic meltdown.• Obama believes in unilateral withdrawal without achieving victory first. McCain believes in defeating evil militarily first.Obama believes that the initial use of military force in Iraq was a mistake and advocates a timetable for withdrawal of American combat troops.

In fact, he voted twice against funding the U.S. troops in the field, and, according to Obama’s January 2007 Iraq plan, all combat units would have already be out of Iraq by March. He never believed the surge would work and that victory was possible. He was wrong.But McCain, who initially supported the war, as did a majority of Democrats in Congress, advocated the surge even before the Bush administration did. He insisted that increasing the number of the combat units would give the U.S. and its allies the win. McCain understood that running away from the battlefield would have cost U.S. citizens even more.The Bush administration decided after 9/11 to start a war in Iraq on the basis of the American intelligence reports that Iraq was on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons. Israeli intelligence believed the same. Although after a successful invasion and the removal of the Saddam Hussein’s regime, these weapons were not found, the U.S. could not withdraw because Iraq became the great battleground between U.S. and Al-Qaida and many other jihadists who were flowing in from Iran, Syria and Jordan. Al-Qaida was defeated in Iraq by the U.S. and its allies, and, as a result, its power and mythical perception in the Muslim world has been crippled. If the U.S. followed Obama’s advice and ran away in defeat, how soon would it be until another 9/11 type attack would have again occurred on American soil?Israel unilaterally withdrew twice under enemy fire and suffered many more casualties and destruction inside Israel proper as a result.In May 2000, Israel unilaterally withdrew in a humiliating way from southern Lebanon. Consequently, the Hezbollah terrorist infrastructure was established, and 12,000 missiles were pointed toward Israel. In the summer of 2006, Hezbollah bombarded northern Israel with 4,000 rockets, causing death and paralyzing the country.

When the Olmert government refused to take the necessary steps to win the war, Israel again withdrew from Lebanon under a fake cease-fire agreement, and now 40,000 rockets pointed against Israel which can hit the whole country.Unilateral withdrawal was tried again when Israel left Gaza, which resulted in a Hamas takeover and Israeli cities being bombarded.When Israel eventually will need to dismantle the terrorist infrastructure created by Hamas, the Palestinian Authority and Hezbollah, Israel’s hands

will be tied under an Obama regime. When in an interview Obama was asked if evil exists , Obama responded that we need to confront evil but added ”it is very important for us to have some humility in how to approach the issue of confronting evil, because a lot of evil ‘s been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil.” It seems that Obama equates terrorist’s actions and their victims defensive efforts as morally equivalent.Chamberlain or Churchill?I have never chosen a president according to the political party he belonged to; I base my support only upon one issue — who will be better for Israel. Wall Street and stock portfolios are important, but there is little evidence that Obama, who is lacking any administrative or state or national executive experience, will be able to handle a national or global economy.

I have always been pro-choice, but I never supported a candidate based on that issue, because, judging the U.S. Supreme Court history of judicial review, I can say with reasonable certainty that Roe v. Wade will not be overturned as long as majority of Americans support the right to abortion.Joe Biden warned recently that “Obama will be tested” by America’s enemies within his first six months in office. So if you share my concerns for Israel’s future and U.S. security, ask yourself two questions: First, who do you think Ahmadinejad, Khamanei, Hamas, Hezbollah and Osama bin Laden would prefer to test as the next president of the U.S.? And second, who do you want to fight global terrorism and Islamic jihad, a leader like Chamberlain, or one like Churchill?

Shoula Romano Horing was born and raised in Israel. She is an attorney, a national speaker and radio host. Her e-mail address is: shoula1@aol.com