Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Official: US Will Stand with Israel
ABC News ^ | June 01, 2010 | Jake Tapper

Posted on 06/01/2010 11:29:04 AM PDT by Route797

I’m told there won’t 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 ...


TOPICS: Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: allies; bho44; bhomiddleeast; israel; obama

1 posted on 06/01/2010 11:29:05 AM PDT by Route797
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Route797

Total complete absolute insanity on display.


2 posted on 06/01/2010 11:30:58 AM PDT by screaminsunshine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

I thought the U.S. had condemned Israel with regard to the boarding incident.


3 posted on 06/01/2010 11:31:37 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

Why does none of this ring true for an administration that throws Israel under the bus at least once every other week?


4 posted on 06/01/2010 11:31:42 AM PDT by mojito
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine
Total complete absolute insanity on display.

Sorry, but no.

Absolute insanity would be unpredictable.

This isn't.

5 posted on 06/01/2010 11:32:35 AM PDT by Izzy Dunne (Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Route797

Obama lies.

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.


6 posted on 06/01/2010 11:33:18 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797
Jake, what you're being told is what you're being told. You're Jake Tapper.

7 posted on 06/01/2010 11:34:39 AM PDT by Genoa (Luke 12:2)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

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.


8 posted on 06/01/2010 11:35:45 AM PDT by Darksheare (Windows Se7en: It's called "seven" for a reason.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

My interpretation is the Obama administration is worried about political disaster in November if they anger wealthy Jewish campaign donors once again.
They’ve decided they must give Israel a minimum of support on this incident.


9 posted on 06/01/2010 11:36:07 AM PDT by devere
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

” 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...


10 posted on 06/01/2010 11:36:09 AM PDT by Uncle Ike (Rope is cheap, and there are lots of trees...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.


11 posted on 06/01/2010 11:36:47 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: screaminsunshine

Yes.


12 posted on 06/01/2010 11:37:04 AM PDT by nolongerademocrat ("Before you ask G-d for something, first thank G-d for what you already have." B'rachot 30b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Route797

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.


13 posted on 06/01/2010 11:41:19 AM PDT by kevao
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797
Don't trust the Muslim, BB,stay on your guard..He is a snake..The people of this country are with our friends in Israel..If obama was actually serious about this he would sent battle ships to help you..I know you don't need help but it would show the enemy where we stand..but don't hold your breath he won't send anything..
14 posted on 06/01/2010 11:41:50 AM PDT by PLD (be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

It goes against every fiber of Obastards being to side with Israel.


15 posted on 06/01/2010 11:41:55 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The US will not die with a whimper. It will die with thundering applause from the left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

They are saying they stand with Israel but aren’t, really.


16 posted on 06/01/2010 11:43:17 AM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

“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.


17 posted on 06/01/2010 11:43:52 AM PDT by Shermy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Route797

And this cartoon applies to Israel as well...

18 posted on 06/01/2010 11:44:07 AM PDT by rlmorel (We are traveling "The Road to Serfdom".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

Those seeking power for its own sake will say anything to anyone to acquire it.


19 posted on 06/01/2010 11:47:41 AM PDT by ctdonath2 (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shermy

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.


20 posted on 06/01/2010 11:47:44 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

I think that was the UN.


21 posted on 06/01/2010 11:48:07 AM PDT by b4its2late (Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

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.


22 posted on 06/01/2010 11:50:09 AM PDT by 9YearLurker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Route797
Israel was in the right.

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.

More here:

http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/7694fe2016f347e1c125641f002d49ce

23 posted on 06/01/2010 11:51:09 AM PDT by NavyCanDo (Palin will see the Potomac from Her House)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

We’re winning.

Redouble the pressure.


24 posted on 06/01/2010 11:52:04 AM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Socialist/Jihadist Obama Boats: Blockade running in support of terrorists since 2010.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote

Ditto to all of that.


25 posted on 06/01/2010 11:55:07 AM PDT by Gator113 (OBAMA THAT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE..... IMPEACH Obama NOW..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late

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.


26 posted on 06/01/2010 11:55:11 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Shermy
Six ships boarded, only one resisted.  That's what Al Jazeera says.

Of the 682 people from 42 countries aboard the six ships that were raided, 380 are believed to be Turkish.

The unmistakable fact is, Israel did not go in guns blazing.  Five ships were boarded without incident.  Only one ship had a crew intent on resisting Israeli commandos.

This was premeditated, and Israel had no choice.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2010/06/20106116559782549.html


27 posted on 06/01/2010 11:56:03 AM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

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.....


28 posted on 06/01/2010 11:56:25 AM PDT by b4its2late (Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Route797

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.


29 posted on 06/01/2010 11:57:21 AM PDT by Hardraade (I want gigaton warheads now!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: b4its2late
Couldn't agree more... in fact...


30 posted on 06/01/2010 12:00:38 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: EternalVigilance

“We’re winning.”

Can you elaborate on that? I wish I shared your optimism...


31 posted on 06/01/2010 12:25:40 PM PDT by EEDUDE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne

Yes, yes and yes for multiple reasons... Real Estate not first and foremost...


32 posted on 06/01/2010 12:36:25 PM PDT by b4its2late (Why does a slight tax increase cost you $200 and a substantial tax cut save you 30 cents?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Route797

Hussein standing “with” him probably worries Bibi more than Turks and the rest of the Muslim world.


33 posted on 06/01/2010 12:38:00 PM PDT by Oldpuppymax
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Route797

That “snapping” sound you hear is Jewish American wallets, purses and checkbooks closing.


34 posted on 06/01/2010 12:47:53 PM PDT by JPG (Mr. Gore, we have a warrant for your arrest...put your hands behind your back.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DoughtyOne
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.

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.

35 posted on 06/01/2010 12:55:35 PM PDT by colorado tanker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Route797

Why is it I believe absolutely nothing or anyone affiliated with the Oliar administration?...


36 posted on 06/01/2010 12:58:54 PM PDT by WKUHilltopper (Fix bayonets!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

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.


37 posted on 06/01/2010 12:59:34 PM PDT by DoughtyOne (J. D. Hayworth, the next Senator, the Great State of Arizona - Sen. Poopdeck, Panama is calling...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: EEDUDE

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.


38 posted on 06/01/2010 1:05:11 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Socialist/Jihadist Obama Boats: Blockade running in support of terrorists since 2010.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: colorado tanker

Outstanding analysis.


39 posted on 06/01/2010 1:06:51 PM PDT by EternalVigilance ("Socialist/Jihadist Obama Boats: Blockade running in support of terrorists since 2010.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Route797

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.


40 posted on 06/01/2010 1:06:59 PM PDT by Nevadan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson