Obama's Israel Policy Goes Native

To my most holy Jewish brethren - those who still worship at the feet of the idol O'Ba'alma and who drink from the bitter waters flowing from Jstreet, the time has come for you to do teshuva, if you still can.

Yesterday, in what must have a been like removing a load of bricks off his back, (not to be confused with the fallen ruins of the Twin Towers), the president of the United States of America shrugged off national interest and the hard and painful lessons learned from history in favor of his latent anti-Jewism, born of his early-years Medrassa education. How much of a relief it must have been for him to express his real inner feelings of despise for the lives of the Jewish people in the land of Israel?

Perhaps due to the frustration of having wasted two full years of solitary liberal rule in DC, the emir in chief has finally decided to "be himself" and express his true intentions. Israel, he told us must be reduced to the size it once was when former Ambassador Abba Eban coined the phrase, "the Auschwitz lines".

Since yesterday afternoon's Obamaism, many pundits have made reference to the 1967 "lines" where both friend and foe of the Jewish people have not justly explained what this means. On the surface, it merely means the pre-Six Day war line separating arabians and Jews. What it really means is the 1949 armistice line - the line separating between the Jewish army and the retreating arabian armies who attacked Israel immediately following Israel's declaration of Independence in 1948. The "green-line" as it was known became the Berlin wall of the middle east - demarcating not between freedom and tyranny as in Europe but between civilization and barbarism. So in reality Obama the terrible is calling for re-do, back to 1949, back to the Auschwitz line, back to the time before the humiliating defeat of the arabian armies at the hands of the descendants of monkeys and pigs. Sultan Hussein Obama's inner muslim is on display.

The next few days should be interesting to say the least. This Shmuly Boteach story kinda says it all. Obama will arrogantly speak at AIPAC and tell the Jews and supporters of Israel, that his recommendations are in Israel's best interests and that America's support for Israel is unshakable - just like he said in his Middle East speech on Thursday.

So let's backtrack a little to yesterday and look at just one paragraph of Obama's speech:

For decades, the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region. For Israelis, it has meant living with the fear that their children could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes, as well as the pain of knowing that other children in the region are taught to hate them. For Palestinians, it has meant suffering the humiliation of occupation, and never living in a nation of their own. Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people.

We could really hours on every word, every innuendo, every inflection, etc. But with better things to do, lets be brief. In the eye's of the president, the conflict is about death to the Jews vs. humiliation. Plain and simple it is what Obama said. I don't know that many Israelis that are constantly worried about buses blowing up or a rocket falling on their home - not to belittle these things are say they are not serious. But they are not worries. What does worry Israelis is having the carpet, (a prayer carpet, perhaps) pulled out from underneath them the way Obama did yesterday. What worries Israelis is the possibility of a major regional war with missiles flying in from Iran along with a newly muslimized Egyptian army attacking from, not in, the Sinai joined with a Syrian-Hizbollah offensive in the north. That is a worry. The pali-terrorists are a thorn in the side in comparison.

To equate the two ideas of death to the Jews and humiliation is of course, a demonstration of how little Jewish blood must be valued by the president. And as to the idea that the poor palis have never had a nation of their own, well who is to blame here? I wonder if Obama expressed this same concern to the little King Abdullah II who rules as a minority tribal sultan over millions of "palis" living on the east bank of the Jordan river? I wonder if Abdullah, in the midst of protests in Jordan, feels any safer today? One could argue of course that no arab living in an arabian land today has a country of his own unless he is prince or of royal ancestry. In those lands where an Emir or King or Prince or even Colonel or someone acting like one without the title rules, is the country really theirs? Where tyranny rules, one cannot be free. And where arabians rule, freedom is stifled and only those in power or support those in power can claim any form of ownership.

What is the nature of this statement by Prince Hussein Obama: "Moreover, this conflict has come with a larger cost the Middle East, as it impedes partnerships that could bring greater security, prosperity, and empowerment to ordinary people". Is he saying that the US and arabians are suffering diplomatically and strategically because of "the conflict"? Really? Is peace in the middle east contingent upon the palis building a thug-terror state in Judea and Samaria? He could mean something else but knowing the president and his historically cold view of Israel which is well-documented on this blog and other places, it is a fair assumption to read between the lines and expect the least from Obama's intentions.

When PM Netanyahu speaks to the Obama today, what will he say? More importantly, when Bibi speaks to the joint session of Congress on Monday, what will he say. If I were Obama, I would be very careful how I treat Netanyahu today and with what I say at AIPAC. Netanyahu may not be the perfect Israeli Prime Minister but I would not want anyone else speaking at AIPAC and more importantly before the Congress of the United States of America. My hope is that Bibi will clearly state before Congress that Israel is under no more moral or legal compulsion to negotiate with the terrorist thugs of a party which honors and trusts Hamas as an equal party than the US has a moral need to negotiate with al-Qaeda. Any party which routinely calls for the destruction of Israel and cannot even draw a map where Israel can be found is no partner for peace - only a partner for war. My hope is that strongly and unequivocally states "Jerusalem is not for sale" while calling upon the US to once and for all move the embassy to Jerusalem, not because it is Israel's capital but because it is Hakadosh Baruch Hu's capital.

See Ketzaleh's speech he wishes PM Netanyahu would deliver.