We believe that Obama is no friend of Israel. Although he says nice things, the reality is that his words are not backed by action. He says he supports Israel but does not have his UN Ambassador press it in the UN. He says that the country has the right to "defend itself," yet denies Israeli actions to use military force.
We have said this before and want to repeat it again, one day, Israel will have to fight by itself against overwhelming odds. It will win, but the cost will be tremendous. We would hope that at that time, whomever is Prime Minister will not listen to the UN, the US, or the international community and finish the job instead of being stopped in mid battle as they were in 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973.
Conservative Tom
Politics: Obama to Israel: Stand down and stay on defense
Published by: Robert Laurie on Sunday November 18th, 2012
By ROBERT LAURIE – Obama warns Israel not to deal with Hamas.
Imagine you’re in a darkened alley, when a thug appears with a knife. He lunges forward, trying to stab you, but you manage to deflect the attack. Then, you stand back calmly, so the assault comes once more. Again, you manage to intercept the blade and avoid injury. So, your attacker thrusts, over, and over, and over again. Each time you manage to dodge your assailant, but you never neutralize him.
How long do you think you can keep that up before he manages to land the killing blow?
Well, if Barack Obama is to be believed, the answer is either “forever,” or “until he gets tired of attacking and gives up.” At least, that’s his attitude toward Israel.
As rockets rain down on America’s only real Middle-Eastern ally, Obama has said that the nation has “every right to defend itself.” As long as Israel can intercept the incoming missiles, our President is perfectly happy to let them. Just so long as they don’t get any ideas about actually dealing with Hamas, the root cause of their troubles.
When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that the time had come to “ramp up” their strategy, press into Gaza, and handle their attackers once and for all, Obama quickly warned against it.
According to the AP, this morning in Thailand Obama took the opportunity to urge Israel to rethink its plan to attack those who would see their nation wiped off the map.
He again claimed that Israel had the right to “defend itself” against inbound rockets, but also said that she should not engage in any sort of ground fight in Gaza. Such an undertaking, he said, would put Israeli soldiers at risk and cause Palestinian civilian casualties.
There was no mention of the military or civilian death toll caused by the rockets which have managed to penetrate Israel’s “iron dome” defense system. Apparently, they’re not as important, since they have less impact on the President’s desire to continue the search for a two-state solution.
"If we see a further escalation of the situation in Gaza,” The President said, “the likelihood of us getting back on any kind of peace track that leads to a two-state solution is going to be pushed off way into the future."
So a strong offense will harm the talks, but sitting back and watching the missiles explode in Jerusalem is A-OK.
Obama obviously thinks that Israel should allow her enemies to continue the murder of her citizens, because we wouldn’t want the Palestinians to get upset and stop their insincere negotiations. If that’s his definition of a “peace process” we’re all in very serious trouble.
It seems that the President would prefer that Israel handle its defense the way he handled Benghazi. Appease a gang of terrorists, ignore their threats until it’s too late, “stand down” when the real fighting starts, cover the whole thing up in the aftermath, and sweep the ugliness under the rug so we can all just forget about it.
What’s really interesting is that the President doesn’t normally apply any of these principles to his own global military endeavors. Obama has no problem killing America’s enemies via ground attack, he positively revels in erasing names from his “kill list” via Drone strike, and he was eager to enter into an unconstitutional mini-war with Libya.
However, for some reason, the President wants Israel on a perpetual and ultimately unsustainable defense.
Until the U.S. has a change of leadership, the Israeli people should operate under the assumption that our government – though not necessarily our people – no longer have their backs. Sadly, they’re in a position where they need to ignore the American President, as it’s become clear that he does not hold their best interests at heart
This guy has a very short memory. Israel did a ground attack on Gaza 2008-09 and killed 1,440 Palestinians. Did that work? No. They are back firing more rockets than ever into Israel. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result. The Israeli public understands this, even if this guy does not. They just did a poll in Israel. 84% approve airstrikes in Gaza. Only 30% of them approve another ground invasion. So, 70% of Israelis agree with Obama, and 30% agree with this guy.
ReplyDelete-David
Need to re-read the article. He does not suggest an invasion.......
