{Cross-Posted at Geoffff's Joint, Bar and Grill and Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers.}
Presidential candidate Mitt Romney has made a point during his trip to Israel to recognize that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state. The Jerusalem Post reports:
After the speech, in comments he made before meeting the prime minister for the second time that day, for dinner, Romney made it a point to refer to Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, putting distance between him and the Obama administration, whose spokesmen in recent weeks have been unable to name Israel’s capital.
This represents a very distinct contrast to the Obama administration which holds the Jewish state in such contempt, and thus the Jewish people in such contempt, that it will not even recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. How can we possibly think of Obama as a friend of Israel when he will not even recognize its capital? And what's worse, of course, is that he pretended to do so when he was running for president in 2008. In 2008 Barack Obama stood up before the Jewish people and claimed:Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.So, Obama recognized Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and then, elected to the presidency, he changed his mind. In other words, he lied to us about something as central to the hearts of the Jewish people as the status of the ancient city of Jerusalem and he did so in a way that was blatant, callous, and obvious... yet he still expects you to support him.
The fact that Obama lied was revealed as early as March, 2010, during Joe Biden's visit to that country. When the Israeli Interior Ministry announced approval for 1,600 housing units in the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood of north-eastern Jerusalem, suddenly not only did the Obama administration no longer consider Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel which must remain undivided, but his people said that the announcement was an "insult" and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reportedly harangued Benjamin Netanyahu on a 45 minute phone call over the issue.
The Obama administration publicly, loudly, and in a manner intended to demonstrate "daylight" between the United States and the Jewish state told the world, particularly the Arab and Muslim worlds, that the status of Jerusalem was entirely up for grabs. Just as Obama voided 3,500 years of Jewish history in his 2009 Cairo speech when he claimed that the founding of Israel was due to the Holocaust, rather than to the long, long history of Jewish people on that land, so he voids 3,500 years of Jewish history now by implying that the capital of the Jewish nation may, or may not, actually be Jewish.
If the Palestinians had not demonstrated their ongoing intention to destroy the Jewish state of Israel through never accepting a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, I might not mind if Israel felt itself so gracious as to give away Jewish land for yet another Arab state. Unfortunately the Palestinians have well-demonstrated their ongoing malice because they absolutely refuse a negotiated conclusion of hostilities. That being the case, their viciously corrupt and anti-Semitic leadership should be allowed no sovereignty in the Jewish city of Jerusalem.
Jerusalem has been the capital of the Jewish nation long before London, Paris, or New York even existed as cities. This matters not one whit to Barack Obama who has so little respect or friendship for the Jewish people that he lied to us when he said that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of the Jewish state.
He lied directly to our faces.
Perhaps Romney can do better.
Perhaps...yet we won't actually know until after he takes office, if he wins.
ReplyDeleteYup.
DeleteAnd I have no expectation that the guy is going to win.
It would be a pleasant surprise if he did, tho.
Furthermore, I do not expect everyone who participates here to agree with me on that score.
The real bottom line, tho, is that Obama wrecked whatever potential there may have been for a peaceful conclusion of hostilities and facilitated the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East.
Those are HUGE issues.
When future historians come to write the history of the Obama administration they will not be focusing on the fact that he agreed to a minute of silence for the Munich dead at the Olympics or even the fact that his administration vetoed the Palestinian statehood bid at the UN.
Their main focus viz-a-viz Obama and the Middle East will be the failure of the peace process and the rise of radical Islam.
Watch.
If reports I've read recently are correct, what Romney said is similar to what every US president since Jimmy Carter, except for George H W Bush have done. Recognized Jerusalem as the Israeli capital, and then changed their mind when elected. Political pandering is easy, but political reality sucks sometimes.
ReplyDeleteI think that you're correct, but it's also important to look at the arc of a presidency.
DeleteAnd Obama's arc has been particularly wretched, Stuart.
He lied through his teeth directly to us. Did Clinton?
He wrecked whatever possibility that there may have been for a negotiated agreement.
And he helped usher in the rise of political Islam throughout the Middle East.
This is what matters.
Your efforts to find equivalency fail because no other US president has ever been this friendly to political Islam or helped facilitate its rise.
No other US president has been quite this disastrous toward the peace process or blame his own failures on the Israelis.
And he does all of this during the period in which his own political movement accepts BDS as part of the larger coalition.
I don't think so.
DeleteStuart,
Deleteif you want to desperately cling to Oslo like some sort-of life raft, you go right ahead, but many of us are moving on.
If the Palestinians wanted the Arab sections of Jerusalem for a state in peace next to Israel they could have accepted that under Olmert.
They didn't.
I live in the world as it is, not how I would like it to be.
I'm quite sure Oslo doesn't even figure in my thinking of why I think you're wrong.
DeleteC'mon, Stuart, what are you? The Sphinx?
DeleteWhere are you at this point? On this matter?
Since Bill Clinton the prevailing assumption has been Oslo. That is, the prevailing idea was that if Israel would only make territorial and other concessions than there could be peace between the Jews and the Arabs.
Since Obama, however, the Palestinians have refused to negotiate.
This is very odd, actually.
The Palestinians are the only alleged persecuted minority in history who absolutely refuse to accept their own freedom and sovereignty.
Don't you find that strange?
I sure do.
And that is why I ask you about Oslo.
Do you still believe in a negotiated conclusion of hostilities or not?
To the last question, yes, at least to the extent I believe in anything. Whether it's based on Oslo or otherwise, there is no other way for the hositilities to end. The alternative is status quo or worse, which will never lead to a conclusion of hostilities.
DeleteWhat I think you're wrong on are the claims you made about Obama. There's no reason to rehash it. We've been through it before. You have reached certain conclusion which you accept as fact. I don't.
Stuart, when are you going to take "no" for an answer?
DeleteLeaving the Obama question aside, the Palestinians and the Arab governments have been saying "no" since the Peel Commission of 1937.
Recognizing this fact does not mean that the status quo must continue. In fact, the opposite is true. Refusing to face this fact is precisely what is keeping the status quo operable.
Rather than pleading with Israel's enemies to finally accept its existence, Israel needs to take matters into its own hands with a unilateral declaration of final borders.
It's long past time to end this nonsense.
I have little expectations that a declaration of final borders by Israel will be any better than status quo. It might work. I don't think it would be a horrible path. I've supported that idea for decades.
ReplyDelete