Is there nothing that Obama can’t do?
On the surface Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America’s ties to Israel are “unbreakable.”
Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign — and therefore unjustifiable — intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.
The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.
This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the “reconstitution” — not the creation — of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.
But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that “the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history.” He then explicitly tied Israel’s establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.
[…]
But as disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama’s rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program.
The idea of handing over the West Bank to the Palestinians has lost favor in Israel after Gaza was evacuated (at considerable pain) in 2005, because the area became a launching pad for missiles aimed at the Israeli heartland. But President Obama has a solution to that. It’s nothing much — just the wholesale reversal of Palestinian political culture.
h/t Revnant Dream
for all you historians, the jews were living in isreal in 1917, 1947, 01 ad etc. is everyone here stupid or do you just think that because one political entity or another says something, that it is the starting point?
ET,
Please provide your definition of a “political decision”.
philip g. shaw – I’m unaware that the world intellectual (or other) community had, after WWII, a ‘loathing of the ‘Arab tribal tendency for fascism’ and a fear of Jewish zionism.
There is no such thing, to my knowledge, as a ‘tribal tendency to fascism’. Islamic fascism is, in my view, a result of the repression of a population that had exponentially increased beyond the ‘carrying capacity’ of the social and political structure of tribalism. Therefore, this Islamic fascism couldn’t have arisen without that increase in population and that repression of the people by an outmoded pol8itical structure.
No-one, I think that your mythic outline, though valid as a myth, doesn’t guide the majority of either Muslims or Jews, who don’t necessarily live by ideology alone. After all, the Halakha rules are equally stringent on Jews not aligning themselves with Arabs…and that includes centuries of commentary by orthodox Jewish scholars on everything from not selling land to an Arab, not touching wine touched by an Arab, and so on. The Islamic rules are similar in their isolationism.
Remember, these were all written on both sides, by tribal societies and defining how tribes lived, preserving their integrity, and interacted with each other. It is really only the Christian religion which, in my view, emerged as a non-tribal belief system that actually promoted collaboration and interaction rather than isolate integrity.
no-one – since politics is the means by which a group of people, understood as a political unit, make decisions, then a political decision is one which is made by the group of people.
The decision-making process can be made in a number of ways – via a singular authority (dictator or monarch); an elite authority (oligarchy or aristocracy); or by the people (a democracy). All of this is outlined in Aristotle’s ‘Politics’.
As a decision made by men, rather than genes or gods, it is open to debate, discussion and change. The next step in a political decision is for other groups (political units) to recognize these decisions. So, does your neighbour society recognize your claim to the land of the Arctic?
And what about your own people – did the subjects of His Most Gracious Majesty George III recognize his authority or did they write the Declaration of Independence?
Again, see Aristotle for the best discussion of the theme.
I’m starting to doubt the utility of focusing on the interpretation of historical wrongs and rights. It’s not likely that peace is going to break out, and when the nukes start flying, we’ll all need to pick a tribe. My pick will be the tribe most worthy to enhance the future of my culture, and in fact I have already made that choice. Some call that discrimination, I call it survival.
Is this a sign of the End Times?
Henry Champ at the CBC reports on studies that show media bias towards Obama.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/06/04/f-rfa-champ.html#socialcomments
He treads carefully, but it’s a start.
Could Obama’s screw ups be getting so bad that even the media is starting to notice?
Or will the next thing we see is mutant zombies kicking our doors in and trying to eat our brains?
Will Joan Crawford rise from the grave?
Personally I think it’s a sign of the end times, I just can’t imagine the CBC discovering journalism this late in the game, especially in the case of the coverage of Obama.
ET
I appreciate your response.
Is it not also true that those making the “political decision” take legal, historical and ethnic claims into consideration in their decision making process? A decison is reached through reasoning, not simply an arbitray directive.
I admitt the following is not the best analogy of the situation. Essentially,a divorced couple that hate each other are being asked to share the same house , albeit separate bedrooms, and be civil to one another. Although, the children from this union (rest of the world) think this is a very good solution – pretend the divorce never happened – because they want to at least have the illusion that their family is back together – even only in geographical terms. But it is exactly that – an illusion. Realistically, what are the possible outcomes of this senario?
no-one – most certainly the decision making process, since it is a process and not a mechanical action, includes acknowledgment of history, legal, ethical factors. It would, as you say, be arbitrary, if it didn’t include these factors in its judgments. That’s also why judgments can be so very difficult.
The problem with your interesting analogy is that in the Israeli-Palestinian situation, the couple, man and wife, are the same people over time. In the I-P situation, the populations change with birth and death. So, there is more hope for a perceptual change in this scenario. What prevents the change?
Well, both sides have ancient religious texts for their orthodox followers that actually list how they must NOT interact with each other. And these texts are used as a basis, argued with deep and passionate sincerity, by both sides, to reject any collaboration with each other. How does one bridge such a wall?
