This piece originally appeared in Eagle Rising.
Israeli elections are complicated and it remains for Bibi Netanyahu to form a government, but it appears certain at this point that he has prevailed in the Israel elections. If anything, Israel has demonstrated to the world that it is indeed a democracy-quite unlike its hostile neighbors.
And shame on President Obama and his prostituted State Department for trying to directly swing
this election to Netanyahu's opponent. Not only did Team Obama send their operatives to Israel to work with that One Voice/ V-15 group to try and defeat Netanyahu, but the State Department gave them funding, which they used among other things to bus in Arabs and Bedouins to the polls.
Now, Obama is acting like a spoiled child who has yet to even congratulate Netanyahu. The White House says that Obama plans to call in the next couple of days. It should be called a concession call rather than a congratulatory call.
To make matters even sadder, the American media (with the notable exception of Fox News) is acting as if a dark cloud has settled over the Middle East with Netanyahu's victory. Maybe they haven't noted the dark clouds hanging over the Arab world. The media is upset that the election spells doom for Obama and Kerry's effort to bring about that Big Peace that would include a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu may not be perfect, but he is the closest thing to a Winston Churchill that the world has right now. He, President El-Sisi of Egypt, and King Abdullah of Jordan seem to be the only ones holding the world up at this time. Meanwhile, Europe has no leader of any stature, and we have Obama-worse than nobody.
So now it is left for John Kerry, "ably" assisted by the Baroness Lady Catherine Ashton of the EU to endure the insults of the Iranians as they beg them to make a deal that will bring Peace in our Time and Nobel peace prizes all around. Unless, of course, Israel spoils the party by attacking the Iranian nuke sites.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I guess I am still dense/confused. I am wondering how it is "bad" for the House to invite Netanyahu to address the American people and the world, but "good" for Obama Himself to address the Iranian people and the world.
Or "good" for he and his administration to interfere in, and attempt to influence, thankfully unsuccessfully, the free electoral process of the only "democracy" and ally (possibly now former ally) in that region.
As if emphasis was needed, I fear this situation only emphasizes Obama's Muslim proclivities toward Muslims and their causes, and against Jews/Israel.
I wait with bated breath for someone to 'splain it to me.
Elwood,
Here is what I think: I think Obama is an anti-semite. I can't prove it, but that's what i think.
No, I think Netanyahu resembles Sladkowski more than he does Churchill. Or Admiral Horthy perhaps.
elwood, you need a remedial course in geography and sovereignty. Netanyahu can send all the messages to America he wants, from Tel Aviv. President Obama has not been invited to address the Majlis, and wouldn't be without Ayatollah Khameini's approval, which will not be forthcoming, no matter what Gary likes to insinuate. Gary "thinks" a lot of things he can't prove. He can't prove them because there is no evidence to sustain his prejudice.
(No bated breath required).
Siarlys--thank you for at least clarifying/concurring that, in contrast to Iran, it is not necessary for Netanyahu to get Obama's permission/invitation to come here in person and address us. Similarly, I suppose Democrats could invite the Ayatollah Khameini, as the Republicans did Netanyahu (if they had the nerve, which they do not).
Just one of the many, MANY differences between the countries.
Gary--Of COURSE Obama is almost certainly an anti-Semite, as are Jeremiah Wright, Jesse Jackson,, Al Sharpton, Louis Farrakhan, and a fair number of other black folk as well.
Siarlys has confused evidence with proof; not the same thing at all. There is a lot of evidence out there which may fall short of proof for some, depending on what standard of proof they apply.
Neither of you mentioned any evidence elwood... and you still haven't.
Netanyahu had no business lobbying our congress against our government's policy. The Dept. of State should have denied him a visa, for interfering in the internal affairs of his intended host country.
(If Israel were subsidizing the United States, he might have pulled some strings... but it doesn't. It's the other way around.)
He interfered with our politics? How about Obama sending his operatives to Israel to support Herzog. How about the 350 grand the DOS sent there to support the Herzog forces?
Didn't you watch my Hitler parody????
Your Hitler parodies tend to be stiff, obscure, and dull... I've stopped watching them. I'd need to see a little more about what you mean by sending "operatives to Israel," but I can believe it could have happened. Yes, its wrong to intervene in another country's politics, whether its the U.S. intervening in Vietnam or sending operatives to Israel to sway the vote. But President Obama didn't appear before the Knesset to denounce the policies of the Netanyahu cabinet.
Hell, Siarlys, I even named names. It happened. I didn't pick that $350,000 figure out of a hat.
Siarlys,
If you knew about the points in the videos, you might see the humor in them.
I am still a work in progress when it comes to the choreography, but I think good points are made.
I saw a Hitler goes bonkers parody from the liberal side that bored me to tears. Maybe it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.
Gore the liberals ox all you want. I try to keep my hand in at it myself.
Post a Comment