Obama Throws Israel onto the Train to Auschwitz

There was a time when Barack Hussein Obama looked like a wonderful guy ready to bring happiness and prosperity to everybody. It was in 2008 when he needed the support of every imaginable ethnic or political group, because the outcome of the upcoming presidential election wasn’t clear at all.

Jews were one of those groups. Trying to get their donations and political support, Obama was throwing at them generous promises for unconditional support of Israel, guarantees for the indivisibility of Jerusalem, lasting peace, fair to all sides, etc. etc.

Of course, even then there were lonely voices, which doubted his rhetoric and pointed out his lack of principles. After all, he spent years at the church of
the racist Jeremiah Wright, he got and endorsement from the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan and he counted a former Marxist terrorist among his friends.

But the desire to have the first politically correct black President blurred the vision of the US voters. And now they are paying for that. It’s not only the horribly mismanaged economy, forced to pay for unsustainable programs, it’s also the disastrous foreign policy.

Case in point is Obama’s Mideast speech this week.  It was strange, to say the least – all those promises to Israel and the Jews made in 2008 are gone. He paints a picture of the Middle East, its problems and their solutions, which is in a striking dissonance with reality.

Obviously, he is urged to react to the so-called “Arab Spring” in a way that would please the “revolutionary masses”. After praising what happened over there as the best thing since the sliced bread, he mentions what measures we need to see applied in those countries:

“We support a set of universal rights. Those rights include free speech; the freedom of peaceful assembly; freedom of religion; equality for men and women under the rule of law; and the right to choose your own leaders – whether you live in Baghdad or Damascus; Sanaa or Tehran.”

Is this some kind of dark humour? Free speech and freedom of religion are totally incompatible with the Muslim tradition. The people of Egypt overwhelmingly support the death penalty for apostasy and total sharia control. The only country where those values were applied to certain extend was Turkey and only because Ataturk practically banished Islam from public life. However, the Islamist government of Erdogan is working very hard to “correct” the situation.

Then Obama makes sure that the previous paragraph shouldn’t be taken too seriously. America need not interfere too much, in fact it must stay in the shadows while allowing the Islamists to do whatever they want:

“As we do, we must proceed with a sense of humility. It is not America that put people into the streets of Tunis and Cairo – it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and must determine their outcome. Not every country will follow our particular form of representative democracy, and there will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.”

In other words, we would take whatever monstrous form of government those people may come up with and we will take it with humility. That’s the ultimate expression of cultural relativism – even if the Muslims build a sharia republic, we will go along with that. Obama’s clique would support any form of Islamic barbarism.

Then Obama tries to inject another dose of good values that are desirable in the Arab countries:

“Such tolerance is particularly important when it comes to religion. In Tahrir Square, we heard Egyptians from all walks of life chant, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” America will work to see that this spirit prevails – that all faiths are respected, and that bridges are built among them. In a region that was the birthplace of three world religions, intolerance can lead only to suffering and stagnation. And for this season of change to succeed, Coptic Christians must have the right to worship freely in Cairo, just as Shia must never have their mosques destroyed in Bahrain.”

Ironically, the truth is the opposite of his statement – under the Arab secular dictators, the religious rights of the minorities were practically guaranteed, because they didn’t allow the Muslim savagery to flourish. A Muslim “democracy” removes all restrictions and we can see its results in the systematic attacks against the Christians in Iraq. Now in Egypt dozens of Coptic Christians are slaughtered every day, which wasn’t the case under Mubarak. Why didn’t Obama find even one word of compassion for those victims of Muslim brutality? Never mind, I know why.

Once the value issues have been “resolved”, Obama’s speechwriters turn to the essence of the “revolution”:

“After all, politics alone has not put protesters into the streets. The tipping point for so many people is the more constant concern of putting food on the table and providing for a family. Too many in the region wake up with few expectations other than making it through the day, and perhaps the hope that their luck will change. Throughout the region, many young people have a solid education, but closed economies leave them unable to find a job. Entrepreneurs are brimming with ideas, but corruption leaves them unable to profit from them.”

Wow, what a deep sociological analysis! So the corruption is at the bottom of all – once we destroy it, there will be hordes of brimming Arab entrepreneurs
confident enough to take control. Is Obama still smoking the stuff he used to at Harvard? The Muslim countries have been in a deep stagnation for the last 800 years. There has been absolutely no progress, except in the countries where they finance their lives by selling oil (and even there progress means buying
engineers and housekeepers from other countries to serve the lazy rich indigenous population).

For as long as Islam controls those areas, there will be no scientific development and no amount of well-wishing entrepreneurs is going to change the situation. Don’t the people who advise Obama have an elementary level of knowledge about how the Muslim societies work?

They obviously don’t, because here is how the President plans to help the “positive” changes in those countries:

“… we do not want a democratic Egypt to be saddled by the debts of its past. So we will relieve a democratic Egypt of up to $1 billion in debt, and work with our Egyptian partners to invest these resources to foster growth and entrepreneurship. We will help Egypt regain access to markets by guaranteeing $1 billion in borrowing that is needed to finance infrastructure and job creation. And we will help newly democratic governments recover assets that were stolen.

… we are working with Congress to create Enterprise Funds to invest in Tunisia and Egypt. These will be modeled on funds that supported the transitions in Eastern Europe after the fall of the Berlin Wall. OPIC will soon launch a $2 billion facility to support private investment
across the region. And we will work with allies to refocus the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development so that it provides the same support for democratic transitions and economic modernization in the Middle East and North Africa as it has in Europe.”

