Thursday, June 4, 2009

He didn't just say what I think he did...did he?

This is going to be a short post. I am making it short because I am tired. I have been working far too many hours. And I just cleaned my apartment. I really, really should not be posting now. But I have not posted in forever, so I must.

And besides, I cannot be the only blogger in Israel who does not comment on Obama's stretching out of the hands toward the Muslim world. And his "understanding" Iran's deep desire to obtain nuclear weapon capabilities. (This understanding, no doubt, being completely unrelated to the hand stretching and not at all intended to curry favor with said stretchees).

Ahem. So here it is. My deep thoughts:


"PEACE FOR OUR TIME"


Don't know the reference? Google it.

As for me, I am going to figure out where the hell my building's bomb shelter is. And stock up on tuna.

14 comments:

QuietusLeo said...

I have two theories about B. Hussain Obama:

1. Either he is a diplomatic genius. He is lulling the Arabs into a false sense of security before he whoops them upside the head.

Or,

2. He is yet another failed product of affirmative action, and he really is that stupid.

Gila said...

I would not go as far as your number two. Naive and uninformed, yes. Stupid, no. I mean, there are many people in the US who share his views. The problem is that said views do not take into account the local reality.

It is interesting--I am not a fan of settlements (especially not illegal ones) and would really like to see our government establish laws in respect to building the West Bank and then, you know, enforce them. Equally. And consistently. Nonetheless, I do find myself getting hot under the collar when Obama tries to shove his "no settlement building" down our throats. Can't help but wonder if I am the only one who has the same reaction.

aliyah06 said...

Nope, you're not the only one who doesn't like being dictated to. I think it's a diplomatic blunder by the State Dept which has been flogging this horse for decades--and I think it's designed to backfire: if we don't build, State wins and looks good to the Arabs; if we DO build anyway, we get labelled the Problem Child who is an obstacle to peace. I, too, am stocking the bomb shelter but not because of Obama--I don't think ANYONE will intervene to save our collective Jewish butts when Iran launches, so I can't blame Obama or the Americans. And I agree with the WSJ's article--Iran HAS the bomb already--that's why suddenly N. Korea was doing more test launches. They don't need to test THEIRS--they were testing Iran's. Order some iodine tablets to go with that tuna, and don't forget the water.

Gila said...

Aliyah 06--what WSJ article?

Regarding the settlements, I really do think we would be in better shape without all of the bullshit going on in the West Bank. However I favor the plans that offer land exchanges as opposed to rooting up Efrat or Maalei Adumim.

What I found particularly interesting was a quote I heard of someone from Barak's team--that these talks should go back to being behind closed doors. I wonder how long the US "honesty" campaign is going to go on and how well it will work. Do you suppose the Arab countries will jump on board? Would LOVE to think yes, but really doubt it.

Paul said...

"And how can this be? For Obama is the Kwisatz Haderach!"

Judy said...

I think the correct version of the quote you're thinking of was "Peace IN our time". Something rather more shocking that Obama said was to quote an Islamic story about Moses, Jesus and Mohammed praying together as if this was welcome and inoffensive. It's actually profoundly offensive to Jews.

And in referring to Mohammed, he referred to him using the honorific "Peace Be Upon Him". This is an honorific for Muslim believers, not for people of the Christian faith, who do not believe in Mohammed as a prophet--and certainly not would not single out Mohammed from Jesus and Moses as the only one for whom the honorific should be used.

Gila said...

Judy--no, I meant peace FOR our time. I looked up the quote before I used it. Apparently, Chamberlein is often misquoted as having said "peace in". He actually said "peace for".

Regarding Obama's gaffes (alleged or not)--I am no expert, but I since he was not addressing a Jewish audience, not surprised if whether or not an expression offended Jewish sensibilities was not a top priority.

When it comes to faith--everything is going to offend someone. To my eyes, the key issue is that of policy and whether policy takes reality into account. Whether Obama should have used this or that honorific--honestly, I have more pressing things to worry about. Like a nuclear Iran.

aliyah06 said...

Gila: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124389849589874347.html#mod=rss_opinion_main

If this link doesn't work, Google "The Axis of Evil, Again" by Bret Stephens

Anon:

People with convictions should have the courage and courtesy to sign their names or "handles" linkable to a real identity.

Stereotyping is ugly. I DO have American cousins -- they moved from LA to Idaho, live near Sandpoint on about 80 acres, have their own arsenal, are staunch conservatives, and did NOT vote for O. Every generation of my family has served in the American armed forces (a couple of them made it a career) and only my brother is a Democrat. I've been a registered Independent for most of my adult life, and don't take well to Party dictates from either side.

I also don't take well to comments about "you Jews" in the collective, as if we all think and vote and pray the same way--we don't. No more than all Americans do. We are as diverse as Americans, being an immigrant country ingathered from exile all over the world.

Obama won the election because Americans voted for him, not because Jews voted for him--we're approximately 2% of the American population, and if my family is any indication, we're not all Democrats or socialists, either.

So if Iran goes nuclear and toasts Israel, we will put the blame squarely where it belongs -- on the Gentile nations, including America as the world's leader, who fiddled and chit-chatted and played diplomacy, while Israel burned.

aliyah06 said...

Paul--thanks for the best comment of the week!!

Gila--I'm old enough to remember pre-settlement West Bank...it was remarkably similar to Gaza today only without the Grads and kassams--all they had were mortars, lobbed at TA and Lod airport when the whim took them. While it was officially occupied by Jordan, Jordan was running the refugee camps as training camps for fedayeen who raided across the Green Line into Israel and butchered civilians.

Today, people talk as if the "settlements" are the Big Problem--but the settlements at the time they started served two purposes: they put Israeli eyes and ears next to hostile Arab villages which housed fedayeen, and they were the logical response to the Arab world's Three Noes: no peace, no negotiation, no recognition of Israel.

I don't see the "settlements" as the problem....over the years, I've noticed that as soon as one "problem" is solved at Arab demand, a new and different problem is presented before "peace" can be reached.

I see the problem as: the Palestinians truly don't want a Jewish state and want to occupy all of pre-1967 Israel ultimately, and will stall and peddle bs and hope that some Great Power will impose the solution they want, so they have no real interest in negotiating a permanent peace treaty with recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

The settlements are a red herring--we evacuated Gaza and before that we evacuated Amit. If there is a REAL peace settlement, we'll evacuate what we need to evacuate, and compensate for what we can't evacuate.

Abbas's refusal of Olmert's offer spoke volumes about Palestinian strategy and unwillingness to negotiate a peace.

Gila said...

Cleaned up the comment section a bit, and enabled comment moderation. It appears that the trolls are out and are busy.

Gila said...

Aliyah 06--problems I have with settlements:

1) inconsistent with our stated "land for peace" policy. If we intend to give the land back, why build there?

2) Maltreatment of local population. Do I believe that some of the claims are overstated? Probably. (Your recent post about your settler-Arab neighbor is a good example of that). But then, I also saw the video of that deranged harridan from Hevron.

3) Refusal to accept the reality that millions of Palestinians are living there already, and that they are not going to go away. Either give them full citizenship and the right to vote, or give up the territory. But the current situation--in which we have a large population of second-class, electorally voiceless "citizens"--is not tenable. If you were a Palestinian, would you stand for it?

aliyah06 said...

Gila--starting with your last point first: this is exactly why there needs to be a two-state solution. We don't want to rule the Palestinians (I don't anyway) and I think Palestinian culture and society has an absolute right to express itself in statehood, just as the Yishuv eventually became the foundation for the Jewish State.

Palestinian mistreatment depends on who is doing what....standing in a line (I pointed out to Khaled on Mohammed's blog) is the same for Palestinians going through security checks as it is for me going to the Mall--my car is searched, my person is wanded, my purse is pawed through. The PLO invented modern terrorism and now the entire world can't get on an airplane without taking off its collective shoes and having its luggage checked. The Palestinians claim that when Israelis do this, it is "humiliation" and mistreatment. My view is that you get checkpoints, searches, and airport security because you created this problem, so quit bellyaching. At the other extreme, you have the ultra-Right nuts who think its okay to burn down orchards and throw stones at Palestinian children. They are inexcusable and if I were an Israeli police officer watching some Jewish thug throw a large stone at a child walking to school, I'd shoot him. Defense of others doctrine makes such action legal. Jews aren't supposed to shoot other Jews--but you lose that protection when you act like a Cossack. Which is why its a good thing I'm not a cop here--all too often, right v wrong and politics v reality take a turn into the Twilight Zone.

Land-for-peace was a doctrine enunciated in 1967, and the collective Arab reponse was "F--- You"--the Three Noes of Khartoum. We stuck to the land-for-peace idea for a long time (too long)and the original settlements were just that--settlements. They have, over 40 years, turned into multi-generational suburbs. What was possible in 1967, and even at Yamit in the 70s, isn't necessarily do-able today. The original settlements were to be outposts guarding against fedayeen raids in the face of Arab intransigence and continued terror; Gilo and French Hill were originally Jordanian and Egyptian battery positions from which they routinely shelled western Jerusalem. The Wall which the Jordanians built was used as a sniper post so soldiers could shoot civilians at whim. Likewise the hilltop of Mar Elias. The oft-stated complaint that the settlements are too costly because it takes soldiers to guard them as the facts backward--the soldiers are posted to the settlements to do terror interdiction, and the settlements are meant to be military bases. That was the original plan---but the Arabs first, then the Palestinians, have let so many generations pass that now the settlements are suburbs in many cases.And yes, there were ideological settlers as well, but something like 80% of the people living across the Green Line today don't fit that category, or so I've read.

I also have a problem with land-for-peace that requires a Judenfrei Palestine. Jordan, by law, allows no Jews to live there, as do many other Arab states. The Palestinians have adopted this. This is okay with the Left and the US State Dept and UN? No one in Israel is calling for evacuating the Arab population to the Palestinian state on its birth, so why should Jews living in Givat Ze'ev or Mizpeh Yericho have to move? Doesn't the racism of this offend anyone except me? Draw the borders, make a peace treaty, and let people already in their homes live there---as Palestinian Jews if they wish, and if they don't wish, they'll move. Those living in Lebanon or Syria or Jordan can move to Palestine or take some kind of monetary compensation.

The real reason none of this is working is that no matter what we offer, the Arabs won't accept anything other than the 1967 Armistice Lines---and that's something we will never accept, given the use Arab powers put those lines to from '48-'67, and given the example of Gaza today.

I hope this is coherent--I'm at home with the flu, so if I ramble, forgive me.

tafka pp said...

But I don't like tuna :-(

Mo-ha-med said...

I won't jump into the debate - first because I liked the speech :) but also because I'm joining in fairly late.

But I'll clarify a thing or two for Judy, above -

I fail to see why you see that a story about Moses, Jesus and Mohammad praying together is 'profoundly offensive to Jews'. To you perhaps, but prophets praying together seems like a harmless and actually welcome image to me.

As for the 'peace be upon him' thing -- Obama actually said 'peace be upon THEM'. Check it. And FYI, Muslims use the 'PBUH' (that's how it's abbreviated in religious texts, btw) for all prophets, and that includes all the prophetic crowd, and not just the 'big three' (M,J,M :)