Thursday, June 4, 2009

Obama Shows His True Colors

I’m sad and even ashamed to say it, but U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama, in his first 100 days in office, has clearly and unmistakably shown the world — and Israel — his true colors. And they are not pro-Israel.

Let’s start with his bow to the Arab-Muslim Saudi Arabian King Abdullah when they met recently at the G20 summit in London. Almost every American and Israeli, especially conservative and evangelical Christians, took this as a serious insult.

How could the leader of the world’s greatest democratic, Judeo-Christian nation bow to the leader of the world’s leading Muslim dictatorship? And then, how could he demean himself by denying that he bowed, when the video coverage we all saw made it clear that he had? Would he bow before the Jewish president or prime minister of Israel? Don’t bet on it!

A few days later in Istanbul, Turkey, Obama sent another diplomatic punch Israel’s way by endorsing the 2002 Saudi Arabian plan as the Arab idea of peace between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. (Never mind the five so-called peace agreements that the Palestinian leadership previously agreed to, signed and then promptly violated.)

The Saudi Plan dictates that Israel should give the Arabs all of Judea, Samaria, Gaza, Golan, East Jerusalem and the Temple Mount for virtually nothing in return. The plan also demands that Israel welcome more than 1 million so-called Arab “refugees” into the Jewish state with full citizenship rights. (“Refugee status” has now become hereditary for the first time in human history.)

Is it any wonder that the Saudi plan has had no acceptance in Israel? Yet Obama fully endorsed it.

Before he left on that trip to Europe, Obama held a press conference in Washington, D.C., during which he was asked if it might be hard for him to work with new Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He confirmed that the ascendancy of Netanyahu would “greatly impede peace efforts” and added that he would simply “have to be more persistent than his predecessors" in pressing for a Palestinian state.

Since then, Obama has sent a special representative, former Sen. George Mitchell, to Israel to face Netanyahu with the demand to make way for a Palestinian state immediately, if not sooner.

Likud partner, MK Gilad Erdan, expressed the feelings of the entire Israeli government and nation, I believe, when he responded, “Israel does not take orders from President Obama!” He added, “In voting for Netanyahu, Israel has decided not to become the 51st U.S. state.”

When IDF Chief of Staff Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi made a trip to the U.S. recently to share fresh intelligence about Iran’s nuclear facilities, he was snubbed by the Obama Administration in a most humiliating way. He wasn’t allowed to see the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense or even his own counterparts, the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He was only allowed to meet with a lower-level assistant to the national security advisor. He had to cut his visit several days short, and commented, “They don’t want to even talk about Iran, only about the [idea of a] Palestinian state.”

The Obama Administration also denied a visitor’s visa to the U.S. for Dr. Uzi Arad, who is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s new national security advisor. Incredibly, U.S. officials stated that Arad “is suspected of being an intelligence risk.” As a result, Arad was prevented from fulfilling his mission of discussing top security issues with American officials. One has to wonder how deep and wide the negativity of the Obama Administration is toward the new Israeli government.

But that wasn’t enough: Obama followed up these serious diplomatic snubs by declaring a shift in U.S. policy toward Iran. He announced that he would drop the previous U.S. insistence that Iran cease development of nuclear facilities — and that he would opt for face-to-face talks and negotiations instead. This, of course, is a complete reversal of the policies of previous U.S. administrations and a strong slap in the face to Israel.

Obama does not seem to take seriously the Iranians’ threat to “wipe Israel off the face of the map.” He doesn’t seem to understand that nuclear bombs in the hands of the belligerent and apocalyptic Iranians would be a certain existential threat to the nation and people of Israel.

Add to all this Obama’s skirting the U.S. Congress and signing a presidential order to give $900 million to the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Arabs in Gaza, supposedly for the purpose of rebuilding the infrastructure that the Israelis damaged during the recent defensive action. Never mind that the Palestinians have squandered millions of dollars in aid from many sources to build up their military capabilities rather than spend the money to improve the lives and living conditions of their beleaguered people. The U.S. taxpayers are just expected to “pay up, and shut up.”

To top it all off, Obama added a special gift of $20 million to provide for several thousand Palestinian Arabs to leave Gaza and resettle in the United States. That includes free transoceanic passage and free help in setting up homes and finding jobs. Apparently, unlike Dr. Arad — a Fulbright Scholar and Princeton University Ph.D. — none of the Palestinians are considered to be “risks,” even though they elected the terrorists who’ve fired hundreds of rockets into Israel and have vowed to destroy it.

Who can determine a sane rationalization for such an action as this? Doesn't it look strangely like rewarding terrorism? What are Israelis supposed to think about such a senseless move?

I know what we evangelical Christians think about it — along with all the other recent Obama statements, decisions and actions. It’s obvious he’s showing his true pro-Arab, pro-Moslem, anti-Jewish and anti-Israeli colors — loud and clear. And while we’re at it … anti-Christian, also.

No comments:

Post a Comment

We do not publish all comments, and we may not publish comments immediately. We will NOT post any comments with LINKS, nor will we publish comments that are commercial in nature.

Constructive debate, even opposing views, are welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters or individuals in the article are not, and will not be published.

We will not publish comments that we deem to be obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.