Sunday, May 22, 2011

Obama's Embarrassing Try For A Walk Back At AIPAC


President Obama made his speech at AIPAC this morning, and it could be reduced to the following:

"Aaaaghhhh, let me be perfectly clear. Uuuuuughhhh-hem, when I said that Israel should go back to the 1967 lines, I did not mean the lines that may or may not have existed before or after any hostilities that may or may not have occurred.

It was a misrepresentation for you to listen to what I said. You should have heard what I meant after the polls came out showing that what I said wasn't what I mean....now!"


The speech was politely received at AIPAC, but it's worth noting what the president chose to 'clarify':

  • The president barely mentioned Iran in his original speech. here, he emphasized the danger a nuclear armed Iran poses, but aside from talking about sanctions he's placing on Iran - which are obviously having a limited effect - nothing about what he's prepared to do to stop them.


  • Ditto on Hezbollah, who weren't even mentioned in Thursday's speech. Here, the president says 'we're working to stop them' but as usual, nothing concrete.


  • Today,, in front of AIPAC, the president says that "the recent agreement between Fatah and Hamas poses an enormous obstacle to peace." On Thursday, the Fatah/Hamas menage was merely 'problematic'.


  • Today, the president is demanding that "Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements." Thursday, there were no demands for Hamas at all.And what if Fatah and Hamas tell the president to go pound sand, as they have thus far? Then what is the president prepared to do? Again, no concrete penalties for 'Palestinian' actions, since only Israel gets demands. No, just more words to try and game the crowd and nothing concrete.


  • The president decided to double down on the use of the 1967 lines idea, saying that:

    The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

    As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.


    You'll notice I emphasized certain parts.

    The idea of a 'contiguous Palestinian state' would only be possible to someone who never learned to read a map.To put it bluntly, if 'Palestine' is contiguous, Israel won't be:

    http://www.washingtonpac.com/ISRAElpolmap.gif

    Next, note the phrase, 'Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself - against any threat.

    I mentioned this before. Since Israel has never demanded a single US soldier to fight its battles, what President Obama appears to be saying is that in the event of hostilities, the US will be neutral, will not supply Israel with arms or supplies, and that Israel is on its own as far as he's concerned.

    Next, look at the entire paragraph that deals with provisions to stop terrorism, stop the flow of weapons, provide border security and a phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces coordinated "with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state."

    Guess what- these are exactly the same assurances the Israelis got before Oslo and again before their retreat from Gaza.For that matter, the UN passed a resolution to that effect when it came to getting the Israelis to withdraw from Lebanon. Worked out well for Israel, didn't it?

    The 'Palestine' President Obama envisions is going to have a common border with Syria. The US did absolutely nothing to stop Iran and Syria from rearming Hezbollah, so why should yet another farcical land-for-peace deal work out any differently for Israel?

    If Israel signs a land for peace swap with the new 'Palestinian' government that includes Hamas, that means the 'Palestinians' already have plenty of lethal missiles, plus a lot of gently used US weapons courtesy of Fatah from the civil war in Gaza. Not only that, but thanks to President Obama's undermining of Egypt's Mubarak regime, the new military/Muslim Brotherhood government is already opening the Rafah crossing so that Hamas can get plenty more. Is President Obama planning to have US forces invade Gaza and take them away from Hamas? And what happens if the Israelis give up strategic depth in exchange for words and a piece of paper and the new Hamas/Fatah beast decides not to honor it anymore once they have the land under their possession? What if they suddenly decide to ally with Syria and Iran and bring those forces into 'Palestine'?

    If President Obama thinks what he's saying is realistic, he's either less bright than I already think he is, or he thinks the Israelis and their American supporters are really stupid. There's no third possibility.

    Even if the idea of land for peace and a demilitarized 'Palestinian' state weren't totally unrealistic, the fact remains that once again, the president is demanding that Israel give away land before the 'Palestinians' give away anything. There's no upside or logical reason whatsoever for the Israelis to negotiate anything with Hamas, and no reason for Israel to negotiate on something concrete like borders before the Pals agree on no 'right of return' and give up all claims to Jerusalem.

    There's no question in my mind that President Obama's omissions and circumlocutions on these matters is entirely deliberate. He wants Israel to agree to be raped, and he wants to create the fiction of consent beforehand.

    Which is why he's going to be meeting with the British PM David Cameron to co-ordinate the action against the Jewish State.

    please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

    1 comment:

    Isahiah62 said...

    If any JEW was in doubt about OBummer's true colors (pro-PALI) or that his "views" and narrative do not correspond 100% to that of ABBASS and other jewhaters- this speech should have shown them once and for all- If they cannot see he is exactly like a MUSLIM in behavior- say one thing to one audience and say anohter to your face- they are BLIND DEAF AND DUMB. Obama is a 2-faced LIAR-- a bold faced anti Israel who supports rewarding terrorist and Muslims with exactly what they damand. If you are Jewish and voted for him youare a FOOL stupid as those Jews who thought it was gonna be OK under Hitler- until it wasn't. If youare Jewish and think it's OK to shove Isarel under the bus you are a traitor to your people, your ancestors, and Hashem.
    You're apathy or indiffernce or outright condemnations, vote for the O, are purchasing death for other JEWS. Kahane was right.