Archive for the ‘israel’ Category

Obama is embarrassing

May 19, 2011 1 comment

Babs would love her new neighbors

Let’s imagine that we live in a world where Mexico is regularly lobbing missiles into San Diego.  Mexico, along with much of the world, argues that California should be given to Mexico, and until that happens, all the rocket-launching is understandable.  After all, California was once part of Mexico before the Mexican-American War, and there are quite a few Mexican citizens currently residing there.  Now, if we asked our esteemed president to give Southern California back to Mexico, he would probably laugh and say “Not a chance.  They love me in Hollywood!”  Well Barry, how about just the southern portion, including San Diego?  Wouldn’t that be fair?  Again, he’d say “No.”  It’s part of America, he’d say.

In the real world, the same thing is happening…it’s just happening in the Middle East.  It involves Israel.  We are repeatedly inundated with the Palestinian “issue.”  The Palestinian people, they say, deserve their own little country, carved out of a portion of Israel.  Israel obviously says “No.”  Everyone has taken a side.  On one end, you have those like Jimmy Carter-people so infatuated with the Arab Muslims that they’d volunteer to stone an adulterous wife-who think Israel should just disappear.  Others, like Hillary Clinton, advocate for a two-state solution.  Those of us with a shred of common sense don’t quite understand why Israel should give up any land when they’re constantly bombarded with Palestinian rockets.  Fortunately, we haven’t had a president who has taken the Palestinian side since the peanut farmer; until now.

Given his public stance on things, it’s not really all that unreasonable to question Barry’s religion.  You know, whether he’s a Christian or a Muslim.  While I don’t personally care, one does have to wonder.  On the one hand, he goes out of his way to have a cross covered up before he speaks at Georgetown, while on the other hand, he’s given multiple speeches whose only purpose is to suck up to the Middle East.  Well, except for Israel.  Which brings us to our point.

B.O. gave a speech today regarding the Middle East.  Why?  Who knows…I’m guessing it has something to do with the fact that an “unexpectedly” large number of Middle Eastern Muslims are upset about us killing what’s his face a couple weeks ago.  In any event, the man who likes to talk gave another speech.  In it, Barry advocated for a two state solution to Palestinian issue.  Except not just any two state solution.  One that would reduce Israel’s borders to before 1967.

Quick history lesson: between June 5 and 10, Israel successfully fought off  Egypt, Jordan, and Syria in the Arab-Israeli War of 1967.  It began with an air strike by Egypt.  After that, Israel routed the three countries in six days, eventually taking over small portions of land from each country.  Some of that land was the West Bank, previously part of Jordan, which was occupied by lots of Palestinians.  Since that day, the Arab Muslims, along with the liberal intellectuals of the world, have been crying in their Cheerios because of the poor, poor Palestinians.  To them I say: don’t let your ego write checks that your butt can’t cash.

Israel has always been a top-notch ally of the U.S.  It’s a functioning democracy, occupying strategic ground in the middle of crazy-town.  And since drilling for our own oil would make gas cheaper potentially impact a gecko in Texas, we are forced to care about crazy-town.  Unfortunately, our law school professor turned president has found it necessary to give our top-notch ally repeated dong-punches.  And now, he wants Israel to give back all of the land it took from the countries that tried to erase it from the map.  Why?  Because he’s an Israel-hating buffoon, that’s why.  Why does he hate Israel?  I don’t know…maybe he thinks Jews talk about God too much.

Congratulations Barry.  You gave the order to shoot Osama in the head.  The rest of your foreign policy has been a complete, unmitigated disaster.  You have repeatedly dumped on an ally, in favor of a bunch of yahoos who would cut off your head if given the opportunity.

On second thought, maybe Barry’s outlook has merit.  Instead of fighting those drug cartels, why don’t we just give So. Cal. to the Mexicans?  I’m sure Barbara Streisand would love the new locals jumping the walls of her compound to sell her some hand-crafted maracas.


Obama in tough spot with Egypt…but not that tough

February 1, 2011 4 comments

Egypt is a “sticky-wicket,” as they say.  On the one hand, we are supposed to support movements for Democracy.  On the other hand, when the movement for Democracy is going to replace a moderate dictator in an important Middle Eastern country with a terrorist organization like the Muslim Brotherhood, there’s a lot more to think about then simply honoring the will of the people.  If I were Barry, I might be doing the same thing he’s currently doing: waiting to see what happens. 

However, it’s not that difficult to acknowledge that a long-time ally being taken over by hard-line Muslims, aka terrorists, is bad.  It’s even worse when the incoming leadership has expressed, in no uncertain terms, that war is coming to Israel:

A leading member of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt told the Arabic-language Iranian news network Al-Alam on Monday that he would like to see the Egyptian people prepare for war against Israel, according to the Hebrew-language business newspaper Calcalist.

At the end of the day, the job of our government isn’t to export Democracy; it’s to protect its citizens and, to a reasonable extent, its allies.  Obama should be offering support to the current Egyptian regime; not wavering on the people’s choice.   

