Pro-Palestinian-in-Chief

Clean

Clean

5,000+ Posts
I heard Stanley Kurtz talking about Obama's palestinian history on Bill Bennett's show this morning. He predicted that Obama's pro-palestiniam roots would begin to show if he was reelected back in 2011. He thinks that the current "crisis" with Israel and Netanyahu is largely manufactured by Obama and that Obama has been itching for this fight all along. Here's a link to his 2011 article.

It’s time to revisit the issue of President Obama’s Palestinian ties. During his time in the Illinois state senate, Obama forged close alliances with the most prominent Palestinian political leaders in America. Substantial evidence also indicates that during his pre-Washington years, Obama was both supportive of the Palestinian cause and critical of America’s stance toward Israel. Although Obama began to voice undifferentiated support for Israel around 2004 (as he ran for U.S. Senate and his national visibility rose), critics and even some backers have long suspected that his pro-Palestinian inclinations survive.
The continuing influence of Obama’s pro-Palestinian sentiments is the best way to make sense of the president’s recent tilt away from Israel. This is why supporters of Israel should fear Obama’s reelection. In 2013, with his political vulnerability a thing of the past, Obama’s pro-Palestinian sympathies would be released from hibernation, leaving Israel without support from its indispensable American defender.
Click to expand...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/268159/pro-palestinian-chief-stanley-kurtz
 
So how well is Netanyahu's uncompromising belligerence playing in the rest of the world... more West Bank settlements, no lessening of onerous restrictions on Palestinians, political abandonment on the 2 state solution. Is Netanyahu gaining traction anywhere except among the hard liners at home and Republicans in the US?
 
If Kurtz had predicted personal conflict between Obama and Netanyahu, I'd be impressed. But he didn't. Kurtz's fundamental premises was that Obama, unfettered by the need to get reelected, would cause the US to stop supporting Israel:

Clean said:
In 2013, with his political vulnerability a thing of the past, Obama’s pro-Palestinian sympathies would be released from hibernation, leaving Israel without support from its indispensable American defender.
Click to expand...

This prediction has proven to be entirely off base, as US-Israeli support has continued to expand.

Contrary to the one-way-street type of relationship of 40 years ago (the US gave and Israel received), current US-Israel ties have been transformed into a mutually beneficial two way street, expanding cooperation — especially at a time of drastic cuts in the US defense budget and the US withdrawal from Iraq, Afghanistan and Yemen. This two way street is not impacted by the bad blood between Obama and Netanyahu.
Click to expand...
Here is a link to one of the many articles making this point.
 
Crockett said:
So how well is Netanyahu's uncompromising belligerence playing in the rest of the world... more West Bank settlements, no lessening of onerous restrictions on Palestinians, political abandonment on the 2 state solution. Is Netanyahu gaining traction anywhere except among the hard liners at home and Republicans in the US?
Click to expand...

If US-Israel relations were moving differently than Israel's relationship with UK, Germany, France, etc. then I'd agree with Clean's narrative but the facts show that Israel's relationships are strained with all the Western powers. Unless you're advocating that Obama's has moved the rest of the world against Israel, which some I'm sure would, then you have to attribute the shift to Bibi.

NJLonghorn also shows that the budgetary support for Israel increased under Obama.

One must ask the question, why did Netanyahu take a hard right turn? He was supportive of a 2-state solution before he was against it.
 
About-to-wet-your-pants fear of Iran isn't universal. Pat Buchanan had some interesting things to say on the topic during Sean Hannity's show. http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article...-pat-buchanan-and-sean-hannity-spar-over-iran Of course, on Hannity, guests are only allowed a sentence fragment till Hannity seeks to redirect to what he expected them to say, so it took an embarrassingly long time for Buchanan to impart valuable insights and information.
 
Last edited:
I noticed that the pro-palestinian-in-chief took another shot at Christians at the White House Easter breakfast.

"On Easter, I do reflect on the fact that, as a Christian, I am supposed to love, and I have to say that sometimes when I listen to less-than-loving expressions by Christians, I get concerned, but that’s a topic for another day, " Obama said.
Click to expand...

Uh huh, must have just forgotten to comment on the less-than-loving massacre of 148 Christians in Kenya by his Muslim bros.
 
Driver, it's a popular belief in many of the angriest right wing media that President Obama is a Muslim. In fact, one of my facebook friends informed me that Obama is a "drug abusing, bi-sexual Muslim." Just so you know I'm not passing on rumors, I looked into it a little and I find no solid evidence, just a lot of bile-inspired speculation.
 
Daddy was a Muslim (at least for awhile). The Pres attended Muslim and Christian schools, but he does seem to favor Muslims by criticizing Christians and "re-labeling" radical, murdering Muslims as "non-Muslims".

On a different note, this is an interesting (if you are a socialist in favor of redistribution and Nationalization of industry) paper published by his philandering, alcoholic father about economics, which we can see woven into his son's economic philosophy at home and abroad:

http://www.politico.com/pdf/PPM41_080411_bhobama_article_1965.pdf
 
Clean said:
I noticed that the pro-palestinian-in-chief took another shot at Christians at the White House Easter breakfast.



Uh huh, must have just forgotten to comment on the less-than-loving massacre of 148 Christians in Kenya by his Muslim bros.
Click to expand...

Maybe he was talking to those of the evangelstic right? Why would he talk about Muslisms on a Pagan/Christian holiday ceremony?
 
