Friday, January 23, 2009

On Israel, Obama Is Against Using The T-Word--And In Favor Of The Saudi Plan After All

It suddenly occurred to me that Obama really does not like using the T-word.

In his inaugural address, the only time the word is used is: "And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents"--according to Obama, we are not dealing with Terrorists but rather with people who use terror. The implication is that there is chaos and mindlessness out there, but not the kind of planned attacks that 'Terrorism' implies.

Likewise his Thursday speech. There is no transcript on the site, but in the Financial Times, the article about Obama addressing Israel makes no mention of terrorism in its Obama quotes.

Originally, I was wondering how President Obama, who does not recognize a danger of Terrorism vis-a-vis the US--how would he address terrorism vis-a-vis Israel and Palestinian Arabs? Thus far it seems he will merely address the situation as a conflict, even a war--but make no meaningful reference to Palestinian terrorism.

Obama will "actively and aggressively seek a lasting peace between Israel and the Palestinians"


“Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security and we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats".


"We will make sure that all the [humanitarian] needs of the population will be met. But we will not be able to deal with Hamas on the other side. We will not do things that give legitimacy to Hamas."

According to Obama, is Hamas a terrorist organization or do they merely "induce terror"?
Is the first step to ridding ourselves of terrorism--by just rewording it?

The most worrisome aspect of Obama's comments is his endorsement of the Saudi plan:

He called on Arab governments to “act on” the promise of a Saudi-led 2002 Arab peace initiative by supporting the Palestinian Authority headed by President Mahmoud Abbas “taking steps towards normalising relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”

This is after we were told back in November that Obama did not back that plan:

A senior adviser to Barack Obama on Sunday denied reports that the U.S. president-elect plans to throw his weight behind the 2002 Arab peace plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from all territories captured during the 1967 Six-Day War in exchange for normalized ties with the Arab world.

The British Sunday Times said Obama expressed this sentiment during his visit to Israel and the Palestinian territories last July.

Dennis Ross, Obama's adviser on Middle East policy, issued a statement Sunday, saying "I was in the meeting in Ramallah. Then-senator Obama did not say this, the story is false."

...The Arab peace initiative, first approved by the Arab League in 2002 in Beirut (and reaffirmed last year), calls for Israel's withdrawal from all the territories and a solution to the refugee problem in exchange for an Arab recognition of the end to the conflict and normalization between Israel and all the Arab countries.

The article implies that Obama made reference to the implications of the plan for Abbas and Arab recognition of Israel--without mention of the further concessions Israel would be called upon to make.

Go figure--Obama seems about to make his first major flip flop since taking office just 2 days ago, and it has to do with Israel.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

Technorati Tag: and .

1 comment:

Ted said...

Take the test.

FIRST QUESTION: Who IS the actual and lawful 44th President of the USA?

ANSWER: Joe Biden

Biden was initially the Acting President for at least 5 minutes under either the Constitution’s Article 2 or the Constitution’s 20th Amendment, from 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, having already taken his Oath of Office and before Obama completed his ‘oath’ at approximately 12:05 PM, 1/20/09. Under the 20th Amendment if the President-elect shall have failed to qualify, or alternatively under Article 2 if the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term, being 12:00 Noon 1/20/09, which ability and/or qualification includes that he take the Article 2 oath “before he enter on the execution of his office,” then either the Presidency shall devolve on the Vice President under Article 2 or the Vice President shall act as President under the 20th Amendment. (The importance of the oath in ‘commencing’ an ‘Obama Presidency’ — rather than merely the 1/20/09 Noon time — is confirmed by the re-take of the ‘oath’ by Obama at the White House on 1/21/09 after the first ‘oath’ was NOT administered by Justice Roberts NOR recited by Obama in the words as required under Article 2.)

This is significant because at such time that the Supreme Court finally rules on the merits on Obama’s disqualification as not being an Article 2 “natural born citizen” (clearly he is NOT), Biden’s automatic status (without needing to take a separate Presidential Oath) of being President would be predicated upon four different bases: First, having been Vice President under Article 2; second, having been Vice President-elect under the 20th Amendment; third, having been actual President in the hiatus before Obama took the ‘oath(s)’; and fourth, retroactively deemed President during the full period of the Obama usurpation so that the acts of the Federal Government under the usurpation can be deemed authorized and/or ratified by Biden’s legitimacy.

SECOND QUESTION: Who will be the 45th President?

ANSWER: Hillary Clinton

One must assume that Bill and Hillary Clinton have been aware of all of the above. Biden’s wife recently “let the cat out of the bag” on the Oprah Show that both Biden and Hillary had considered alternatively Veep or Secretary of State, in either case, setting up Hillary to be President on a vote of the Democratic Congress if need be.

THIRD QUESTION: Is Obama an unwitting victim of this troika or a knowing participant?

ANSWER: Yet undetermined.