Powered by WebAds

Thursday, September 24, 2009

Bolton: Obama put Israel on the chopping block

In this video, Fox News talks to John Bolton, the former United States ambassador to the United Nations, about President Obama's speech at the United Nations General Assembly on Wednesday. Bolton accuses Obama of putting Israel on the chopping block and says that the President accomplished nothing regarding Iran.

Let's go to the videotape and I'll have more afterward (Hat Tip: Weasel Zippers).

Bolton also spoke to National Review, where he spent more time on Israel and Iran than on Obama presenting himself as the anti-Bush.
“The most significant point of the speech was how the president put Israel on the chopping block in a variety of references, from calling Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegitimate to talking about ending ‘the occupation that began in 1967.’ That implies that he supports going back to 1967 borders,” says Bolton. “Obama has a very tough road ahead. He is frequently taking the side of the Palestinians, who don’t have a competent leader who can make hard decisions and compromises in the future.”

Also noteworthy, Bolton says, was how Obama highlighted “just how much of American foreign policy that he wants to run through the U.N.”

“Usually presidential speeches at the U.N. are ‘state of the world’ addresses. Obama’s speech was filled with talk about U.N. bodies, U.N. treaties, and sending Secretary of State Clinton to a conference on the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, which would be an incredible waste of time for her. The president’s speech showed a fascination with U.N.-centric issues. Obama talked about getting past ‘balance of power’ politics. He talked about the interests that unite us rather than divide us.”

Bolton’s conclusion: “It was all extremely naïve. The president did everything he could to say: ‘Can’t we all just get along?’”
Bolton is right: Obama did put Israel on the chopping block. Take a look at what the President said:
Now, I am not naïve. I know this will be difficult. But all of us -- not just the Israelis and the Palestinians, but all of us -- must decide whether we are serious about peace, or whether we will only lend it lip service. To break the old patterns, to break the cycle of insecurity and despair, all of us must say publicly what we would acknowledge in private. The United States does Israel no favors when we fail to couple an unwavering commitment to its security with an insistence that Israel respect the legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians. (Applause.)

And -- and nations within this body do the Palestinians no favors when they choose vitriolic attacks against Israel over constructive willingness to recognize Israel's legitimacy and its right to exist in peace and security. (Applause.) [emphasis added]
Aaron Lerner comments (via Daled Amos).
Is this a threat to take us back to the toolshed for a thrashing if we don't dance to his tune - or worse?

Here is how this kind of threatening talk boomerangs:

What kind of "risks for peace" can we take if the President of the United States says in a carefully prepared address to the UN that as far as he is concerned if at any time in the future - no matter what concessions and withdrawals we make - if we find ourselves in a dispute with the Palestinians and American thinks the Palestinians have a point then we can kiss America's "unwavering commitment to our security" goodbye.

Indeed. What is subsumed in the 'legitimate claims and rights of the Palestinians'? The 'right of return' that would accomplish by demography what the 'Palestinians' have not been able to accomplish by military means? The 'right' to force Israel to retreat to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines - and expel half a million Israelis from their homes - and then flood what is left of the country with more 'Palestinian refugees'? The 'right' to control the entire Holy Basin in and around the Old City of Jerusalem?

Either America's commitment to Israel's security is unwavering or it's not. With the Obumbler in the White House, clearly that commitment is lacking. Whether American Jews have awoken to that reality - or care about it - will be seen in November 2010 and 2012.


At 3:42 AM, Blogger NormanF said...

Obumbler can command - but he can't by his own admission, force any one to do anything they don't want to do.

Barry Rubin has a good writeup about Obumbler's naivete and lack of experience in international affairs.

His conclusion: Obumbler's no Machiavelli!

Read it all


Post a Comment

<< Home