Obama Hates Israel…

June 11, 2010 1 comment

In simultaneous moves, the Obama White House is backing an anti-Israel UN resolution scheduled for next week, while pressuring Congress to ease sanctions on Iran. What the hell is going on?  First, on Israel:

[S]enior Obama administration officials have been telling foreign governments that the administration intends to support an effort next week at the United Nations to set up an independent commission, under UN auspices, to investigate Israel’s behavior in the Gaza flotilla incident.

Terrific.  I can hear Cyndi Lauper now, “I see your true colors shining through….”  No one can legitimately argue that our President doesn’t hate one our strongest allies.  But why does he hate Israel?  I don’t know.  The simplest answer is the same explanation for all of his behavior: he’s incompetent.  Maybe he thinks being hard on Israel will make us look better in the eyes of the Muslim world.  Maybe he thinks he can actually make friends with those that hate us?  Maybe his motives are more sinister.  Only he knows.  But he’s setting a dangerous precedent by backing a U.N. resolution to investigate the activities of a sovereign nation defending itself.  I certainly would not have wanted the U.N.’s permission to drop a couple atomic bombs on Japan to safe the lives of our soldiers.

While the White House cooperates with the U.N. on what will undoubtedly be some one-sided, completely biased investigation, Congress is actually working to install increasingly severe sanctions on Iran:

Administration officials have begun negotiations with congressional leaders, who are working on versions of House and Senate bills that would punish companies that sell refined petroleum products to Iran or help the country’s oil industry.

U.S. sanctions have strong support in Congress, and the administration backs them in principle as a way to strengthen the mild strictures adopted on Wednesday by the U.N. Security Council.

Sounds like a good idea, especially given that Iran has ignored previous U.N. resolutions, and the U.N.’s response is to write angry letters.  At least we can control what we do, right?  Wait, what did you say?

But the administration fears that the legislation also could damage relations with Europe, Russia and China, all of whom cooperated with U.S. efforts on the U.N. sanctions.

In what has to be one of the few times the President has actually taken a stand of his own, he chooses the international community over Congress.  Why would the opinions of Europe, Russia, and China matter?  Don’t we love freedom and hate tyranny?  What about the human rights violations in Iran?  WHAT ABOUT THE FREAKIN’ NUCLEAR WEAPONS?!  The fact is, the White House has no interest in severely sanctioning Iran.  Why?  Because the White House is more interested in making friends with our enemies then they are defending Israel, an actual ally.  The problem is that, aside from the U.N. simply being a pathetically weak alliance made up of far too many socialists and wannabe communists, it is blatantly anti-semitic.  Is that really the side we want to be on?

Meanwhile, U.S. business groups have been complaining that the legislation could punish them by barring U.S. firms from doing business with any foreign firms that have commercial ties to Iran.

I call bull-s**t.  Since when did this White House care about punishing business?  For crying out loud, that’s all they’ve been doing since Obama became President!  And the businesses specifically mentioned as being punished?  Shell, Total and China Oil…the hated oil companies!  Let’s face it: the White House hates Israel so much that it’s willing to go soft on our enemies and defend the interests of the big businesses it claims to despise.  This President is a disgrace.

Israel defending itself = piracy?

June 5, 2010 3 comments

Piracy on the high seas

Libs think Israel has a little Captain in 'em

Bill Press, my second favorite progressive radio talk show host, went a long way to prove why the major newspapers are going under yesterday.  While I understand that his piece in the Chicago Tribune was of the “Opinion” variety, shouldn’t someone have to at least make a point based on actual facts for a major newspaper to publish the opinion?  Otherwise, the Tribune’s Opinion page becomes just a half-assed blog (unlike this blog of course).  Mr. Press begins his piece by offering a story:

Forget what country did it. Consider, first, the facts: armed commandos attack an unarmed ship in international waters, open fire and kill nine civilians, including one American.

O.k. Nice hypothetical.  What’s your point?

What do you call that? An act of piracy. It doesn’t matter what country did it. It would have been wrong for Iran to do it. It would have been wrong for North Korea to do it. It was wrong for Israel to do it — and the United States should simply say so.

Oh, i get it.  You’re going to base your entire opinion piece on a complete misrepresentation of the facts.  First, the “unarmed ship” wasn’t simply floating around in international waters, as you imply.  It was running a blockade.  Also, the “unarmed ship” at issue wasn’t unarmed.  In fact, it was carrying quite a few armed passengers who were known associates of terrorist organizations.  Also, the blockade at issue didn’t exist in a vacuum.  It was put in place to keep rockets from being brought into Gaza, and being fired at Israel.  Now that we have stated the actual facts, lets move on.

There is no justification for Israel’s decision to use military force to prevent humanitarian aid from reaching the shores of Gaza, especially after the U.S. had warned Israel to use “caution and restraint.”

