Prominent Obama Advisor advocates US military invasion of Israel and protection of "New State of Palestine"

Well, well.
 
President Obama's Middle East motives are becoming clearer by the day.

Ms. Power is Special Assistant to President Barack Obama and runs the Office of Multilateral Affairs and Human Rights as Senior Director of Multilateral Affairs on the Staff of the National Security Council.

She is also a well-known Israel-hater.

Do your own research on her and her views, please.

I know the interview below is from 2002, but this person is a well-published, Pulitzer Prize winning author whose views on Israel are very well-known.

My sense of all this is that there is something sinister going on here, and I'm afraid to lend voice to it yet.

Oh, another thing.

She is the wife of Cass Sunstein, who is the
Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (Regulatory Czar for short)

How convenient.

T.W.






A transcript of the above interview is below: (emphasis mine )


INTERVIEWER: "Let me give you a thought experiment here, and it is the following: 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? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?" 

POWER: "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 the 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. 
Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line. Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. 
There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." 
I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention."