Get PJ Media on your Apple

Rubin Reports

Obama’s Seven New Pillars of Middle East Wisdom (Part One)

September 9th, 2013 - 6:12 am

The bottom line is the administration believes that if the Muslim Brotherhood is kept happy, it won’t cause any trouble. I’m not kidding here. Why, for example, is the Sinai Peninsula is heating up with violent terrorism? Because the Islamists aren’t running it! This has been the official propaganda line everywhere in the mass media, with only the rarest conflicting view presented, despite the fact that it is just common sense. The New York Times published four articles in one week alone complaining that President Obama was blocked by Israel from doing the right thing — opposing condemnation of the Egyptian coup, because it seemed inexplicably to oppose a genocidal regime ten times its population which supported its extermination while allied to a terrorist statelet on its border.

One Times story claimed:

While Israel is careful to argue that Egypt is critical to broad Western interests in the Middle East, its motivation is largely parochial: the American aid underpins the 34-year-old peace treaty between Israel and Egypt, so its withdrawal could lead to the unraveling of the agreement. More immediately, Israel is deeply worried that Egypt’s strife could create more openings for terrorist attacks on its territory from the Sinai Peninsula.

Wouldn’t one expect that U.S. policy backed the same thing?


(Part two will cover pillars 4 to 7.)

<- Prev  Page 2 of 2   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

All Comments   (3)
All Comments   (3)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated

As NATO, Russia, and China lined up against Obama, other parties began to speak out as more details about the rebels made their way into the mainstream press. Both sides in this war have committed their share of atrocities, but only the rebels have systematically attacked and massacred the Orthodox Christians. The Bible belt in American has never supported this President, and his relentless assault on religious liberty though Obamacare has enraged parishioners. Catholic organizations have also protested loudly, but it was not until the assumed invasion of Syria to the benefit of anti-Christian al Qaeda elements that the Pope spoke out. Calling for an end to the “spiral of sorrow and death,” he prayed with thousands for peace in Syria and an end to the conflict. But the implication was clear: Obama’s war would make things incalculably worse. Next door in Egypt last month, the Islamist Nazis re-enacted Kristallnacht. (Thankfully, the Egyptian military appears to have that situation under control following a stern crackdown on the Brothers and “Islamist terrorism.”)

First the WASPs and Evangelicals, then the Orthodox, and now the Vatican. So it was that Obama lost Christianity en total. For the first time in history, it can perhaps be written that the American government was at war with Christianity. A stain not to be forgotten. The future will hold whether or not the Democrat Party will die on the hill of Christian persecution and genocide.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
As usual I find a Rubin analysis to be insightful, revealing and convincing. Nevertheless, I, as many times in the past re Rubin's analyses, feel that something is missing. Let me examine the basic theses concerning Obama's policy for the Middle East according to Rubin (in supersimplified form):

1. Obama views the Palestinian / Israel conflict as THE conflict, relative to which the "correct" resolution will resolve America's problems in the area, because the resolution will win over the "moderates" (or make Arabs moderate), thereby ending the threat of Islamic violence by Al-Q.
2. Obama holds that "radical Islam" is the key, i.e., is THE instrument, which, if installed, will be most open to his solution such that MB-type radicals will tame the lust for violence of Al-Q.
3. The central pillar is the belief that, if the MB (or Mullahs in Teheran) can be kept happy (particularly by pushing a pro-Palestinain policy against Israel), then the problems of the Middle East will findally experience a solution.

I can comprehend the logic of such a policy and it surely frees Obama from accusations of being a closet-Muslim or a closet-communist or a combination of both. In essence, Obama seems, if I understand the Rubin analysis, SIMLPY to have made a mistake in judgment. If this is true than I see myself forced to conclude that, at least theoretically, the "Second Coming" (Newsweek's vision of BO) could be persuaded of the errors of his way (if only PJM could just catch his ear). But ...!

At the UN Obama stated that the future does not belong to those who INSULT Islam. Well, what could "insult"mean? If someone were to say: "Mohammed was a ß*+ who abused young =)&!! and ate Christians babies for breadfeast", that someone would, indeed, have concocted an "insult", one worthy of a defamation suit. Does such a rediculous example truely typfy what an insult of the Prophet means, i.e., according to Obama? Let us consider some serious opinions:

a. R. Spencer writes a book claiming that Mohammed never existed. b. Raymond Ibrahim writes a book about about Islam's new, yet, continuing persecution of Christians. c. Fr. Botros (translated by Ibrahim) examines the Koran and the hadiths and compiles a sexual history of Mohammed which, well, present a sexual pervert. Finally, d. Prof. Armin Geus publishes his "The Sickness of the Prophet. An Essay in Pathology" (my trans. from German) in which he does indeed find Mohammed to be patholocigally sick. All these works are serious, professional and rationally argued theses. They are open to counter agruments, as any research project should be. BUT, all such theses, qua being theses, constitute INSULTS of Islam and of the Prophet--and they are experienced as such by many, many Muslims, not just radicals (just consider the rediculous, but world-wide violent reaction to a couple of amusing Danish put-down cartoons of the Prophet). Now back to Obama:

If "insults" (and I mean "real" ones) do not belong to Islam in the future, what does this say about Obama's stance vis-à-vis Islam? He has never said such things about Christianity or Buddhism or Hinduism or any religion-ism other than Islam. Why just Islam? Why does Islam seem to be so special to Obama? But, is it just Islam, or rather not a specific type of "radical" Islam? "Radicals" constitute, of course, the answer ot my question (as Ruben poiints out). What then is the point of my thoughts?

I continually find myself not fully satisfied by Rubin's analyses because I find it difficult to accept the thesis that Obama has simply made judgments of error. All I know of Obama including his remarks on Islam (or certain groups thereof) leave me with the irrepressible suspicion that Obama has not simply made a poor judgment, rather has formulated one that reflects his own deep ideological preference, i.e., Obama finds that radical Islam evinces a belief and actional system that does, indeed, correspond to his own positive beliefs and, therefore, a sythem that he should further on its own merits. Am I alone here? Have I become conspiratorial nut? Has Obama just judged falsely, despite my suspicions?

1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
Your suspicions are correct, you are not alone and, to sum it all up, Islam is the problem.

The defense of the West, and for that matter the rest, of the world is a solid, forceful, unrelenting intellectual, and psychological attack on Islam. Put Islam to the same test as Christianity.
1 year ago
1 year ago Link To Comment
View All