An Anti-Israel President

[Ropey]

Say what you will about President Obama's approach to Israel—or of his relationship with American Jews—he sure has mastered the concept of chutzpah.

When this president wants to make a show of his exquisite diplomatic sensitivity—burgers with Medvedev, bows to Abdullah, New Year's greetings to the mullahs—he knows how. And when he wants to show his contempt, he knows how, too.

The contempt was again on display Sunday, when Mr. Obama spoke to the Aipac policy conference in Washington. The speech was stocked with the perennial bromides about U.S.-Israeli friendship, which brought an anxious crowd to its feet a few times. As for the rest, it was a thin tissue of falsehoods, rhetorical legerdemain, telling omissions and self-contradictions. Let's count the ways..

The president's peace proposal is a formula for war.

Mr. Obama neglected to mention these points on Sunday, hence the telling omission. But the essence of his proposal is that Israel should cede territory, put itself into a weaker position, and then hope for the best. This doesn't even amount to a land-for-peace formula.

That's not all. Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a "non-militarized" Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that "every state has a right to self-defense"? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a "Jewish state." But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

And then there was that line that "we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric." Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?

What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.

Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets on e!

America's President's background is clear as he has a long association with 'Jew haters'.

Fact... One of BHO's best friends in Chicago was Rashid Khaliki, former PLO spokesman under Arafat who supported terrorist strikes on Israeli government targets. At a 2003 pro-Palestinian banquet then Illinois State Senator Obama sang Khalid's praises.

Fact... Obama's Chicago mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, called for a boycott of Israel for its 'apartheid' against Palestinians while Obama sat in his pews. Wright even reprinted Hamas terror manifesto against Israel in his church bulletin. Wright, a one time member of the Nation of Islam, gave dozens of Jew-bashing sermons while mentoring Obama.

Fact... Another close associate of Obama in Chicago is the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhhan.

So, is Obama anti-Israel? Suffice to say his circle of friends for over twenty years most certainly are anti-Semite.

And his speech clarified his intent.

 

[Ropey]

Senate Democrats are expected to support a resolution intended as a rebuff to President Obama’s call for basing Middle East peace talks on the 1967 Israeli-Palestinian borders.

It would be a rare rebuke of the president by the upper chamber and a sign that Democrats are worried about the impact of last week’s speech on the U.S.-Israel relationship and pro-Israel constituents.

Democrats in both chambers are scrambling to fix the damage caused when Obama called for the 1967 borders and land swaps as a basis for peace.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) rebuked Obama over Israel in a speech to AIPAC on Monday.

“The place where negotiating will happen must be the negotiating table — and nowhere else. Those negotiations will not happen — and their terms will not be set — through speeches, or in the streets, or in the media,” Reid told the audience, bringing it to a standing ovation. “No one should set premature parameters about borders.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-xZ6heSanU&feature=player_embedded]Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Speaks at Policy Conference 2011 - Part 1[/ame]

House Democratic Whip Steny Hoyer (Md.) offered a similarly rousing defense of Israel while speaking to AIPAC on Sunday.

“Israel’s borders must be defensible and must reflect reality on the ground,” he said in speech that was seen as a slap at Obama’s remarks. “Peace can only be achieved by a return to the negotiating table without preconditions.”

Senate Dems might join rebuff of Obama on Israeli border issue

He noted that President Obama’s “sandbagging” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu “with an adversarial policy speech” the day before his visit is not the first time the American leader has treated foreign visitors with disdain. “Remember when the Dalai... Full Article at Arutz Sheva

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CsCuocOcM_s&feature=player_embedded]Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu Speaks at Policy Conference 2011 - Part 2[/ame]

He noted that President Obama’s “sandbagging” Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu “with an adversarial policy speech” the day before his visit is not the first time the American 'leader' has treated foreign visitors with disdain.

 

[High_Gravity]

Obamas solution is a terrible idea and whats worse, I hear the Palestinians are saying even that is not good enough, they want much more.

