Translate


Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Why Obama is Turning His Back On Israel-Should Anyone Be Surprised ?


Will this picture become obsolete?


There is no question at this point that the relationship between the US and Israel has hit a new low. A series of diplomatic flaps culminated by the snubbing of Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House last week has called into question whether the United States under its current administration will stand by Israel's right to exist. To those who are shocked by Obama's actions, especially those who voted for Obama, it should have been no surprise.

First of all, Barack Obama is a left-wing radical. Oh, he tries not to talk like one, but most of his appointments have proven the accusation is true.

More importantly, if you look at his life, he has been surrounded by left-wing radicals. The sad fact is that we knew it before he was elected. It was all exposed before the election. Yet, the American voter chose to overlook all the warning signs.

The voters chose to ignore Jeremiah Wright-especially when Obama finally was forced to rebuke him.

They also chose to ignore Obama's relationship with William Ayres. Obama described him as just a guy who lived in the neighborhood. It was overlooked just as was his days as a community organizer in Chicago working in tandem with that corrupt organization called ACORN.

What people chose to accept was Obama's moderate, if liberal, rhetoric. He was charismatic, and he didn't talk like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or a host of other voices that could never have been elected president. Obama was different. He was likable. He was convincing.

Now it is becoming obvious to millions of Americans who had decided this man was The One. Now they are seeing what a radical world-view Obama has.

Now comes Israel. Oh sure, Obama will do the same thing all modern presidents have tried to do; he will attempt to obtain that crowning achievement that has eluded his predecessors-a peace treaty between Israel and the Palestinians-a two-state agreement by which two Middle Eastern countries will live side by side in peace if not in immediate friendship.

That may come to pass. The problem is that a two-state agreement is only a temporary first step in the Palestinian eyes. The new state of Palestine will be nothing more than a radicalized state that will align with other radical states with the eventual aim to take it all. Obama knows this. It is not as if he hasn't been briefed by Middle East experts.

Remember Viet Nam? Remember the Paris Peace Treaty signed by Henry Kissinger? How long did it last? Eventually, after the US withdrew, North Viet Nam relaunched its aggression and took it all while the US refused to do anything more than evacuate its citizens. President Ford wanted to at least send arms to the South Vietnamese, but the Congress refused the funding. Oh well, we got a couple of Nobel Peace Prizes out of it. It wasn't our fault that the North Vietnamese broke the agreement. I see the same thing happening with Israel.

Why is it that Israel is being asked to make all the concessions? The Palestinian side is making no concessions. Hamas' own charter rejects negotiations and is bound and determined to create an Islamic state "from the river to the sea". The PA under Mahmoud Abbas, talks about making a deal but continues to demonize the Jewish people as "apes' and pigs" in their media and broadcasts.

As do other neighboring countries in the Middle East.

Obama could care less about that. Here's where this all comes back to his upbringing with folks like Wright, Ayres and others. He believes that the Palestinians are freedom fighters and that the Israelis are occupying and repressing the Palestinian people. It is part and parcel of his extreme world view. In this sense, Obama is no different than other leftists in the West who have joined onto the Palestinian cause despite the decades of terror. Of course, as president, Obama has to put on that moderate face-same face he has always put on. He went to Sderot and expressed "support" for Israel's fighting back against the lobbing of missiles into their public places from Gaza. That's about as far as it went. Even in Cairo, he made reference to the US being committed to the survival of Israel. It meant little or nothing. In reality, Obama is no different from the loony leftists in the US who form "organizations" called Student and Workers for Peace and Justice or other groups dedicated to boycotting and divesting from companies that do business with Israel. Funny how they never lobby against countries like China with all they did to tiny Tibet and the injustices they commit against their own people..

No, Obama and the left don't care about the fate of that tiny country in the Middle East, which is the only country in the region that has a democracy and gives a whit about human rights. Look at each of Israel's neighbors and what do you see? Dysfunctional, backward, despotic states with corrupt rulers who evade responsibility for their corruption by pointing the finger of blame at Israel and the West. Generations of Arabs have been brainwashed into believing that Israel is nothing more than a Nazi state occupying land that it has no historical claim to and brutalizing its non-Jewish residents. The entire Arab world wants the destruction of the Jewish state. Why? Because it is Jewish rather than Muslim. That is intolerable.

The fact is that Obama, with his leftist world-view, is not committed to the defense of Israel. Should Israel be attacked by its neighbors or God forbid by Iran and its nukes, what would this administration do besides wring its hands, offer to mediate and..... blah, blah, blah. I truly believe that this administration would never go to the aid of an Israel under attack and threat of obliteration.

Besides, think how great a world without Israel would be. No more obstacles to our relationship with the Arab/Muslim world. No more terrorism. No more worries about lack of oil. They will all love us.

That's according to Obama's thinking. It's an illusion.

15 comments:

Anonymous said...

This might just be your looniest post yet, you old coot.

Gary Fouse said...

Old coot! I like that.

