Skip to comments.Obama Takes It Personally
Posted on 05/21/2008 8:21:21 AM PDT by SJackson
By any measure, President Bushs speech to the Knesset last week on the occasion of Israels 60th birthday was nothing short of stunning. This paean to the bond between the United States and Israel, while personal in many ways, went beyond anything any U.S. president had previously said and expressed sentiments that all people of good faith and seekers of peace can relate to and embrace.
The presidents message was that when it comes to Israel, the U.S. would never accommodate terrorist pressure or political importuning from any source, and those who think otherwise had better reevaluate their position. He declared before one and all that the fight against terror and extremism is the defining challenge of our time and that America and Israel face a common enemy and are in this fight together.
America, he said, is proud to be Israels closest ally and best friend in the world. He spoke of Jews as the chosen people with a homeland promised by God. He praised Israels miraculous achievements in all areas of human endeavor and its leadership in several key ones. He referred to Israel as Eretz Yisrael.
The presidents speech was an opportunity for Senator Barack Obama to once and for all dispel the uneasiness in pro-Israel circles with his plans for the Middle East and the concern that his ambiguities will encourage those seeking to harm Israel. The venue of the presidents speech was, after all, the Israeli parliament on the occasion of a landmark anniversary for Israel. Was it too much to expect Sen. Obama to say something positive about the occasion?
Sadly, not only did he avoid any reference to Israel, he focused instead on one small portion of Mr. Bushs speech. It was as if the president had not delivered the most unique speech of its kind in memory.
In his speech, President Bush, referring to the rants and threats of Hamas, Hizbullah, Ahmadinejad and Osama bin Laden, said:
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain their words away. This is natural. But it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously....
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided. We have an obligation to call this what it isthe comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Sen. Obama erupted in a high state of umbrage, saying that the reference to appeasement was dishonest and divisive and exactly the kind of appalling attack thats divided our country and alienates us from the rest of the world. Not a word was uttered about anything else in the presidents speech.
It is ironic that it was Sen. Obama himself who put the issue in play. As we noted last week, when asked in an interview why it was that a high Hamas official publicly welcomed his election, he responded:
Its conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so hes not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush. [Emphasis added]
So maybe the terrorists have a point and it is George W. Bush who is the cause of the worlds ills because he wont listen to their grievances against the U.S. In fact, Sen. Obama recently told New York Times columnist David Brooks that the U.S. needs a foreign policy that looks at the root causes of problems and dangers, adding that Hizbullah and Hamas need to be compelled to understand that theyre going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.
President Bushs speech at the Knesset was repeatedly interrupted by standing ovations. What he said about Israel was given enhanced significance by the dramatic events in Lebanon as Hizbullah was busy demonstrating its effective control of the country. It was unquestionably an opportunity for Sen. Obama to support those parts of Mr. Bushs comments about Israel with which he agreed.
Unfortunately, it seems he found little if anything in the speech with which he could agree. And maybe thats the point he inadvertently made.
This nation will remain divided.
There's no way many Americans want to link up with these socialist (communist) America-hating traitors!
Nobama never read shakespeare then. Methinks he protesteth too much.
As Mark Steyn wrote earlier this week....”It says something for Democrat touchiness that the minute a guy makes a generalized observation about folks who appease terrorists and dictators the Dems assume: Hey, theyre talking about me.”
Ladies and gentlemen, the "H-Word" has now entered the areana. It is now open season for any Rupublican with the brass to bring it up.
This raises the question: Is there any way to break out the support that is given to John McCain (as the probable most likely intellectual heir to the George W. Bush doctrine), to Herself, still the Cold and Joyless, and to Barack, the Magic Negro, among first the religious and practicing Jews, and to the rather larger number of ethnic but non-practicing Jews?
This would be telling in two ways, first in the dedication that American Jews have for Israel, and more importantly, whether self-interest is a compelling motivation among various segments of this population.
This by itself would not change the outcome of the looming Presidential race, but it would be a good indicator to watch in future political moves.
Obama whines more than McCain did when McCain was a POW. And Obama is either narcissistic or a solipsist who cannot think that Bush had to be talking about him. After all, Bush’s speech about Israel’s 60th anniversary wasn’t about Israel’s history, or the history of the Jews and the West’s failure in the 20th Century, it was all about Obama.
“Obama Takes It Personally”
If the shoe fits, wear it.
Note that I can think of, in fact I’d be highly skeptical of the results of most polls in that area. Most just don’t get a large enough sample
I was disappointed more of Bush’s speech wasn’t highlighted in the press. I had to seek out an online video to hear more than the single line that seemed to capture all the headlines. Although I cheered when he slapped down the appeasers among us, there was so much more to the speech. As a Christian and supporter of Israel, I was deeply touched. My feelings were bittersweet when Bush said this at the end:
“And you have built a mighty democracy that will endure forever and can always count on the United States of America to be at your side. God bless.”
I hope Israel can continue to count on the U.S. after the next election. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out Obama’s true feelings about Israel.
“Obama takes it personally....”
If this socialist gets elected there’s going to be a hell of a lot more he’s going to get to take personally!
I would be interested to know if the Jewish Press is generally a “mainstream” Jewish publication, or are these writers already right-wing Jews to begin with....
Bush’s speech came after a BHO adviser said ‘Jeruselum must be on the table.’
Obama Advisor: Put Jerusalem on Negotiating Table
In the course of Obama’s winding interview with Jeffrey Goldberg yesterday, there was very little discussion of the substantive issues that impede a comprehensive settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Obama briefly touched on Israeli settlements, which “at this juncture are not helpful” he said, but made no mention of the security fence, or right of return, or the final status of Jerusalem. What are his positions on these issues? Another Obama advisor speaks out:
Daniel Kurtzer, former ambassador to Israel and advisor of U.S. presidential hopeful Barack Obama, said Tuesday that Jerusalem must be included in peace talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.
“It will be impossible to make progress on serious peace talks without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table,” Kurtzer said in a conference organized by the Jewish People Policy Planning Institute (JPPPI).
Kurtzer, who has been appointed Obama’s advisor for the Middle East, said that future governments will have to deal with the issue of Jerusalem, as opposed to the current Israeli administration which is not.
JPPPI head and Winograd war panel member Yechezkel Dror said that Jerusalem must become the cultural center of the Jewish people.
Kurtzer said in response that “before we do that, we must first accept a number of facts and the political reality of Arabs who live in East Jerusalem who do not feel part of the city.”
Jerusalem, by Israeli law, is the undivided capital of Israel, and there’s no reason to believe the next government will be any more willing to deal on this point than the last. The J Street contingent will be thrilled to hear that Obama’s advisors have plans to force that government into making painful concessions regardless, but it’s unclear whether Obama shares these views. Would an Obama administration redraw the map of Jerusalem on its own? What if that was the only way to heal the “constant sore” that “infects all of our foreign policy”?
Posted by Michael Goldfarb on May 13, 2008 12:09 PM | Permalink
I’m surprised that the link between Poland and Jerusalum and Chamberlain and Obama isn’t more clear!
Obama also told David Brooks
There are rarely purely ideological movements out there.
So what really drives these maniacs, Senator Obama?
This guy doesn’t get it!
I’d call it mainstream, but it’s geared toward the right.
Obama is a trained organizer, trained in the Saul Alinsky style. Personalizing an issue is part of the technique.
And which legitimate claims would those be? That we are Christians and Jews therefore we most be killed?