 

[Ropey]

That wasn’t Benjamin Netanyahu speaking on Tuesday. That was Congress speaking.

Mahmoud Abbas had a plan. Ignore Netanyahu. Go to the UN General Assembly. Get a vote purportedly recognizing a Palestinian state. Then use that vote to leverage international pressure on Israel.

Peter Goodspeed: An in-depth analysis of Netanyahu’s speech

The iffy bit of the Abbas plan was always that fourth step. There have been no shortage of anti-Israel UN General Assembly votes over the years, most famously the 1974 “Zionism is racism” vote. But those votes did not cause the US or the Europeans or other important players to change their policy to Israel. Why would one such vote more?

George Jonas: Obama doesn’t get the arithmetic of the Israel-Palestine situationn

Congress’ reception of Netanyahu doused the Obama speech with ice-water realism.

After the September vote, the Palestinians will demand that Israel retreat from the fence to the 1967 lines – that Israel remove soldiers from outposts inside the 67 lines – that Israel allow land traffic into the West Bank and sea traffic into Gaza -and a thousand other incidences of statehood. There’s only one force on earth that can make Israel do those things if Israel doesn’t want to. And that force just cheered and cheered the man who won’t want to.

More from David Frumm

*
David Frum: Israel v. Palestine is not a border dispute
*
David Frum: Palestinian move on honour killings belated but welcome
*
David Frum: Washington's dangerous dance with debt default
*
David Frum: There can never be too much space for criticism of Israel
*
David Frum: Gingrich faces three-point challenge

Yes, David is a Jew. Just as the Palestinians have their supporters who are not Palestinians but who are Arabs, so do the Jews.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Obama isn't "anti-Israel". He's "ANTI-SMART".

 

[Ropey]

Obamas solution is a terrible idea and whats worse, I hear the Palestinians are saying even that is not good enough, they want much more.

They have been clear all along with what they want. They voted in Hamas. Peace is not their view other than peace as a hudna where there will continue on in their desire to destroy Israel and the worlds Jews.

The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews

From the Prophet Mohammad's own words:

Our Prophet Muhammad saws The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews said in a famous hadith:

“Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’ – except for the Gharqad tree.”

Khaled Al-Qudha: The decisive battle between the Jews and us will take place on the Jordan River, Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews willing. This is inevitable. This is a hadith of the Prophet, who does not talk idly.

Host: Did the hadith relate to the battle’s outcome as well?

Khaled Al-Qudha: Of course. “Until the Jew hides…” – because, as is well known, the Jews only fight from behind walls, when they are hiding. They don’t fight face to face. That’s why the tree and the stone will talk and say things.

Host: The hadith says: “The Muslims will kill them…” So this will be a victory of the Muslims.

Khaled Al-Qudha: Yes, and an overwhelming defeat for all the Jews, Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews willing. And this is not at all difficult for Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews.

This battle will take place. It is inevitable. Even if we go to Oslo, and so on, the battle must take place. The Jews know this, and that’s why they plant a lot of Gharqad trees. They know the hadith.

‘Ali Al-Faqir: They surround their settlements with Gharqad trees.

That explains all those Gharqad trees, but what of the stones and trees talking? Is this to be interpreted literally?

‘Ali Al-Faqir: One may ask: “How can a tree possibly talk? The hadith means that we should fight them with sticks and stones.” This is not true. We either accept these things as fact or as a metaphor. If you cannot accept it as a fact then it’s a metaphor. As long as it is impossible to accept the facts…

But brothers, the Prophet has told us that the time will come when man will talk without using his voice – the cell-phone, the cordless phone. This cordless phone – where did it come from? From the earth. Plastic comes from petroleum. The wires, the iron, and the copper – where do they come from? From the earth. Furthermore, some communication devices are now made of wood. It is not impossible that “the tree and the stone will speak” refers to the advanced scientific instruments that warn you about people. Today you have, for example, early warning stations in Sinai. Early warning stations exist in the Golan. They give the Israelites information about the other side’s movements.

