Skip to comments.Official: US Will Stand with Israel
Posted on 06/01/2010 11:29:04 AM PDT by Route797
Im told there wont be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists.
Regardless of the details of the flotilla incident, sources say President Obama is focused on what he sees as the longer term issue here: a successful Mideast peace process.
The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure, a senior administration official tells ABC News.
The suggestion is that US condemnation of Israel would further isolate that country, and make further peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians even more difficult.
The senior administration official says that President Obama spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu three times on Monday. Mr. Obama pushed the notion that last night as the United Nations Security Council met to issue a statement about the incident was the moment when the US had maximum leverage, that the longer the statement was being debated the worse it would ultimately be for Israel.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.abcnews.com ...
Total complete absolute insanity on display.
I thought the U.S. had condemned Israel with regard to the boarding incident.
Why does none of this ring true for an administration that throws Israel under the bus at least once every other week?
Sorry, but no.
Absolute insanity would be unpredictable.
He cannot focus. Not now. Not ever.
He is beyond stupid.
He defines incompetence.
He is proof that Harvard long ago abandoned standards.
He is a slime mold.
Septic tanks would reject him.
Flies avoid him.
Anyone else notice that the number of dead ‘activists’ keeps changing?
Yesterday they said 9, 10, then 16.
Today they keep bobbing between 9 and 10.
And we’ll stick with Israel long enough to push them off a cliff as per Obama.
None of our allies can trust us with him ‘in charge’ as he puts it.
My interpretation is the Obama administration is worried about political disaster in November if they anger wealthy Jewish campaign donors once again.
Theyve decided they must give Israel a minimum of support on this incident.
” Mr. Obama pushed the notion that last night as the United Nations Security Council met to issue a statement about the incident was the moment when the US had maximum leverage, that the longer the statement was being debated the worse it would ultimately be for Israel. “
Somebody correct me if I read this wrong - but it sure sounds like Obama told Bibi, in kindergarten-level diplo-speak, that we ain’t about to oppose, much less veto, the UN condemnation....
The ‘official’ quoted in the article must be the receptionist for the 14th Assistant Deputy Undersecretary for Coffee and Sweet Roll Procurement...
Actually it was the U.N. that had condemned Israel, and Rush misread it saying the U.S. had. He corrected his comment a few minutes ago.
Obama is “standing with Israel” on this one for the very same reason he was planning to meet with Bibi today at the White House — to shore up his support among Jewish Americans, who are becoming increasingly disillusioned with Zero the Hero.
It goes against every fiber of Obastards being to side with Israel.
They are saying they stand with Israel but aren’t, really.
“I thought the U.S. had condemned Israel with regard to the boarding incident.”
Can’t beat video. Especially the real stuff, not Pallywood/BBC etc. fabrications.
Anti-Semitism is stupid, but here it is reaching extremes of delusions. The left wing obsession with Israel’s “blockade” versus Egypt’s complete blockade, and Arab brother no less, cannot be well explained other than anti-Semitic obsessiveness. Or that they fear the Egyptians will shoot them but the Israelis will not, and because the Isrealis broke their assumptions, they are outraged.
And this cartoon applies to Israel as well...
Those seeking power for its own sake will say anything to anyone to acquire it.
I agree Shermy. And you know what, we’re hearing about the one ship where there was trouble. What about the others where there wasn’t any trouble? Did they board more than one ship? I’d be surprised if they didn’t.
If so, it puts the lie to the idea Israel went in guns blazing. The sixth ship could have been just as peaceful as the others.
I think that was the UN.
Hmmm. Old Obama cronies behind the crazy flotilla. But they attempt to break the Egyptian-Israeli blockade in a fashion that predictably draws Israel out to defend herself—and stir up the crazy Muzzies. Then Obama comes out ‘standing with’ Israel, just in time to crank up those flagging 2010 election donations from American Jews.
67. Merchant vessels flying the flag of neutral States may not be attacked unless they:
(a) are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband or BREACHING A BLOCKADE, and after prior warning they intentionally and clearly refuse to stop, or intentionally and clearly resist visit, search or capture;
(b) engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
(c) act as auxiliaries to the enemy s armed forces;
(d) are incorporated into or assist the enemy s intelligence system;
(e) sail under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft; or
(f) otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and it is not feasible for the attacking forces to first place passengers and crew in a place of safety. Unless circumstances do not permit, they are to be given a warning, so that they can re-route, off-load, or take other precautions.
Redouble the pressure.
Ditto to all of that.
You are right. I posted a correction a few posts down.
Rush had said the U.S., but it was actually the U.N. He misread it, then corrected himself a few minutes later.
Yes, I heard him and thought it weird though with this bunch in charge, nothing surprises me. But the UN, what a waste of prime real estate in NYC.....
Of course not. The US is currently enfolded in deepest darkness. Or inky blackness. There’s not gonna be daylight anywhere in the vicinity of this administration.
Can you elaborate on that? I wish I shared your optimism...
Yes, yes and yes for multiple reasons... Real Estate not first and foremost...
Hussein standing “with” him probably worries Bibi more than Turks and the rest of the Muslim world.
That “snapping” sound you hear is Jewish American wallets, purses and checkbooks closing.
DO, your posts aroused my curiosity, so I did some research. This thing was engineered so Barry could support both sides.
What the Security Council actually did was adopt a "Presidential Statement." Unlike resolutions, presidential statements are nonbinding, but they can only be adopted by consensus of the entire Council. So, the US supported the Presidential Statement as issued. Now, it is true that the US negotiated with Turkey to soften the statement Turkey initially wanted, but it did support the action. Here's the key text:
The Security Council deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries resulting from the use of force during the Israeli military operation in international waters against the convoy sailing to Gaza. The Council, in this context, condemns those acts which resulted in the loss of at least 10 civilians and many wounded, and expresses its condolences to their families.
There is other language calling on release of the ships and declaring the Gaza situation "unsustainable," you know, the usual drivel.
Now, the world and the news media interpret this language as condemning Israel. To me, that is the clear intention. But Barry and Gibbsie don't interpret it that way and since it's nonbinding to begin with who can issue any ruling that they're wrong? And, as you note, they have a second layer of deniability because the U.S. rep never condemned Israel, if that's what the language means, the President of the Security Council did. Of course, he could only have done that if we agreed he could, but that's just a minor detail.
The Liar in Chief strikes again.
Why is it I believe absolutely nothing or anyone affiliated with the Oliar administration?...
That’s a nice summary. I agree with your logic there. I think it’s important to make the distinctions you did too. We shouldn’t allow Obama to get away with agreeing to one thing, then claiming he didn’t actually agree to anything of the kind.
Thanks. Good job.
The new media, of which we are part, has countered the vast anti-Israel propaganda machine, time and again. Including this time when those who hate the people of Israel hold all the power and all the cards.
And we’re forcing Obama to back off, at least in his public pronouncements.
Our side still doesn’t know it’s own strength.
But we’re getting there.
That’s what I meant by my comment.
re: The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,
That’s rich. So, it’s “Israel” that needs to “make peace”?? Again, the responsibility of “peace” is laid at Israel’s feet. These “peace, humanitarian activits” on the flotilla were hoping for this to happen.
Israel gave them every opportunity, and then some, to turn aside - they warned the respective governments ahead of time. They repeated to the world why they would stop these so-called “humanitarin” activites from smuggling weapons to the Hamas. Everyone knows this is the truth, but they all lie over and over and over.