Netanyahu rightly does NOT trust NOR like ObaMarxist.
In June, 2008, presidential candidate Barack Obama gave a stirring speech to AIPAC, making strong commitments to the Jewish people and Israel. In December, 2016, President Obama’s Secretary of State John Kerry delivered an important policy speech that directly contradicted some of candidate Obama’s words. The contrast is striking, unnerving, and downright hypocritical.
To be fair, there is some consistency between the speeches, as both advocate a two-state solution, among other parallels. And on a certain level, President Obama has kept some of the commitments he made to Israel, including massive defense contracts and military aid. And it is true that, until last week, Obama had not allowed the UN Security Council to pass any anti-Israel resolutions.
Still, reading Obama’s 2008 speech in light of the last 8 years is a real shocker. Consider the following.
In 2008, Obama declared that, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
This week, John Kerry declared that a peace agreement would “provide an agreed resolution for Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states, and protect and assure freedom of access to the holy sites consistent with the established status quo.”
He added, “Most acknowledge that Jerusalem should not be divided again like it was in 1967, and we believe that.” But, he continued, “At the same time, there is broad recognition that there will be no peace agreement without reconciling the basic aspirations of both sides to have capitals there.”
Well, here’s a note from Jerusalem to our Secretary of State and President: You cannot have it both ways. Either Jerusalem is the undivided capital of Israel or it is the divided capital of Israel and Palestine. And if Jerusalem is to be the undivided capital of Israel, then Mr. Kerry has no reason to protest strongly the relocation of our embassy to Jerusalem, which he did this week as well.
Joel Pollack also points out that “through the Obama administration’s acceptance of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 last Friday,” America now “regards the Israel presence in East Jerusalem as ‘settlements’ that are in ‘flagrant violation of international law.’” This means that, “Effectively, the Obama administration has allowed the Palestinians to claim East Jerusalem as their own, with the option of negotiating that claim away. The starting point of negotiations is now a division of Jerusalem ‘like it was in 1967.’”…
…But there’s more. In 2008, then Senator Obama said:
I have long understood Israel’s quest for peace and need for security. But never more so than during my travels there two years ago. Flying in an [Israeli Defense Forces] helicopter, I saw a narrow and beautiful strip of land nestled against the Mediterranean. On the ground, I met a family who saw their house destroyed by a Katyusha rocket. I spoke to Israeli troops who faced daily threats as they maintained security near the blue line. I talked to people who wanted nothing more simple, or elusive, than a secure future for their children.
Yet in 2011, President Obama briefly suggested that Israel return to its totally indefensible pre-1967 borders, which would reduce this “narrow and beautiful strip of land” to as few as 9 miles wide, thereby committing national suicide. And in 2015, it was reported that “President Barack Obama is considering agreeing to a United Nations Security Council resolution ‘embodying the principles of a two-state solution that would be based on the pre-1967 lines between Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip and mutually agreed swaps,’ a senior administration official has told the New York Times.”…
Netanyahu is seething here at BHO’s blather.
That is from our out-going “President”, what are the views of the in-coming “Conservative President”? (Using the terms president and, especially Conservative very loosely.) These are DT’s views on Israel v. Palestine:
Trump: I’ll be ‘neutral’ on Israel and Palestine
GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump on Wednesday refused to pick sides in the conflict between Israel and Palestine.
“You know, I don’t want to get into it,”…”Let me be sort of a neutral guy,“…Trump added, “You understand a lot of people have gone down in flames trying to make that deal. So I don’t want to say whose fault it is — I don’t think that helps.”
Trump’s campaign website remains ‘neutral’ on Israeli-Palestinian conflict
Not since March has Donald Trump, the Republican nominee for president, uttered the word “neutral” in reference to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ever since drawing ire from Democrats and Republicans alike for his use of the term.
And yet, if undecided, unknowing voters were to explore the GOP candidate’s positions by visiting his website for the first time today – six months later – they would find a video that states he still very much intends to remain a noncommittal arbiter of the decades-old conflict.
The big, big, problem of neutrality here?
- Israel IS Innocent. DAILY Muslims pour rockets and missiles, and conduct homicide bombings into and against Israel by the hundreds. Muslims hided in and behind schools, hospitals, churches, synagogues, and mosques to launch their atrocities. Israel has initiated NO unprovoked attack against ANY Muslim nation or group- NEVER.
- You can NOT logically, NOR fairly equate the victim to THE ATTACKER. Even if the attacker has always lost EVERY military engagement, the victim is still brutalised. Israel has won every military face-off against every Muslim attacker, yet Israel still suffers many dead, injured and much damage to property. Muslims attack- Israel defends. They are NOT the same thing. To approach “neutrally” is implying both sides have wronged and both sides need to make amends, when that is clearly NOT true. Israel is innocent.
DT’s “neutrality” is at best EPIC FAILURE from the start, at worst is masked anti-Israel sentiments, which DT’s most vociferous supporters espouse. And which DT has never renounced. (Claims to not agree with them, never denounces them).
Be careful of who you embrace- it may be the hugging of a grizzly.