The assessment from Israel is that U.
S.
President "Obama sustained damage in the deficit debate.
" In assessing the damage experienced by either Congress or the president, Israel National News surmised that "at this juncture, it appears Barack Obama was the more heavily damaged, particularly in terms of his reelection bid.
" Furthermore, the analysis further indicates that for the president to be reelected now, he will have to demonstrate an improved economy in some way, which does not seem likely between now and the 2012 election.
If the president is not reelected, the Genesis 12:3 pattern for U.
S.
presidents will hold true.
God's warning in that verse is that He will bring trouble upon those who bring trouble upon Israel.
Since Israel achieved statehood in 1948, every president that has been a friend of Israel has been a two-term president, while every president that has not has been a one-term president.
Therefore, the question needs to be asked: Has President Obama brought trouble upon Israel? Let us count the ways.
When the Jerusalem city council determined the need for construction to take place in Jerusalem, the president and his administration decided to counter-not by appealing privately to the Jerusalem council, but by going public with criticism.
This public criticism did not blame the Jerusalem council for deciding to build; instead, it went after Israeli leadership, which had nothing to do with the city's decision to build.
(Nor could it, by law, have stopped the Jerusalem council from making the decision to build in Jerusalem.
) This was not a one-time public outcry against Israeli leadership, blaming it for a decision it did not make; instead, there were at least six public critical statements against the Israeli government, covered nationally by the U.
S.
media-from a statement to the press by the president, to a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to a television appearance by David Axelrod, ad nauseam.
(These public condemnations of Israel were coming at the same time the Palestinian leadership named a public square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist who led a 1978 bus hijacking in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were killed.
There was not a single public statement about this from the Obama administration.
) How could these public criticisms against Israel have brought trouble to the Jewish nation? When the U.
S.
president-the leader of the nation that is considered Israel's greatest ally (at least it had been until the present administration)-publicly bashes Israel, it emboldens Israel's enemies.
In addition, it could potentially sway enough Americans who could respond by contacting their political representatives; and that, in turn, could affect U.
S.
help toward Israel in any given situation.
(Fortunately, that round of criticisms did not do that.
) Then the president convinced Jewish leadership to launch a ten-month building moratorium in Jerusalem.
(This was connected to a promise that President Obama would get the Palestinians to the negotiating table, a promise he did not fulfill.
) How did this create trouble for Israel? Considering that Israel has a housing shortage for young Jewish families entering the country-particularly in Jerusalem-this created much trouble at the time.
Then, after the Israeli leadership agreed to another three-month construction halt that the president then called off, the Obama administration sold $60 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia.
Ignoring the Congressional uproar over this sale to a nation that has funded terrorism, and the fact that it was announced as Congressmen were heading home on recess (so that the sale could not be stopped by Congress), it potentially put a Middle East enemy of Israel on equal footing.
This is not a good thing when a nation's survival depends on its strength.
Later, President Obama publicly called for Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders (the 1949 armistice borders).
This push of Israeli leadership occurred just a couple of hours prior to a scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu-while he was in the air-and too soon for a response from the Jewish nation leaders.
It definitely put the prime minister on the defensive upon landing, and this act by the president emboldened Israel's enemies (once again), as they joined in on the call for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and attempted to put pressure on Israel through the U.
N.
So, when we look at the evidence, we have to say that President Obama has caused trouble for Israel-one more than one occasion, for sure.
If God's promise in Genesis 12:3 is true, then we must believe that trouble would come for the president, as a result.
Could part of that trouble be connected with the U.
S.
deficit and the damage the president sustained in the deficit debate? Absolutely, it could! In fact, it seems we can conclude that the president could have been hurt by the deficit debate because of the trouble he has brought to Israel.
S.
President "Obama sustained damage in the deficit debate.
" In assessing the damage experienced by either Congress or the president, Israel National News surmised that "at this juncture, it appears Barack Obama was the more heavily damaged, particularly in terms of his reelection bid.
" Furthermore, the analysis further indicates that for the president to be reelected now, he will have to demonstrate an improved economy in some way, which does not seem likely between now and the 2012 election.
If the president is not reelected, the Genesis 12:3 pattern for U.
S.
presidents will hold true.
God's warning in that verse is that He will bring trouble upon those who bring trouble upon Israel.
Since Israel achieved statehood in 1948, every president that has been a friend of Israel has been a two-term president, while every president that has not has been a one-term president.
Therefore, the question needs to be asked: Has President Obama brought trouble upon Israel? Let us count the ways.
When the Jerusalem city council determined the need for construction to take place in Jerusalem, the president and his administration decided to counter-not by appealing privately to the Jerusalem council, but by going public with criticism.
This public criticism did not blame the Jerusalem council for deciding to build; instead, it went after Israeli leadership, which had nothing to do with the city's decision to build.
(Nor could it, by law, have stopped the Jerusalem council from making the decision to build in Jerusalem.
) This was not a one-time public outcry against Israeli leadership, blaming it for a decision it did not make; instead, there were at least six public critical statements against the Israeli government, covered nationally by the U.
S.
media-from a statement to the press by the president, to a speech by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, to a television appearance by David Axelrod, ad nauseam.
(These public condemnations of Israel were coming at the same time the Palestinian leadership named a public square in Ramallah after Dalal Mughrabi, a terrorist who led a 1978 bus hijacking in which 37 Israelis, including 12 children, were killed.
There was not a single public statement about this from the Obama administration.
) How could these public criticisms against Israel have brought trouble to the Jewish nation? When the U.
S.
president-the leader of the nation that is considered Israel's greatest ally (at least it had been until the present administration)-publicly bashes Israel, it emboldens Israel's enemies.
In addition, it could potentially sway enough Americans who could respond by contacting their political representatives; and that, in turn, could affect U.
S.
help toward Israel in any given situation.
(Fortunately, that round of criticisms did not do that.
) Then the president convinced Jewish leadership to launch a ten-month building moratorium in Jerusalem.
(This was connected to a promise that President Obama would get the Palestinians to the negotiating table, a promise he did not fulfill.
) How did this create trouble for Israel? Considering that Israel has a housing shortage for young Jewish families entering the country-particularly in Jerusalem-this created much trouble at the time.
Then, after the Israeli leadership agreed to another three-month construction halt that the president then called off, the Obama administration sold $60 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia.
Ignoring the Congressional uproar over this sale to a nation that has funded terrorism, and the fact that it was announced as Congressmen were heading home on recess (so that the sale could not be stopped by Congress), it potentially put a Middle East enemy of Israel on equal footing.
This is not a good thing when a nation's survival depends on its strength.
Later, President Obama publicly called for Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders (the 1949 armistice borders).
This push of Israeli leadership occurred just a couple of hours prior to a scheduled meeting with Prime Minister Netanyahu-while he was in the air-and too soon for a response from the Jewish nation leaders.
It definitely put the prime minister on the defensive upon landing, and this act by the president emboldened Israel's enemies (once again), as they joined in on the call for Israel's withdrawal from the West Bank and attempted to put pressure on Israel through the U.
N.
So, when we look at the evidence, we have to say that President Obama has caused trouble for Israel-one more than one occasion, for sure.
If God's promise in Genesis 12:3 is true, then we must believe that trouble would come for the president, as a result.
Could part of that trouble be connected with the U.
S.
deficit and the damage the president sustained in the deficit debate? Absolutely, it could! In fact, it seems we can conclude that the president could have been hurt by the deficit debate because of the trouble he has brought to Israel.