By Ted Belman
Israel’s Channel 2 interviewed Obama in English. He was not subjected to any hardball or probing questions. I thought he performed brilliantly. I was surprised.
Obama was more impressive than I had ever seen him before. His delivery was smooth and he showed more understanding of Israel’s perdicament than previously. He spun away any negatives.
He said some things that stetched the truth a lot and he expressed the belief that peace was possible. He was very complimentary to Netanyah
BUT HE DIDN’T GO NEAR WHAT CONCESSIONS HE WAS EXPECTING ISRAEL TO MAKE.
But he did say that his position on settlements have always been held by the US. This is not true. The Bush letter of 04 gave Israel much more that what the US usually allowed israel. Obama has rejected this letter as not binding.
Lets talk reality you are a Coombes clone and I am not ashamed of being compared to Attila the Hun when it comes from you. I find it if anything complimentary,m just because you suggested the comparison. I know now I am on the right track.
Bill you can thank Obama and his administration for the change in attitude of Americans towards Israel since last year.
American Jewish organizations need to do some damage control.
By the way Randy I caught the interview likewise. Your right he is a totally scripted-an actor.
Now he and his wife are attacking the Tea Party as being racist.
Their attack is groundless and they create lies and spin the race card. When blacks get into trouble they threw out the race card.
All I can do is say the same thing over. If you merely watch and listen to Obama, he will has the stuff to make you believe—if not what he believes, at least that he is very sincere and understanding. However, if you study Omama and dig into his past, you will see a committed leftists radical.
I don’t have to guess about the future as long as he leads. I know where he is going. This guy IS NOT going to have a change of heart. Anytime there is any appearance of such, it is a change of strategy. Obama is completely sold out to his ideology.
He is all show. His words aren’t even his own unless he screws up. He is totally scripted—an actor.
Media Mogul Mort Zuckerman Admits He Wrote One Of Obama’s Speeches
Bill G-d bless you but your no Hannity.
Thank goodness Colmes is gone. He is one crazy bleeding liberal. To think he is married to Monica Crawley’s sister.
He drives me crazy.
Yamit, it strikes me that you and I would be a good fit for a TV political analysis show along the lines of Fox News Network’s Hannity and Coombes. Coombes, the liberal of course is now gone and only Hannity presides. The show I envision would cast me in the Hannity role and you as a pundit to the right of Attila the Hun.
What else do we have to go on???
Bill, again we don’t know the future, we can only go by a persons past behavior.
One, he is a fraud, a phony and a liar. He is not who he says he is. He can’t even take responsibility for his own actions (still blaming Bush and previous administrations).
Now spending 50 years this past June 2010, in the insurance business I would say a good underwriter would take a good hard look at this character and deny coverage, he would be considered a bad risk.
I believe that’s what we are saying. To date he hasn’t don’t anything crediable to warrent trust or change of heart.
Don’t be fooled, he is a anti-Semite and the photo op with the PM and the so called sympathy was for show and to mend a little fences with his Jewish followers.
I Forgot Bill, To add this to the comment above above.
I replied specifically to the quote above.
Narvey you are a master of sophistic and specious argument. You argue less on the facts and what is known but what you prefer to believe or accept. When faced with any serious challenge rather than conceding that you were or have been wrong you revert to pure sophism in saying we cannot know the future, time will tell etc…. That’s a most puerile argument, but I have been saying that now about you for years. Now it seems others are beginning to see the same thing.
Ted would say you are entitled to your own opinion. We are still waiting to see and read what that opinion is. Remember a woman can’t be half pregnant.
Ron, what’s with your disingenuity? Stop this nonsense about repeating Obama’s track record and questioning what I think of Obama. I told you what I think of the man.
If you, Ted, and Yamit figure you know what Israel’s future definitely is with Obama unless Israel can throw sand in his gears, why not put your time to good use and let Netanyahu and his government know.
I am sure the Israeli government doesn’t haven’t got a clue what Obama is about and what they can do to avoid him hurting Israel hereafter.
I am sure Netanyahu and his government will be forever indebted to you for your sage clairvoyant advice that will forewarn them so they can be forearmed and prepared to keep Obama from hurting Israel any further then he has.
Good luck with that!
Well let’s say for argument sake his track record speaks for it’s self. He lies and if your waiting for something good to happen, don’t bet the farm on it.
Think what you posted, “examining both their words and deeds”. His words are articulate, colorful and sometimes comical. His deeds are despicable and has caused a disaster for this country and it ain’t over yet.
By the way you notice he traveled to the ME and visited Muslim countries, embarrassing Islam, yet he has not or even mentioned visiting Israel.
He won’t for fear of offending his Muslim friends.
Now, do you really think he may have a change of heart, not likely and don’t bank on it. Like you said we don’t know what the future will bring, having said that you better be honest with yourself, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.
Ron, as I said, I cannot know the future with certainty. I can only assess based on what is and what has transpired to this point in time.
We can all make educated guesses, but until the future arrives we cannot know with certainty whether our predictions were accurate or not.
Some here however, believe they can predict the future with certainty. I don’t have that ability.
Whenever someone like a President says something different then they said before, it causes people to question, are they saying the same thing, but differently or is there really a change in view? That question is answered in due course, sooner or later by the Presidents further words, policies and actions.