Driver, it's a popular belief in many of the angriest right wing media that President Obama is a Muslim.
Click to expand...
I think he's a muslim sympathizer. If you read the article in the original post I think you can see his muslim roots. I don't see how anyone can look at his anti-Christian statements, like the one I mentioned above, the Crusader comparison a few months ago, etc. and come to any other conclusion.
 
Clean said:
I think he's a muslim sympathizer. If you read the article in the original post I think you can see his muslim roots. I don't see how anyone can look at his anti-Christian statements, like the one I mentioned above, the Crusader comparison a few months ago, etc. and come to any other conclusion.
Click to expand...

Could it be that he doesn't appreciate hypocrisy like some on the right like to overlook? I don't see it as anti-Christian as much as anti-hypocrisy.
 
As I have stated before I am convinced Obama is and has been an anti-Semite.

He was raised and schooled at a young age mostly as a Muslim. His embrace of Christianity later in life as a "member" of Rev. Wright's church was largely symbolic toward his political ambitions. He claims he is a Christian. If so why as a Christian and leader of the free world has he rarely ever talked about or done anything about the wholesale slaughter of Christians in the Middle East and other parts of the world by ISIS or Muslims?

His father was largely absent from his life, especially in his formative years. Frank Marshall Davis was pleased to fill in and act as mentor and father figure for BHO. Hmmm, wonder how that influenced his life and outlook on America. If you don't know who Davis is, browse his name.
 
Last edited:
Once a Muslim, always a Muslim unless you are an Apostate of the Muslim faith which is not seen too kindly by the strictest Muslims. How far he took his faith when he was a child nobody but himself knows. I would not guess myself.

He even admitted during the 2008 campaign that when he went to church in DC for years that he didn't listen to the sermons. So maybe he didn't listen when he was a child either?
 
If he were to apply the same logic to the Christian Crusades (which were undertaken to repel attacking Muslims) that he does to the present-day murdering Muslims, he would say that the Crusaders weren't really Christians since they weren't following the Christian faith. Since he does not say that, doesn't that make Obama a hypocrite also?
 
iatrogenic: Certainly most Crusaders were motivated by Christian ideals. But if you don't find unChristian behavior and greed in how Europeans carried out the Crusades, then you are reading very superficial or sanitized accounts of what happened.
 
Clean: Fox know it's audience. What it can't "dare" to do is mention Obama without criticizing him.
 
Crockett said:
iatrogenic: Certainly most Crusaders were motivated by Christian ideals. But if you don't find unChristian behavior and greed in how Europeans carried out the Crusades, then you are reading very superficial or sanitized accounts of what happened.
Click to expand...

Of course the crusades were un-Christian (although not unnecessary). My point was Obama fails to point out that Muslims are committing horrendous acts of violence because that is not "Muslim behavior" per the adherents to Allah (he just calls the criminals something else other than Muslim), but he has no trouble pointing out un-Christian behavior by Christians. He may not "appreciate hypocrisy like some on the right like to overlook", but he is clearly a hypocrite, and one that practices hypocrisy to the detriment of Christians and in favor of Muslims.
 
So Iatrognic, you think it would be helpful to have more anti-Muslim feelings in the public arena? That makes one of us. You think we have too few voices defending Christianity and it's unhealthy to reflect on how people professing the be Chrisians might not be righteous every time? Then lots of people, including some terrific Christians, would irritate you.

In some places of the world "defender of the Faith" is part of the oath of office and sworn duties of the leader. Not here.
 
I think the leader of the free world should not show preference to Muslims over Christians, and it is curious to me why he is doing so.

Christian churches are filled with hypocrites, as are mosques. But, hopefully, they are trying to be better Muslims and Christians.
 
iatrogenic said:
Of course the crusades were un-Christian (although not unnecessary). My point was Obama fails to point out that Muslims are committing horrendous acts of violence because that is not "Muslim behavior" per the adherents to Allah (he just calls the criminals something else other than Muslim), but he has no trouble pointing out un-Christian behavior by Christians. He may not "appreciate hypocrisy like some on the right like to overlook", but he is clearly a hypocrite, and one that practices hypocrisy to the detriment of Christians and in favor of Muslims.
Click to expand...

I think you may be missing the point of Obama's rhetoric. He's saying the atrocities that these Muslims are committing are not adhering the Muslim tenants than the act committed by the Crusaders were adhering to the Christian tenants. Meanwhile, Christians are scouring the Koran to look for quotes that say "see...killing non-Muslims is a tenant of the Muslim faith!" They do this to differentiate the Crusaders from the Jihadists. Of course, the Christians, typically the Evangelicals, conveniently act like the Old Testament doesn't exist.

With that said, I agree with Crockett that fanning the flames of a religious war is in no way helpful to stamping out Jihad-ism. George Bush Jr. and Dick Cheney recognized as much as they also went to great pains to difference the jihad movement from the Muslim faith.
 
The problem with most political discussions on this board and even most televised media is that every complicated situation gets explained as something either simply wonderful or simply horrifying.

It's like we don't need to read Les Miserables to understand the character of Jean Valjean. We just need to attach the label of "do gooder" if we lean liberal or "criminal fugitive" if we lean conservative in our readings on 19th century French society.

Should all political communication simply assume the populance incapable of nuance or sophistication?
 
Husker: He's saying the atrocities that these Muslims are committing are not adhering to the Muslim tenants any more than the acts committed by the Crusaders were adhering to the Christian tenants.

If that's what he believes, then he makes perfect sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top