ReplyDeleteYes, he did. And he criticized Obama for saying it would be a mistake...
ReplyDeleteFrom the article...
"When Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu suggested that the time had come to “ramp up” their strategy, press into Gaza, and handle their attackers once and for all, Obama quickly warned against it.
According to the AP, this morning in Thailand Obama took the opportunity to urge Israel to rethink its plan to attack those who would see their nation wiped off the map.
He again claimed that Israel had the right to “defend itself” against inbound rockets, but also said that she should not engage in any sort of GROUND FIGHT in Gaza. Such an undertaking, he said, would put Israeli soldiers at risk and cause Palestinian civilian casualties."
That is his whole basis for criticizing Obama. By the way, if this guy were giving an honest assessment, he would have mentioned that Israel has Obama to thank for his contributions to their Iron Dome that is knocking down 90% of the incoming rockets.
--David
To read more about Israel's Iron Dome. It is Israel's contribution. Our Patriot missile battreys didn't work.
ReplyDeleteThe US did contribute money but apparently little technology.
http://www.businessinsider.com/how-israel-developed-the-iron-dome-2012-11?op=1
I was referring to the nearly $900 million under Obama that the U.S. has contributed to pay Iron Dome. The guy doesn't mention that. I take it that you now agree with me that his complaint against Obama is that Obama cautioned against a ground invasion -- as do 70% of Israelis, according to opinion polling in Israel.
ReplyDelete--David
The issue facing Israel is how does one stop the rockets (with or without Iron Dome or similar systems)and the terrorism that is part of the Hamas charter which denies the right for Israelis to exist in their country.
ReplyDeletePeace can only be attained by having a partner equally engaged in reaching a peaceful end. Israel has NO such partner.
We have seen how well unilateral retreating from Gaza worked. Land for peace was sold as a way to solve the issue. Obviously that is a very flawed concept.
If I was in charge, I would let those in Gaza know that the next rocket would result in a square mile of desolation around the launch site. Everything would be leveled and every living being would be eradicated. It might take a couple counter attacks but after a point, those in Gaza would understand we meant business. And they can do this without ANY troops being involved.
As far as the 900 million, that is an absolute drop in the bucket and a salve to those Jews and Christians who might vote for someone other than the Dictator had the money not flowed. It is all political posturing, not real beliefs.
ReplyDeleteIf Obama really meant what he said, he would have Ambassador Rice go to the UN and denounce the attacks on the civilian population of Israel. Haven't heard a word like that, have we? Obama is all talk and NO action and the US is viewed as a paper tiger!
Without the $900 million "drop in the bucket" to build Iron Dome, hundreds of Israelis could have died in this attack.
ReplyDeleteRegarding Susan Rice, you wrote, "Haven't heard a word like that, have we?"
Actually, we have heard from Susan Rice. She defended Israel in the UN Security Council meeting in opposition to the denouncements of Israel by Morocco and Egypt...
Morocco and Egypt, on behalf of the stateless Palestinians, hastened to the UN Security Council, wanting to stop the violence and condemn Israel for its disproportionate use of force. The Council’s President, India’s Hardeep Singh Puri said, “All the statements that I heard resonated with one message – that the violence has to stop. There has to be de-escalation.”
The United States defended Israel. Susan Rice put the onus on Hamas. “There is no justification for the violence that Hamas and other terrorist organizations are employing against the people of Israel,” she said. “Israel, like any nation, has the right to defend itself against such vicious attacks.”
http://www.jadaliyya.com/pages/index/8419/the-agonies-of-susan-rice_gaza-and-the-negroponte-
Obama has given unwavering military support to Israel, and consistently backed Israel in the U.N. In that regard, his policy is no different than his predecessors.
--David
>If I was in charge, I would let those in Gaza know that the next rocket would result in a square mile of desolation around the launch site.
ReplyDeleteOkay, but note that Obama's statement does not suggest any upper limit on how many Palestinians Israel may kill in airstrikes, and neither did the opinion poll of Israelis. The only caution was about starting a ground invasion, and that was this guy's only complaint about Obama's statement as far as I can tell.