Only by increasing the size of the population which does not follow these texts so sincerely. But, one must always acknowledge that such orthodoxy will always exist, for it provides deep emotional comfort.
Then, moving into the practical and non-religious perspective, there’s the economic one, which focuses on the requirement for land and water and the population increases. Control over these basic resources grounds the economy. That means that there’s no real room for a Palestinian state in the W. Bank – unless, unless, the Israeli moderates – and there are plenty of them – support a Palestinian state in there with its economy embedded in that of Israel.
But that requires an enormous leap of faith, an acceptance that ‘Arabs are OK people’ and we can live with and work with them. But there’s been a generation of deep hostility on both sides. Don’t think that the settlers are pleasant and kind to the Palestinians; they are as vicious as the Palestinians. And both sides have educated their young in this hostility. So – is this leap of faith possible? By either side?
IF, if, they had done it 20-30 years ago, set up a Palestinian state embedded within the Israeli economy, then, I think the ‘two states’ would easily have been a match for the Arab States. Remember, in my view, the Arab States have no interest in a Palestinian state but instead have made cynical use of the Palestinians to divert their rebellious youth away from their own internal problems.
I think it’s too late for a two-state solution. My concern is Iran, and its rather blatant wish for Israel to attack it (again, using Palestine as a fake reason)..so that it, Iran, can move into the Arab States.
“Is that what passes for history nowadays? Or was it just a rant?”
Right. I am the student of revisionist history. Jews were never persecuted in Europe. Nor were they killed. Give me a break. If you want to bash Obama, find something else to bash him about. Leave Israel out of your deluded rants. Israel does not need the support of right wing hacks who are the ideological descendants of some of the most vile persecutors of Jews.
So yes, that was a rant. And a little bit of real history. Christians were not always nice to Jews. And Israel should not be invoked in your everyday bash Obama rants.
Too much over-simplification of a complex matter.
The recent history (1000 years) is the ottoman Empire. The notion of nationality still does not exist—except perhaps in Iran (largely due to race and language).
The inhabitants of that area identified firstly by religion and then by city…..a Christian from Cairo—a Druz from Damascas—-a Muslim from Jerusalem—-
All intellectual progress in the ARAB world ceased about the time of the crusades and the Ottoman conquest.
The Ottoman’s conquest was mostly a successful divide and conquer policy which illustrates the lack of unity in the “ARAB NATION”.
This is clearly illustrated by the 1948 War when Egypt, Syria and TransJordan’s well supplied, well armed, well equiped and well trained professional armies were defeated by a poorly armed but well motivated rabble of amateurs….really!!!!
The inconvenient truth is had that expeditious ARAB coalition succeeded in destroying Isreal there would have bee no Palestinian State (democratic or otherwise). The proof is that Syria annexed the Golan, Egypt annexed Gaza and Jordan annexed the West Bank. None of the three ARAB staes attempted assimilation of the “Palestinians” but kept them in de facto concentration camps—(refugee camps).
In fact the term “Palestinian” only emerged after 1967—-prior that all were citizens of Eygpt, Jordan, Syria or Lebanon.
After that the USSR, who were the main instigators in the exodus of Jews from Europe, kept the ARABs well supplied with state of the art weapons systems (to destabilize the West’s oil supplies) while Isreal had to make do with second hand, used western weaponry.
The other inconvenient truth is that Arabs are only a small portion of the Muslim World….which has even less unity than the ARABs.
Actually a Palestinian ARAB state already exists…..it’s called JORDAN.
Sasquatch, don’t confuse the issue with facts.
“So – is this leap of faith possible? By either side?” posted by ET
Faith in who or what? Obama or humanity?
It seems politics takes a back seat to religion when it comes to the Middle East conflict.
It will take nothing short of a miracle for there to be peace in the Middle East. I wonder if Obama, a suspected narcissist, plans on being that miracle – the Saviour for all faith and belief systems, including those that identify as atheists, agnostics or humanists.
I came across a very interesting post today. According to a Shiite text of the 17th century, Obama fits the “Magic formula in Majlisi’s tradition” meaning he is the ultimate Saviour who is going to usher in the Mahdi. (Iranian Prophesy)http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2124531/posts
We have Judaism waiting for the First coming of the Messiah.
New Agers are ecstatic at the “dawning of the age of Aquarius” which: “When the Moon is in the seventh house, and Jupiter aligns with Mars. Then peace will guide the planets, and love will steer the stars.” This alignment occurred on February 14, 2009″ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Aquarius.
Environmentalists and wiccans are awaiting a “Saviour for Mother Earth”.
The Buddhists are waiting for Maiterya -awaiting his “final rebirth in the world”.
Natives are awaiting the “day of purification.”
The Mayans believe there is a “coming of great change” in 2012.
