Obama: Israel is a "constant sore" that "infects all of our foreign policy"

[NewsGuy]

Just in case there's any doubt about the policies of Barack Hussein Obama, we can clearly why Hamas supports him. It also exposes the lies Hussein Obama told the American people about not agreeing with Rev. Wright's and Nation of Islam's anti-Semitic opinions.

From news article:

Barack Obama, interviewed in The Atlantic describes Israel as a "constant wound... a constant sore..." that serves to "infect all of our foreign policy." Jeffrey Goldberg asked him: "Do you think that Israel is a drag on America's reputation overseas?" His answer:

"No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy.
[...]

Obama partisans claim that the Democratic frontrunner was referring to the Middle East conflict. But the antecedent to "this constant wound, that this constant sore" in the question is "Israel."

Rep. John Boehner, House Republican leader, suggested that the statement belies Obama's claims of friendship for Israel. "These sorts of words and characterizations are the words of a politician with a deep misunderstanding of the Middle East and an innate distrust of Israel," Boehner said in a statement.

[...]

In his interview Obama continues, harping on his opposition to Israel "settlement" policies, and saying that true friends of Israel should be critical of its policies...

http://web.israelinsider.com/Article...tics/12845.htm

[Djinn]

I don't think it's so clear-cut.

From the same interview:

Goldberg: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

Obama: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

Goldberg: What do you make of Jimmy Carter’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state?

Obama: I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.c..._and_hamas.php

[andak01]

Click here to read the original quotes in context.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.c..._and_hamas.php

When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.

When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.

[NewsGuy]

Click here to read the original quotes in context.

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.c..._and_hamas.php

[I]When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.”

That's a lie.

Obama has repeatedly stated that he will force Israel to expel Jewish families from the land of Israel to give that Jewish land to Palestinian terrorists -- just like was done in Gaza. And, we can see how well that turned out for Israel's security.

You want an end to Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel? Obama's your man. That's why terrorist groups like Hamas and racist, anti-Semitic groups like Nation of Islam suppport Obama. If they believed that he would actually fight terrorism, they would never support him. But they're correct. Hussein Obama is the best choice for Muslim terror groups, that's for sure.

So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.

Another major lie from Obama.

Which exactly are the "unilateral policies" of George Bush that Obama would be "moving away" from? Let's get specific. I would be interested in knowing what the Bush policies are currently, and what the Obama policies would be if elected, God forbid.

[I am David]

From the full context, it just looks like Obama meant Israel/Palestine was a "sore-spot" in ability of American foreign policy to succeed, in general, rather than Israel itself, being a sore spot.

It is simply acknowledging that the Israel/Palestine problem has failed to resolve itself, and continues being a nuisance to the succesfulness of American foreign policy.

I don't see anything wrong with that.

[NewsGuy]

I don't think it's so clear-cut.

From the same interview:

"Goldberg: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

Obama: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements."

Notice that Obama never answered the question, which was "Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?"

The Hamas leader's statement: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”

Hmmm... Why, oh why, would a leader of Hamas endorse Obama? And since he obviously does, why would anyone who opposes terrorism agree with the Hamas pick for president?

[I am David]

Notice that Obama never answered the question, which was "Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?"

The Hamas leader's statement: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”

Hmmm... Why, oh why, would a leader of Hamas endorse Obama? And since he obviously does, why would anyone who opposes terrorism agree with the Hamas pick for president?

That argument never works. Hamas is a bunch of madmen, and you don't trust the judgement of madmen, whichever way it goes. You trust your judgement, and that's it.

[andak01]

That's a lie.

Obama has repeatedly stated that he will force Israel to expel Jewish families from the land of Israel to give that Jewish land to Palestinian terrorists -- just like was done in Gaza. And, we can see how well that turned out for Israel's security.

He did? I'd have thought that would have made the news by now. Did he also stap an explosive belt to himself and dance in the street? C'mon!

You want an end to Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel? Obama's your man. That's why terrorist groups like Hamas and racist, anti-Semitic groups like Nation of Islam suppport Obama. If they believed that he would actually fight terrorism, they would never support him. But they're correct. Hussein Obama is the best choice for Muslim terror groups, that's for sure.

In your opinion, how far does the "Land of Israel" extend? How many new settlements should be created and where?

Another major lie from Obama.

Which exactly are the "unilateral policies" of George Bush that Obama would be "moving away" from? Let's get specific. I would be interested in knowing what the Bush policies are currently, and what the Obama policies would be if elected, God forbid.

Of course, Olmert is in cloud cuckoo land if he believes that the world will sign off on such heavy-handed Israeli unilateralism. And Bush too will share cloud cuckoo land with Olmert if he affirms Israeli delusions that they can both fix their borders beyond the Green Line and without Palestinian acquiescence. For this reason, what happens in Washington during Olmert’s visit is very important. Bush certainly will not turn down Olmert flat. But will he give Olmert the cover he covets to set final borders? Or will Bush try to give him half a loaf and hope that will suffice? Here’s more about Bush’s quandary from WSJ:
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...teral-borders/

May 23, 2006 | When Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert meets with President Bush Tuesday, he will try to convince the White House that in the absence of a "partner for peace," an Israeli plan to draw its final borders, and wall off Israelis from Palestinians, is in the best interests of peace and stability in the region.

