A completely delusional Obama blames Israel, in UN speech. Unbelievable.
After spending fifteen minutes blabbering about the glories and wonders
of Islam, even as he decried extremism and sectarianism, Obama
proceeded to blame Israel for conflict in the Middle East:
Leadership will also be necessary to address the conflict between
Palestinians and Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America
will never give up the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria
and Libya should cure anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the
main source of problems in the region; for far too long, it has been
used in part as a way to distract people from problems at home. And the
violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to
abandon the hard work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in
the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away
from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or
the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So
long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that
Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with
two states living side by side, in peace and security.
Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,” but by
pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas
continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with
children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his
desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The
moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely
John Kerry’s utterances and the Israel bashing from negotiator Martin Indyk, it’s par for the course.
2. Bill Clinton still plays loose with the facts. He opined that “don’t forget, both [former Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat and [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas later tried to say they would take [the Camp David deal]. They said, ‘We changed our minds, we want it now.’ But by then, they had a government that wouldn’t give it to them.” This is nonsense. It was Clinton who complained bitterly to the incoming Bush administration that Arafat was a snake in the grass and not to be trusted. He of course initiated the intifada, which was Arafat’s real response to the attempt to broker peace. As for Abbas, he was given an even better deal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and turned it down. Netanyahu in 2013, of course, confirmed Israel’s willingness to recognize a Palestinian state. Abbas has never agreed to recognize a Jewish state and give up the so-called right of return. Why does Clinton feel the need to embellish history to make Israel look bad?
3. This does complicate Hillary Clinton’s charm offensive with Israel. She’d like us to believe she’s not like President Obama when it comes to Israel, however relations reached a nadir under the Obama-Clinton administration, and she certainly took to slamming Israel in public for starting housing within existing Jewish neighborhoods.
4. If Bill Clinton is going to keep up the chatter during the presidency, voters may well attribute his comments — and ignorance — to Hillary Clinton or, worse, be reminded that his presence hovering in the White House would make for a whole lot of awkward moments.
As with defense spending, the war against the Islamic State and a more muscular foreign policy, when it comes to Israel the Democratic Party is going to be pushing against even a president to the right of Obama. He or she will be swimming upstream against a party that has been flowing away from Israel for decades. In the GOP, the dynamic is reversed. The base, especially in light of events during the Obama years, is going to be weighing in on the side of Israel and for a more robust response toward terrorists. These things make a difference.