Good grief Bill.  “Humanitarian aid?”  I’m not denying that the flotilla was carrying some humanitarian aid, but if the true goal was to deliver it, Israel would have been allowed to search its contents before an attempt was made at running the blockade.  That wasn’t the goal.  Instead, the goal was to make some sort of statement that would result in the international community hating Israel more than they previously did.  Based upon the already established feelings of the international community, the statement wasn’t necessary.

Mr. Press, your clear agenda is revealed in your hypocritical statement “there is no justification for Israel’s decision to use military force…especially after the U.S. had warned Israel to use ‘caution and restraint.'” Interesting.  You, like all liberals, are usually of the opinion that the U.S. throws it weight around too much on the international scene.  Israel, though, is apparently a different story.

Press remembers his liberal leanings soon thereafter, though,

Did passengers on board the Mavi Marmara strike first? Yes. But only with knives, iron pipes and slingshots. And only after armed soldiers boarded and attempted to take over their ship. In response, cornered Israeli troops opened fire in what can only be described as a badly botched military exercise resulting in an unnecessary and excessive use of force.

This is a favorite argument of liberals.  If your enemy is only using a knife to try and kill you, you have no right to use a gun.  Well, tell that to the guy with the knife to his throat.  Of course, I’m sure that if the Israeli soldiers had remembered to pack their sling-shots, everything would have been fine.  Sorry Bill.  When a group of terrorists decides to try and kill Israeli soldiers with a club, they should expect to be shot at…a lot.  I would hope you would support the U.S. military doing the same (although I know you don’t).

After running through a couple of Israeli ivory-tower types who are apparently unhappy with the flotilla raid (which only proves that Israel has its share of self-hating elitist liberals just like the U.S.), Press offers the same argument against the blockade that he’s leveled towards the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan: It’s only going to make your enemies hate you more.

Originally sold as a means of making Israel more secure, the blockade of Gaza, now in place for three years, has had just the opposite effect. It has not made Israel more secure, but it has strengthened the hand of Hamas, caused great suffering among the population of Gaza, and further alienated the Arab world against any accommodation with Israel.

No, Bill, I don’t think it’s possible for the haters of Israel to hate them any more than they already do.  Netanyahu, unlike you, realizes that, and has decided self-preservation is more important than Gazans having all the building materials they need.  Being that he is in charge of his people’s safety, that’s the right decision.  Press ends with the following nonsense:

The only solution is a two-state solution. And the only way to get there is by resumption of peace talks.

Mr. Press, past history has proven that the more Israel gives up to the Palestinians, the more they get shelled with rockets.  If I put my war-monger hat on, I would say the only solution is for Israel to continue to kill their enemies before their enemies kill them (which is the same thing our military should continue doing).  There can be no peace when one of the two parties doesn’t want it (and that party isn’t Israel).

I don’t get it, I really don’t.  Why the hatred for Israel?  Are they all anti-Semites?  That can’t be…not the “we love diversity” liberals.  One has to wonder though, why liberals keep coming down on the side of the terrorists when it comes to Israel.

President calls for Israel to ignore history and trust the international community

June 3, 2010 2 comments

Obama: Israeli raid on aid flotilla was ‘tragic’

President Barack Obama said Thursday that the deadly Israeli raid on an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip was “tragic”, but he stopped short of condemning the actions of Israeli forces.

While Obama said the deaths of nine people were unnecessary, he said the U.S. wants to wait for “an investigation of international standards” to determine the facts. Israel, he said, should agree to such an investigation.

First, lets get one thing straight.  While the death of civilians can be described as “tragic,” the rush to condemn Israel by the international community is becoming a bit too rehearsed.  Israel, just like any nation, has a right to defend itself.  That is exactly what it’s been doing with the blockade.  Moreover, if “innocent civilians” don’t want to get caught in a cross-fire, maybe they should think twice about attempting to run a blockade with known terrorists in tow.

Now, if I hadn’t known the President’s true feelings regarding Israel, I would wonder whether he’d been living under a rock for the past, I don’t know, fifty years.  Why exactly would Israel agree to an “investigation of international standards?”  Can anyone name one instance where Israel was treated with anything but disdain by the international community?  Keep in mind, this is the same community that claims a two-state solution is the answer.  The last time I looked, every time Israel conceded anything to anyone in the Middle East, they were met with rockets.

The President continued,

They recognize that this can’t be good for Israel’s long-term security.

I bet you’re wrong Barry.  In fact, I bet/hope Israel has (rightfully) recognized that enforcing the blockade is good for their long-term security.

UPDATE: More recent news reports are indicating Israel is considering a “new flexibility” in dealing with the Gaza shipments.  Apparently this flexibility is a result of the international outrage, and our President’s input.  I truly hope Israel doesn’t bend at all to the world’s demands.  It should seem pretty apparent to anyone that has stayed awake for a couple of history classes in high school that, for whatever reason, the world generally hates Israel.  What’s new, and a disgrace, is that our President has chosen to extend a hand to our enemies, while spitting in the face of one of our strongest allies.

Categories: israel, obama Tags: , ,
%d bloggers like this: