Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he said. (emphasis mine)David Seaton's News Links
Israel calls the city its undivided and eternal capital, but this status has never been recognized internationally. Palestinians want East Jerusalem, captured by Israel at war in 1967, for a future capital." Barack Obama, speaking to AIPAC, June, 4th, 2008 - Reuters
First things first.
No Palestinian leader is ever going to sign any agreement giving an "undivided" Jerusalem to Israel, because if he did so he would be signing his own death sentence. Not only would no Palestinian ever accept it, no Muslim anywhere in the world would ever accept it either.
That means that with Barack Obama as president there is no hope for peace in the Middle East. Absolutely that simple.
One thing is to guarantee Israel's existence or threaten Iran with sanctions or even attack, and quite another is to commit the United States to a policy which mortally offends every Muslim in the world... forever and ever, amen.
By choosing to award a holy city disputed by two religions exclusively to one of the religions, Barack Obama, having no other legitimacy to make that gift than America's military force, is committing the United States of America to a role in a religious war, as a belligerent in that war. By making this commitment, Barack Obama is literally declaring jihad against Islam... forever and ever, amen.
Doing this legitimizes Islamic radicals and terrorists everywhere... forever and ever, amen.
By endorsing this position, which is totally outside international law, Barack Obama has forfeited any credibility he might have ever had to provide a new direction to American foreign policy. DS
4 comments:
David,
A few weeks ago you used the word "decadent" to describe our politics. Obama's latest move, I think, is depraved. (I know Hillary made a similar promise re undivided Jerusalem last year.)
Is this what it takes to ensure the continuing flow of Jewish donations? Or does he know something, e.g. a forthcoming attack on Iran.
I think back to that 1998 photo of Obama talking with Prof Edward Said at dinner while attending an event in Chicago.
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml
He's certainly come a long way in a few years! I was never expecting 'real change' but even so I find this utterly depressing.
Mike,
Thanks for the link and the photo
Has Obama considered that discrimination on the basis of race, creed or color in employment or housing is perfectly legal in Israel?
I would bet he has, but will do what it takes to gain power.
So Obama is a hypocrite. Does that make him worse than Bush, who apparently believes that the Israelis weren't killing enough in Lebanon and wanted them to attack Syria?
I don't perceive Obama as a moral leader. But I do perceive him as someone who would be more swayed by the American consensus rather than any ideology. The average American, unlike the neocons, never wanted to remake the Middle East.
Bush is all sorts of things, but I wouldn't call him a hypocrite.
I'm glad that you don't perceive Obama as a "moral leader", although his followers certainly do.
I think the model is Sarkozy, who would say anything and do anything to get into power, but once there, not really do anything at all.
Post a Comment