Posted on 03/04/2015 5:10:58 AM PST by Dave346
Leading Arab opinion makers weighed in on the controversy surrounding Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to Congress on Tuesday and expressed strong support for his stance on the Iranian nuclear threat.
In an op-ed for the Saudi Arabian daily Al-Jazirah on Monday, columnist Dr. Ahmad Al-Faraj asserted that Netanyahu is justified in his campaign against the proposed nuclear deal with Iran, according to The Middle East Media Research Institute. Al-Faraj said Netanyahu’s effort to prevent the signing of the agreement is in the interests of the Gulf states, and that the prime minister “is right to insist on addressing Congress about the nuclear deal.”
“I am very glad of Netanyahu’s firm stance and [his decision] to speak against the nuclear agreement at the American Congress despite the Obama administration’s anger and fury,” Al-Faraj wrote. “I believe that Netanyahu’s conduct will serve our interests, the people of the Gulf, much more than the foolish behavior of one of the worst American presidents.”
The powerful editor-in-chief of Al Arabiya English, Faisal J. Abbas, published a column on Tuesday in which he asked Obama to take notes from Netanyahu on the extent of the Iranian threat. In the piece, titled “President Obama, Listen to Netanyahu on Iran,” Abbas says, “one must admit, Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran.”
Abbas notes that Netanyahu “hit the nail right on the head” when he said at a recent event in Tel Aviv that “Middle Eastern countries are collapsing and that ‘terror organizations, mostly backed by Iran, are filling in the vacuum.’” In his remarks, Netanyahu “managed to accurately summarize a clear and present danger, not just to Israel (which obviously is his concern), but to other US allies in the region,” Abbas writes.
“What is absurd, however,” Abbas continues, “is that despite this being perhaps the only thing that brings together Arabs and Israelis (as it threatens them all), the only stakeholder that seems not to realize the danger of the situation is President Obama, who is now infamous for being the latest pen-pal of the Supreme Leader of the World’s biggest terrorist regime: Ayottallah Ali Khamenei.”
Abbas slams Obama’s “controversial take on managing global conflicts that raises serious questions.” The “real Iranian threat” says Abbas, is not just the country’s nuclear ambitions, “but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored terrorism activities which are still ongoing.”
When even the Arabs don’t like you or your position, and you’re Obama....
I think Al Sisi and King Abdulla should both be invited to speak before a joint session of congress. Both countries have nuclear plants under construction and Israel doesn’t complain because they aren’t threatening to wipe Israel off the map.
Also they might pound a little sense into liberal heads over the fact that ISIS is indeed, islamic.
Just this morning the BBC reported that Al Sisi is ordering some 28,000 egyptian mosques closed.
It’s the Saudis who are praising the speech. I have no idea why the Saudis are our allies.
Money, arms, protection. It sure ain't love.
While the Arabs may not like Israel and the U.S., they are scared to death that the Shiite Iranians will get the bomb.
Obama’s deal with Iran has nothing to do with denying Iran nuclear weapons. It is misdirection, cover, to enable Obama and Valerie to get rid of sanctions against Iran. Unless Israel strikes, Iran will get the bomb, or already has the bomb. Obama wants Iran to have the bomb to trouble the United States, a country he hates.
The tacit understanding and agreement in the ME between the US and its allies was that America would protect them. Israel got nukes as a trip wire.
Then the mistake known as Carter ‘liberated’ Iran.
Then the American media elected anti-American Obama who ‘liberated’ Iraq, Syria, Libya, et al and whose feckless foreign policy has encouraged radical Islam.
He might be the best impetus to a lasting ME peace via an alliance between Israel, Egypt, Jordan and SA. Together they could handle Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Via proxies they’d never even have to do more than give air support.
Ping.
Nobody supports Obama’s position.
I have to dispute that assertion (that it’s ‘his’ position)...
Those actually running this show took out Hillary and are angling the next POTUS’ ‘positions’ as we discuss old news and current events are likely playing out exactly as desired by ‘them’...
They have objections to their backyards becoming radioactive wastelands for some reason.
Ha. The WH doesn’t want to see a headline like this.
Oh, it’s his position, all right.
Obama’s desperate for a “legacy”.
He’s going to have one that will be noted in history quite prominently for a long time to come.
And he fully earned it.
The only question is, will the cost be measured in hundreds of thousands or millions of lives.
Who is running the “show”?
Amazing
Many Arab leaders theoretically to the right of our Marxist Islamist boy president
Lord
40% of white America deserves to be shot
THAT, my FRiend, is the question.
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.