Posted at 8:53pm on Jun. 5, 2008 Obama caves under Palestinian pressure

By Soren Dayton

Earlier, Mark Kilmer noted that Hamas expressed displeasure at Barack Obama's speech to AIPAC. So what did Obama do? He caved to Hamas.

The Washington Post reported it as "Obama Backtracks on Jerusalem" and Reuters as "Facing criticism, Obama modifies Jerusalem stance". WaPo:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem "must remain undivided."

So let's make this very clear. Under pressure from Palestinians and terrorists, Obama caves on perhaps Israel's most fundamental issue. Not a good sign for those meetings with Ahmadinejad.

Posted in | | | Comments (83) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 9:19am on Jun. 4, 2008 I wonder if anyone at AIPAC... [UPDATED and BUMPED.]

...will be asking Senator Obama a particular question. [Excuse me, *questions.*]

By Moe Lane

Oh, yes: he's meeting with them tomorrow. Anyway, just to check, Senator:

Do you consider the West Bank to be "occupied?" It's kind of an issue.

[UPDATE]: And while we're on the subject, like Ed Morrissey I'm curious about whether your speech to AIPAC is going to reflect this:

...or objective reality.

Moe Lane

PS: As per your video: two of the primary objections that the Iranian regime has towards us is that we're simply not killing enough Jews and homosexuals. Which one were you planning to look for a compromise on?

Posted in | | | Comments (1)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:35pm on May 18, 2008 Has President Bush Learned the Lessons of Annapolis?

Last week's speech to the Knesset suggests that he has

By Jeff Emanuel

Last Thursday, President Bush marked the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the state of Israel by speaking to the country's governing body, the Knesset. In his address, Bush sounded like a different man from the one who called Israel an "occupying force" at the Annapolis Conference on Palestinian Statehood last November, and demanded that the middle east's lone functioning democracy make unilateral concessions to its terrorist enemies as a show of "good faith."

Perhaps in hopes of bolstering his legacy by pushing the region toward a peace more lasting than any of his predecessors has been able to achieve, Bush invited Israel, the Fatah leadership of the Palestinian West Bank, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and other regional players to the conference, and asked them to put their differences aside in order to work toward the best possible outcome for both the Israelis and the Palestinians.

The fact that the meeting took place at all was a demonstration of the administration's willingness to subjugate consistency and the keeping of its word to the fleeting hope of achieving a boost in ephemeral legacy -- for, in order to attract any states other than Israel to the meeting, the administration had to willingly drop several previously-required stipulations, including the most basic: that attendees simply recognize that Israel had a right to exist in the first place.

Not only was that most basic of requirements waived for attendance at the Annapolis, but President Bush used his address at the conference to betray not only his own word, but Israel's rights as the besieged lone free country in the region as well.

Read on.

Posted in | | Comments (24)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:02am on May 13, 2008 Obama "understands" why Hamas endorsed him

By Soren Dayton

From the NY Daily News:

While maintaining an ironclad commitment to Israel's security, Barack Obama says he understood why a top Hamas adviser voiced support for his presidential bid.

"It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, 'This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,'" Obama said in an interview with The Atlantic.
"That's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security," Obama said.

I remind you of the statements of an Obama support from Chicago who runs the website Electronic Intifada:

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. ... As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

Or to quote the LA Times story entitled "Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama":

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Maybe the answer is just that where there is smoke, there is fire. Any maybe his long-time supporters know him better than the reporters infatuated with him.

Posted in | | | Comments (7) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 5:21pm on May 12, 2008 For Obama, what is a "wound" and a "sore" that "infects" our foreign policy?

By Soren Dayton

Why, our policy with respect to Israel, of course:

JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.

What kind of solution would that be? As I noted earlier, some of his allies seem to think, to quote the LA Times:

And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

You don't say.

Posted in | | Comments (22) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:00pm on Apr. 25, 2008 Believe it or not, Barack: This Matters

By Ben Domenech

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers offers the following statement, starting where John McCain did today on his blogger call. Let it serve as a sign that Barack Obama's merry little nod toward the nice smiling folks down the street at Hamas, Inc. will not go unnoticed, and will absolutely be an issue in the general election campaign.

