Obama’s “unshakable commitment” means what?
By Ted Belman
Last week when speaking to a Jewish audience in Florida, Obama promised an “unshakable commitment” to Israel if he is elected. Sounds good but what does it mean.
A couple of months earlier when speaking to a Jewish Audience in Cleveland, he said,
-
“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel”.
In other words his unshakable commitment is not to policies favoured by Likud which is expected to win the next election but to the policies of the left in Israel that wants American to impose a deal.
Ed Lasky’s Senator Obama’s Coming Out Party in Cleveland covered this speech in detail.
Obama went on to say
-
“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.
No denying what that means.
He recently added Ambassador Kurtzer to his team. As Joseph Farah has written, Kurtzer accepts a false premise: that the Palestinian problem is the core of the conflict in the Middle East (see more on this concept below).
Furthermore, writes Farah,
-
Probably more than any other State Department official, Kurtzer has been instrumental in promoting the goals of the Palestinians and in raising their grievances to the center of the U.S. policymaking agenda. It was Kurtzer who, as a speechwriter for former Secretary of State James Baker, coined the term “land for peace.” Kurtzer has never been a popular figure in Israel. Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir referred to Kurtzer and two colleagues as “Baker’s little Jews.”
Recently Kurtzer stated that Israel must divide Jerusalem and evacuate the settlements.
Finally Obama’s biggest Jewish supporter is J-Street who recently redefined what it means to be pro-Israel.
-
Criticize or question Israeli behavior and you’re labeled “anti-Israel,” or worse. But unquestioning encouragement for short-sighted Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank isn’t real friendship. (Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road?) Israel needs real friends, not enablers. And forging a healthy friendship with Israel requires bursting some myths about what it means to be pro-Israel.
Now you know what an “unshakable commitment” to Israel means. First you redefine what it means to be pro-Israel. It will no longer mean letting Israel decide what is good for her but it will mean telling Israel what is good for her and insisting she listens.
Good point Ted.
While this blog has focussed considerable attention on B. Obama, I am wondering just how Clinton and McCain define what they mean when they say they are pro-Israel.
Ted as I recall you attended a meeting where Kurtzer attended and spoke and you seemed impressed if my memory is correct? In any even Kurtzer is a low life that if it were up to me (which it is not) would not be active in anything Jewish /Israeli or in a best of all worlds would be inactive 100%.
I am really starting to like Obama he seems to encompass all the attributes that might bring Relations with Israel and Jews and America in their proper proportions , contexts. Some hard questions will need to be asked and answered When Obama becomes President. I know the answerers I would like but I won’t hold my breath. First you have to ask the right questions.
Here’s the article on Kurtzer that you mentioned. Your memory is failing you.
Good post. Unlike other anti-Obama posts, this one is fair.
I was just watching: RETURN OF THE JEDI, the part where Darth Vader throws the Emperor down the hole and saves Skywalker.
Democrats, who are Darth Vader committed to the Dark Side of the Force, will have to throw their new emperor, Obama down the same hole to save America.
What other emperors shall Darth Vader throw down the hole?
Ted apologies: I was mistaken.
Unlike you Ted I believe that it is time to junk the warped sense and belief in Tolerance, and become as re: our Jewish Traitors very intolerant. I am referring here not only to the Kurtzers, the list is long and very troubling.
Judaism extends tolerance only to neighbors, members of the community who share the same basic values. There is no tolerance of enemies; killing enemies is specifically excepted from the prohibition.
The politically correct rabbis and leftists at the helm dislike real Judaism. Anything else, however, amounts to turning the other cheek, and with terrorism on the march, we will soon run out of cheeks.
Torah values not every life, but only the lives of reasonably righteous people: they are defended with a brutally efficient “a bruise for a bruise.” The Torah doesn’t hesitate at dispersing capital punishments for criminal acts, Shabbat violation, religious immorality, and other types of un-Jewish behavior. Talmudic sages greatly expanded the number of capital offenses. Sensible rabbis detailed hanging, asphyxiating, burning, decapitating, and stoning the offenders. They would have been not a bit surprised to know that “saving lives is the major commandment in the Torah.” Strictly speaking, there’s no such commandment at all. In recent times, the absolutely authoritative Orach Chaim (ch.329), based on the Talmud, mandates that Jews fight even on Sabbath if the enemy asks for just for “straw and hay.” The libertarian rabbis should read this: Jews must kill the enemies in any conflict whatsoever, down to “straw and hay” dispute. Jewish religious authorities from Moses to Rambam to Rav Kook established that lives hold no value at all when Jewish national interests are at stake.
God concurs. He could save plenty of lives by planting in the Canaanites’ hearts the idea of abandoning the land; he did so in 1948. God, however, commanded that Hebrews liberate a space for themselves, losing many of our own and killing many Canaanites in the process. God, who has told us to annihilate Amalek – does he care of lives? Striving to emulate him, should we care?
In order to defeat our Jewish traitors within our societies we must fight their use and abuse of the concept of tolerance with the Jewish concept and sense of intolerance. Talking to North American Jews and even many in Israel which includes many orthodox religious,is akin to talking to an alien from another world. Isn’t a tolerant all-permissiveness a better policy? another planet. Isn’t a tolerant all-permissiveness a better policy?
No. Permissiveness knows no boundaries. That’s especially a problem when tolerance is coupled with formal justice and moral subjectivism. Justices ask, Why not? and cannot find rational answer; irrational answers are not codified. Tolerance started with accepting other religions and not ostracizing homosexuals. The sphere of tolerance was continuously expanded. Tolerating all religions, why not tolerate Islam? Tolerating homosexuality, why not accept gay unions? Soon their countries are flooded with Muslim immigrants and the cornerstone institute of family is undermined by same-sex marriages. Judges will find no reason to prohibit polygamy and the only reason I’ve heard against bestiality is animal rights; shouldn’t rape a sheep, you see. Faced with obvious immorality, leftists either have to admit their policy of tolerance wrong, or embrace the deviations as beneficial. Sure they prefer the last option
Intolerant societies are much more durable because they are conservative. All innovations have to pass through the barrier of initial hostility – or be tried elsewhere. Intolerant countries are not on the edge of social experimentation and generally are moderate economic performers, but they are safe and comfortable to vast majority of their citizens.