Is the peace between Israel and Egypt over?


I hear you out there.

You are wondering where this is coming from. Everything I’ve been writing has been about the Republican primary and with today being the Iowa caucus you were expecting  me to push for a candidate or at the very least continue attacking one of them.

Not today.

Today I am thinking about one of  President Obama’s foreign policy”successes,” the Arab spring.

Yes to hear some speak President Obama deserves credit for bringing democracy to Egypt. Of course, there are some who say he deserves the blame for destabilising the Middle East.

When he had a chance to put pressure on Iran he sat on the sidelines, doing practically nothing in response to the Iranian government’s crackdown on it s citizens.

He led from behind during the removal of Gadhafi in Libya.  As a Post Gadhafi Libya evolves, it is clear that it will develop into an Islamic state.

If Libya continues down this path it will be following the same course as Egypt. Where the Muslim Brotherhood won 36.3 percent of the vote and the ultra-conservative Salafi al-Nour Party received 28.8% creating a government, according to the deputy leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, Dr. Rashad Bayoumi,  unwilling to recognize Israel and will to dissolve the existing peace treaty, from the Jerusalem Post:

When asked whether it is a requirement for the government in Egypt to recognize Israel, Bayoumi responded by saying: “This is not an option, whatever the circumstances, we do not recognize Israel at all. It’s an occupying criminal enemy.”

The deputy leader stressed during the interview that no Muslim Brotherhood members would ever meet with Israelis for negotiations.“I will not allow myself to sit down with criminals.”

Bayoumi went on to say that the Muslim Brotherhood would take legal procedures towards canceling the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel that was signed in 1979.

“The Brotherhood respects international conventions, but we will take legal action against the peace treaty with the Zionist entity,” he told the paper.

These events only serve to highlight the importance of this next Presidential election. As I said in my last post. If you do not know about these things WAKE UP! IT’S 2012. There are important things happening.

Category:

Part 4 of Many: Wasserman Schultz and Obama’s Vision for Israel


This the 4th in a series of articles on the pearls of wisdom that come forth from Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the Chairman of the DNC and the perm-challenged Congressman from Florida’s gerrymandered 20th Congressional District.  This could be called the Wacky World of Wasserman.  On June 5th, she had an editorial in the Sun-Sentinel regarding Obama’s Middle East speech at the State Department.  It starts off good enough: “Unwavering support for Israel…,” “As the first Jewish woman elected to Congress from Florida…” blah blah blah.

She then states that under Obama’sleadership, Israel is more secure than they have ever been.  For example, it is Obama who has enacted the strongest sanctions against Iran which begs the question: to what ends?  Have they given up their nuclear aspirations?  Do they still possess missiles that can reach Israel?  Have they ceased support for terrorism?  Obama, she claims, has provided Israel withadvanced anti-missile technology which is kind of ironic considering he left the Czech Republic and Poland twisting in the wind by cancellation of a missile defense system to protect Europe based in those countries.  That was done to “reset” relations with Russia.  While allies twist in the wind, Russia laughs.  But, I digress.  And of course she touts Obama’s support of Israel in international forums.

But then she starts to get in trouble.  Regarding his proposals for a two-state solution, she states: “That is why it is so disappointing to see the deliberate distortions of President Obama’srecord on Israel in the wake of the president’s speech…  These comments are bothharmful to Israel and false.  False because they misrepresent, distort and even lie about the president’s strong pro-Israel conviction; harmful because in doing so, they undermine the very thing they claim to support, the strength and security of Israel.”  So, in Wasserman’sworld, if one disagrees with President Obama on Middle East policy, particularly the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and a possible solution, they are liars and they threaten Israel’s security.  Of course, being the “first Jewish woman” elected to Congress from Florida makes her words carry any greater moral or strategic weight.

Among the lies she attributes to the opponents of Obama’s stated solution, she stated, “The President reiterated longstanding American foreign policy that Israel will not return to the 1967 borders and that changes to the borders need to be negotiated between Israelis and Palestinians taking into account Israel’s security requirements and the demographic changes of the past 44 years.”   Wasserman Schultz’s interpretation does not square with the exact words of Barack Obama at the State Department.  There, he stated: “The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states with permanent Palestinian borders wit Israel, Jordan and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”  I don’t know what Wasserman is talking about, but Obama’s words are fairly specific here- that the borders of this new state would be based on the 1967 lines.  Also, in order to make this new sovereign state “contiguous,” as a look at any map will reveal, would  necessarily result in the 1967 borders which today would prove indefensible despite the presence of advanced missile technology or not.

And in classic WassermanSchultz style, she did not let me down and provided us with this over-the-top incendiary comment: “Whether it is for political gain or other motives, the distortion of President Obama’s record and position on Israel only plays into the hands of the enemies of Israel by falsely suggesting that there is a softening of U.S. policy.”  It may be only me, but “playing into the hands of the enemies of Israel” of whom we are a close ally militarily infers a certain sense of treason.  So according to WassermanSchultz, I, by virtue of being a Republican and opposing practically all of the Obama agenda- domestic and diplomatic- am “at war with women,” a racist, trying to re-establish Jim Crow laws because I support voter ID laws, AND NOW A TRAITOR.    Because I oppose, or anyone else opposes Barack Obama, the Democratic Messiah, we “play into the hands” of Israel’s enemies.  I submit that it is Barack Obama who is delivering Israelinto the hands of its enemies and it is people like Debbie WassermanSchultz who are equally guilty in their complicity.  She brings dishonor upon her faith and her ethnicity in her support of this suicidal plan.  Seeing how the United States has treated its allies under Barack Obama, when he isn’t bowing to foreign leaders, giving insulting gifts, flubbing toasts and kissing the backside of socialist two-bit South American dictators, Israel is correct in their summary dismissal of the Obama proposal.  Maybe they can learn from the Obama errors in realtionships with staunch allies like Poland, Australia, the Czech Republic and Great Britain.  The Democrats like to deride the foreign policy of George W. Bush, but given his and Wasserman’s alternative policy, it looks pretty damn good and certainly more principled than anything this President has done.  And it defies logic that after the black vote, the next group of lemming-like followers is the Jewish vote for the Democratic Party.


