Obamacott

A few days in Berlin is all it takes to understand how some of the more irremediably annoying aspects of the German character led, in one way or another, to the Holocaust. The psychotic obsession with cleanliness, for example.

If you want evidence of the nobler instincts of the human race, go look at the artworks an earlier generation of Germans took from ancient Pergamon and put on display astride the Spree. Don’t let the easy affability of some of the younger Germans fool you. The place is an ice queen without a throne.

Because of my continuing boycott of all editorial coverage of Berlin,  I am at the moment less interested in Berlin’s tiresome angling for cultural relevance in a post-Soviet world than in the tireless petulance and foreign policy floundering of Barack Obama.

Who is this guy? Why can’t he be bothered to take a meeting with the Israeli Prime Minister? Why all this Obamacotting of international essentials?

If you blend the classic definition of boycott, “to engage in a concerted refusal to have dealings with usually to express disapproval or to force acceptance of certain conditions,” and combine it with Obama’s studious blundering, you effectively have an Obamacott.

Not meeting Netanyahu in New York would be less unpardonable had Obama managed to pencil in even one visit to Israel during his term in office. He couldn’t find the pencil.

I mean really. At a moment when even the Bibi-phobic New York Times can make a little space to chat about Tel Aviv, Obama’s aloofness is feckless, juvenile, maybe even racially tinged, but certainly inexcusable.

To the Prez’s Obamacotting of Israel there is really only one answer: a concerted refusal by American citizens, Republican or Democrat, Jew or Jesus freak, to vote for B.O. in November.