“The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine,” Barry said in his speech at the State Department. “We believe the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”
This week the seventh meeting took place between Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and our "Supreme Leader," Barry "Almighty" since Barry took office, and the two men are now facing what can accurately be described as a turning point in their relationship. A relationship that, I think it fair to say, has never been warm. By all accounts, they do not trust each other and from Mr. Netanyahu point of view, with good reason. Barry has told aides and allies alike that he does not believe that Mr. Netanyahu will ever be willing to make the kind of big concessions that will lead to a peace deal. What Barry, like most progressives, fails to understand or realize, which is but one thing on a very long list of many, is the fact that the Palestinians aren't after concessions. Arafat squelched that myth a long time ago when he was literally handed everything that he supposedly wanted by then Prime Minister Ehud Barak. Miraculously, Arafat turned him down, and then promptly started an Intifada. Barak, touted as "Mr. Security," proceeded to withdraw unilaterally from South Lebanon, creating a vacuum very soon filled by Hezbollah, and then worked with Bill Clinton to prepare a complete withdrawal from virtually all of Judea and Samaria. Barak then proceeded to loss control of the government to Ariel Sharon in what was essentially a landslide.
Fast forward to today and for his part, Mr. Netanyahu has complained, and rightly so, that Imam Obama has now pushed Israel too far, a point driven home most recently during a furious phone call with Hitlary Clinton on Thursday morning. The call took place just hours before Barry’s anti-Israeli speech, which was specifically designed to undercut Mr. Netanyahu's visit. Barry's speech, a segment of which begins this post, was one which the prime minister reacted very angrily to, and deservedly so, regarding Barry’s asinine plan to endorse Israel’s pre-1967 borders for a future Palestinian Terrorist state. The boundaries that Barry endorsed Thursday as Israel’s future borders would leave the country, at its narrowest point, only nine miles wide between “Palestine” and the Mediterranean Sea. By declaring that the Palestinian terror state should border Jordan, Barry furthermore implied that Israel should not retain possession of the strategic Jordan Valley, the strip of land immediately to the west of the Jordan River. A succession of Israeli governments, both right and left, together with generations of top military officers, have argued that a military presence there is essential for the future security if Israel.
Sometimes inaccurately called the “1967 borders,” the lines referred to by Barry, a fact that I'm sure he must be aware of, are actually the 1949 armistice lines that were in place up until the June 1967 Six Day War. By the time the fighting ended, Israel had captured the entire West Bank, including eastern parts of Jerusalem from Jordan; the Gaza Strip and Sinai Peninsula from Egypt; and the Golan Heights from Syria. The demonstrably indefensible boundaries held by Israel between 1948 and 1967 prompted Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban’s famous remark in 1969 to the effect that those borders evoked the Nazi extermination camp at Auschwitz. “I do not exaggerate when I say that it has for us something of a memory of Auschwitz,” Eban was quoted as saying. “We shudder when we think of what would have awaited us in the circumstances of June, 1967, if we had been defeated; with Syrians on the mountain and we in the valley, with the Jordanian army in sight of the sea, with the Egyptians who hold our throat in their hands in Gaza. This is a situation which will never be repeated in history.” This is the environment what Barry wants to return Israel to. His hated of the Jewish state could not be more obvious.
When it comes to these men being able to trust one another, I think very fair to say that of the two, Mr. Netanyahu has the much better reason not to trust Barry than Barry has to distrust Mr. Netanyahu. The last-minute furor highlights the discord as they head into what one Israeli official described as a “train wreck” coming their way, that being, a United Nations General Assembly vote on Palestinian statehood coming this September. Mr. Netanyahu, at least according to close associates, is desperate for Barry to use the diplomatic muscle of the United States to protect Israel from the vote, not only by vetoing it in the Security Council, but also by leaning hard on America’s European allies to get them to reject it as well. Apparently, Barry has indicated that he will certainly do the first, but as he has demonstrated so many times before, can you really take him at his word. THAT'S A BIG NO! Especially with he continuing propensity for telling rather outrageous lies. Besides, it still remains unclear how far Barry would be willing to go to in any effort to persuade Britain, France and other American allies to join the United States in rejecting the move, particularly as long as Mr. Netanyahu continues to resist endorsing the pre-1967 lines.
Abraham H. Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League and a friend of Mr. Netanyahu’s, recalled that after the first meeting between the two men, Mr. Netanyahu had told him that he had been impressed with Barry’s intellect, and that the American presidency “was his to lose.” An impression that would indicate that Mr. Netanyahu made not be the judge of character that he thought he was. But things very quickly went downhill after Barry officially took office and, within months, called for a halt in Israeli settlement construction in the West Bank. Slamming the dictates of Barry, Mr. Netanyahu refused, handing the new president his first foreign policy humiliation when Barry had to abandon the demand in the face of Israel’s refusal to comply. Compounding the problem, Mr. Netanyahu delivered a fiery speech to a pro-Israel lobbying group in Washington declaring that “Jerusalem isn’t a settlement, it’s our capital.” A furious White House promptly shoed just how childish it can be, by then denying Mr. Netanyahu all the trappings of a presidential meeting with Barry the next day, even refusing to allow photographers to take pictures of the two men in the Oval Office, as is usually the case for meetings with foreign leaders.
