Time for Democrats to face reality on Obama's pressure on Israel
From January 2009 to the present, the conflict between Israel and the United States has never been connected to any real chance of peace or ending the conflict in a manner that is consistent with American pledges about ensuring the Jewish state’s security. At this point, it is time for even those that have rationalized and apologized for Obama’s penchant for attacking Israel to face up to the fact that his behavior requires a better explanation than an alleged desire to save it from itself. Nor is the argument about Iran enough to justify what we are witnessing. Nothing about the current argument can be traced to U.S. security needs. Rather, its motive seems more about personal anger and vague ideological assumptions about Israel and the Palestinians that have no connection to reality.
That is a sobering thought that should motivate even those Democrats who are no fans of Netanyahu to begin speaking up against an administration policy that seems rooted in spite, not strategy.Or maybe not so vague.
Where does Israel fit into this? It seems that Victor Davis Hanson got it partly right when he wrote:I've been telling you all for eight years that the company a politician keeps matters. We could all have figured this out eight years ago (I did). What could go wrong?
Does Team Obama really believe that a murderous autocratic cabal like Hamas is merely different from a democratic constitutional republic like Israel? At best we have naiveté at the helm (Obama thinks he can mesmerize misunderstood killers), at worst, a genuine feeling that Israel is an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free--in other words, the Rev. Wright-Bill Ayers-Rashid Khalidi view of the Middle East.If D'Souza is correct (and what he writes is certainly plausible), it should be clear that Obama views Israel - like the United States - as a post-colonial country that is "an aggressive, Western imperialist power exploiting indigenous people of color who simply wish to be free." But Hanson got one detail wrong. Obama doesn't look at us that way because of Wright, Ayers and Khalidi. They just reinforced the view of Israel that Obama already had in his blood from his Kenyan father.
Labels: anti-colonialist, Barack Hussein Obama, Bill Ayers, fierce moral urgency, Jeremiah Wright, Palestinian state, Rashid Khalidi
posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 1:17 AM
3 Comments:
This is so funny:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-U8RvqaagsqI/VQ7_BGz-65I/AAAAAAAAOC8/Te2KwZN0s6A/s1600/Crystal%2BClear%2Bsm.jpg
American Jews beholden is awe to Obama need to finally say "We are anti Israel and pro Iran no matter what" and leave it at that. I don't think this is a rhetorical point. If American Jews go with the Democrats 67% now no doubt half of THEM would be cheering if Obama called in airstrikes against the Jews in Israel. The other half would sort of mumble at their shoes and regret the fact that their deposits for their planned trip to Israel were nonrefundable. I can't even imagine the dancing and singing at CNN or The Daily Show when they ran clips of flames and rubble in Jerusalem.
Would a Black American vote for a man that belonged to a Klu Klux Klan loving church? I doubt it. Why would a Jew (and we are all colors) , vote for a man that belonged to a Farrakkhan (a mulslim jew hater and muslim white race hater) loving church. It boggled my mind that they could do so. Now more are seeing the results of voting for Obama. It was not surprising at all to many of us. Why are politicians afraid to get rid of Obama. Are they afraid of race riots. I give my black fellow americans more credit than that.
Post a Comment
<< Home