The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews

 

[High_Gravity]

Obamas solution is a terrible idea and whats worse, I hear the Palestinians are saying even that is not good enough, they want much more.

They have been clear all along with what they want. They voted in Hamas. Peace is not their view other than peace as a hudna where there will continue on in their desire to destroy Israel and the worlds Jews.

The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews

From the Prophet Mohammad's own words:

Our Prophet Muhammad saws The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews said in a famous hadith:

“Judgment Day will come only when the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them, until the Jew hides behind the tree and the stone, and the tree and the stone say: ‘Oh Muslim, oh servant of Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him’ – except for the Gharqad tree.”

Khaled Al-Qudha: The decisive battle between the Jews and us will take place on the Jordan River, Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews willing. This is inevitable. This is a hadith of the Prophet, who does not talk idly.

Host: Did the hadith relate to the battle’s outcome as well?

Khaled Al-Qudha: Of course. “Until the Jew hides…” – because, as is well known, the Jews only fight from behind walls, when they are hiding. They don’t fight face to face. That’s why the tree and the stone will talk and say things.

Host: The hadith says: “The Muslims will kill them…” So this will be a victory of the Muslims.

Khaled Al-Qudha: Yes, and an overwhelming defeat for all the Jews, Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews willing. And this is not at all difficult for Allah allah The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews.

This battle will take place. It is inevitable. Even if we go to Oslo, and so on, the battle must take place. The Jews know this, and that’s why they plant a lot of Gharqad trees. They know the hadith.

‘Ali Al-Faqir: They surround their settlements with Gharqad trees.

That explains all those Gharqad trees, but what of the stones and trees talking? Is this to be interpreted literally?

‘Ali Al-Faqir: One may ask: “How can a tree possibly talk? The hadith means that we should fight them with sticks and stones.” This is not true. We either accept these things as fact or as a metaphor. If you cannot accept it as a fact then it’s a metaphor. As long as it is impossible to accept the facts…

But brothers, the Prophet has told us that the time will come when man will talk without using his voice – the cell-phone, the cordless phone. This cordless phone – where did it come from? From the earth. Plastic comes from petroleum. The wires, the iron, and the copper – where do they come from? From the earth. Furthermore, some communication devices are now made of wood. It is not impossible that “the tree and the stone will speak” refers to the advanced scientific instruments that warn you about people. Today you have, for example, early warning stations in Sinai. Early warning stations exist in the Golan. They give the Israelites information about the other side’s movements.

The Hadith of the Gharqad Tree and the Jews

It sounds like the Palestinians will not be satisfied until they are running the whole store.

 

[Ropey]

It sounds like the Palestinians will not be satisfied until they are running the whole store.

Sounds? Is!

 

[Marie888]

This is for anyone who is interested and informational purposes only. I do not agree with what Perry Stone teaches entirely, and haven't studied everything he is saying, however this video is VERY interesting to say the least. He's got more vids out there too in regard to Israel, etc.


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oPLrbpz1vuw]YouTube - ‪Perry Stone - Are Islamic Prophecies Pointing To Obama‬‏[/ame]



.


.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Incredible. Simply incredible. Did we really see the same speech? This just doesn't even make any sense. Does the propaganda machine really run so deep?

[youtube]0cOJNC2EuJw[/youtube]

I dunno, I have a feeling that this MUST be the wrong speech. Cuz this speech basically goes like this:

- Israel is incredible and super awesome and I wanna be BFFs with it forever
- We support Israel unconditionally
- We will always pick up Israel's slack - going to spend billions on it over the next decade.
- We will not allow anybody to say anything bad about Israel at the UN. Ever.
- We will not allow anybody to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN, at least until Israel says it's ok (ie, Never).
- Jerusalem is Israel's - ALL of it.
- Iran fucking sucks and we'll never allow it to acquire nuclear weapons (by omission - Israel's are ok)
- We support a peace based on 1967 borders with mutually-agreed land swaps, like every president and prime minister since the Clinton Administration.
- But Israel cannot negotiate unless its partner recognizes it's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state (but not the other way around, by omission)
- Israel's security has to be guaranteed (Palestine's security does not)
- Israel always has a right to self-defense (Palestinians don't)

