Obama trying to cause a 2nd Holocaust

Post Reply New Topic

This is absolute rubbish. I am Jewish and Obama is not trying to cause a 2nd Holocaust.

Thank you.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Actually, Ruveyn is paraphrasing Lord Palmerston's quote "Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests." Bismarck probably would have agreed, but that one came straight from the mouth of a Brit. I'm fairly sure Wilhelm also sent Bismarck packing because Bismarck actually wanted to maintain some sort of continental status quo, and was therefore opposed to things like a naval race with the UK, had mixed feelings about the worth of overseas colonies, etc.

And the same theme runs throughout George Washington's Farewell Address, possibly in even stronger terms, in the sense that Washington seemed to think alliances of any sort would ultimately be detrimental to US interests.



Obviously George Washington was no real American, since you can't say things like that and tear around the globe like a six year old on a sugar high, or excuse me, to prove that democracy is on the march. Never mind blather on about a "special relationship" with this or that nation.

You have a country that is surrounded by other countries that want to slaughter said country's entire population. Then you have demands they give up land in the center of their country so it would be fairly easy to split their country in two and more easily slaughter them... Excuse me, it looks precisely like an attempt to cause another holocaust.

No, it's an attempt to broker a permanent peace.
By the way, it seems to me that plenty of conservatives would want to see a genocidal war between Israel and her neighbors, so that Christ then can come back, and usher in the Millennium... Am I right?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If he meant to broker a permanent peace, that was one helluva epic fail!

As I understand it, this is a plan the the former president, George W. Bush had had, as well as his predecessors.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

As well as the entire international community, and previous Israeli leaders. There was nothing remotely radical or new in Obama's speech on Israel/Palestine.

Not entirely correct, Bush said that the 1967 borders were not practical.

Anyways here is an article I found of interest:

A key casualty of the assault Obama launched this past week on Israel and its Prime Minister, is the prospect of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. When Palestinians move to declare statehood unilaterally in the fall with U.N. support, it will be President Obama himself who will have laid the groundwork.

Two years ago President Obama prompted Palestinians to withdraw from negotiations after he attempted to dictate to Israel the terms of a deal on the settlements issue. Now that the president has similarly projected what the territorial outcome “should be,” Palestinians will abjure negotiations into the foreseeable future.

The mere lip service that the president paid to negotiations was heard around the world, especially in Palestinian circles. “While the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated…” Obama began, followed by a series of “should be” pronouncements.

The president’s Sunday speech to the pro-Israel group AIPAC did not fundamentally change his earlier effort on Thursday as territorial fiat.


According to the president, the baseline of a final settlement “should be” the 1967 lines and any different outcome would be subject to “mutually agreed swaps.” But “mutually agreed” entails a Palestinian veto, and the potential for their insisting on the indefensible 1967 lines within the Obama formula.

President Obama's 1967 baseline comment was no accident; it was a deliberate provocation. As he unabashedly told the AIPAC audience: “I know that stating these principles -- on the issues of territory and security -- generated some controversy…I wasn’t surprised.”

Mr. Obama has also sabotaged negotiations by refusing to assign responsibility for the current absence of negotiations where it belongs. As far as Obama is concerned, the fact that Hamas “is unwilling to recognize Israel’s right to exist” simply “raises questions.”

The President even professed ignorance about the path of Hamas, despite the group’s Charter which calls for “Jihad” until Israel is “obliterated.” In the president’s words: “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.” If!

Those pushing a U.N.-backed unilateral declaration of statehood or independence (UDI), in lieu of negotiations, will also have taken sustenance from the President’s remarks. He suggested such sentiments are eminently understandable:

"There’s a reason why the Palestinians are pursuing their interests at the United Nations. They recognize that there is an impatience with the peace process, or the absence of one…And that impatience is growing.”

President Obama neglected to mention that statehood would come a lot faster if Palestinians didn’t support leaders who are bent on genocide or refuse to talk.

Moreover, if Mr. Obama was in fact serious about stopping a U.N.-backed Palestinian UDI, he could do a lot more than simply chide them for making what he called a “symbolic” move. He could, for instance, lay out some unambiguous consequences for the day after, such as: terminating U.S. taxpayer dollars for UNRWA, the Palestinian “refugee” agency, since refugee status will be voided and all Palestinians rendered citizens of their declared state; moving the U.S. embassy to Israel’s capital city Jerusalem, since delays awaiting a negotiated settlement will be groundless; stopping payment to the U.N.’s regular budget, since the UN will have gravely abrogated its legal obligations under the UN Charter, and pulling the U.S. out of the Middle East Quartet – the European Union’s coveted entre into Arab-Israeli politics – since the Quartet’s central “Roadmap” will have been negated.

He said none of the above. Having made the U.N. a centerpiece of his foreign policy, including championing the obsessively anti-Israel Human Rights Council, his speechifying about sidelining the organization wasn’t very convincing.

The AIPAC speech was pure sophistry. The president promised “unshakeable opposition” to “efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy” and attempted to take credit for not attending one of the UN’s racist “anti-racism” conferences back in 2009.

But he only pulled out of so-called “Durban II” after intense public pressure, just 48 hours before the meeting, ruining the prospect of coalition-building. And he refused to tell AIPAC whether he plans to go to “Durban III” – the first-ever world summit to be held in New York this coming September and intended as a vehicle for charging Israel with racism. Canada and Israel pulled out long ago. Where is America’s unshakeable opposition?

President Obama’s fawning remarks about Arab self-determination contrasted sharply with his treatment of Jewish self-determination. He taunted Israelis about not being able to protect themselves: “Technology will make it harder for Israel to defend itself.” “Delay will undermine Israel’s security…” He threatened Israelis with the specter of isolation and demanded they answer to every busybody in sight: “The international community is tired of an endless process…” “Going forward, millions of Arab citizens have to see that peace is possible for that peace to be sustained…[T]he march to isolate Israel internationally…will continue to gain momentum…and it’s already manifesting itself in capitals around the world.”

Negotiations require mutual recognition of legitimacy and therefore offer the only path to ensuring a Palestinian commitment to coexistence with a Jewish state. By bullying Israel, a negotiated peace agreement between Arabs and Israelis is now all but impossible during Obama’s tenure. 2012 cannot come soon enough.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NIQBISPd

Information about the Author
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Bayefsky

Quite frankly I don't find Obama's stance surprising:
Close ties

According to a professor at the University of Chicago who said he has known Obama for 12 years, the Democratic presidential hopeful first befriended Khalidi when the two worked together at the university. The professor spoke on condition of anonymity. Khalidi lectured at the University of Chicago until 2003, while Obama taught law there from 1993 until his election to the Senate in 2004.

Khalidi in 2000 held what was described as a successful fundraiser for Obama's failed bid for a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, a fact not denied by Khalidi.

Amid multiple anti-Israel speeches, Obama offered a glowing testimonial in praise of Khalidi at a 2003 farewell dinner, marking the professor's departure from his post at the University of Chicago for a new teaching position at Columbia University. Obama spoke about his many talks with Khalidi.

An article in April in the Los Angeles Times documents how at the Khalidi farewell dinner one young Palestinian American recited a poem in Obama's presence that accused the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticized U.S. support of Israel.

Another speaker, who reportedly talked while Obama was present, compared "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, the Times reported.

http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/c ... log-24436/

Trying to cause a 2nd Holocaust? Israeli PM David Ben Gurion said the same thing about JFK, by the way, when JFK insisted on nuclear inspections. Not long after, JFK was dead.

Give me something more reliable than a Fox source, or some other kindred soul cherry picking quotes and making creative interpretations, and I might give it some credence.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I've heard that particular conspiracy theory before. While it was true Kennedy had had a number of enemies who could have been added to a "suspects" list, the people I'd look at foremost are the Anti-Castro underground with ties to the CIA and organized crime.
Then again, it may have just been an angry man shooting the president from a window.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

I am just pointing out that Ben Gurion did make this accusation and remember that Israel is famous for its assassination capabilities which are celebrated unfortunately in respectable Western circles.

At any rate these are fighting words to use against Obama and suggest that he too may be the target of an assassin's bullet, no doubt done in the name of Never Again.

When you say Ben Gurion was making "accusations," I have to ask if Kennedy had ever been threatened by the Israeli government, or had there been any trail of evidence leading back to Israel? I've heard this theory before, but as far as I know, all it has going for it is that Kennedy had wanted to hit the brakes on the Israeli nuclear program. If there is more, I'd seriously like to hear it.
I ask, because there was at least that period of time when Oswald was in New Orleans, that the Warren Commission pretty much claimed was a blacked out period of his life, but which other researchers have fond that Oswald had had close associations with Anti-Castro fanatics, with ties to both American intelligence, and organized crime. Think of how the late Jim Garrison, as district attorney of New Orleans, had not only had his leads dry up to nothing after his investigation was made public, but all of a sudden, every loon and pathological liar suddenly came to his office in a cascade, only to be revealed as such during the subsequent Clay Shaw trial, culminating in Shaw's acquittal, and the end of of Garrison's promising career as a prosecutor. Sounds almost like plants by intelligence agencies, trying to protect their own interests in order to destroy Garrisons' credibility.
Sorry to get off the subject, but I used to be a Kennedy assassination conspiracy theory nut.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Well known fallacy: post hoc ergo propter hoc. After this, therefore because of this.

If A occurs after B, it does not necessarily mean B caused A.

Shame on you for such sloppy thinking.

ruveyn

Fox News isn't the news source that has reporters getting paychecks from the White House, you have no business telling me what a credible source is.