Som hon, Alice, hade fantastiska upplevelser och såg fantastiska ting – försöker Shachar passa ihop hur han anser verkligheten borde vara, med vad som verkligen händer. Har du läst hans senaste, här?

Vi har länge vetat att allt som är dåligt för Israel är bra för honom – han har fått en viss teknik i att jämka det med verkligheten.

Hans ovanligt USA-vänliga utrop: “Inga förändringar till det bättre är möjliga i Mellanöstern utan ett resolut amerikanskt engagemang” hade jag inte trott honom om för ett år sedan.  Ett USA med Mr Obongo President Sir, som började sin karriär med att ringa Abbas med ett. “Don’t worry Sir, Be happy Sir, I will fix the Joos for Ya pronto Sir!” och därefter har uppfört sej som de flesta enbart kan kalla antisionism, tja…….   Kanske judarna inte låter honom?

Obongo sände fyra starka gubbar för att pressa Netanyahu, sedan åkte de hem. De skulle inte ha fått för sej att åka till Abbas och pressa HONOM, den stackarn har ju dåligt hjärta och har opererat det.

Varför skriver inte Shachar om nåt relevant i stället, som Fatahs regelbundna 20-årsmöte? Dom skulle vara intima i tre dagar, och nu planeras mötet att vara i oändlighet, eller tills gubbarna dör. De som inte redan har vitt hår utan bara grått, lär vitna. Och inte av vishet som Gandalf gjorde.

Man ska väl vara glad att staterna i EU för en gångs skull har LITE individualitet kvar. Italien var en av de få som vägrade njuta av Ahmadenijads tal i Genéve. Att Shachar vill, slå samman USA, Arabvärlden och EU mot Israel kunde faktiskt göra Israel arga!

Nä, alla älskar inte Obongo, som Shachar gör. Här kopierar jag in en artikel från analytikern Barry Rubin.

Du behöver ingen avancead engelska för att läsa den:

Do all the world’s countries really love Obama?

Barry Rubin

A recent article lists seven countries, aside from Israel, where it argues relations with the U.S. have declined since Obama took office. In doing so, it was responding to a Washington Posteditorial lavishing praise on the Obama administration and saying relations are better with every country in the world except Israel.

Shockingly, the Post’s main “proof” that relations with other countries had improved is public opinion polls saying Obama is more popular than Bush. Before January 20 would any serious policy analyst or journalist have argued that this is the main element in relations between two countries? Haven’t these people ever heard the expression, “Nice guys finish last”?

The list of seven countries offered by the article includes: Canada (trade disputes), China (worries over the U.S. economy), Colombia (trade), Honduras (coup), Panama and South Korea (both trade), and the United Kingdom (snubs and calling into question the special relationship).

BUT I think it leaves out a lot of others:

Russia: The government there has contempt for Obama. He isn’t so popular among the public either. U.S.-Russia relations, stable under previous administration though hardly warm, are deteriorating.

Central Europe: Former top leaders of the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and the Slovak Republic expressed worry about the Obama administration’s lack of support for them and fear it will cave into Russian demands.

Georgia and Azerbaijan could probably be added to that list. Possibly Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrghziistan, and Turkmenistan could be included, too.

Gulf Arabs: Saudi Arabia, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, and Qatar, worried about Obama’s engagement policy with Iran.

Lebanon: Worried about Obama’s engagement policy with Syria.

Egypt, Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia: Worried about Obama’s possible engagement policy with Islamists.

Aside from Jordan, I don’t think there’s any moderate Arab country that ever seemed ecstatic that Obama is president. And now even Jordan (like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia) has publicly–publicly–stated that it will make no gesture toward Israel despite the administration’s request. If they had any respect for Obama they and the Saudis would at least have kept their rejection private.

Asia: South Korea is worried that Obama won’t defend it from North Korea, as well as U.S. trade protectionism; Japan about management of the economy. The trade issue also applies to other Asian states, like Thailand, whose well-being depends to a large extent on exports to the United States.

Iran: Has Obama really improved relations? The Iranian regime mistrusts him. Even if you argue that it fears engagement, well ok that means it is still made more nervous by Obama’s policy.

Even in cases where governments “like” Obama–notably Europe and especially France–don’t they do so precisely because they think they can walk all over him?

That same criterion could also be applied to radical and anti-American regimes: North Korea, Cuba, Bolivia, and Venezuela.

And is Latin America in general really on better terms with the United States than a year ago?

