The title of my article was a play on Hillary Clinton's 3 a.m. campaign ad, which suggested that Obama was unfit to lead in an international crisis. (Yes, I do see the irony of Hillary having to implement Obama's foreign policy.)
I wrote as follows about the true danger facing Israel, which was a cut-off of support from the U.S. in a time of crisis:
It's wake up time, folks. The rift between the U.S. and Israel is being stoked needlessly, another false crisis which the administration is not letting go to waste:
On October 12, 1973, President Nixon ordered a massive military re-supply airlift to Israel. President Nixon made this decision over the objections of the foreign policy establishment, which wanted a more "balanced" approach. Israel owed its survival to a Republican President who was not afraid to make a hard, and in some quarters unpopular, decision in a time of crisis.
There is only one person in the world who can destroy Israel. That person is not the leader of Syria or Iran, or the head of some terrorist group. The only person who can destroy Israel is the President of the United States, whose decisions in times of crisis affect Israel's survival. If Richard Nixon has not taken the bold decision to resupply Israel, Israel would not be here today.
Even more dangerous times in the Middle East now.
For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.
After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said....
Sources said that Mr Netanyahu failed to impress Mr Obama with a flow chart purporting to show that he was not responsible for the timing of announcements of new settlement projects in east Jerusalem. Mr Obama was said to be livid when such an announcement derailed the visit to Israel by Joe Biden, the Vice-President, this month and his anger towards Israel does not appear to have cooled.
The enemies of Israel -- who just so happen to be the enemies of the United States -- will be emboldened. Iran, Syria, Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Aksa Martyrs Brigade, Islamic Jihad, al-Qaeda and their compatriots are smiling right now, and preparing for war.
The left-wing academics, bloggers and NGO lawyers are dusting off their computer keyboards for renewed attempts to delegitimize Israel, and the despots who run the UN Human Rights Council are preparing new anti-Israel resolutions.
Our President does not realize that by trying to impose his peace on his terms he is increasing the likelihood of war. A sense of Israeli encirclement and a need to strike first because of uncertainty led to the 1967 war.
Putting Israel's security at risk is not the path to peace:
[T]he demands the Americans have made go far beyond the issue of Jerusalem; they now include more than was demanded by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton two weeks ago. Obama would like Israel to make good-will gestures to the Palestinians Authority, including the release of prisoners held in Israeli jails and the transfer of territory to the control of the Palestinian security forces.Towards the end of my American Thinker article I posed these questions:
Supporters of Israel are correct to be concerned with the prospect of an Obama presidency. Which Obama will pick up the phone in the middle of the night? Will it be the Obama who says all the right things about Israel's safety, or will it be the pre-campaign Obama who was comfortable being around the anti-Israeli elements in our society when it served his political interests? Will it be the Obama who pledges never to put Israel's security in jeopardy, or will it be the Obama who surrounds himself with foreign policy advisors who argue for more "balance" in the Middle East policy of the United States?I still do not know the answer to these questions. And neither do the Israelis, and that is the point.
Because Israel has no territorial buffer and because its population is concentrated in an area smaller than some counties in Texas, the mere implied threat by the U.S. to withhold support can bring Israel to its knees. A country brought to its knees cannot defend itself.
I could take comfort in the fact that support for Israel among Americans is near an all time high, at 63%. Approximately the same percentage of Americans who opposed Obamacare, and we saw how that worked out. So don't think public opinion will make a difference.
Congressional support also is heartening.
But what Obama wants, Obama has grown accustomed to getting.
NOTE re Comments: I normally do not moderate comments for content, but on this one I am because the reaction is so hostile to what Obama is doing. I agree with you on substance, and feel free to criticize him (or agree with him), but keep it at a certain level, or post it elsewhere.
The "Israel Endangers U.S. Troops" Meme Grows
Obama Adding Fuel To The Al-Aqsa Fire
Mr. Netanyahu, Tear Down That Wall For Our Suicide Bombers
Follow me on Twitter and Facebook