Once again, President Obama is lecturing Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, offering up some great advice about negotiating with terrorists and shoring up Israel’s “image” on the world stage.
In an interview on Israel’s Channel 2, Obama mentioned that Netanyahu was “fairly unequivocal” in his statement the day before the election that a Palestinian state would not emerge on his watch, as reported by the Jerusalem Post. Since then, Obama said, Netanyahu has made comments indicating that there IS a possibility of a Palestinian state, but added so many caveats that it is not realistic anyone would agree to those conditions.”
Obama complained that Netanyahu said there would be no Palestinian state on his watch, and now he’s complaining because Netanyahu said there COULD be a Palestinian state on his watch.
Which one is it?
Obama said, “The prime minister has reiterated in recent days that any Palestinian state would have to recognize Israel as the Jewish national homeland, and that under any agreement there would need to be an Israeli security presence throughout the West Bank.”
These two conditions are hardly what I would call over the top.“Obama, who said that the security, intelligence and military assistance Washington gives to Israel is not conditional on any particular Israeli policy, did say that if there is no prospect for peace, it becomes more difficult for Washington to come to Israel’s defense on the world stage… If in fact there is no prospect of a peace process, if no one believes there is a peace process, it becomes more difficult to argue with those who are concerned about settlement construction, more difficult for me to say, ‘Be patient, we have a process here.’”
Can anyone reading this explain to me why the United States of America has to “argue” with anyone about why we are allies with Israel? Who are these people to whom Obama must justify himself? Not a tough question. Begins with the letter “I.”Here’s the part I love the most. “Obama said that he understands – given the realities of the region and the nature of Israel’s enemies – why Israelis are so concerned about security.”
If you really understood the realities of the region, you would never ask Israel to give up security for your idea of peace. You would not have withdrawn our troops from Iraq — against military advice –which has caused the biggest hot mess in the world. You would not have announced that al-Qaida was on the run and that ISIS was a jayvee team. Our outpost in Benghazi would not have been overrun and our citizens killed. You would not be negotiating with the world’s biggest sponsor of terror, Iran.
Obama’s sage advice to the Prime Minister about his conditions for a Palestinian state? “What might seem wise and prudent in the short term, might end up being unwise over the long term, and it is not simply the fear of immediate terrorism that should concern Israel.”
Well, Mr. President, if you give in to terrorists whose stated goal is to wipe you off the face of the earth there IS NO LONG TERM.
“Israel, he said, must be concerned that over time it will have to make a choice about the nature of the state and its character. And if it loses its essential values enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, I think that is something that has to be guarded against,” he said. Well, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, Mr. President.