Obama Labels Israel An Infectious "Sore"
Sen. Barack Obama and his supporters claim that he supports Israel. However with a little research, a different picture emerges. A recent article at WorldNetDaily paints the alternative picture quite clearly. Obama's statements on how Israel effects America's foreign policy.
Asked if he thought Israel represented a drag on America's reputation overseas, Obama said: "No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.
With friends like these, who needs enemies?
"I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we're going to be stuck in the same status quo that we've been stuck in for decades now," he said.
Obama supporters and fundraisers have recently made statements claiming that Obama's campaign has little need for the Jewish vote. Obama himself explains that he expects opposition from Jewish voters.
I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I'm not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that's the safest ground politically."
Obama fundraiser, Rashid Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel. He has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.
A follow up article at WorldNetDaily reports that Obama may have borrowed the expression that equated Israel to a "sore" from his fundraising friend.
In an scathing op-ed attack piece on Israel, Khalidi wrote:
"The 'Palestine Question' has been with us for sixty years. During this time it has become a running sore, its solution appearing ever more distant."
Obama says, Hamas, Hizballah have "legitimate claims"
A New York Times article credits Obama with the following statement:
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that "looks at the root causes of problems and dangers." Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that "they're going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims." He knows these movements aren't going away anytime soon ("Those missiles aren't going to dissolve"), but "if they decide to shift, we're going to recognize that. That's an evolution that should be recognized."
Legitimate claims? It would be interesting to know which claims made by the terrorist groups that Obama considers legitimate.
Note: Cross posting of this information is encouraged. Please consider a hat tip to An Obama Nation. - Obama Labels Israel An Infectious "Sore"
***\\***
This is in stark contrast to what he said before AIPAC. Obama is an opportunist. He says what he needs to say for political expediency. Obama is the sore which is infecting the Democratic Party. He said Iran was no big deal and then at AIPAC he FLIPS and says it is. He is no friend of the Democratic State of Israel. Insuring that there will be TWO states before the end of his presidency, as he did to AIPAC is not wise. If both Palestinian parties have terrorist tendencies (and it is more than just a tendency with HAMAS - though FATAH also wants the total destruction of Israel), then why would you reward them with a state from where they can attack Israel - as they are doing right now? This was a crazy proposal from George Bush, as much as it is from Barack Hussein Obama.
No to another terrorist state on Israel's border.
What possible legitimate claims could these terrorist organizations have? Since when do we recognize the claims of terrorists? These are the people he also wants to negotiate with; not just countries, but terrorist organizations raised to the level of legitimacy by Barack Obama. These are organizations who have as their objective the destruction of western civilization and modernity. If this is the new "liberalism" it should be rejected. It will undercut legitimate diplomacy and the free world's ability to protect its institutions and citizens. America will appear weak and favoring radical revolutionary groups world-wide. Obama will be capitulating to terrorism and raising the flag of surrender.
Hank Roth
Related Content
Quotes here conform with the Fair Use Doctrine
for educational, research and discussion purposes
in an effort to inform and advance awareness
and understanding per Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, Copyright Law.
Post omments here:
Permalink: http://inyourface.info/ArT/Delta/SoRE.shtml
Today is Friday November 21, 2008
Hank Roth (on the Internet since 1982)
While I don't use a standard blog (weblog software) mostly because I've been doing this too long - having been there with Ike when the precursor to the Internet, Arpanet got started and every step of the way since, I can't get into all the many fads over the years (now it is social networking), but I have been an observer and participant in events which shape the world since my time with NSA and with Army Security and as a voice security cryptologist in the White House for the President, and the War Room at the Pentagon for the Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff plus two wars. You could say this site is one of the better kept secrets [grin] on the InterNUT. You are invited back as often as you would like to see what I and others, I trust, may be saying.
-- Hank Roth