President Obama gave the worst anti-Israel speech of any American president I can remember.~ John Bolton, Former U.S. ambassador to the U.N.
The speech was good and positive for Israel and for moving the peace process forward.
~ Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel
How can Bolton and Netanyahu, two seemingly rational, educated and intellectual men hear President Obama's U.N. speech Wednesday and come to such diametrical opposite conclusions? Both men proudly claim that they are conservatives; both men claim that they believe in a strong, independent, defensible Israel with an indivisible capital at Jerusalem. Answer: One man is a statesman like Sir Winston Churchill; the other is a politician, an appeaser like Neville Chamberlain.
Obama's speech was delivered with the dispassionate indifference of a man who was handed a speech others wrote for him and loaded into his teleprompter for him to read like a robot, yet the devil is always in the details. Here are some of the highlights of Obama's U.N. speech:
The time has come to relaunch negotiations – without preconditions – that address the permanent-status issues:security for Israelis and Palestinians; borders, refugees and Jerusalem. …
This paragraph could just as easily been written by Col. Moammar Gadhafi who ranted and raved for 100 minutes before the U.N. assembly and affectionately called President Obama "my brother." Obama's U.N. speech could have been written by a whole host of enemies of Israel – Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinians; Khaled Mashal, the Gaza leader of the terrorist organization Hamas; Nasrallah, the leader of Hezbollah terrorist group occupying Lebanon.
What does Obama mean by "the time has come to relaunch negotiations"? This guy is such a narcissist that he thinks whenever he does something, like trying to broker a peace deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians, that he is the first leader to attempt it. Every U.S. president since Harry Truman in the late 1940s have in one way or another tried and failed to "relaunch" peace in the Middle East.
Obama wants there to be "negotiations without preconditions." That statement is oxymoronic. All legitimate negotiations between parties done in good faith must set reasonable preconditions. For example, the Palestinians (and all Arab and Muslim nations) must accept the irrevocable fact that Israel is a legitimate nation-state with the right to exist in peace. The Palestinians and the 44 Muslim nations have been fighting against that simple precondition for 65 years.
President Obama further stated:
The goal is clear: two states living side by side in peace and security – a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis. ...
Can anyone name any place on the planet where a nation has a divided capital and is living in peace and security? Washington, D.C., London, Paris, Moscow, Beijing, Berlin, Riyadh, Tehran, Baghdad? To demand that any of these countries divide their capital in half and give one half to their largest ethnic minority group would be tantamount to that country committing genocide against itself, yet for over 40 years this is the untenable position the world has placed on the backs of the Israelis. Obama further emphasized his anti-sovereignty point when he arrogantly declared in his U.N. speech that "America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."
When Obama says, "… and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people," he is using perhaps the most evil, anti-Semitic languageI've ever heard from any American president against Israel. ("Contiguous" = unbroken "territory"; "occupation" = unlawfulseizure of land). Obama seems to be demanding that Israel give back the land the Jews won in the 1967 war, a war fought and paid for by the blood of thousands of courageous Israeli soldiers and Jewish civilians. Following Obama's perverse view of history, what nation on earth could lay legitimate claim to the land they presently have? There is not a place on earth where lands were not taken from another people but by force or war.
Obama wasn't finished with his screed when he said:
As we pursue this goal, we will also pursue peace between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Syria, and a broader peace between Israel and its many neighbors. In pursuit of that goal, we will develop regional initiatives with multilateral participation, alongside bilateral negotiations.
What "goal" does Obama wish to pursue for God's chosen people? Is Obama's "goal" tantamount to Hitler's "Final Solution" regarding the nation of Israel? Not to be histrionic here, but what other result would happen to America's most faithful ally if Obama throws her into the clutches of Lebanon (controlled by Hezbollah and Iran), or Gaza (controlled by Hamas and Iran) and Syria, who two years ago was on the fast track to develop nuclear weapons to "wipe Israel off the map" until Israel tactically executed a pre-emptive strike against Syria's secret nuclear facilities Sept. 6, 2007 – nuclear technology and weapons of mass destruction Syria bought from Iran.
