Let me be clear. Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper — but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
Many observers were understandably appalled by Obama’s AIPAC 2008 speech and many pointed out that by saying that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel Obama pre-judged the outcome of future negotiations. Later Obama “clarified” his statement to the great disappointment of some rabid Zionists. No big deal I would suggest – Obama is a politician and like any politician he zigzags, backtracks, “clarifies”, “explains” and “contextualizes” every statement, whether true or false, he makes. But his “Jerusalem comment” is not the most shocking thing he said that day. How about this:
…any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state
Did you catch this?
Think about what this *really* means, what this *really* says:
First, it says that the 20% of Israeli citizens who are not Jews do not have an identity which is relevant to the state they live in. Nevermind the Palestinians of the Occupied Territories. How is that for overt Apartheid?
Second, if by “Jewish” an ethnicity is meant, then this means that Obama believes that Israeli must be “racially pure” in its identity and that, it turn, means that he supports the racist “Law of Return” which says that any Jew, no matter where he was born and where he lives, has the right to live in Israeli whereas the Palestinians who were born there and who were expelled by the Jews have no right to return to their own homes (a gross and abject violation of international law, by the way)
Third, if by “Jewish” one refers to a religion, than Obama’s statement is even more bizarre, outright medieval. Simply put, Obama not only excludes all other religions from Israel (including Islam and Christianity to which is pretends to belong), but he even pre-judges of the religious choices of the (ethnically) Jewish people living in Israel. If, say, an Israeli Jew decides to convert to another faith and if his example is followed by a large number of Israelis their change of faith will not be reflected in the identity of the self-declared “only democracy in the Middle-East”. Some “democracy”, uh?
I find that statement of Barak Obama deeply, deeply offensive. This statement is racist, bigoted, prejudiced, ignorant, immoral and, last but not least, this is an apology for what is an undeniable a crime under international law.
And Obama pretends to embody some kind of “change”?! From his AIPAC speech it is clear that the only kind change Obama represents is a change for the worse.
Sure, Obama is everything Dubya is not: he is highly intelligent, he is charming, he has charisma and he can speak without saying some idiocy every 30 seconds. But that makes his disgusting statements to the AIPAC delegates even more clearly immoral and outright evil. While Dubya would parrot any nonsense whispered to him by his Neocon puppet masters, Barak Obama most definitely understood every word he spoke that evening. And that is his most damning disgrace.
I was very disappointed to see Barack grovel before the Lobby and offer them an “undivided Jerusalem”. In fact the whole sight of seeing our entire political class, including Hilary, McCain, Obama and others shamelessly elevating Israel’s interests above everything else is thoroughly demoralizing. If only there were any voices or criticism of this spectacle in the media you would expect the Lobby to be at least somewhat more circumspect. But there are none.
Even though it offers little reassurance, I found it somewhat amusing to see a few shameless and transparent shills for the Israel Lobby doing their best to literally demonize Barack Obama. They must be worried about something. “Can’t afford the price of bread? Blame Barack” How ridiculous.
Sorry for the silly links, but as outrageous as this stuff is there is no doubt in my mind this guy is advancing an agenda, and it isn’t the one that belongs to his congregation in Harlem.
I’ve seen other indications that the Lobby is concerned about Obama. I wonder why and what more Obama can do to placate them.
-AA
As I’ve said before,perhaps on this site, Obama’s comments are particularly disgraceful coming from an African-American.
Does he believe that the US should be a white state? If not, why not? After all, the proportion of blacks in the US is smaller than the proportion of Arabs in Israel. Did he also believe that South Africa should be an Afrikaner state, or that Northern Ireland should be a Protestant state? Again, if not, why not? If secular democracy, where all citizens are treated equally under the law, should be essential in the US or RSA, why not in Israel?
Sorry, just noticed this:
“he is highly intelligent, he is charming, he has charisma”
Again, I just don’t get the whole “Obama thing.” Intelligent? What evidence is there of this, other than the fact that he can, as you say, deliver a speech without making a syntax error every 10 seconds (no great achievement, even in the US, in pre-Bush days). Charming? Charismatic? To me, he’s just bland and, at the end of the day, conformist. The only thing which distinguishes him from the other US machine politiicians is that he has moe melanin than most of them.
@Irish Eyes: well, I find him very charming and intelligent, but that is totally subjective, of course. I heard the guy speak on the NPR show “wait, wait, don’t tell me” and he is witty for sure. None of that means anything, of course.
Obama must realise that a two state solution without East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital is a nonsense.
Maybe he doesn’t believe in a two state solution himself or simply feels that the Zionist grip on America is so strong that it will take a generation or more before Israel will start to be seriously challenged. Maybe he hopes that pressure for a one state solution and will arise and that the South African analogy will be made loud and clear.
In the meantime he wants to be elected President because there are other issues he feels passionately about and are worth pursuing. I still feel Obama is preferable to John “Bomb Iran” McCainiac
test
well this is shameless enough, but there was one quote from some commenter somewhere that was absolutely terrifying. to the effect that Obama said he would never, ever, by any means necessary, allow Iran to go nuclear ‘on my watch’.
but hardly anyone picked up on this. is it untrue?
Actually the link on literally demonize [ing] Barack Obama is really funny, and would not be out of place on the Jon Stewert show.
TEST