I have thus far refrained from really discussing the US Presidential election beyond a comment here or there.


I didn’t care when he backtracked on his AIPAC remarks, I expected that, but Obama came to my country and said made some rather offensive remarks, so now the gloves are coming off.

In his interview he was asked:

The American position has been blanketly opposed to settlement construction. Do you think Israel has a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank - for security, religious, historic or other reasons?

His response:

I think that Israel should abide by previous agreements and commitments that have been made, and aggressive settlement construction would seem to violate the spirit at least, if not the letter, of agreements that have been made previously.

Israel's security concerns, I think, have to be taken into account, via negotiation. I think the parties in previous discussions have stated that settlement construction doesn't necessarily contribute to that enhanced security. I think there are those who would argue that the more settlements there are, the more Israel has to invest in protecting those settlements and the more tensions arise that may undermine Israel's long-term security.

Ultimately, though, these are part of the discussions that have to take place between the parties. But I think that, based on what's previously been said, for Israel to make sure that it is aligned with those previous statements is going to be helpful to the process.

Well let’s start with the question, he was explicitly asked not what his position would be, but if he thought that Israel has any right, security, religious, historic or other to be in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem (if we are to define West Bank as it is meant).

Obama expressly avoided answering the actual question asked.

He then connected building Jewish homes West Bank as “aggressive” I assume he means on par with terrorist attacks and missiles.


He then says that it violates the spirit if not the letter of the agreements. Personally, I’d like for him to show me which “peace treaty” it violates (it doesn’t violate any in spirit or in letter).

He then blames Israel by saying that Settlements are to blame for the increase in “tension” and presumably the subsequent Arab terrorism.

He then ignores the Gaza, and Judeah/Samaria precedents and basically says that an Israeli presence is detrimental to security (sic).

At he finishes off by saying that Israel should abide by his misinterpretation of the previous agreements “to be helpful to the process”. Despite not answering the actual question asked, he simply blames “aggressive settlerment activity” for the lack of peace – not the terrorists and terrorism.

But most importantly, he simply never answered the question asked, and I think that clearly implies that his answer is “no”.


Continuing on, in response to a final border question, again Obama’s response is: “Israel may seek "67-plus" and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They've got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.”

In short, Israel really has no right to Jerusalem, even for (an Israeli-only) perceived security reason, and Israel’s physical presence in Jerusalem is enough to justify the “antagonism of the other party” and Israel needs to accept total capitulation or accept the consequences.


On the other side he answered: “The Palestinians are going to have to make a calculation: Are we going to fight for every inch of that '67 border or, given the fact that 40 years have now passed, and new realities have taken place on the ground, do we take a deal that may not perfectly align with the '67 boundaries?”

Meaning his position is that the Palestinians have all the rights, even though history, and international law don’t agree with that, and they are justified in continuing to attack Israel, but they need to decide if it is worth the cost.

God forbid this man becomes President.