I guess the only way forward for Israel's supporters is for the president to apologize for re-stating the exact same gameplan followed by pretty much everyone over the past 20 years. Then, the president should articulate the position that would make them really happy: "We support Israel's right to all of Historical Palestine. And since we support the right of Israel to be a Jewish State, we support their right to remove ethnically un-welcome people from their State, by force. Some of you might think this is technically called ethnic cleansing, but it's not, because Israel is doing it, therefore it's good."

Right?? If he said that, everyone here would be happy, no?

 

[Ropey]

I guess

Keep guessing. While you are guessing, reality continues. They guessed about Hitler as well. Funny looking Charlie Chaplain guy. No problems. Funny looking Achmadinejad. No problems.

They want peace. Israel wants more land and war. Yes, these Muslims sure look peaceful. Well, you guess?

 

[Epsilon Delta]

I guess

Keep guessing. While you are guessing, reality continues. They guessed about Hitler as well. Funny looking Charlie Chaplain guy. No problems. Funny looking Achmadinejad. No problems.

They want peace. Israel wants more land and war. Yes, these Muslims sure look peaceful. Well, you guess?

Let me know when you want to actually respond to my post instead of throwing inane strawmen. I'm all ears to hear what you wanted said at the speech that was not said.

 

[Ropey]

No. You guess. I guess. Soon we will see their peaceful intent or lack of it.

Regardless of you and me ED.

 

[Ropey]

"I'm all ears to hear what you wanted said at the speech that was not said."

Politics is the art of sayings with different meanings.

 

[Ropey]

"Iran fucking sucks and we'll never allow it to acquire nuclear weapons (by omission - Israel's are ok)"

And you are clear.

 

[Epsilon Delta]

Uh... ok. Nevermind then.

 

[Douger]

The script says a trumpet is going to blow.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Say what you will about President Obama's approach to Israel—or of his relationship with American Jews—he sure has mastered the concept of chutzpah.

When this president wants to make a show of his exquisite diplomatic sensitivity—burgers with Medvedev, bows to Abdullah, New Year's greetings to the mullahs—he knows how. And when he wants to show his contempt, he knows how, too.

The contempt was again on display Sunday, when Mr. Obama spoke to the Aipac policy conference in Washington. The speech was stocked with the perennial bromides about U.S.-Israeli friendship, which brought an anxious crowd to its feet a few times. As for the rest, it was a thin tissue of falsehoods, rhetorical legerdemain, telling omissions and self-contradictions. Let's count the ways..

The president's peace proposal is a formula for war.

Mr. Obama neglected to mention these points on Sunday, hence the telling omission. But the essence of his proposal is that Israel should cede territory, put itself into a weaker position, and then hope for the best. This doesn't even amount to a land-for-peace formula.

That's not all. Mr. Obama got some applause Sunday by calling for a "non-militarized" Palestinian state. But how does that square with his comment, presumably applicable to a future Palestine, that "every state has a right to self-defense"? Mr. Obama was also cheered for his references to Israel as a "Jewish state." But why then obfuscate on the question of Palestinian refugees, whose political purpose over 63 years has been to destroy Israel as a Jewish state?

And then there was that line that "we will hold the Palestinians accountable for their actions and their rhetoric." Applause! But can Mr. Obama offer a single example of having done that as president, except perhaps at the level of a State Department press release?

What, then, would a pro-Israel president do? He would tell Palestinians that there is no right of return. He would make the reform of the Arab mindset toward Israel the centerpiece of his peace efforts. He would outline hard and specific consequences should Hamas join the government.

Such a vision could lay the groundwork for peace. What Mr. Obama offered is a formula for war, one that he will pursue in a second term. Assuming, of course, that he gets on e!

