Sunday, July 27, 2008
7/27/2008 09:57:00 AM | 
Posted by
JoeSettler
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:
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
This post highlights only one of MANY MANY reasons why anyone with a conscience should not vote Obama. Thanks, though.
He should have used his standard vote, Present.
Voting Present Over 100 Times While In The Illinois State Legislature.
Sen. Edwards: What I didn't hear was an explanation for why over 100 times you voted 'present' instead of yes or no ...."
Sen. Obama: "I'll be happy to answer -- because in Illinois, in Illinois oftentimes you vote 'present' in order -- in order to indicate that you had problems with a bill that otherwise you might be willing to vote for, and oftentimes you'd have a strategy that would help move the thing forward.
Sen. Edwards: "Why would you over a hundred times vote 'present.'"
Sen. Obama: "John..."
Sen. Edwards: "I mean, every one of us, every one - you've criticized Hillary, you've criticized me for our votes. We've cast hundreds and hundreds of votes. What you're criticizing her for, by the way, you've done to us, which is you pick this vote and that vote out of the hundreds that we have - (applause) - and all I'm saying is, what's fair is fair. You have every right to defend any vote, you do, and I respect your right to do that on any - on any substantive issue. It does not make sense to me and what if I had just not shown up..."
Sen. Obama: "John, John.. ."
Sen. Edwards: "Wait, wait, wait, let me finish."
Sen. Obama: "Now, hold on a second."
Sen. Edwards: "What if I had just not shown up to vote on things that really matter to this country? It would have been safe for me politically. It would have been the careful and cautious thing to do. But I have a responsibility to take a position even when it has political consequences."
DoubleTapper:
Do you have alink for that debate?
im no defender of obama, but just a quick search online reveals that he voted present 131 times...out of 4000.
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/24/fact_check_obamas_present_votes/
But ya, I'm still in agreement that he would be bad for Israel.
How can anyone with half a brain vote for Obama? All you have to do is listen to his comments (half-truths and outright lies) to understand that he is NOT the person to be the president of the US. I don't know that McCain will be much better, but at least you can depend on what he says.
If you really have nothing better to do you can check out lots of Obama posts
here!
DoubleTapper
DoubleTapper@gmail.com
DoubleTapper, blogging on Guns Politics Defense from Israel
Rss Feed
Anonymous: I don't know that McCain will be much better, but at least you can depend on what he says.
Oh, you can, can you? Then does that mean that you can depend on what he says here, where he calls for negotiations with Hamas?
"[Hamas are] the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice... but it's a new reality in the Middle East."
Lurker: Did you notice that today you attacked pretty much everybody on over a dozen blogs?
Yup. What have I been saying in my posts on Obama? He is a slippery double-speaker. He isn't open on his past and Muslim background, and will say what he thinks his future voters want to hear...his real position is, well--you have it in your post, straight from the Master of DoubleSpeak! Not answering the question of whether Israel has the right to settle the so-called 'West Bank,' which is incorrect nomenclature-how far back does a riverbank have to go before it's not a 'bank' anymore, for gosh sakes?!
It's Yehuda and Shomron, and by gum Obama won't touch that question head-on for fear of for sure losing the Jewish vote.
(what's a "post-Zionist," by the way?)
Post a Comment