The American people should be completely ashamed that the President of the United States forwarded a plan this week that, if implemented, would assure the destruction of Israel. Yes, Obama thinks Israel should narrow itself to pre-1967 borders when it was as little as nine miles wide and constantly at war with its surrounding enemies. It would also require Israel to give up some of the most holy of religious sites for Jews and Christians that were plundered and desecrated the last time they were in the hands of Muslims. Fortunately, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has a sense of history of which President Obama is either completely ignorant or intentionally ignoring. In the exchange above, Netanyahu is clearly the only adult in this two-way conversation and is speaking directly to the American people pleading for understanding, while President Obama looks on with total enmity.
UPDATE: Indiana's two senators react to the President's speech. Sen. Dan Coats' comments clearly express disapproval:
“The president’s comments on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict were unwelcome and unprecedented. All agree the two sides in this extensive conflict must work toward a settlement that brings security and stability to the region. All agree that such a task is a complex and difficult undertaking. Unfortunately, the president’s remarks pushed the goal line further away.”
Sen. Richard Lugar, who is regarded for his stength in foreign affairs, offered this muddled reaction:
"The president of the United States has given a worldwide speech," Lugar told 6News' Tanya Spencer. "That brings a certain inflammation to the argument in a hurry."Yeah, new governments that are decidedly more anti-American, anti-Israeli and Muslim extemist in orientation. That makes for a great new ballgame. Lugar told WRTV he would not fault President Obama for his remarks suggesting Israel should return to its 1967 borders. No surprise there.
"Prime Minister Netanyahu takes very strong exception, as do most Israeli leaders. So this means that we've not made a great deal of headway during this week," Lugar said.
Lugar said he hopes that negotiations for peace in the Middle East are now more possible than ever. With new governments in Egypt and Tunisia, he said that part of the world is a brand new ballgame.
5 comments:
How is Israel such an indispensable nation that it is entitled to steal land from surrounding countries to ensure it's own safety?
Israel was created in a land grab in 1947, against the wishes of the people who lived there under its real name, Palestine. Almost no Jews lived in Palestine from 300 A.D. to the 1940's. The Romans saw to that.
The people from who the Jews stole the land to make their country want it back and always will.
Further, why is any religion entitled to a country, and why did Israel have to be placed in Palestine, instead of in Zaire or Australia?
If Israel wants our money, it had better damn well not criticize the strings we attach to it.
Be very careful in choosing sides against your own country and your own President in favor of another country whose interests are not ours.
So I take it, Cato, you think America should cede all of our lands back to the native American Indians? I also take it you don't believe in either Christian or Jewish theology.
America is not supposing to be creating foreign policy and meddling in the affairs of other countries based on the religions of our population.
As for the theological question, where did Jesus say that his followers were entitled to a country? Further, what relevance is a sacred text to a political discussion?
Israel represents the greatest threat to American national security. Our unquestioned support for them and their Apartheid tactics has caused us considerable ill will in the region. Perhaps wiping it off the face of the earth isn't such a bad idea.
In order to not be hypocrites about the land grabs, we need to go ahead and give Indiana back to the Indians.
Post a Comment