Obama’s pride, Hillary’s greed and Iran’s hate: Giving Israeli Independence Day new...

Obama’s pride, Hillary’s greed and Iran’s hate: Giving Israeli Independence Day new meaning

Israel will be celebrating its 67th glorious year of existence as independent as ever, and that's ok

Israel Independence Day flyover.
Aerial demonstration during Israel's Independence Day celebration in 2009. (Via Wikipedia)

HASHMONAIM, Israel, April 23, 2014 — On Wednesday night Israel once again made the emotional transition from somber day of remembrance to day of celebration in honor of the country’s miraculous establishment and continued existence. In Hebrew, this day is known as Yom Ha’atzmaut, or Day of Independence.

This year, on its 67th Independence Day, Israel is celebrating as independent as it has been in a long time. That is, Israel is independent of its strong American ally, with very little hope that it will return any time soon, and facing a genocidal Iranian regime that no one on the globe other than Israel feels the need to stop.

In fact, on Monday, Bret Stephens made this very argument in a Wall Street Journal column entitled “Israel Alone,” where he writes, “Mr. Obama is bequeathing not just a more dangerous Middle East but also one the next president will want to touch only with a barge pole. That leaves Israel alone to deal as best as it can with a broadening array of threats: thousands more missiles for Hezbollah, paid for by sanctions relief for Tehran; ISIS on the Golan Heights; an Iran safe, thanks to Russian missiles, from any conceivable Israeli strike.”

While Stephens makes an incredibly convincing argument that “Israel…for the first time in its history, must seek its security with an America that, say what it will, has nobody’s back but its own,” some will argue that once Obama leaves office, even if another Democrat takes his place, America will be right back by Israel’s side.

Sadly, I do not believe this to be the case. This is because as much as it horrifies me to imagine it, I have very little doubt that Hillary Clinton will be the next president of the United States.

Yes, it is true that she is currently under some fire. On the back of her email deletion scandal comes the announcement of Peter Schweizer’s upcoming book, “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” which will be released on May 5. However, I have little confidence that this will ultimately deter Americans from punching Clinton’s ticket in November 2016.

I especially have little doubt that the American Jewish community will abandon Mrs. Clinton. This is because, despite taking numerous worrisome actions and making a plethora of troubling statements as secretary of state, Hillary has done a good of job distancing herself from Barack Obama’s anti-Israel policies since leaving office. With American political memory being as short-term as it is, this will provide enough cover for the Jews who pretend Israel is of great importance to them despite it never actually challenging their love for all things liberalism, to claim that Hillary will fix all the boo-boos between the USA and the Jewish State. In this way as well, Israel is uniquely independent this year, as it is independent of the unwavering American Jewish support it once enjoyed.

We also know that the media will do anything and everything it can to carry Hillary into the Oval Office. That means that, if the Republicans actually do something right for once and nominate a strong conservative candidate such as Ted Cruz, the New York Times, the Washington Post and the rest of the unscrupulous mainstream media will wage war against the GOP candidate while simultaneously shielding yet another Clinton from yet more scandals.

Which brings us to Iran. On his radio show this week, Mark Levin suggested a potential additional reason as to why Obama has been so blindly pursuing a deal with Iran at any cost. Levin pointed to a New York Times article entitled, “Billboards in Iran Say ‘Death to America,’ but Officials Say ‘Let’s Make a Deal.’” The article talks about a group of young American entrepreneurs who traveled to Iran on a “fact-finding mission” earlier this month. According to the Times, “With the United States and Iran currently negotiating a nuclear deal under which…sanctions would eventually be lifted, some American companies are now hoping for new business opportunities in a country that has long been off limits.”

Levin points to this fact as a possible motive for Obama’s obsession with inking an agreement with Teheran. He suggests that Obama is in bed with a number of business executives who are chomping at the bit to get a piece of the roughly $120 to $150 billion Iran will receive if the U.S. lifts sanctions. This argument gains even more steam when considering a Wall Street Journal report on Tuesday that the U.S. has agreed to give Iran a $50 billion “signing bonus” just for saying yes to the deal, despite the U.S. Navy’s, at the very same time, positioning itself in the Arabian Sea to intercept a weapons shipment from Iran to the Shiite Houthi rebels currently terrorizing Yemen.

However, I have given up hope that this deal with Iran will be stopped unless it is by Teheran’s own doing, so Obama’s motivations, as dastardly as they are, are of little interest. With the passing of the Corker Bill, as Levin, the Jerusalem Post’s Caroline Glick and others have pointed out, the Senate has all but given Obama the power to go through with a deal without any real congressional approval needed. There is still hope, however, that the next United States president could retract this insane deal if he or she so chooses and if it is not too late.

However, how can I read about immoral businessmen who will do whatever is necessary to have access to the Iranian marketplace and not think of Hillary Clinton? As Schweizer’s book will highlight, the Clintons, through the Clinton Foundation, have made millions upon millions of dollars cutting deals with foreign governments, even while Hillary was serving as secretary of state. This means that, if the Clinton Foundation is offered enough money by these aggressive ‘entrepreneurs,’ the second President Clinton will have very little motivation to undo Obama’s bad deal.

Therefore, Israel, as Stephens mentions, is on its own for the foreseeable future.

This does not mean that this year’s Yom Ha’atzmaut needs to be a sad one. It just means that Israel must embrace and prepare for this reality. As Stephens so correctly puts it, “How does it do this? By recalling what it was able to do for the first 19 years of its existence… an Israel that was prepared to take strategic gambles because it knew it couldn’t afford to wait on events…‘Plucky little Israel’ earned the world’s respect and didn’t care, much less beg, for its moral approval.”

Now that I think about it, maybe a little independence is exactly what the State of Israel, in its 67th glorious year of existence, needs.

That’s Right I Said It!

Sign Up To Receive That’s Right I Said It! Directly To Your Inbox

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 Communities Digital News

This article is the copyrighted property of the writer and Communities Digital News, LLC. Written permission must be obtained before reprint in online or print media. REPRINTING CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION AND/OR PAYMENT IS THEFT AND PUNISHABLE BY LAW.

Correspondingly, Communities Digital News, LLC uses its best efforts to operate in accordance with the Fair Use Doctrine under US Copyright Law and always tries to provide proper attribution. If you have reason to believe that any written material or image has been innocently infringed, please bring it to the immediate attention of CDN via the e-mail address or phone number listed on the Contact page so that it can be resolved expeditiously.