A
thought provoking editorial by Hebrew Makor Rishon's Editor-in-Chief, Amnon Lord
Now that the best and brightest have finished their comparisons with Munich and Chamberlain, I wish to provide another, somewhat more shocking, comparison, one that in the past, resulted in people calling for smelling salts.
In March 2010, I attempted to explain the American president’s seemingly incomprehensible behavior in simple terms, making use of the name Charles Lindbergh. The legendary pro-Nazi pilot surfaced again in Philip Roth’s novel “The Plot Against America”, published in 2004. Roth penned a novel based on speculative history (“what would have happened if…”)- in this case, what would have happened had Charles Lindbergh won the 1940 elections rather than FDR, the incumbent against whom he ran for president.
The great United States of America and the great land of Germany – the land that was, coincidentally, ruled at the time by that Chancellor named Adolf Hitler – would have developed ties of friendship and mutual accord. Roth waxed eloquent on the effects this would have had on American Jewry and on the resulting cooperation that would have developed between American Jewish leadership and the new anti-Jewish American government.
For nearly four years now, it has been clear that the then-new American president sees the world in a fashion that is diametrically opposed to what we expect from an American government. He disposed of the bust of Churchill that stood in the White House. All the historical narrative that contains the struggle of democracies against totalitarian regimes, the Munich agreement, appeasement, giving in, Chamberlain – all those are one story in his history book. Even the Spanish Civil War is irrelevant. In his book there are imperialism, colonialism, Zionist aggression and peoples that awaken and rebel. That is how, in 2010, this Lindbergh-style president supported Argentina in the renewed hostilities that developed between that country and Great Britain over the Falkland Islands.
By the beginning of 2010, when Obama began a political siege on Israel for building in Jerusalem while evincing goodwill gestures such as stretching out a hand towards Ahmadinejad’s Iran, shaking hands with and hugging Chavez as well as offering US friendship to the then president of Brazil, Lula de Silva, it seemed clear that the American president felt that the world was ready for the Chavesian, Ahmadinejadian and Bashar-Assadian style of leadership.
Obama simply prefers Iran over Israel.
I put this up because it's entirely plausible, in fact likely, that Obama does not share the American belief in the historical struggle of America for freedom and democracy against totalitarian and oppressive regimes. In America's book this nation has stood for freedom, for giving everyone his God given right to follow his dreams. "In his [Obama's] book there are imperialism, colonialism, Zionist aggression and peoples that awaken and rebel."
Why is this plausible? Because it is the reigning orthodoxy on American college campuses and among Obama's friends and allies like Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright. It was what his mother, father and grandparents believed. It explains his foreign policy even better than ineptness. And it makes sense if we take him at his word that he wants to "fundamentally change" America; you want to fundamentally change something that is fundamentally flawed, not something that's basically right and good.
Which brings us back to the question: is Obama a person who's busy wrecking American society and foreign policy because he's in way over his head, because he's inept and never actually ran anything - even a lemonade stand? Or is he doing it because he means to do so? The answer may just be "yes."
