Et Tu, Obama?

By Morgan Norval l June 29, 2011


When Julius Caesar was being stabbed to death by Roman Senators he observed that Marcus Junius Brutus was one of his assassins. Brutus had been a friend and supporter of Caesar and a member of his inner circle. Caesar’s dying words were: “Et tu, Brute“And you, Brutus?” Israel today could use almost the same words: Et tu, Obama?”

The Obama Administration has sold out Israel in the same manner Europe sold out Czechoslovakia to Hitler in the late 1930’s. That appeasement didn’t satisfy Hitler and did not lead to peace in their time, but instead to World War II. Nor will Muslims in the Middle East be satisfied with this latest act of appeasement by the President of the United States. Their version of a Palestinian state requires the total destruction of Israel, not peaceful coexistence.

Over six decades ago the Middle East Arabs rejected the United Nations plan for a two-state solution to what was to be parceled out from the British mandate they were giving up to form three new states: Transjordan, soon to be renamed Jordan, a new Jewish state of Israel, and one for Palestinian Arabs. Without firing a shot, this was offered on the proverbial silver platter. Instead, the Arabs in the nations surrounding the new state of Israel launched a murderous war to wipe the new Jewish state off the map. They failed then and in other wars since. But their goal then, as it is today, is to annihilate the Jewish people.

On Nov. 27, 1947, the UN passed a resolution establishing a Jewish state of Israel. On the very next day four Arab armies, belonging to four neighboring states, invaded the new country. Fortunately for Israel, the invaders lacked a coordinated military strategy—except to destroy Israel—and their troops, made up of mostly illiterate peasants, were no match for the Israelis, who were literally fighting for their lives. Today, the Palestinians and the Obama Administration want Israel to return to the pre-1967 war boundaries which would do nothing but invite future Arab aggression against Israel.

The UN is a Potemkin village backed up by the funding and armies of the United States and Europe, with the burden falling mainly on the U.S. The majority of UNmembers are brutal dictatorships and it is no wonder the Palestinians are seeking recognition via a UN General Assembly resolution recognizing a Palestinian state. The terrorist group Fatah, now called the Palestine National Authority, recently signed a unity agreement with Hamas, the terrorist group ruling the Gaza Strip. Both want to wipe Israel off the map but are too weak militarily to do so. Israel pointed out a fact regarding the proposed UN action: if the UN adopts the Palestinian position in advance, why should the Palestinians bother negotiating with Israel?

We have to keep in mind that the UN is nothing more than a bunch of Saddams, Ahmadinejads, Gaddafis, the Chinese Communist Party, Chavez, Omar al-Bashir, Castro, Mugabe, Kim Jong Il, and other vicious murderous thugs, who, among themselves lord it over nearly half the human race. The Palestinian thugs want the UN thugs to carry their water for them.

With the UN General Assembly recognizing a Palestinian state, Obama and his fellow Israel-haters could then increase their demands for Israel to follow the wishes of the “international community” to not only recognize the General Assembly action, but also return to the pre-1967 war borders. In short, they want Israel to commit national suicide.

Not being suicidal, Israel would be foolish to comply and has rejected such a notion out-of-hand. In order to obtain the goal of an Israel existing on pre-1967 borders, it must be forced to do so by an outside force. The proposed UN General Assembly resolution is an attempt to do so by diplomatic means and will be rejected by Israel. Any attempt to obtain the same goal by military means will be strongly resisted by Israel as well. However, that doesn’t mean there aren’t people who dream of imposing a solution by force and are cooking up such schemes. They aren’t limited to Middle Eastern Arab countries, who have felt the fury of the Israeli military. Such dreamers actually exist and occupy high positions in the Obama Administration and are pushing for just such action. Their vehicle is the doctrine known as Responsibility to Protect or R2P, by which they justified their proposed action in Libya, and the people they want to “protect” in this case would be the Palestinians, who are carrying out terror attacks on Israel.

The point person in the Obama Administration for R2P is Samantha Power, who is no admirer of Israel and would love to follow the suggestion of Don Kraus, CEO of Citizens for Global Solutions, an ardent supporter of intervention in sovereign states to impose policies of “the international community”—the gist of R2P. Kraus told the Huffington Post: “But why not create a tough international force under UN command and control made of diverse nationalities with a clear mandate to get into shattered nations, protect citizens, and restore law and order.”

Israel is far from a “shattered nation” but that matters little to Kraus and his fellow-travelers, including Samantha Power, a member of Barack Obama’s National Security Council, where she helped convince him to take the Libyan action. Power is also rumored to be the next Secretary of State, if Obama gets reelected in 2012.

In 2002, Samantha Power was on a publicity tour in Berkely, California touting her book, A Problem from Hell, when she was asked a question: “. . .without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there . . . ?”

Samantha Power responded: “What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing—or investing, I think, more than sacrificing—billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence . . . you have to go in if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.”

Her solution amounts to nation-building and echoes Kraus’: a massive military intervention, under the “international community” (the UN) on behalf of the Palestinians and at the fatal expense of the Israelis. She would do this in defiance of Israel and its supporters in the U.S.

It is interesting to note that at the same time she was on her book tour making this outrageous statement, she was director of Harvard University’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. One of her associates at the time was Michael Ignatieff Dr. Martin Kramer, Senior Fellow, Shalom Center in Jerusalem and Wexler-Framer Fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy pointed out that Ignatieff had written an April 19, 2002 op-ed in the London Guardian, only days before Samantha Power’s Berkeley statement advocating the use of force to impose a two-state solution on Israel.

“The time for endless negotiations between the parties is past;” he wrote, “it is time to say that all but those settlements right on the 1967 green line must go; . . .that the UN, with financing from Europe, will establish a transnational administration to help the Palestinian state back on its feet and then prepare the ground for new elections before exiting; and, most of all, the U.S. must then commit its own troops, and those willing allies, not to police a ceasefire, but to enforce the solution that provides security for both populations.”

Michael Ignatieff’s force was not to be composed of the normal UN “international peacekeepers.” As the quote shows, he meant United States troops and any others—“willing” to tag along. No doubt Ignatieff and Power chatted about this numerous times in the Harvard faculty lounge as they cooked up their interventionist schemes to be performed by the “international community.”

Michael Ignatieff helped to prepare Responsibility to Protect: Report of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty, which states in part: “UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, in his report to the 2000 Millennium Assembly, challenged the international community to try to forge consensus, once and for all, around the basic questions of principle and process involved: when should intervention occur, under whose authority, and how.” The ICISS “was established by the Canadian Government in September 2000.”

Since the Palestinians wish to eradicate the state of Israel, the ostensible “security for both populations” in Ignatieff and Power’s view involves the annihilation of the state of Israel—the peace of the grave dug deep in the sands of the Middle East.

A decade later, Ignatieff has entered Canadian politics, becoming the leader of the Liberal Party. He has also voiced strong support for Israel. Whether this is a sudden conversion on his part or simply political expediency remains to be seen.

“Responsibility to protect” in the hands of Samantha Power and Barack Obama, with respect to Israel, is a death sentence for the nation of Israel and will be fought tooth and nail by that nation. We in the U.S. should be ashamed that our leaders and their advisors would even consider such a loathsome course of action.

Morgan Norval is the founder and Executive Director of the Selous Foundation for Public Policy Research and a contributor to

SFPPR News & Analysis.