The Baha’i Faith believes their “faith” will be embraced by the masses of the world, ushering in a “golden age of society”.
The Hindus believe The Lord shall manifest Himself as the Kalki Avatar and will establish “righteousness upon the earth and the minds of the people will become as pure as crystal.”
Christians are awaiting the Second Coming of Jesus Christ; but believe an Anti-Christ will appear first claiming to be “Saviour of the World.” This Antichrist will receive a fatal wound to head, be pronounced dead and then “miraculously” come back to life. The Antichrist causes all people to recieve a mark on their forhead or right hand inorder to buy or sell (many believe this mark is the biologically needle implanted nano technology micro chip).
I am not saying Obama is the Antichrist or a saviour, political or otherwise, but I can certainly see how he can use these belief systems, and the threats facing the world to his advantage.
sasquatch:
After the prophesized fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple as a consequence of a failed armed insurrection against the Roman Empire, many of the inhabitants were forcefully scattered throughout the known world.
The Romans re-named the province Palestine, in hopes the Jews would not return since the territory’s name was much like its hated enemies … the Phillistines.
Today’s Jews treat both Muslims and Christians in Israel with equal disdain.
Obama’s speech justified all those who think that Jews stole the land from some ancient people called Palestinians.
Obama’s speech will be praised by all those who think of Jews living in Judea (West Bank)as “obstacles to peace”.
Pathetic and dangerous.
the current president of the usa is a very acccomplished politician as most presidents of the usa are – however he is self-admittedly operating above his pay grade. his vision is extraordinary in that, instead of just two sides of the debate/fence he is looking at issues in three dimensions.
obama sees issues above the fence and below the fence beside the issues that are this side or that side. in other words, his politically engendered pragmatism has rendered him amoral and without principles. his position, chicanery, stance or posing can be celebrated or denounced.
as a clumsy individual, i’m 5 thumbs down.
Obama is the exception to the all the “rules” and, as such, is entitled to rule all the exceptions.
Dr. Habash, one of the terrorists that held hostage the plane in Lebanon in 1972, and shot the American on board, was a good Kristian.
Me thinks the likes of ET should talk to some of the peoples who have “escaped” from the middle east, some have good stories to tell, and many of those stories would NOT agree with ET’s nonsense on the Palistinians.
When he’s finished with the Israeli’s. Than he will start on the rest of the Joo’s, to feed the Islamic belly for murder.
This guy has no god but himself.
He’s trying to placicate the devil with fire.
The Worlds woves are sharpining their teeth in anticpation of a feast of human meat.
JMO
ET;
With sincere respect to your obvious intelligence and knowledge of a variety of subects, if you don’t think that holding the WB represents a military advantage for Israel, then we’ve found the subject in which you are out of your depth.
There is simply no arguing that a defending army doesn’t hold a military advantage by having a river between it and its enemies. While the American army would go over it like a speed bump, Arab armies would at least labour with it mightily, if not being stopped by it.
While that simple military truth most certainly does work to the advantage of those in Israel who see the WB as nothing more than a good piece of real estate to own, its still true. Israel would be taking a big risk by giving it up.
Maybe Jordan should have thought of that before it ignored Israel telling them to stay out of the ’67 war.
The bottom line is that if everybody accepted the fundamental moral principle of a civilized society, namely that no person has the right to initiate the use of force on any other person, all this unpleasantness could be avoided permanently.
So, the plan was in 1947 to create a nation that hadn’t previously existed (in anything approaching modern times), then another in 1967. These two “nations” would be joined at the belly, of two peoples who have ancient mutual emnity, in a paradoxical area of great riches and despair.
And there’s a problem. Shocking. Two cultures that are totally alien to each other (despite living together for eons and notwistanding tribalism, ET), crammed together, at each other’s throats.
I’m not into prophesies (not because they’re never true, but because most of them are crackpot), but here’s an interesting tidbit from when and where it all started. It’s the book of Genesis (Muslims feel free to pipe in the Koran version) and further to the story of Hagar and Sara above:
(to Hagar) ” …you will have a son. You shall name him Ishmael, for the Lord has heard of your misery. He will be a wild donkey of a man; his hand will be against everyone and everyone’s hand against him, and he will live in hostility toward all his brothers.” Genesis 16:11-12 NIV
Here is what Barry Rubin had to write on Obambi’s speech “The first problem is that Obama said many things factually quite untrue, some ridiculously so. Pages would be required to list all these inaccuracies. The interesting question is whether Obama consciously lied or really believes it. I’d prefer him to be lying, because if he’s that ignorant then America and the world is in very deep trouble.
If he really believes Islam’s social role is so perfect, radical Islamists are a tiny minority, Palestinians have suffered hugely through no fault of their own, and so on, then he’s living in a fantasy world. Unfortunately, we are not. The collision between reality and dream is going to be a terrible one.”