Surrendering Israel to Alinsky


Whenever self-anointed arbiter of border etiquette Barack Obama awkwardly interjects Scripture into a speech, his disingenuous inner core is exposed. Recently, in defense of an unaddressed porous US border, the President attempted to add weight to his argument by introducing Bible verse into the discussion. Barack misconstrued Scripture so badly he compared illegal usurpers with ancient Hebrews enslaved in a foreign land whose escape from bondage required ten plagues and Moses parting the Red Sea.

To support a liberal stance on amnesty, Bible opportunist Barack misquoted the Book of Deuteronomy citing “moral imperative” and “a greater understanding from our faith.”  In defense of officially pardoning illegal aliens and in an effort to cultivate guilt and project a false image of righteousness, Obama revealed a counterfeit identity by dragging out a Bible Bazooka and haphazardly shooting poorly-interpreted verse at those who oppose granting lawbreakers a reprieve.

In a more recent border debate, Obama requested Israel relinquish land to Ishmael. This time Obama supported the appeal by choosing to disregard Deuteronomy 30:5, which refers to Israel when it says: “The LORD your God will bring you into the land which your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it; and He will prosper you and multiply you more than your fathers.”

Although Obama attempts to prove otherwise, his Bible knowledge is clearly limited to specific, out-of-context verses scrolling by on the Teleprompter.  Yet, when quoting Saul Alinsky’s book, Rules for Radicals, a flow takes place that lacks the clumsiness of Barack misusing Scripture to lend validity to imprudent solutions to the U.S. border dispute.

Even Barack Obama is astute enough to realize that citing Scripture in a Middle East and North Africa speech would contradict the proposition of Israel surrendering God-given land to people who’ve vowed to push the Jewish nation into the sea. Instead, tucked within Obama’s proposal to core the apple of God’s eye lies a direct quote from a tactical primer promoting “realistic” radicalism.

Speaking from the State Department, self-appointed international border expert Barack Obama presented a “new chapter in American diplomacy” that includes advancing America’s values (as defined by Obama), as well as tried-and-true Obama-style change as it applies to the Israeli/Palestinian border dispute.

The President’s lengthy speech chronicled ongoing, rapid-fire adjustments presently coming about “Square by square, town by town, country by country,” in a portion of the world engulfed by a set of circumstances where “the people have risen up to demand their basic human rights,” in a manner strangely similar to the Saul Alinsky technique.

Speaking like a true community organizer, Obama said: “It’s not America that put people into the streets of Tunis or Cairo — it was the people themselves who launched these movements, and it’s the people themselves that must ultimately determine their outcome.”

In what sounded like the present state of affairs in America and Barack Obama’s Middle East rhetoric described an all too familiar “relentless tyranny…refusal to pay taxes to a king… power concentrated in the hands of a few” and “change that cannot be denied.”

Obama, who heartily sanctions the “slaughter of innocents…for a better life” in America, also argued that in the Middle East, “the slaughter of innocents [does] not answer [the people’s] cries for a better life.”

Slowly winding his way toward the borders of Israel, the President – broached “fresh air” in Cairo; the “end of night” in Sanaa; words of freedom in Bengazi; “dignity” in Damascus, and an expository review of the situation in Libya. Failing to provide details, Border Patrol President Obama warned, “We will not tolerate aggression across borders, and we will keep our commitments to friends and partners,” a pledge that came with a committed resolve to “change our approach” to avoid a “spiraling of division” between the US and the Arab world.

Then, in order to avoid further division, in a telling use of words Obama, clearly more familiar with Saul Alinsky than Saul of Tarsus, took Middle East cues not from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but rather from Alinsky’s controversial handbook Rules for Radicals.

Alinsky tenets maintain that: “The standards of judgment must be rooted in the whys and wherefores of life as it is lived, the world as it is, not our wished-for fantasy of the world as it should be.“ Based on the President’s constant promotion of reckless chaos, one would assume Obama’s world is not a world as he thinks it should be – at least not yet.

Without a doubt, the President’s ‘standards of judgment’ remain ‘rooted in’ more concern over Palestinian border issues than those of Arizona, Texas and California.  Which may explain why Barack chose to insert Alinsky principles into the Middle East solution when he said: “after decades of accepting the world as it is in the region, we have a chance to pursue the world as it should be.”

Obama’s ‘wished-for fantasy’ concerning Israel was revealed with the shocking suggestion that 40+ years later the “borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

America’s President explicitly stated “The United States,” which in his mind is represented solely by the opinions of Barack Obama, “believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine.”

Texas and California should proceed with caution, because with Alinsky’s Lucifer-lauding “world as it should be” guiding the way the next thing Obama may decide to do in an initial effort to resolve yet another border crisis is to return the two states to Mexico.

Either way, one important issue has finally been resolved.  In a misguided attempt to grant America’s Promised Land to illegals through the exploitation of out-of-context Scripture and then the attempt to deny the actual Promised Land to its rightful heirs using a quote from the mouth of an atheistic mentor, the world as Barack Obama believes “it should be” has been finally been laid bare.

Posted at: Jeannie-ology