Things got so bad between the two leaders, Mr. Foxman recalled, that Mr. Netanyahu “told me, ‘Abe, I need two hours just alone to talk to him.” Late last year, Mr. Netanyahu got his two hours at the White House with Barry, a meeting which, both American and Israeli officials say, helped clear the air. “The relationship now is very cordial,” a senior White House official said. These clowns must have a very interesting definition for "cordial" because Barry's behavior toward Mr. Netanyahu has always been one of very thinly veiled disdain, an arrogance that has him coming off as someone trying to bully someone that is smaller and weaker. But the easing of tensions came to and end this spring when, Israeli and American officials said, Mr. Netanyahu got wind of Barry’s plans to make a major address on the Middle East, and alerted Republican leaders that he would like to address a joint meeting of Congress. That move was widely interpreted as an attempt to get out in front of Barry, by presenting an Israeli peace proposal that, while short of what the Palestinians want, would box in the president. House Speaker John Boehner issued the invitation, for late May. And we are all very well aware that Barry is notoriously thin-skinned.
So it was then that White House officials arranged Barry’s speech on Thursday to make sure that this time around Barry went first. “You get so many reports that Bibi is playing politics in your backyard that eventually you’ve got to draw the conclusion that there’s nothing there to work with this guy,” said Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator who is now a fellow with the New American Foundation, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. Administration officials said that they were determined not to allow Mr. Netanyahu to get out in front of Barry. In a statement after Mr. Barry’s speech on Thursday, Mr. Netanyahu’s office pointedly said that the prime minister would raise his concerns about Barry’s language about the pre-1967 borders during Friday’s meeting. “While there were many points in the president’s speech that we appreciate and welcome, there were other aspects, like the return to the 1967 borders, which depart from longstanding American policy, as well as Israeli policy, going back to 1967,” Michael B. Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview.
Also now jumping onboard this crazy train and adding a little more fuel to what is now the sizeable fire created by the insane proposal advocated by Barry in his Mideast speech, was that imbecilic blast from the past, none other that former National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Apparent, Mr. Brzezinski is of the opinion that Barry's speech was far too “timid, adding that it cannot generate international support for the peace process. Old "Bonehead" Brzezinski also said Friday while on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” that, left to themselves, the Israelis and the Palestinians will not resolve their decades-old issues. No shit there Sherlock! It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that when you've got one side that genuinely wants piece and the other side wanting nothing more than the annihilation of the other side, that peace is going to be a pretty hard commodity to come by. “I thought I heard a speech which was trying to initiate movement on the peace process, a peace process that is stalemated, but, a rather timid initiative in my mind, which as a result is not likely to mobilize the kind of support that is needed to move the process forward,” said Brzezinski, who was Jimmy "Peanut Brain" Carter’s national security adviser during the 1978 Camp David Accords that led to an Israel-Egypt "peace treaty." “I think if we are going to have peace in the Middle East, we have to face two basic realities, fundamental realities: First of all, the parties to the conflict, the Israelis and the Palestinians, will never resolve it by themselves — the differences between them are just not bridgeable by themselves,” Brzezinski said. “Secondly, the issue in the Middle East is not just security for Israel, or rights for the Palestinians — it’s also fundamental American national interest — and that has to guide American policy. “So, I approve of what the president did, but I wish he had gone further, because if he had, he would have been able to mobilize much more support from among the Israelis, the Palestinians and the international community,” he said. So here we have someone who dates all the way back to the 70's and is someone that clearly reveals that this dangerous agenda toward Israel is far from being anything new.
So what I fail to understand is why it is that a very substantial number of those in the Jewish community continue to insist upon supporting people who exhibit this type of warped mentality. It just leaves me scratching my head. The one political party that has always been more than eager to throw Israel to the Arab wolves is the one party that a majority of Jews continue to reliably vote for. It simply makes no sense to me. Oddly enough, according to pollster John Zogby, despite the uproar over Barry's support for Palestinian demands that Israel return to its 1967 borders, he predicts that Barry won’t suffer significant defections from Jewish voters at the polls in 2012. Zogby noted that Democrats traditionally enjoy a 75 percent to 25 percent advantage in the Jewish vote. The lone exception was Ronald Reagan’s re-election bid in 1984. He says that it will take more than a little friction with the current leadership of Israel to change that dynamic. “Israel is extremely important to American Jews. But so are traditional liberal stances, particularly on social issues." So there you go, the Jews in this country are now cheerfully furnishing the rope with which Israel will get hung, or is that hanged. And they are apparently very happy to do so. Nice!
Sadly we now have a man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world but who has instead continually chosen to abdicate that responsibility. The most recent example of this is his very cheerfully throwing of one our staunchest allies on the planet firmly under the proverbial bus. This most pathetic of men, most disgusting of men, this man whom we elected, represents the complete opposite of all that this country has stood for, for over 230 years. He has repeatedly turned on our friends and kowtowed to our enemies, the whole time having a smile on his face. This cannot be allowed to stand, and this sad situation that we brought upon ourselves by electing this man is something that must be reversed in 18 months. His time in office will forever remain a stain on this country that will be a constant reminder of what voter ignorance can bring about. And it will be very difficult to get passed all that he has done to the reputation of our great country. He has committed, and continues to commit, crimes against freedom. We must purge ourselves of this malignancy in 2012, or risk becoming mired down in the sewage that will most assuredly be the legacy that Barry leaves behind for us.
No comments:
Post a Comment