Opinion

OPINION: Political Love Triangle Between Israel, Obama and Romney

In the run-up to the 2012 US presidential elections in November this year, the two candidates vying for the supreme post in the United States of America are clearly indulged in a business to impress a foreign state, a state which greatly influences America’s  politics and economy.

On his first foreign visit after being finally nominated as the Republican candidate in the upcoming US presidential elections, Mitt Romney toured Britain, Poland and Israel. His arrival in Israel was very likely due to the traditional importance and influence of the Zionist lobby over the electoral process of America.

In his address, in the holy city of Jerusalem, Mr. Romney criticized the incumbent president of America, Barack Obama, of not being supportive enough of Israel and pledged strong support to the Jewish state, if elected as the next president. Or in other words, he pledged to be another poodle of the hooligan Zionists and lend unconditional support to the terrorist state of Israel at the cost of exploitation of the rest of the world, in line to the role played by majority of American presidents. He also alleged Mr. Obama has undermined Israel and supported its enemies. He backed Israel’s plan to militarily attack the Islamic Republic of Iran, should sanctions and diplomacy fail to stop it acquiring the alleged nuclear weapons.

Mr. Romney stated that his country has a “moral imperative” to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons and it was right for the US to stand with Israel.

Days later Barack Obama rushed defense secretary Leon Panetta to Israel in an apparent effort to quench allegations of the presidential challenger Mitt Romney and tried to bolster ties with the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. The visit came amidst the announcement by Washington to provide $70-million in new military aid to help Israel expand its Iron Dome system (this defense system is purported to protect occupied Israeli territory against rocket attacks from Palestinian militants). Moreover, Mr. Obama also ordered tougher economic sanctions against Iran targeting its energy and financial sector, moving a step further in meeting the demands of the Zionist regime in Israel as well as the influential Zionist lobby in America.

During his visit, Mr. Panetta’s words in regard to Iran were reminiscent to those of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He more or less pitched in the same tone as the Israeli PM and reiterated the growing possibility of military strike against the Islamic Republic over its alleged military dimension of nuclear programme.

Imagine for a while manifestos of the UPA and the NDA in the upcoming Indian parliamentary elections in 2014 promising to support and work for the welfare of Bangladesh. Imagine the UPA government announcing a military aid of 70 million to Bangladesh to help develop a new military defense mechanism. Imagine the NDA condemning the current UPA regime of “undermining” Bangladesh and supporting its “enemy”. Imagine the NDA pledging a “strong support” to Bangladesh, if elected to power in the next Lok Sabha elections. And imagine Bangladesh among one of the major political agenda of both of these alliances in a domestic general election in India.

After all, it was India who liberated the former East Pakistan and established the current state of Bangladesh in 1971, in a manner similar, though not exactly, to the establishment of the state of Israel in Palestine by the US and the UK.

So does India also owe a “moral imperative” to support Bangladesh in any of its military aggression against a foreign state, for instance the former West Pakistan? I am sure a sweeping majority of Indians including me will rubbish any such report and the answer to this question will be a big NO.

But if there is indeed a moral imperative then it is for the rational people of America, India and the whole world–to teach the consecutive American governments a lesson in the following words of former US president Mr. Woodrow Wilson:

there is one and only one legitimate goal of U.S. foreign policy…: the preservation of our national independence. Nothing in the Constitution grants that the President shall have the privilege of offering himself as a world leader… [nor] to influence the life of other countries, to ‘uplift’ their cultures, to bolster their economies…”

Well but the Zionist dominated America is different which is undermining and possessing a serious threat to its own sovereignty for decades.

The promises, pledges and blame game between the two presidential contenders regarding the state of Israel just prior to the presidential elections in the United States has again made one thing very clear–if one has to win, in fact even compete, in the US presidential elections it is immensely important to take the suppressive/terrorist state of Israel and its savage promoters into confidence and express a feeling of “unconditional love” for them.

About Mohammad Behzad Fatmi

Mohammad Behzad Fatmi (Class of 2012) is a former staff writer for Jamia Journal, and a 2012 Bachelor of Commerce graduate. He can be reached via email at: behzad.fatmi[at]gmail.com

Check Also

Discrimination

Do the Residents of Jamia Girls Hostel Not Even Deserve Elected Hostel Committees?

While Jamia Millia Islamia has started the practice of holding democratic elections for mess and ...

2 comments

  1. Not surprised, because of old/ traditional policy of pleasing Jews, Absolutely true and beautifully described with Bangladeshi example.

  2. Just today, we had a discussion about Israel and Palestine in our State, Political Economy and Governance Class. And, now reading this article it only adds more base to the point that the politics of elections in the US do not go by hidden agendas anymore. They are becoming more overt and blatant. Good work with mentioning Woodrow Wilson’s words on US foreign policy and the hypothetical example.

    Also, our professor recommended a book called The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Ilan Pappe. It is a good read.

Leave a Reply