Mark Levin, the host of a popular radio show, describes U.S. President Barack Obama as "anti-Israel" and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as "the leader of the free world" • "Pre-1967 borders? That would be national suicide for Israel," he says.
Boaz Bismuth
American lawyer and author Mark Levin, 57, has been the presenter of the popular radio show bearing his name -- the Mark Levin Show -- for 13 years. It is the highest-rated radio show in a number of U.S. states, including New York. Three hours of political and social commentary presented from a conservative standpoint as well as a discussion of legal matters.
In the past, Levin worked in President Ronald Reagan's administration, and in the 1980s was a chief of staff for Attorney General Edwin Meese during the Iran-Contra Affair (involving the sale of weapons to Iran with Israeli mediation). These days, with millions of regular listeners, he doesn't hide his affection for Israel and his concerns about its future in light of the latest developments in the Middle East. The biggest concern: the emerging deal with Iran.
Q: The Middle East is changing and Iran is gaining power in Yemen, Syria and Iraq. Doesn't the American administration see that?
"There is a huge disconnect between the American people and the American president right now. If you look at polls in the U.S., the majority of the people support attacking Iran. I'm not encouraging it, at least not yet, I'm just saying that the American people see Iran as a serious terrorist threat not just to Israel but to the Western world and to the United States. There's a huge disconnect between the president and the people and between the president and Congress.
"You saw the letter that Sen. Tom Cotton and 47 other Senate Republicans sent to the regime in Tehran, warning them that any deal has to go through the Senate under our Constitution. Any treaty has to be ratified by two-thirds of the Senate. It is obvious that [U.S. President Barack] Obama is looking for ways to skirt that. We are having big battles in our own country against what this administration is doing, both from our Congress and from the public, which objects to what Obama is trying to do."
Q: Does Obama see Iran through different eyes than we do? Could it be that what we see as a problem, he sees as a solution?
"Why did Winston Churchill see the rise of Adolf Hitler and yet Neville Chamberlain sought to make peace as if Hitler was going to accommodate Britain? In some respects we have the same problem here. We have a president who seeks to appease and accommodate and that is simply not going to work -- that is his mentality in my view.
"Also, he has a real hatred for [Prime Minister] Benjamin Netanyahu and any Israeli leader who would not bend to his demands, which are quite radical when it comes to Israel and the Palestinians. I mean, pre-1967 borders? That would be national suicide for Israel. The American people understand that.
"You have to keep in mind Obama's background. The people he surrounded himself with were extremely radical. That would include Professor Rashid Khalidi at Columbia University, who, for a period of time, was a mouthpiece for Hamas. These are the individuals Obama sought out and befriended when he was running for office. That is the mentality. You have a mixture of ideological extremism and an appeasement mindset, which endangers Israel and, quite frankly, endangers the United States in my view."
Q: Would you characterize Obama as anti-Israel?
"I believe he is anti-Israel. He hasn't shown any indication otherwise, in my view. Even when Hamas was firing thousands of rockets into Israel several months ago, he slow-walked armaments to the Israeli government because he didn't think that the Israeli people should be defending themselves if they needed to. I see no indication that Obama is pro-Israel."
Q: Was Netanyahu right to come to Congress and give his address?
"Of course Netanyahu was right. I was in the gallery and it was a profound speech. I said on my radio show to my 8.5 million listeners that when I listened to Netanyahu it was quite clear to me that he was the leader of the free world, not Obama. Netanyahu speaks to free people; Netanyahu speaks to representative government; Netanyahu speaks against the rising cloud of terrorism that is starting to engulf your country and of course would like nothing more than to hit us again like they did on 9/11. He received rousing standing ovations, one after another, from both political parties, I might add, despite the propaganda that the Democrats are attacking Netanyahu. When you have large majorities of the American people and members of Congress supporting Israel and supporting what Netanyahu said, those are Democrats too."
Q: Is that why Obama was so opposed to Netanyahu's speech?
"I think Obama is trying to manage and control the message here. What Netanyahu did was bring a little reality into this topic and provide a contrary view -- a view that I think former American presidents would have held. George W. Bush would never have entertained these kinds of negotiations, or any negotiations with Iran, and he didn't. He sought to isolate that regime, he used economic sanctions to starve that regime, and we used other methods to pressure Iran.
"Now, under this president, we are negotiating, and the regime sees that Obama is attacking the prime minister of Israel. He is giving aid and comfort to the regime in Iran. Imagine all those people in Iran who do not wish to live under theocratic tyranny. All those people who would like to see a different government and are working toward a different government. Imagine how they feel when they listen to Obama and his surrogates both here and in Israel promoting this phony peace. You can't make peace with a regime like this. This regime doesn't want peace, this regime wants victory."
Like a pot over the head
Q: In 2009, Obama had an opportunity to fundamentally change the Iranian regime when the popular uprising began there, but he was absent. Does he even believe that change is possible in Iran?
"I'm not sure I can get in his mind. Look what has happened in the Middle East since he became president. He couldn't get a status of forces agreement with Iraq and pulled every single American soldier out of there, leaving a massive void for the Islamo-terrorists to fill, which is exactly what they are doing. He announces over and over again what we are not going to do: no troops on the ground. If you're not going to send troops, don't send troops, but stop announcing it to the enemy."