Gary Fouse said...

PS To anonymous,

Are you from San Francisco? If so, now I get it.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Jiminey crickets! All cootiness aside, I like your whole argument about Obama and Ayers. What was that relationship, exactly? You seem to know, even though you keep repeating the whole "just a guy in the neighborhood" line, even though you have had it pointed out to you that this quote is a distortion of what was said. Here's the whole quote:

"This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis. And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George."

This whole Obama/Ayers connection is such bull. Both the Washington Post (you linked to them, so don't give me the "biased!" argument) and Factcheck.org have completely debunked this whole thing.

My prediction? You still won't let it go.

Voters ignored it because there was nothing there.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

You didn't need to put the whole quote. I watched it when he said it. The entire answer was an evasion. He sat on boards with that guy. He went to his house to get his support for his first run at political office. He was comfortable with Ayres because they have similar views. It didn't bother him what Ayres had done in the past and that he had never repented. Me? I wouldn't have touched Bill Ayres with a ten foot pole.

The fact is that Ayres and Wright and Obama's relationships with them just corroborate each other.

I think you need to go a little deeper than Fact check.

Are you still insisting that Obama is just a center/left moderate?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

He sat on boards with the guy? Oh my! I also understand that there were some Republicans on those boards. Is Obama a secret neocon then? The argument holds up just as well.

And as for being at his house - same thing; it's a huge jump to go from that to saying that they "have similar views". I've been to all sorts of people's houses where I don't share their views - and I'm not even running for office!

Deeper than Fact Check? At least I care about facts!

A friend of mine made a great analogy recently to explain the mindset of conservatives like you. You're looking at a banner and saying that it's blue. However, there's just a blue circle on it, and there are also a lot of other colors. When others point out, "Hey, there's yellow, red, green, etcetera" you keep looking only at the blue and say, "It's blue! Look!"

As for center/left moderate - I ask you yet again why he received so many contributions from corporations. Also - what about his plan to expand drilling? Seems pretty centrist - even right - to me.

Gary Fouse said...

Lance,

Get a grip. Do you really think there is much difference in the thinking of Obama and Ayres?

If factcheck is telling you there isn't, I suggest you find another website for your "facts".

Like fousesquawk, for instance.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Gary, you confuse "assertions" for "facts".

Gary Fouse said...

Ok,OK. It's my assertion that Obama is a far left radical. This is, after all, an opinion-based blog, is it not?

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Sure, but don't you think that opinions should be grounded in actual facts and not just other assertions?

Anonymous said...

You still haven't answered Lance's question about why, if Obama is such a far-left radical as you insist, did he receive so much corporate money?

On top of that, I have my own question: can you name a single policy of the Obama administration that reflects the alleged far-left radical nature of the President?

Please answer both questions.

Gary Fouse said...

Mr Anonymous.

I will try to accede to your rather imperious demands.

Corporations always contribute to both presidential candidates. It's called hedging your bets hoping that no matter who wins, you will gain some favor.

A single policy?

How about govt health care?

How about card check legislation?

How about income redistribution since he and Biden have both confirmed their intentions in words?

How about taking over the banks?

How about taking over the car companies?

How about all this wild spending?

Look at his appts.

Van Jones
Kevin Jennings
Mark Lloyd
Kathey Sibelius
Eric Holder

I could go on all day, but I have to get back to work here.

In terms of foreign policy, it looks like his policy will be to tilt to the Palestinians. Why does he appoint someone like Hannah Rosenthal to DOS Czar for anti-semitic something or other, who comes from J Street, goes to Israel and promptly bashes the Israeli ambassador to the US?

If you cannot see the link between Obama's past (Ayres, Wright, ACORN et al) and his current policies, you must be wearing rose-colored blinders.

Anonymous said...

I have neither the time nor the desire to rebut each of your individual assertions, so I will just state that all of the things you just said can be described in either of the following ways: a) gross misrepresentation of reality (ie, "taking over the banks", which is laughable) or b) not far-left radical policy, even as presented.

As for the argument that the corporations were "hedging their bets" by helping Obama, well that's just absurd. If he's as radical and far-left as you claim, why would they want to give him even a penny of money? If he were that far out there, then they'd know that it would be pointless anyways.

You're going off the deep end. But I'm not surprised, looking at the blogs you link to. This post reads like a slightly toned down regurgitation of something the shrieking harpy Pamela Geller would defecate onto the Internet.

Gary Fouse said...

Anonymous,

"I have neither the time nor the desire to rebut each of your individual assertions,..."

Hey, you called me pal, I didn't call you.

Lance Christian Johnson said...

Government health care? We have government health care now? Really? Or do you mean that's what he initially wanted - because even then that's still wrong.

Regarding the "takeovers" of the banks and car industries, as far as I know, they were just given money and then left alone. How has the government exerted any control over either of these?

And do you really think that the last administration wouldn't have bailed them out as well?

Your thesis just doesn't hold up in light of the facts.