I take it your thesis is that the United States has a security interest in preventing the Middle East from disintegrating which would result in a disruption of oil supply, proliferation of terrorism, or even nuclear exchange. In order to keep the lid on the pot, the United States pays off both sides and appeases where necessary.
There is another explanation which I recite but do not endorse to the effect that until Obama American policy towards Israel has been shaped by domestic politics much like America's policy toward Great Britain we shaped by Irish immigration. Do you accept this explanation?
Whether you accept it or not, what do you have to say about the motivation for Obama abandoning Israel? Is it because he is simply pro-Islam? Does he really believe that building a few buildings on disputed territory threatens peace if the Palestinians have even a modicum of goodwill? Is there another explanation, for example, the left sees Muslim expansion as the wave of the future to which they want to be allied to bring America down and open the way for oneworldism at which point the left will turn on Islam?
In other words, before Obama what was the motivation for our policy and under Obama what is the present motivation for his policy?
I would welcome your thoughts.
First, please forgive my terse responses. FReeping on a phone will do that.
Your summation of my thesis is accurate.
Please restate your alternative hypothesis as I don’t understand the statement.
As to Obama’s motivations vis’a vis’ Israel, I see regarding him as a quasi-muslim, with all the atavistic antagonism that entails, as having sufficient explanatory power for his actions thus far; bearing in mind he still has to maintain his “cult of personality.”
All that being said, I regard Obama primarily a Maoist with a domestic “cultural revolution” at the top of his agenda, all other considerations being secondary.