Q: Maybe he views the Iranians as those who can balance out the Sunnis. Does he prefer the Shiites?
"The Iraqi military is basically controlled by the Iranian military. You have two caliphates in the Middle East: the Sunnis and the Shiites. In the case of Iran, they control Syria, at least the government there, they knocked off the president of Yemen so they control that country, they now control Iraq and they control Lebanon. That is remarkable.
"Then you have ISIS [Islamic State], the other Islamo-terrorists -- they have their own caliphate going. They've conquered parts of Syria and Iraq and are looking to do far worse. This is what Obama has created. If you are Israeli, you have to be insane not to see this and embrace whatever it is that Obama is negotiating. He does not have the skills, the capacity or the usual motivations that an American president does."
Q: If I were to say that the American president does not represent American values, would I be wrong?
"Well, I don't think he does. But he was elected, twice."
Q: How did that happen? How was he re-elected?
"You'll notice the second time around, the voter turnout was lower than the first time. The Republicans have a knack for nominating very weak candidates who do not connect with a lot of the American people. People like me are looking to change that this time around.
"Obama should have been defeated. He was a very weak president, the economy was weak, his policies in many respects were unpopular, but he won for a number of reasons."
Q: Does Obama have a legacy?
"Yes, he has a legacy. He has done more damage to the American constitutional and economic system than any other president in modern American history. And, I might add, he has done more damage to our relationships with our allies than any other modern president I can think of. The world's enemies, the enemies of Western civilization, are on the rise, are stronger than ever before, are conquering more territory than ever before and are more dangerous -- that is his legacy."
Q: When you compare the Reagan administration, in which you served, to Obama's current administration, do you see the same country?
"It sickens me to see what is going on in my country. When a president says that he wants to fundamentally transform America, he means to transform it to what? I view America as the greatest country on the face of the earth. Rather than exporting and projecting our values and our beliefs and our principles throughout the world, this president goes around the world and trashes the American people. I've never seen anything like it.
"He is more brazen now that he has won his second term and he is a lame duck president. Before he was at least a little more careful. Now he's not -- the gloves are off. This is just one of those times in American history, and the timing couldn't be worse, when the absolute wrong man is president of the United States. It has hit us like a pot over the head."
Q: Which president in U.S. history would you compare him to?
"I wouldn't compare him to anybody, he is just so terrible. He is among the top five worst presidents, maybe the top three."
Beware of opportunists
Q: Next Tuesday, Israel will hold a national election.
"It is my great hope that Benjamin Netanyahu is re-elected, for the sake of Israel and, generally, the free world. If he is defeated, what does it mean? It means that one of the few voices left speaking the truth about what is going on in the world, about liberty and democracy and the truth about the opposite -- terrorism and barbarism -- that voice will be silenced. He is the only one. He and maybe the prime minister of Canada, and remarkably enough the president of Egypt and the King of Jordan and maybe a few others, but that's it.
"As I said earlier, to me Netanyahu is the leader of the free world. I hope the Israeli people understand that. After World War II there was a terrible tragedy: The British people threw out Winston Churchill. It will be a terrible tragedy, in my view, if the Israeli people throw out Netanyahu, who is so crucial to their defense and so crucial to the free world."
Q: Are Netanyahu's opponents right? Did he destroy Israel's relations with the U.S.?
"The American people and the Israeli people are best friends. The American government and the Israeli government, generally, are best friends. The problem is not Netanyahu, the problem is Obama. He is a problem not just for Israel, he is problem for the American people and the United States. He is a problem for many allies all over the world who are cringing and praying for the end of his term to arrive.
"I understand the leftists and opportunists in Israel want to turn the tables on Netanyahu. This is what leftists and opportunists do in my country -- they're all the same whether they speak Hebrew or English. But the fact is that anyone who really is sober in their thinking understands that Israel has a very unique leader at a very important time in its history.
"Should Netanyahu lose, in my opinion, it is not just the U.S. that will see that, your enemies will see it too. They will see that a strong prime minister, who would not stand down no matter who pressured him, was defeated by the Israeli people. That could be misread by the Iranians, by ISIS, by Hezbollah, Hamas and all the rest of them as an act of weakness by the Israeli people. I am concerned about that."
Q: You said Netanyahu refuses to succumb to pressure. He proved it when he insisted on speaking at Congress. Will it pay off? Will it help thwart the emerging deal with Iran?
"I don't know if it will change anything because Obama is very ideologically driven, very strong headed, very thin-skinned. But I think it was important for the prime minister of Israel to make the case for Israel and the free world so that more and more people could hear him. So will it change anything? I don't know if it will change anything any more than Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg Address changed anything, but it was a very important speech to a very important audience and I'm very glad that he gave it."
|
Christ Jesus prayed that all those who would believe in Him would be ONE, just as He and the Father are ONE; that they be brought to complete unity so that the world would know that He was sent by the Father. (John 17:20-23)
No comments:
Post a Comment