Some things John McCain isn't going to touch, but "Do you like me? Yes/No/Maybe" notes passed between terrorists and a presidential candidate? Yeah, that's a bit far.

Barack doesn't have anything to say about the fact that they like him, you know: those people, they did horrible acts, detestable acts, but he was younger then, and they're just in the neighborhood. He's just being nice! Like a senator should be! That's why he sat through all those Jeremiah Wright sermons, you know - it's basic human politeness not to stand up when a Reverend is talking.

Read on . . .

Posted in | | | | Comments (12) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 6:01pm on Apr. 22, 2008 North Korea Helped Syria's Nuclear Program

The Headlines Were Too Good To Be True

By California Yankee

At the Wall Street Journal, Jay Solomon reports North Korea was helping Syria build a plutonium-based nuclear reactor.

Speculation about North Korea's alleged role was sparked by a September Israeli strike inside Syria, which targeted what many U.S. government and private analysts believe was a nascent nuclear reactor.

[. . .]

This week, the Central Intelligence Agency is expected to begin briefing members of the Senate and House Intelligence Committees on the Israeli strike, according to Congressional and administration officials, based in part on intelligence provided by the Israeli government.

The information is expected to confirm that North Korea was helping Syria develop a plutonium-based nuclear reactor similar to the Yongbyon facility North Korea built north of Pyongyang, said an official familiar with the deliberations. The briefings are also expected to confirm that North Korean workers were active at the Syrian site at the time of the Israeli attack.

Less conclusive, however, is any firm evidence that Syria was attempting to develop nuclear weapons, according to the U.S. official.

This would seem to confirm what I posted last September -- about Israel attacking Syrian nuclear material and the North Korean involvement.

This also justifies my long held skepticism about North Korea's so-called agreement to give up its nukes.

Posted in | | | | Comments (3)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 7:49pm on Apr. 16, 2008 Senior Hamas official offers his support to Obama

By Soren Dayton

The other day, I noted a quote in the New York Times from Jeremiah Wright that their association would hurt Obama. Wright said that "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

Well. There's another. This time, a leader of Hamas appears to have offered his support. Carl Cameron has the details. Apparently Ahmed Yusuf gave a radio interview last Sunday. This is what he said:

We don’t mind–actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will (win) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance.


Posted in | | | Comments (9) / Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 10:56am on Mar. 31, 2008 Nearing Two Years Held Hostage: Shalit, Goldwasser, And Regev Still Waiting

Everyone ELSE might have forgotten, but they and their families certainly have not

By haystack

Gilad Shalit, Corporal in the IDF's Armor Corps, was taken hostage by Hamas on June 25, 2006. Hamas was apparently convinced that their "bold" move to cross into Israel and kidnap a Soldier might be enough to force Israel to trade the freedom of "women and youths" from Israeli jails for Shalit's own freedom. [H/T Michelle Malkin]

Israel said no.

Sixteen days later, our Lebanese friends - Hizbullah - saw the opportunity to fire rockets into Israel and take two of their very OWN Israeli Soldiers hostage, planning to use them...again... as bargaining chips. Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, were taken on July 12 2006.

Like Shalit, Regev and Goldwasser remain in captivity today.

A war was fought over these kidnappings. Israel fought it poorly in the eyes of some Israelis and others around the world, and those who side with the Arabs in this multi-generational "holy war" watched with glee as Israel was knee-capped by the UN, having been promised they would get their Soldiers back in exchange for ending hostilities.

The hostilities ended, and Israel lived up to their promises. Hamas and Hizbullah did NOT...and these men remain in captivity. So much for the UN. And so much for keeping your word at the bargaining table. Apparently Israel and their terrorist neighbors are held to different standards... and the UN drumbeat of lies and moving targets for international justice and security blathers on.

The rest of us might have moved on, but Israel hasn't forgotten, nor has the families of these men.

Hamas hasn't forgotten either, dredging up Shalit's name anew in hopes of convincing Israel to attack only Military targets...promising they will do likewise AND return Cpl. Shalit to his family's awaiting arms.

Don't count on it happening, and don't count on hearing anything about it from the media OR the UN. Everyone else, save for the Shalit family, the Goldwasser family, and the Regev family has long since moved on.

I remember them today...and my prayers remain with these men and their families...two years running.

Posted in | | | | | | Comments (2)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:53am on Mar. 7, 2008 The Horror

By Pejman Yousefzadeh

I've ceased being surprised. I'll never cease being shocked.

Posted at 9:48am on Mar. 4, 2008 UN Sanctions Iran Again

By California Yankee

The United Nations Security Council has adopted a third resolution imposing sanctions on Iran for its refusal to cease enriching uranium designed to build nuclear weapons.

The new sanctions add to Council sanctions imposed in 2006 and 2007.

The resolution was adopted by a vote of 14 - 0, with Indonesia abstaining, and calls on "Member States" to inspect cargoes to and from Iran believed to contain goods prohibited by U.N. resolutions, mandates tighter monitoring of financial institutions and imposes additional travel bans and asset freezes.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zamay Khalizad puts Iran's continued nuclear defiance in perspective:

Instead of suspending its proliferation-sensitive activities as the council has required, Iran is dramatically expanding the number of operating centrifuges and developing a new generation of centrifuges, testing one of them with nuclear fuel.

[. . .]

Continued below the fold.

Posted in | | | | | Comments (1)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 11:17am on Feb. 23, 2008 Israel In The Crossfire...Again

By haystack

We've heard Iran's President and his diatribe about Israel often enough to get the basic point: "We want Israel to go away, and we want to "own" the Middle East." We know he plans on having nukes, regardless his strained denials and insistences to the contrary. There's really no reason to even attempt to convince ourselves there is anything BUT hostile intentions despite all the Democrats running for President who promise to be open minded (and, in Obama's case actually sit DOWN with these lunatics for a mocha latte and cookies) and look for a peaceful relationship with them.

Now, apparently, Lebanese Lunatic Nasrallah wants a piece of that action as well:

"The disappearance of Israel is an inevitable fact. It is an historical process in the region which will come to an end in several years.

I wonder...does the reference to "several years" fall solely to coincidence in the larger context of Iran's nuke program? We are to believe as much, apparently.

Our Democrat Presidential wannabes refuse to look at the reality of what Iran would do were they to have this capability. Obama has even gone so far as to promise open talks without pre-conditions. How do you think that conversation will go?

BO: Are you going to launch nuclear weapons against Israel and wipe them from the face of the earth?

MA: Of COURSE not. We are a peaceful people.


MA: Of COURSE. You can trust tell you the truth.

BO: Cool-pass the cream and sugar please? You gonna eat that cookie?

More below the fold...

Posted in | | | | Comments (40)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 8:35pm on Nov. 28, 2007 "Occupation" and a Lack of Defensible Borders: President Bush uses the stage at Annapolis to side with Israel’s enemies

The Quixotic Quest for Legacy Qontinues

By Jeff Emanuel

The Temple Mount, dominated by the Golden Dome of the Rock, and Old Jerusalem, taken from the Mount of Olives to the East. The 'peace agreement' proposed by President Bush at Annapolis would transfer sovereignty over the Temple Mount and over East Jerusalem to the Palestinian government
(photograph by Jeff Emanuel)

As predicted earlier this week (and as deconstructed today by my colleague Dan McLaughlin), President Bush -- formerly (and arguably) the strongest supporter of Israel to inhabit the White House in years -- used his address at Tuesday's Annapolis Conference on Palestinian Statehood to renege on his 2004 promise of "defensible borders" to the then-Prime Minister of Israel, Ariel Sharon, and to demand that the Jewish state retreat to its pre-1967 borders as a show of good faith in its peace negotiations with the Palestinian government.

Three years ago, Bush wrote to Sharon that "as part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders." He continued:

In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

Read on.

Posted in | | | Comments (9)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Posted at 2:51pm on Nov. 28, 2007 You Can Negotiate With Terrorists, But You Can't Negotiate About Terrorism

A Refresher on Timeless Lessons

By Dan McLaughlin

With the Bush Administration back in the business of seeking "peace in our time" between Israel and its sworn enemies neighbors, it may be worth repeating something here I have written before on the topic of the "Middle East Peace Process", but which remains true:

Read On...

Posted in | | | | Comments (5)/ Email this page » / Read More »

Syndicate content
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)

©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service