Yet the implementation of Olmert's "convergence" plan could have the opposite effect. By annexing West Bank lands, claiming Jerusalem's Old City and its holy sites exclusively as Israel's own, drawing a new "security border" along the Jordan Valley and keeping in place, at least for now, the military occupation in the West Bank, the convergence plan would essentially kill the decades-old Palestinian dream of self-determination. The plan is likely to lead to neither peace nor stability.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/05/23/olmert/

[Yala]

There is nothing wrong with what Obama said in that interview. In fact he is saying all the right things about Israel, except when he referred to the Likud in a derogatory manor. That being said, I don't believe a word of what he says regarding Israel. Someone who supports Israel would not fill all his advising spots with anti-Israel nut cases. And someone who supports Israel would not attend United Trinity church, and so on.

He knows he needs to the Jewish votes in Florida to win. Those older retired Floridians are as pro-Israel as they come. Wake up people.

[NewsGuy]

http://www.richardsilverstein.com/ti...teral-borders/

In terms of his self-hating views, Richard Silverstein is a (more) pathetic and not-as-bright version of Noam Chomsky. Really vile stuff.

I've personally had the pleasure of kicking his blog, Tikun Olam, out of JBlog Central more than a year ago for being anti-Israeli and probably anti-Semitic, as well. He was quite miffed...

In terms of credibility on the topic of Israel or Judaism, I would have a tough time choosing between Richard Silverstein and Mullah Omar.

The plan is likely to lead to neither peace nor stability.

As opposed to the Palestinian peace plan of firing Katyushas into Israeli shopping malls. Now there's a peace plan the Left can get behind...

[andak01]

As opposed to the Palestinian peace plan of firing Katyushas into Israeli shopping malls. Now there's a peace plan the Left can get behind...

But the left isn't behind it, and neither is the non-Gaza, non-Hamas citizenry. Obama clearly stated that he isn't behind it. So it must be quite convenient for you to call a lie anything that doesn't fit your profile of what Obama and the left must be about in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

[Djinn]

That's a lie. Obama has repeatedly stated that he will force Israel to expel Jewish families from the land of Israel to give that Jewish land to Palestinian terrorists ...

I think I'd like to see a source for this. In my last post, I provided a direct link to a complete word-for-word interview transcript. I would ask you for nothing less to support your own claim.

[andak01]

I think I'd like to see a source for this. In my last post, I provided a direct link to a complete word-for-word interview transcript.

You're not playing by the rules. Word for word plain statements from Obama's mouth don't count, it's out of context quotes from people he's met that prove what he REALLY believes! We're in search of truthiness here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness

[NewsGuy]

But the left isn't behind it, and neither is the non-Gaza, non-Hamas citizenry. Obama clearly stated that he isn't behind it. So it must be quite convenient for you to call a lie anything that doesn't fit your profile of what Obama and the left must be about in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

Yes, the Left does support the Hamas and its terror attacks, specifically saying that since Israel has restricted Gaza's borders, it's "no wonder" that Hamas shoots missiles into Israeli towns. That's a fact. The Left supports terrorism and justifies it, so long as the terrorism is aimed against Jews. I've even seen Leftists write "what else can Hamas do?"

Re: Obama, who knows what Obama's really talking about. Whenever asked his opinion on any topic, he mumbles an answer that reiterates the opinions of both sides of the issue. At the end of his long-winded babbling, sometimes he says very quickly and in a lower voice "on the other hand..." and then says something that contradicts what he said previously. That's the tactic he uses, so that when called on any issue, he can say, well, I also said the opposite.

For example, Obama says "I will not negotiate with terrorists" (and goes on and on about that), then he says "We need to open a dialogue with Iran."

Reminds me of Obama saying "I am the candidate to unite America," then he calls his grandmother a "typical white person."

So long as he needs the Jewish vote in Florida, Obama is happy to go on and on about how Israel's security is important. But then he quickly mumbles "On the other hand," Israel must stop building Jewish settlements in Israel, and prepare to give the Palestinians a continuous state. Now, how exactly can giving the Palestinians more land to be used as missile launch sites aimed at Israeli towns bring more security to Israel? And, how exactly can Gaza be continuous with the West Bank without stealing even more Jewish land and creating a noose around Israel?

When taking into account Hussein Obama's ties to Palestinian terror groups in Chicago, appointing Nation of Islam advisors to his campaign, being endorsed by Hamas, Louis Farrakhan, the Black Panthers, his anti-Semitic spiritual advisor Rev. Wright, and announcing that he will not follow Bush's policies regarding Israel, it all adds up to Obama being bad for Jews and bad for Israel, not to mention being bad for America.

Again - I would like to cut through the Obama double-speak and understand clearly: What is the current Bush 'unilateral' approach to the Middle East conflict, and to what would Obama change it?

[NewsGuy]

You're not playing by the rules. Word for word plain statements from Obama's mouth don't count,

Words do count. It's just that in Obama's case, all we hear is doublespeak with quick mumbling of contradictory positions, depending on whose votes he's trying to get on any particular day.

Let's face it: You would never vote for Obama unless you believed that he will be the best candidate for Muslims. He is, essentially, the Muslims' candidate, from Chicago to Gaza to Tora Bora to Teheran, he's the favorite. More than Obama's babbling rhetoric, his supporters are a good indication of who he's best for.