What is Obama's "defense" of his indefensible attempt to throw Israel under the bus, for no purpose except to advance OBAMA and his out-sized ego? I actually saw this part of Obama's incredibley lame and thin-skinned "attack" on his critics. I will summarize what Obama said: "my critics are so dishonest. I did not SAY ANYTHING. I merely stated long-standing United States policy in effect for decatdes, and which has been stated PRIVATELY many times."
Do you see how DISHONEST Obama is (projecting his own dishonesty on his critics)? If you don't get it, as most leftists profess not to, then this article laying it out for you will probably not phase you. Actualy, however, I hink most people DO get it, and are not longer impressed by Obama's WORDS in his role as Liar-in-Chief.
Look carefully at Obama's thin-skinned "defense". Obama is saying he does not understand what the fuss is about, because he merely stated that it is up to Israel and the Palestinians to negotiate a peace, and all Obama did was state the general outline of the end borders of Israel that many U.S. Presidents have envisioned, with actual borders to be detrmined by "mutual ly agreed land swaps (whatever that means, and you get the feeling Obama has no clue other than to try to use it as an "out" to explain that he did not say what everyone heard him say). And Obama says that "friends can disagree."
Putting it as bluntly as I can: Our President is incapable of telling the truth, and maybe of even knowing what the truth is. Can "freiends disagree"? Sure. But do "friends" UNDERMINE/betray "friends" and remain friends? Not a chance. Yet, that is exactlly what Obama did. WHY is it that NO American President has said what Obama said--much less right BEFORE (ot after) a sceduled meeting with the prime mininster of Israel? Yes, a "friend" might express to the Prime Minister Netanyahu, at the scheduled meeting, that a "friend" thinks that further efforts should be made to again start a peace process with the Palestinians, even though the PALESTINIANS seem uninterested in peace with Israel and have pretty much allied themselves with Israel. In othr words, when EVERY other American President decided NOT to say what Obama said, terrorist organization Hamas had not been "elected" to essentially lead the Palestinians, or a big section of them. In other words, an HONEST Obama would admit that EVERY single American President before Obama has considered what Obama said to be a BAD idea. That is because publicly undermining your "friend" is the act of an ENEMY. Yep. Obama is an ENEMY of Israel, and Netanyahu knows it.
What has been the propaganda position of the Arab/Muslim word since 1967? Right. It has been that Israel MUST withdraw to its 1967 borders BEFORE any meaningul "peace" negotiations. SOMETIMES, the Palestinians/Arabs/Muslims will HINT that they MIGHT recognize Israel's right to exist as part of that withdrawal, but the Palestinians have NEVER been willing to enter into a "comphrhensive" peace before that withdrawal happens. That is apart fromt he problem that the 1967 borders are INDEFENSIBLE, as Netanyahu said.
What Obama did was try to FORCE Netanyahu into a croner when Obama had scheduled a meeting with Netanyahu for the very next day. And Obama did that by UNDERMINING the negotiating position of Netanyahu. EVERY other U.S. President has recongized this, even if most (who have faced the problem) might say that Obama was not far off as to the END position which needs to be reached ON BORDERS. The problem, of course, is that there are many other issues besides borders, and "borders" represents the PALESTINIAN issue. It is like CLNN framing the "issues" in the Presidential race so that only the Democrat formulation of the "issues" is presented. Again, IF Obama (as he says) was NOT saying anything "important", or different than everyone already understood, what did Obama expect to accomplish by this (obviously premeditated) statement? Npe. Obama cannot tell the truth. OBVIOUSLY, he thoiught he was making a "bold" statement that woudld both put pressure on Netanyahu AND give Obama "credit" in the Muslim world for PUSHING Israel to embrace the main demand of the Palestinians. (Nope. I have not forgotten, by the way, that Egypt made a separate peace with Israel, but Obama forced the main who made that peace, Mubarak, to leave office and the whole treaty is in doubt--although I acknowledge Mubarak was a dictator we had no business supporting, though we should have been much more on top of the whole situatioin)
Netanyahu COMPLAINED bitterly ahead of Obama's speech, as a "friend" who disagreed, and Obama PUBLICLY gave the speech anyway. This is NOT the act of a "friend". If you have a friend who is taking a positioin in negotiations with--say--a community activist, would you regard it as an act of betrayal to PUBLICLY criticize your friend's netotiating position? Of course you would. More to the point of Obama's dishonesty, would OBAMA regard it as a betrayal for a "friend" to PUBLICLY say that Obama is mishandling the Afghanistan war (or netotiating with an unjustified position when Obama was a "community activist")? You KNOW Obama would be livid if such a thing happened. Indded, that is what (see my article on Friday) the LEFTIST SUPPORTERS of Obama are saying. They are saying that NETANYAHU was DISRESPCTFUL OF OBAMA (lol). How can you be more disrespectul of an foreign leader than to publicly undermine that foreign leader's position on the single most important inssue facing his nation? That is what Obama did to Netanyahu. (Yes, I would go on abut the hypocrisy of the left and the mainstream media here, but you already know those people are the worst hypocrites to ever walk the Earth on two legs or four--the problem for Jewish leftists being that it is now obviious that they are betraying Israel by supporting Obama.)
Again. Yu don't have to agre with, or ven follow, all I say above to understand just how dishonest Obama is being about his statements on Israel. All you have to do is ASK yourself WHY every single U.S. President, until Obama, did not make this kind of statement on the 1967 borders of Israel? Obama is directly saying that he has AGREED with every previous U.S. President, when it is exactly the opposite. EVERY single U.S. President has DISAGREED with Obama on the advisability of making this statement (whatever they may think of the policy goal itself, and I reject the idea they all agreed totally with the way Obama put it).
Yes, the Palestinians do have another "precondition" for peace that is absurd. That is the "right of return", where Palestinians want the "right" to go "back" into Israel, from which some of them--maybe--were evicted in 1948. And why don't we give Manhattan back to the Indians? I know. I know. I should NEVER give Obama an idea like that. Jews conducted a WAR for creating a Jewish state, and "Palestinians have been used as a PAWN ever since. They should long ago have been absorbed elsewhere, except no one else wanted them, AND all of their "friends" (the Obama kind of "friend") wanted these poor people as a WEAPON against Israel rather than being really concerned about their welfare. Am I saying that there is no "right of return"? Yep. I am RIDICULING the idea, correctly.
P.S. No proofreading or spell checking (bad eyesight). However, my eyesight is clear enough to see that Jews who continue to support Obama are betraying Israel. As stated in my article on Friday, even MSNBC recognizes that EVANGELICAL CHRISTIANS are more willing to vote based on their concerns for Israel than Jews apparanetly are (from various polls, albeit I continue to regard all polls as evil things).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment