Readers here know that I generally avoid political postings. Sometimes, however, even I feel the need to put out a posting falling squarely in the political arena. In general my attitude towards elected officials falls into two categories: 1)yes, they are doing a good job according to what I consider doing a good job and 2)oh God, please let the next three years fly by quickly so we can get someone else into office.
Our present administration in Washington is proving to be less than adequate when it comes to domestic policies and decisions. But in the international arena they are so far below an "F" that there isn't a letter of the alphabet available to indicate how failing I believe them to be. I admit freely, and with pride, that I am fiercely pro-Israel. I have my Jewish reasons for being this way, and reasons of logic that have nothing to do with being Jewish and an awful lot to do with being realistic about conditions in the Middle East.
Our President has put his foot, both feet, in his mouth so often that he is going to manage the feat of swallowing himself whole. The following link is to an analysis by Caroline B. Glick of his latest speech, given in Cairo. Does he really believe that Americans are so dumb and so self-absorbed that they will neither notice nor understand what he said?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0609/glick060509.php3
10 comments:
The true colors are really showing.
Oh come on.
The author would have Obama rip the Arabs/Muslims a new one while standing right next to their leaders. It's pretty bold to even mention democracy, rights for women, freedom of religion, and fighting extremists. How would that be good policy? Why is the stick better than the carrot? Why vinegar instead of honey?
I also don't understand what the author wanted? A several hour speech laying out precise policy measures to bring all of this into fruition? Are you kidding me? The speech was meant to lay the groundwork and show how America wants to work with the region to solve its many problems. The speech did that pretty well, imo.
And the author puts way too much weight and is reading way between the lines on the Israel portion of Obama's speech. What he said about the Holocause was wonderful, imo and what he said in Buchenwald telling Ahmedinijad to visit was wonderful too. If he didn't emphasize the Holocaust enough the author would complain, here he emphasizes too much in the author's opinion and thereby somehow insinuates Israel only exists because of the Holocaust. What baloney, what an unfair, twisted rendering of the speech. Even Jews talk about our suffering and our miserable exile and our constant desire to return. Even Jews point to the Holocaust as a possible divine reason for Israel.
In terms of settlements, Israel agreed to this under Bush's roadmap!!! Obama isn't asking for anything that Israel didn't already agree to and that Bush put forward already. If Israel didn't want to give up settlement building it shouldn't have signed the agreement. Israel complains about the Palestinians signing agreements and doing nothing or saying one thing and doing another and now here's Israel doing the exact same thing. I support the settlements, but how can you argue Obama is wrong here when Israel signed an agreement? Bush administration officials have even come out recently to point out there was no "special understanding" that Israel didn't have to meet its end of the deal. And besides, how wrong is it to sign an agreement one has no desire to keep?
Whatever, I could go on. This article is nothing but fearmongering for people who have hated Obama all along and refuse to look at anything he does with less than a jaundiced eye.
Obama is attempting to gain goodwill, so he is saying what he has to gain it (just like he said what he had to to get elected). I'm not convinced that the goodwill that he gains will solve many of the problems in the world, but his camp is convinced of that.
JS - What he said about the Holocause was wonderful
I thought that the way he used the holocaust was disgusting. Most disgusting was putting the holocaust in one hand, and then putting the "suffering of the Palestinian people" in the other hand. To me that is a disgusting equation. And secondly, using the holocaust as the [partial] justification ("... a tragic history ...") of a Jewish state in that location is ridiculous as the justification of a location for a Jewish state is simply history. If tragic history was to be a justification, some portion of German land might have been a better choice for a Jewish state.
Mark
Maybe in the dark ages when diplomacy was carried out in private or secrecy and where the news from one part of the world could take months to reach other parts of the world wouldn't it matter if the president said what he did. But in a time of instant communication where everyone can know everything happening everywhere the president should not have said what he said.
IMO it's a copout to mention Israel and the Holocaust the way he did, like cause and affect. It shows his lack of understanding and knowledge of the facts of history. If he's going to act dumb could he do it in private instead of on the world stage?!!!
Sorry JS but a whole lot of people who didn't hate him before he took office are looking at him differently now. And hate is the wrong word. It isn't hate if you say that someone is wrong factually and wrong in his actions. That's what democracy is about--disagreement with leadership is healthy, not hateful.
I'm not interested in a protracted political debate, but Bush has said far dumber things, repeatedly, on world stages and most Jewish bloggers kept their mouths shut - even when Bush was shoving the Road Map down Israel's throat. I didn't see many Jewish bloggers complaining then or citing a liberal article tearing Bush's speech apart word for word trying to squeeze out every nuance to show how he's truly anti-Israel and wrong on history, wrong on the facts, etc etc etc.
JS, there were plenty of Jews who criticized Bush and his approach to Israel. Maybe the difference is that almost no one expected anything but disaster every time he opened up his mouth. He was an extremely poor public speaker, and he couldn't even seem to follow the script when someone else wrote the speech for him. Frankly, lots of Americans and a whole lot of people around the world wondered how we ever elected a man with such an obviously poor intellect and grasp of the facts. in short, his degree was purchased with money from daddy. I suppose it's considered not a nice thing to do to point out in public that an idiot is an idiot.
Obama was advertised as not being Bush, a selling point for lots of people. Unfortunately, there is a lot more Bush in him then anyone figured on getting.
Sorry, I just don't see it. I think people are making a mountain out of a molehill. I notice no one addressed my point about the settlements. How is it wrong for Obama to ask for fulfillment of an agreement that the US sponsored under Bush and which Israel signed and committed itself to?
I'd also like to know the following:
1) What should Obama have said about the Holocaust/Israel that's compatible with the two state solution everyone has signed on to?
2) What should Obama have said about the Palestinians and their right to a homeland?
I just don't see how he could have said anything different without being accused of taking sides.
Point is, it's such an explosive issue with so much passion on both sides, what else could he have possibly said?
Majority Jewish.
A Democracy.
In possession of the Occupied Territories.
Israel can pick any two it wants.
It isn't going to be able to have all three.
That should read "Majority Jewish Citizenry" or, alternatively, "A Jewish State", for the first item.
And he's still using the holocaust!!! Disgusting. It makes me feel like he is using the holocaust to gain some "Jew-cred" so that later when he "makes the hard choices" (i.e. forcing Israel closer to potential suicide) he has some credibility among some segments of Jews.
Mark
Post a Comment