Michael Gaynor
Lean forward? Look back and learn! Then stand strong and act wisely
By Michael Gaynor
I don't think that Obama's a Moslem, but I'm sure he's not a Catholic, an Evangelical Christian, or a Jew.
President Obama and his shills at NBC and MSNBC regularly urge us to "lean forward."
That's because they don't want us to appreciate what's really going on.
We need to look back to appreciate that.
Obama's suddenly announced new policy toward resolving the Israeli/Palestian conflict is ample cause to look back on the history of the Jews AND to scrutinize Obama instead of take him at his word.
Last Friday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama in the White House and told him that" history will not give the Jews another chance," so Israel would not be returning to indefensible borders and taking the pre-1967 war borders as the starting point for negotiations.
A conservative Jewish friend told me that later that day that "we can't trust [Obama]."
She was right!
Obama had demonstrated that before, as my regular readers know, but this time even the liberal media establishment was covering the story and thus many more people may be enlightened.
For that, we have Netanyahu to thank.
Netanyahu, in front of Obama and the media, explicitly rejected Obama's call for a Palestinian state based on the borders before the 1967 war.
Sitting beside Obama following a private Oval Office meeting, Netanyahu diplomatically said that he values Obama's efforts to advance the peace process and intends to work with him, but emphatically stated, "We can't go back to those indefensible lines. ... I discussed this with the president."
That was broadcast — and rebroadcast — to the world.
Obama's subsequent efforts to downplay the significance of the event were predictable.
Will they work?
Not if people look back and learn.
In 2008 two groups known for strongly supporting Israel reacted differently to then presidential candidate Obama: American Jews overwhelmingly supported him, while Evangelical Christians strongly opposed him.
Last week it became apparent that the Evangelical Christians were right, as Obama called for a return to 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps to settle the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
In doing so, Obama flip flopped big time from his campaign address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2008.
The morning after securing the Democratic nomination, Obama appeared before AIPAC and declared that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
That politically popular declaration got Obama thunderous applause from his audience.
Before the 1967 war, Jerusalem was divided and East Jerusalem was part of Jordan.
Obama's unequivocal proclamation went well beyond the generally pro-Israel positions of the Bush and Clinton administrations.
But, within hours of his AIPAC speech, Obama began to waffle, albeit very carefully.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas promptly "totally rejected" the reference to "undivided Jerusalem." Abbas insisted: "We will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as its capital." Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qeri was more succcinct: "No Jerusalem, no agreement," he said.
On CNN the day after his AIPAC address, Obama retreated in the face of questions about the angry reaction from the Arab world to his assertion that Palestinians had no claim to Jerusalem. "Well, obviously it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues," Obama said. He added that he still supported a unified Israeli Jerusalem, but suddenly acknowledged that this might prove an unattainable goal: "My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute."
Last Thursday Obama tried to make it even more "difficult to execute."
He urged Israel to return to the pre-1967 war borders with "mutually agreed" swaps.
So, in the absence of mutual agreement, Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 war borders.
Who thinks the Palestinians would agree that israel should keep East Jerusalem?
Obama says he's a Christian, and Obama shill Chris Matthews says we should take his word for it.
Taking Obama's word is foolhardy, as his Middle East "peace plan" illustrates.
I don't think that Obama's a Moslem, but I'm sure he's not a Catholic, an Evangelical Christian, or a Jew.
© Michael Gaynor
May 23, 2011
I don't think that Obama's a Moslem, but I'm sure he's not a Catholic, an Evangelical Christian, or a Jew.
President Obama and his shills at NBC and MSNBC regularly urge us to "lean forward."
That's because they don't want us to appreciate what's really going on.
We need to look back to appreciate that.
Obama's suddenly announced new policy toward resolving the Israeli/Palestian conflict is ample cause to look back on the history of the Jews AND to scrutinize Obama instead of take him at his word.
Last Friday Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama in the White House and told him that" history will not give the Jews another chance," so Israel would not be returning to indefensible borders and taking the pre-1967 war borders as the starting point for negotiations.
A conservative Jewish friend told me that later that day that "we can't trust [Obama]."
She was right!
Obama had demonstrated that before, as my regular readers know, but this time even the liberal media establishment was covering the story and thus many more people may be enlightened.
For that, we have Netanyahu to thank.
Netanyahu, in front of Obama and the media, explicitly rejected Obama's call for a Palestinian state based on the borders before the 1967 war.
Sitting beside Obama following a private Oval Office meeting, Netanyahu diplomatically said that he values Obama's efforts to advance the peace process and intends to work with him, but emphatically stated, "We can't go back to those indefensible lines. ... I discussed this with the president."
That was broadcast — and rebroadcast — to the world.
Obama's subsequent efforts to downplay the significance of the event were predictable.
Will they work?
Not if people look back and learn.
In 2008 two groups known for strongly supporting Israel reacted differently to then presidential candidate Obama: American Jews overwhelmingly supported him, while Evangelical Christians strongly opposed him.
Last week it became apparent that the Evangelical Christians were right, as Obama called for a return to 1967 lines with mutually agreed land swaps to settle the dispute between Israelis and Palestinians.
In doing so, Obama flip flopped big time from his campaign address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2008.
The morning after securing the Democratic nomination, Obama appeared before AIPAC and declared that "Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."
That politically popular declaration got Obama thunderous applause from his audience.
Before the 1967 war, Jerusalem was divided and East Jerusalem was part of Jordan.
Obama's unequivocal proclamation went well beyond the generally pro-Israel positions of the Bush and Clinton administrations.
But, within hours of his AIPAC speech, Obama began to waffle, albeit very carefully.
Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas promptly "totally rejected" the reference to "undivided Jerusalem." Abbas insisted: "We will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as its capital." Palestinian negotiator Ahmed Qeri was more succcinct: "No Jerusalem, no agreement," he said.
On CNN the day after his AIPAC address, Obama retreated in the face of questions about the angry reaction from the Arab world to his assertion that Palestinians had no claim to Jerusalem. "Well, obviously it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues," Obama said. He added that he still supported a unified Israeli Jerusalem, but suddenly acknowledged that this might prove an unattainable goal: "My belief is that, as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute."
Last Thursday Obama tried to make it even more "difficult to execute."
He urged Israel to return to the pre-1967 war borders with "mutually agreed" swaps.
So, in the absence of mutual agreement, Israel would have to return to its pre-1967 war borders.
Who thinks the Palestinians would agree that israel should keep East Jerusalem?
Obama says he's a Christian, and Obama shill Chris Matthews says we should take his word for it.
Taking Obama's word is foolhardy, as his Middle East "peace plan" illustrates.
I don't think that Obama's a Moslem, but I'm sure he's not a Catholic, an Evangelical Christian, or a Jew.
© Michael Gaynor
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
