Barack Hussein Carter

"There is good reason to believe the goals of the 9/11 attacks were not just to inflict maximum casualties, economic dislocation and humiliation on America, but also to provoke a strong US response. Osama bin-Laden and his band of murderers apparently calculated that a large scale American military reaction will ignite the Muslim world and possibly lead to an all-out confrontation with the infidels. The plot failed but the current Muslim-US tensions must be viewed with great satisfaction in al-Qaida's hideouts. ... Mr. Obama's apparently believes [sic] his main role is that of advertiser-in-chief where he can employ his undeniable personal qualifications and attributes to get a target audience to 'buy' his 'new and improved' American product. This approach is preferable not only because it avoids the costly confrontations and backlash brought about by the Bush Administration but in the final analysis is much more effective. Mr. Obama seems to forget that his non-audience is armed and dangerous and hell-bent on ripping up his 'under new management' sign even before the 'sale' itself has begun. ... It would indeed be a historical irony is in the wake of the new President's stress on shared destinies and universal human values the 'axis of evil,' a concept which came to haunt his predecessor, would regain its relevance. ... No matter how many Israelis pay the price, it is sure to argue that the violence only confirms the urgency of reaching a deal with the Palestinians and ensuring that Washington's new Islamo-centric foreign policy bears fruit", Avigdor Haselkorn, 29 June 2009, at: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/06/obamas_middle_east_strategy_me.html.

"Instead, Mr. Obama has sprinted from continent to continent with the speed and confidence of a grandmaster. He has made the opening moves is almost all of the important games. ... Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations [CFR], [Hillary Clinton] explained that the administration had made a strategic decision to deal with 'the urgent, the important and the long-term all at once'. ... One of the most pivotal games is being played in the Middle East--in Mr Obama's effort to re-establish the Arab-Israeli peace process. ... It is central to what he promised in Cairo would be a 'new beginning' in America's relationship with Muslims. Some of the most critical moves will be made during the next few weeks. Mr. Obama is the first president since Jimmy Carter to put the Middle East conflict centre-stage at the outset of his presidency. ... Like the chess player, the US president understands how to marry tactics to strategy. Each move in the putative peace plan is calculated to advance a comprehensive settlement--underwitten by a normalization of relations between the Arab states and Israel, as well as by the wider international community. ... Israel must be assured of its security--critically by recognition across the Arab world--and the new Palestinian state of its territorial integrity", my emphasis, Phillip Stephens (PS) at the FT, 17 July 2009.

"It is difficult to find more hatred of the West, than in the West itself. Listen and read what the representatives of the Western elite--academicians, novelists and show-business stars--say, and you will find no difference in their ideas and those of the leaders of the Taliban or 'Al Qaeda.' ... David C. Hendrickson, a professor at Colorado Collge, compared Georgee W. Bush to Stalin. ... A refined sadist and pathological murderer, he would turn in his grave if he heard the professor. ... If Stalin's Red Army had occupied Baghdad, not only terrorists, but Baghdad itself would have stopped their [terrorists] existence in a week's time. And not a single one of the present liberals would have uttered a word of protest. The reason for it is: they admire force, and Stalin was the embodiment of force. ... It is the reflex of servility and worship of force that impregnates the cultural establishment of the West. ... What are the aims of the Western liberal elite? They are none... Instead they consistently and purposefully destroy foundations of their own civilization, support the most ominous forces which dream of the destruction of a free society", Baron Bodissey (BB) at Gates of Vienna, 17 July 2009, link: http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2009/07/pinnacle-of-self-destruction.html.