America's President's background is clear as he has a long association with 'Jew haters'.

Fact... One of BHO's best friends in Chicago was Rashid Khaliki, former PLO spokesman under Arafat who supported terrorist strikes on Israeli government targets. At a 2003 pro-Palestinian banquet then Illinois State Senator Obama sang Khalid's praises.

Fact... Obama's Chicago mentor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, called for a boycott of Israel for its 'apartheid' against Palestinians while Obama sat in his pews. Wright even reprinted Hamas terror manifesto against Israel in his church bulletin. Wright, a one time member of the Nation of Islam, gave dozens of Jew-bashing sermons while mentoring Obama.

Fact... Another close associate of Obama in Chicago is the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhhan.

So, is Obama anti-Israel? Suffice to say his circle of friends for over twenty years most certainly are anti-Semite.

And his speech clarified his intent.

October 14, 2008
Posted: 1:35 am
October 14, 2008

EVIAN, FRANCE

PREPARE for a new America: That's the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised "fundamental changes" in US foreign policy - saying America must "heal wounds" it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the "arrogance of the Bush administration."

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where "decades of putting Israel's interests first" would end.

Jackson believes that, although "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" remain strong, they'll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.
IF Obama is Elected will Israel not be one of our Closest allies any longer? Will the Radical Middle East Countries feel like they can "Push Israel into the sea"? And will Obama Let them as President of the United States if elected?

How can so many Jewish folks have ignored this?

 

[José]

Originally posted by Delta_Epsilon
I dunno, I have a feeling that this MUST be the wrong speech. Cuz this speech basically goes like this:

- Israel is incredible and super awesome and I wanna be BFFs with it forever
- We support Israel unconditionally
- We will always pick up Israel's slack - going to spend billions on it over the next decade.
- We will not allow anybody to say anything bad about Israel at the UN. Ever.
- We will not allow anybody to recognize a Palestinian state at the UN, at least until Israel says it's ok (ie, Never).
- Jerusalem is Israel's - ALL of it.
- Iran fucking sucks and we'll never allow it to acquire nuclear weapons (by omission - Israel's are ok)
- We support a peace based on 1967 borders with mutually-agreed land swaps, like every president and prime minister since the Clinton Administration.
- But Israel cannot negotiate unless its partner recognizes it's right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state (but not the other way around, by omission)
- Israel's security has to be guaranteed (Palestine's security does not)
- Israel always has a right to self-defense (Palestinians don't)

I guess the only way forward for Israel's supporters is for the president to apologize for re-stating the exact same gameplan followed by pretty much everyone over the past 20 years. Then, the president should articulate the position that would make them really happy: "We support Israel's right to all of Historical Palestine. And since we support the right of Israel to be a Jewish State, we support their right to remove ethnically un-welcome people from their State, by force. Some of you might think this is technically called ethnic cleansing, but it's not, because Israel is doing it, therefore it's good."

Right?? If he said that, everyone here would be happy, no?

This is one of those epic massacres Delta usually inflicts on poor USMB'ers when he's not too busy flying from Central America to NYC or Montreal and vice versa.

Can you believe English is not the guy's first language?

After this brutal beatdown there's not much to say about the grotesque notion that the US is "siding" with Palestinians.

But this does not mean the "other side" doesn't have a valid point.

Ropey (and Gravity) are absolutely right when they say this will not result in a final agreement by any stretch, when they say that Palestinians will only accept the partition of Palestine as a "temporary palestinian state" (AT BEST) that will be used as a tool to advance their ultimate nationalist aspiration, the right of return.

 

[Ropey]

Ropey (and Gravity) are absolutely right when they say this will not result in a final agreement by any stretch, when they say that Palestinians will only accept the partition of Palestine as a "temporary palestinian state" (AT BEST) that will be used as a tool to advance their ultimate nationalist aspiration, the right of return.

This is my only point regarding the Palestinian and Israeli issue.