--David
By the way, on Thursday there will be a vote in the U.N. General Assembly to recognize Palestine as a state. Rumor has it that some European countries, possibly including Great Britain, will vote in favor this time.
ReplyDeleteI will be interested to see your response when the U.S. stands with Israel and votes against Palestinian statehood.
--David
Just because a murderer is nice to his family, it does not do away with the fact that he murdered someone. One good act does not wash away other sins.
ReplyDeleteWhat other "sins"? If saying that a ground invasion in Gaza would be a strategic mistake constitutes a "sin," then 70% of the Israeli public are guilty of the same sinful thought as Obama. I swear I can't find any other complaint from this guy (or you) that Obama has done wrong by Israel.
ReplyDeleteI have given you both military and diplomatic examples of Obama consistently supporting Israel. I have not seen anything concrete and factual from you on the other side of the ledger.
--David
What about the demand that Israel retreat to indefensible borders? What about the threat of eliminating foreign aid and military support if the Israelis don't agree to go along with his plan? What about the abysmal treatment of Israel's Prime Minister? Do I need to go on?
ReplyDeleteObama is very good of "saying" the right things but when it comes to "doing" he is missing in action.
Do I need to quote the speech again? He made no such "demands" or "threats". On the contrary, he simply suggested "1967 borders with mutually-agreed land swaps" to deal with Israel's security issues in a 2-state solution. If both sides can't come to a mutual agreement within this framework, then there would be no cutting of Israel's foreign aid or military support. Show me a quote to the contrary from Obama, if you can. Israel has received substantial military aid and diplomatic support in the U.N. under Obama. There is no evidence to support your claim.
ReplyDelete--David
You simply do not understand the situation. Israel cannot exist with the borders as proposed.
ReplyDeleteAs far as a two state solution, that is butkus. The Arabs will only be happy when Israel is reduced to a smoking cinder. They have no intention of letting up on demands for more and more territory until Israel is only Tel Aviv and one nuke can destroy the entire population.
As far as quotes, these threats were made between the Prime Minister and the President.
ReplyDeleteDavid, one last point that you have never understood in the comments on 1967 borders. You seem to catch the nuance of "with mutually agreed land swaps", however, the other side never understood or wanted to understand. In fact, they interpreted it as the 1967 borders were the starting point without any nuance.
ReplyDeleteIt is obvious that you have not studies the Middle East or understand how that part of the world works. Everything is a negotiation. What you say is only a starting point. If I am selling, I start very high and then negotiate until there is an agreement. Most times if I am skilled, I will get a much better price than I really wanted.
If I am buying I start very low.
If someone says that the 1967 borders are a starting point regardless of the nuance, it only means to the Arabs that they are going to get an even better deal!
The two-state solution has been proposed by Obama, Bush, and Clinton. The "1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps" was a suggested framework for starting a negotiation, but it was not a "demand" and there were no "threats." The negotiations went nowhere, and Obama nonetheless has continued vigorous military and diplomatic support for Israel ever since. Show me a quote from any representative of the U.S. or Israeli government that any threats were made. You must be getting this from some crazy blogger.
ReplyDelete--David
The demands for 1967 borders were the starting point for negotiations. That means that for Israel, the borders could only become more restrictive!
ReplyDeleteI do not know why you cannot see that!
Of course, I see that! By definition, no matter what the final borders may become, we cannot have a Palestinian state without Israel's borders becoming more restrictive. Israel would have to concede some territory currently under its control in order to create the Palestinian state. That is a given.
ReplyDeleteMy point is that there was no "demand" that Israel agree to a two-state solution in the first place, or accept 1967 borders with mutually agreed land swaps as a starting framework for their negotiations. And absolutely no "threat" if they did not. They have continued to receive generous military and diplomatic aid from the U.S. ever since Obama's proposal.
--David
David, why should Israel have to give up land, it already gave up Gaza and the Sinai?
ReplyDeleteYou say that there was no "demand" that Israel accept the 1967 borders, however, when the President says that that must be the starting point of any discussions, that, sir, is a demand.
As far as a "threat" were you there during the discussion? If not, don't talk. And secondly, don't you understand the Chicago way of doing negotiations?