"What I dubbed the Obama administration's 'rapid and harsh turn against Israel' has had three quick, predictable and counter-productive results. These point to further difficulties ahead. First result: Barack Obama's decision to get tough with Israel translates into escalating Palestinian demands on Israel. ... Second result: The US government takes marching orders from Abbas and passes them along to the Israelis. ... Some background: Zionists founded the Shimon Hatzadik neighborhood in 1891 by purchasing land from Arabs, the, due to Arab riots and Jordanian conquest, abandoned the area. ... Third result: The US demands has prompted an Israeli resolve not to bend but to reiterate its traditional positions. ... [Netanyahu said]: 'We cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase land in all parts of Jerusalem. I can only describe to myself what would happen if someone would propose that Jews could not live in certain neighborhoods on New York, London, Paris or Rome. There would certainly be a major international outcry'," Daniel Pipes (DP), 21 July 2009 at: http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/Printable.aspx?ArtId=35648.

"In foreign policy President Barack Obama has demonstrated a disturbing propensity to curry favor with our adversaries at the expense of our friends. ... Mr. Obama's attempted bullying of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu [BN] is a case in point. ... Subsequently, Mr. Obama demanded that Israel freeze construction in east Jerusalem. Of course, Mr. Netanyahu rejected Mr. Obama's demand. He declared that Jerusalem is an open, undivided city 'that has no separation according to religion or national affiliation.' Mr. Netanyahu added that 'we cannot accept the idea that Jews will not have the right to live and purchase in all parts of Jerusalem.' ... Israel has been willing to accwept a two-state solution since the United Nations partition resolution for Palestine in 1947, but the Arabs have refused it. They are not interested in creating a separate Palestinian Arab state but in destroying Israel as a Jewish state. ... Arabs launched a war against Jewish self-determination and the state of Israel long before any Israeli 'occupation' of their lands", my emphasis, Mackubin Owens (MO) at the WSJ, 25 July 2009, link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204886304574308172135404080.html.

Quoted without comment.

What category does the Palestinians' plight fall into? I say, ignore them. Treat them like the Kuwaitis did after 1991. Is PS for real? There is no "Arab-Israeli peace process". There never was. Had PS heard of the "Three Nos"? Is PS crazy? Or in the Saudis' employ? Or is this another Peggy Noonan piece, i.e., written tongue in cheek? Hey PS, did UN peacekeepers separate Israel and Egypt before the 1967 war? Didn't Gamal Nasser tell the UN peacekeepers to leave? They did. Is BN so stupid to think UN "Blue hats" will die protecting Israel from Arabs? PS, either you are a fool, or an anti-Semite who wants Israel and its inhabitants destroyed. Which? We spent 78 days bombing Serbia to protect Moslems. For? In 1956 we had Israel, France and Britain withdraw from Eqypt. For? Peanut farmer Carter pushed out the Shah and brought us Khomeni, or does PS forget that too? Hillary and Obama are engaging in a flurry of activity expecting only a few soundbites. Hey PS, do you want to be nominated for this year's "Chamberlain"? From 1948-67 Jordan and Egypt controlled the West Bank (WB) and Gaza respectively. Why wasn't a Palestinian state formed then? The existence or non-existence of a Palestinian state has nothing to do with peace between the Arabs and Israel. Never did. Ask Hamas. Read Hamas position papers. To its credit, Hamas is honest with respect to Israel. It will not rest as long as the Israelis control "one square meter" of the "land between the river and the sea". That's the bottom line.

Yes BB.

What should we expect from a man whose grandfather liberated Auschwitz? Some history. About 20 years ago I read a book, yes last one, about Palestine. I found the 1936 book in a used book store. Can you believe Joos lived in what is now called the WB in 1936? What happened to them such that we have "settlements" today? During the 1948-49 war, the Joos were driven out of the WB and had their property seized. Now they are told not to return. Imagine, POTUS Obama supports WB apartheid. Disagreeing with DP, there are places in Paris where Joos may not live.

BN, call a press conference. Cite 1960s speeches of Martin Luther King. Change the location from the South to the Middle East. We'll see POTUS Obama's reaction. Will he go home to Michelle, crying? Today's Sharia lesson: non-Moslems may not own land in Moslem countries. Disagreeing with MO, all of the land "between the river and the sea" is occupied land. As is Spain.