President Obama's perverse worldview (not just regarding Israel) stems from the fact that virtually all of the people who mentored him during his early formative years were communists, terrorists, fanatical anti-Semites or haters of America. The most conspicuous example being Rev. Jeremiah Wright whose church propagated "liberation theology" – a racist, Marxist brand of religious hatred Barack and Michelle Obama dutifully enjoyed for 20 years.
That bad seed of anti-Semitism planted in the heart of Barack Obama by Rev. Wright was in full bloom during Obama's speech at the U.N. Ambassador Bolton wisely stated that President Obama's U.N. address just put "Israel on the chopping block."
Let me be clear: A divided Israel is an Israel that will be quickly and utterly destroyed by the Islamic countries surrounding her who are sworn by their Muslim religion to "kill the Jew where you find him." The Muslim world has dreamed of this day when a weak, Quisling leader in America like Obama would seek to curry favor of the Muslim nations to bolster his own universal reputation. The price? – a revival of Hitler's "Final Solution" and the genocide of the independent nation-state of Israel.
May God forbid.
3 comments:
Bolton is on my list of 5 whom I will support if a run for office is made--
BTW-I do not have a full list of 5 YET!!
Sad..
How about you add Midnight Rider to your list?
:)
TAQIYYA TACTICS AND TECHNIQUES
Logical fallacies and diversionary tactics used by taqiyya technicians
[1] Taqiyya about taqiyya. 'There is no such thing as Taqiyya' (or 'Taqiyya is something I never heard of and I had to go and look it up')
[2] Racism and guilt by association. 'You are expressing the same views about Islam as racists, therefore you are a racist.' This is similar to 'Communists believe two and two make four. You believe two and two make four. Therefore you are a Communist'. Also includes playing the race card and victim card, even equating Islam with race.
[3] Godwin's Law A special and inevitable case of Guilt by Association used in online discussions whereby the first person to invoke Hitler or the Nazis wins the argument
[4] Circular reasoning 'The Koran says it is the word of God. Therefore whatever it says is true. Therefore it is true that the Koran is the word of God.'
[5] Kuffar's quotes from the Koran are taken out of context. 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them' is taken out of context, and really means 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them setting fire to your house'.
[6] Kuffars can't understand the original Arabic. 'Kill the unbelievers wherever you find them' is actually a Medieval Arabic slang expression meaning 'Be kind to animals and birds'
[7] Tu Quoque (you also). 'We blow people up/ behead them but you do the same,' - Normally used in attempts to refute arguments that Islam is intrinsically violent. Often refers back to the Crusades, Inquisition etc.
[8] Abrahamic/monotheistic faith argument. 'Islam is just a further development of Christianity, a brother Abrahamic/ monotheist faith.'
Of course it isn't. Islam is a travesty and perversion of Christianity in many respects, and Jesus would probably have advised the paedophile Mohammed to tie a millstone round his neck and jump into the sea. (Mark 9:42)
[9] Nasty bits in the Bible. Yes, there are violent episodes in the Bible, but the Bible is descriptive of battles and massacres long ago, whereas the Koran is prescriptive of battles and massacres yet to come.
[10] Muslims quote abrogated verses from the Koran. A favorite one is 'Let there be no compulsion in religion'. This verse and many like it are actually null and void and disregarded by all Muslims (though not by gullible kuffars). They are peaceful Meccan verses which are competely cancelled by later and much more violent Medinan verses.
[11] 'You owe us a debt because Islam is the basis of Western civilisation'. This sort of statement is usually backed up by revisionist arguments that Muslims invented everything and were responsible for the Renaissance (Sheikh Speare was a Muslim playwright etc)
[12] 'A third of the world's population believe in Islam, so it deserves respect.' - But not so long ago a third of the world's population believed the earth was flat. Numbers don't mean anything, especially when the Islamic population is the most backward and illiterate on earth. Muslims are very keen on 'respect', but someone should tell them that respect needs to be earned.
Post a Comment