So after getting the background wrong, Obama and his speechwriters manage to make things even worse. They are willing to give away billions of dollars (which the broke USA must borrow) to “help” the economy in countries, where no industry has ever been developed, where the semi-literate imam is the supreme arbiter on social issues and where the corrupt authorities are absolutely sure to steal all the money (exactly the same way they steal it in Iraq and Afghanistan).

And what’s the deal with getting Eastern Europe involved? Those countries were occupied by the Russians and forced to follow the bizarre socialist experiment. But before that they had Western economic structure and they have never been hampered by a primitive death cult like Islam. And even they had hard times re-adjusting to market economy. What is the chance of the Muslim countries doing something like that – you guessed it, it’s zero.

Obama is supposed to be a head of state of the best developed country in the world. How could he be that stupid???

Sorry for taking so many pages before getting to Israel, which was the main issue here, but I wanted to show you that the background of Obama’s Israel policy has been built on the sand foundation of a totally distorted picture of the Middle East.

Here is what he suggests that the Palestinians do:

“For the Palestinians, efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state. Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection. And Palestinians will never realize their independence by denying the right of Israel to exist.”

On the surface, all is fine and dandy – a sound recommendation, which requires only words from the Palestinians. In the best traditions of the Muslim taqiya (lying to achieve your final goals) they have done that many times before. If you remember, the little bald conman Arafat played Bill Clinton for years with exactly the same false promises while stealing billions of dollars of international aid. Why does Obama think that this time it would be any different?

And here is what Israel should do to achieve Obama’s utopia:

“The fact is, a growing number of Palestinians live west of the Jordan River. Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself. A region undergoing profound change will lead to populism in which millions of people – not just a few leaders – must believe peace is possible. The international community is tired of an endless process that never produces an outcome. The dream of a Jewish and
democratic state cannot be fulfilled with permanent occupation.

… So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

What does the statement that technology would make the defence of Israel harder if they keep Judea and Samaria mean? Is Obama’s government going to supply high-grade weapons to the Palestinians? Or are they going to let Iran arm them? And what about the international community being tired of waiting? Whose fault is that? Wasn’t Arafat offered all those territories on a plate by Barak and rejected the offer (stealing UN money is much easier than governing a state).

The bizarre idea that Israel should agree to the 1967 borders before starting negotiations doesn’t help Obama’s credibility either. We had been through this
before – a few years ago Israel withdrew its troops and residents from Gaza, leaving behind all of their industrial and agricultural facilities intact to be
used by the Arabs. Less than an hour after the last leaving tank crossed the border, the Palestinians stole all computers and other equipment from those
facilities and burned down whatever they couldn’t take away (again, UN welfare is easier to get).

Shortly thereafter they elected the Hamas murderers as their government, who proceeded to send over 10,000 missiles to Israel causing murder and damage. What makes Obama think that this time things would be any different?  If his plan works, the Palestinians would be more than happy, because they’d be able to shoot their missiles right from the windows of the Al Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem.

On top of that, Obama demands a “contiguous” Palestinian state meaning that Israel should be cut in two by some kind of a passage, which for sure would be staffed with Hamas terrorists.

And just wait to hear what Obama’s plans about Israel’s security are:

“As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself – by itself – against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security. The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.”

What is that supposed to mean? What provisions against resurgence of terrorism can you take, when the destruction of Israel still is the basic goal of both Fatah and Hamas? Obama doesn’t provide any explanation about how he is going to stop the infiltration of weapons. If it weren’t for the Israeli sea control and the periodic destruction of tunnels, Gaza would have been flooded with all kinds of weapons. Does he understand what will happen if Israel gives up control of all territories?

So that’s how Obama sees the situation in a nutshell:

“These principles provide a foundation for negotiations. Palestinians should know the territorial outlines of their state; Israelis should know that their basic security concerns will be met. I know that these steps alone will not resolve this conflict. Two wrenching and emotional issues remain: the future of Jerusalem, and the fate of Palestinian refugees. But moving forward now on the basis of territory and security provides a foundation to resolve those two issues in a way that is just and fair, and that respects the rights and aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians.”

Israel has to agree to give up the territories in advance in order to start the negotiations. On the other hand, the Palestinians just need to promise that they would provide the needed security – that’s easy, they’ll lie again, because talk is cheap. Once Obama makes sure that he can get away with that, he will strike again, dividing Jerusalem and forcing Israel to absorb nearly 7 million uneducated and violent Palestinian “refugees”. As soon as he accomplishes that, the only REAL democracy in the Middle East would seize to exist.

The politically correct president would be able to achieve what Adolf Hitler couldn’t.

Shame on you, Barack Hussein Obama!!!

© 2011 Blogwrath.com

Be Sociable, Share!


  1. The Lone Ranger says:

    Obama has proven once and for all whose side he is REALLY on. This Muslim in Christian clothing more than met his match when he tried to bully Israel’s Prime minister, who is a former Isreali commando. Not only would he have the courage to sign off on a raid such as the raid for OBL, but he has combat experience in fighting terrorists.

    Netahyahu knows that Israel has everything to lose and nothing to gain via Obama’s insane suggestions concerning a return to the 1967 border. And he was more than willing to call the Obama’s bluff. Israel can live without US aid and would certainly forgo such aid if the it meant them compromising vital border security.

    Israel will NEVER give up Jerusalem. Nor should they be obligated to for ANY reason.

    1. admiwrath says:

      Comrade Obama is either a clueless activist or a sinister destroyer of our civilization. Regardless of which one is true, there is no reason to re-elect him next year.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *