Now I’m starting to wonder whether the only reason that Obama finally allowed Osama bin Laden to be killed was to soften us up for an attack on Israel.
Obama from today’s speech:
“We believe that the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines, with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established, for both states.”
As I understand this, it would mean that Israel is to give up whatever land it found necessary to take, in order to preserve its own security, in 1967, unless the “Palestinians” agree to “swap” Israel for land that Israel already had in 1967.
Israel fought a war in self-defense in 1967. It took land as necessary to be able to eliminate the threat to its security, and it has since established settlements on some of this land. But now, Barack Obama is telling them that they must hand all this over, that the starting point for negotiations is supposed to be the borders that left Israel vulnerable to those who would, given a chance, wipe it out of existence.
Presumably the United States would not do anything militarily to Israel to bring this about — i.e., we would not force Israel to agree to this. (Perhaps we would refuse to give them aid, or some such.) But Obama is clearly using whatever influence and moral sanction he has at his disposal to help the Palestinians and punish Israel.
Obama’s speech is particularly inexcusable today, in a context where there have been reports of groups on Facebook calling for a mass invasion of Israel on Friday. And no, the Obama administration cannot pretend it doesn’t know about these groups and what they’re calling for. We learned this week that the government is well aware of what people post on Facebook, even if they’re sharing it with only seven friends.
Don't Let It Go 
Palestine will be a “contiguous state” is what I heard. He also said suicide in protest is dignified, and that we only care to save lives with force when it’s not too expensive. He actuarially values human life and the outcome of the pursuit of happiness. Marx would agree. He said MENA instability is about Rosa Parks, and that people are so poor they need money. He also oddly kept saying he started something by making a speech in Cairo. Indeed, he started a story. He’s a good storyteller.
He seems to think the “revolution” has already reached its destination like the Declaration of Independence and American Revolution. What of the French Revolution, if we are going to play this game? First they wanted to kill the king (1789), but then not, they tried a constitutional monarchy, but then beheaded the king (1793), more food riots, then Robespierre rises, new religion yes, then no, and Robespierre was beheaded (1794). Then new-new legislature (1795), then Napoleon stages coup in 1799, shortly to become “Emperor.” This is all about change and “change.”
Pingback: Returning to 1967 | NewsReal Blog
I’ve always thought anti-Obama conspiracy theorists were looney. Now I’m wondering seriously if he is a foreign agent. I used to think he was a cynical politician, but this won’t benefit him politically. I used to think he was incompetent, in over his head, but no one is this stupid. ANY Republican challenger is starting to look good. In short, I am in shock.
I can think of only one semi-plausible explanation according to which Obama is innocent. Perhaps he believes that, by saying this today, he will be appeasing those calling for the invasion tomorrow, and that they’ll magically stand down and call it off. Of course, history tells us that any belief that appeasement will work is ridiculous, but Obama’s not the first American President to appease Jihadists.
Perhaps this is the reason George Mitchell resigned as special envoy a few days ago. Perhaps he didn’t want to deal with defending this.
I retract my initial, emotional reaction that Obama might be a foreign agent. Apparently, the entire State Department backs him in this. Now I’m really getting worried. And, supposedly, this position is not that different from Bush’s. What will a Republican replacement for Obama offer? Roughly the same policy, once the State Department has “set him straight”?
In parts of his speech he sounds like a Bushite pro-democracy spreading, pro-nation-building, see-no-Islam NeoConservative. The problem is not so much the Left right now, they are what they are. The problem is that the Right is still so dominated by the NeoCon foreign policy. Hell, even Robert Tracisnski still maintains a loyalty to that “pro-Forward-Strategy-of-Freedom” philosophy. (Tracinski has called Bush a “foreign policy visionary”!!)
What we need are more Conservatives and Right-wingers like Diana West and Robert Spencer; ie people who understand that Islam is the problem and that the Islamic world is not capable of supporting liberty. What we need are anti-nation-building pro-war people; a movement that wants a war against Islamic Jihad without the welfare handouts to Muslims.
This is just one more foreign policy error Mr. Obama has committed. His Presidency has been altruistic and very disappointing as a whole. [ I will exclude his recent triumph against Al Quaida ] More importantly, his administration’s foreign policy and its disregard of the ONLY ally we have in the mid-East, Israel, is nothing less than abysmal. He is promising to aid Egypt- -forgiving a $1 BILLION loan is just the beginning so I am told! How he can look our Israeli allies in the eye while supporting their historical nemesis, Egypt, is beyond reason? Has he taken notice of Iran?! Will he support Israel when and if they defend themselves against Teheran’s nuclear aggression? Against Syria which is an historical supporter of terrorism against Israel? Against Jordan which is indifferent to the sovereignty of Israel? Against Saudi Arabia which has been both arrogant and anti-semitical?
Israel deserves a treaty with our great nation that supports its right to exist and respects their battle-won territories. Truly, we Americans must oust this non-conceptual thinker and his unprincipled altruism. Preventing a second term is critical. Lastly, he shall not get my vote in 2012– even if he spends another billion dollars on his re-election campaign or miraculously begins to walk on water.
The lunacy of the Obama administration’s position is in part due to the misguided belief that territorial claims are the root of the conflict. In fact, it is tribalism and mysticism that motivates Israel’s enemies and not a line in the sand. The Palestinians seem to experience their sense of well-being from their national identity. They have no sense of individual self-worth or else they would seek happiness and prosperity through productive achievement instead of sacrificial suicide bombs and rock throwing. It is implicit in any agreement that both parties have a rational understanding of the underlying conflict otherwise resolution is not possible. How can the Obama administration seriously consider the ruling Hamas party a rational partner? I can think of no historical precedent where a United States administration has asked an allied power to cede land to its enemy. This is surely a low point in the history of American foreign policy.
The sad thing is that Obama probably thought he was delivering a moderately pro-Israel speech, such is his severely skewed thought-process on the Arab-Israeli conflict (which he mistakenly thinks is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict).
The ignorance displayed by Obama of exactly how the borders became what they are (nicely summed up by Ms. Peikoff in her posting) is jaw-dropping. It is not only a betrayal of our only friend in the region, but it negates the idea that territory acquired in a defensive war is territory gained by just means. If such an ethic were applied to all nations we would have to return the territory that Nazi Germany lost in WWII.
I wonder if his having spent 20 years in a Jew-hating church influences his thinking at all on these matters?
Don, that was Bosch Fawstin’s thinking when he made this cartoon.
Pingback: Volviendo a 1967, encontramos las raíces del antisemitismo de Obama « NUEVA EUROPA- Nueva Eurabia