As for sub-Saharan Africa, Obama’s popularity no doubt benefits from the fact that he is an actual direct African-American. No doubt, it hopes for dramatically increased help and attention from America.

Other enthusiasts might be Turkey (whose current government, however, is no warm friend of the United States), Australia (because it has a Labour government), Pakistan (on which the administration is lavishing money), aforementioned European states, and a few others.

But that overall picture is still hardly one of universal improvement, certainly not a springtime for American diplomacy.

What is equally disturbing is the willingness of large sectors of the American policy elite to throw away their independent and critical judgment when it comes to this administration. Either they are lying because they support the government, intimidated, or hypnotized.

Bara för att Shachar har kretat upp Obongo på hans whiteboard på väggen, betyder det inte att han är allmänt älskad och det sjunker stadigt allt eftersom USA:s skuld till världen ökar.

Shachar inser också kristallklart att närmare kontakter mellan USA, Arabvärlden och EU innebär närmare kontakter Israel-Ryssland. Israel har ovanligt många ryssättlingar i ledningen med Lieberman i spetsen. Eftersom Obongo är för feg att våga göra något vad gäller Iran så måste Israel diskutera saken med Ryssland.  En annan diskussion i ämnet här.

En väsentlighet är att Israels ledning slutar att tro på arabisterna i USA:s State Department! De har gjort det alltför länge nu. Här en snutt av Caroline Glick:

The sad truth is that for the past sixteen years, the greatest champion of the view that Israel is a strategic liability rather than a strategic asset for the US and that the US gains more from a weak Israel than a strong Israel has been Israel itself. Successive governments in Jerusalem from the Rabin-Peres government to the Barak, Sharon and Olmert governments all embraced the Arabist view that regional stability and hence Israeli security is enhanced by a weakened Israel. Ehud Olmert’s much-derided 2005 assertion that “We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies,” was simply a whiney affirmation of Israel’s leaders’ embrace of the Arabist worldview.

Kaplan cited Israel’s incompetent handling of the war with Hizbullah in 2006 and its bungling of the campaign against Hamas in Gaza this past December and January as proof of the Arabist claim that it is a strategic burden. What he failed to recognize was that the Olmert government made a clear decision not to win those wars. Doing so would have exposed as folly the government’s central assertion that Israel is better off being weak than strong. In light of this, it is obvious that the Arabist desire to see Israel weakened is not supported by Israel’s performance in Lebanon and Gaza. Israel’s performance in Lebanon and Gaza was a consequence of its leaders’ adoption of the Arabist worldview. Had they rejected it, the results of those wars would likely have been much different.

So too, Israel’s leaders’ adoption of the Arabist view caused the Rabin-Peres government to empower and legitimize terrorists from Fatah and the PLO in the 1993 Oslo accord. It similarly convinced the Barak government to surrender of south Lebanon to Hizbullah in 2000, and it persuaded the Sharon government to surrender of Gaza to Hamas in 2005. In each case, buying into the Arabist view that stability is enhanced through Israeli weakness rather than strength, Israel exacerbated regional instability and imperiled its own citizens by empowering its enemies at its own expense. Most devastatingly, the Sharon and Olmert governments imperiled Israel’s very survival by deciding from 2003 through 2008 to trust the US, Europe and the UN to prevent Iran from acquiring the means to destroy the Jewish state.

Today with Iran on the cusp of a nuclear arsenal, Fatah openly calling for a renewal of the Palestinian jihad against Israel, Hizbullah pointing its expanded missile arsenal at Tel Aviv and Dimona, and the Obama administration, with the help of an ever-expanding chorus of foreign policy “realists” advocating full-blown appeasement of both Iran and the Palestinians at Israel’s expense, it is clear that the time has come for Israel to end the Arabist charade. The time has come for Israel to stop being an engine of its own demise.

The Netanyahu government has a clear choice before it. On the one hand, it has Defense Minister Ehud Barak calling for business as usual. This week Barak recommended that Israel preemptively surrender to the Obama administration and accept its demand that Israel capitulate to Fatah. On the other hand, Ministers Yuli Edelstein and Yisrael Katz pointed out that at its leadership conclave in Bethlehem, Fatah exposed itself as an implacable enemy of Israel. Both Edelstein and Katz demanded that the government stop pretending Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas is a moderate who is interested in peace and expose him for the fraud that he is.

Så – ursäkta mej, men Shachars världsbild har inte så mycket med verkligheten att göra, mer med Alices.

.

....