As I said earlier Ron, Obama may not have had sympathy or understanding for Israel before or perhaps he always did.
What one however, gleans from his views, policies and actions vis a vis Israel to this date, is that his sympathy and understanding for Palestinians has always seemed much greater than that for Israel, if he indeed ever had real visceral sympathy for Israel.
Obama certainly whether he wanted to or not, politically has to affirm the “rock solid” relationship America has with Israel. Whether he viscerally feels it or whether he does so because of political circumstance really does not matter. The fact is that to some large extent he does affirm that relationship, though he does seem to undermine it as well at times.
He may have come to appreciate Israel’s plight more and have greater sympathy, because he is losing so much support for beating up on and singling out Israel for the failure of the peace process to advance. He may have been forced by circumstance and/or his advisers to figure he had better start showing evidence of real sympathy behind his statements that Israel and America have an unbreakable bond of friendship and holding the Palestinians to account.
Again, who really knows? One can only assess what is really on someone’s mind by examining both their words and deeds.
Had Obama just told Levy the same things he had said before on the Israel v Palestinian issue, I probably would say, same old, same old and Israel can expect to continue to be in for rough or rougher weather.
As I earlier stated, time will soon tell whether what Obama told Yonit Levy, signifies a real change of view to some extent or whether he is just expressing the same views he had before, but in a different way.
Bill, I don’t want to get involved with this argument but I know your a lot smarter than I and I say Obama has not had a change of heart. He is anti-Semite and anti-Israel.
He continues his con game. He lies so much that he doesn’t have any credibility capital left.
Israel needs to keep their distance and not be fooled by anything he says.
He cannot be trusted.
Think again, he said he wasn’t a Muslim, he was a Christian. Well for political expedience he pretended to be a Christian and hung out a large black church, if you are a black Chicago politician. A church with a radical pastor. He also refrained from using his middle name Hussein. Since being elected he does not attend any Christian church (not necessary now), has no problem with his middle name.
By far, this is by no means an honest person.
Now Bill, tell me do you think he is saying this because of what he believes or what he wants us to believe?
Your arguments with me are ridiculous.
The arguments all of you advance against what I said, derive from your absolute certainty that Obama has not changed his anti-Israel stance one bit and that the future, when it comes to pass, will prove you right.
I say Obama’s words of sympathy and understanding of the plight of Israel, was different then before and accorded well with the views often expressed on these pages, but whether his words signify a change of heart or not, will be seen as the future plays out.
People get your heads out of the clouds and your feet back on the ground.
Words by themselves prove nothing. His words may just as well prove that he, or his handlers, know what is politically expedient to say before a targeted audience.
Obama is a deceiver, plain and simple, nothing less and nothing more. To actually believe anything he says or pretends to be is to fall into a trap. To try and analyze him based on anything he says publicly is to open your self to confusion.
Pay attention only to what he does, not what he says. Look at everything we know about his past acquaintances. If you have liberal tendencies and don’t know who Obama really is, or if you have a grasp for what’s going on, his words are the sirens singing. Trust nothing he says.
Even though your last comment was less pleonastic than your previous ones. I can only suggest to you to give it up! The more you say on this topic the deeper you sink in the quicksand of irrationality.
Sorry Bill, not for a moment do I think he is or may besympathetic to us. I hold out no such expectation or hope.
Yamit, your asking will the real Bill Narvey show himself, presumably is based on my opinion of Obama has been changing over time.
While I harbored concerns and suspicions of Obama since he took the public stage during the Democratic presidential nomination contest, I was still prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Obama’s views became more explicit after becoming the Democratic presidential nominee. Those views caused me to be increasingly concerned and suspicious of Obama.
After his assuming the Presidency, my suspicions and concerns with Obama, not just as regards Israel, but overall, grew even more.
Those growing suspicions and concerns with Obama have been reflected in my writing here and in other forums.
It is I think fair to say that my thinking as regards Obama has been evolutionary.
The impetus for that evolution has been his views, words, policies and deeds that increasingly troubled me. It has resulted in cautious pessimism supplanting my initial very cautious optimism, which I still had at the beginning inspite of my signficant concerns with Obama from the get go.
Ted,obviously Obama’s expression of sympathy and understanding may or may not be sincere. I made 3 points:
1. Israpundit followers had criticized Obama for not being sympathetic and understanding of the history of the region and Israel’s predicament. Obama has now proven by his words that he has such knowledge or at least a sufficient grasp of it to be sympathetic to Israel’s predicament. He had not before to my recollection expressed himself in such fashion. Perhaps he had that sympathy and understanding of Israel all along, or recent political pressures opened him up to being sympathetic and understanding of Israel’s situation.
2. Obama has on a number of occasions expressed sympathy and understanding of the Palestinian situation and has acted on those sympathies and understandings in such singular fashion that it has led to the conclusion that he is anti-Israel;
3. While Obama may truly have understanding of and sympathy for Israelis, his sympathies for the Palestinians might prove to be greater and we will continue to see an imbalance in his views, policies and actions that weigh against Israel.
If his sympathies and understanding of Israel and Palestinians is now balanced, that should be revealed hereafter.
We can only speak to the past and the here and now. What Obama said in the interview, to my mind gives reason to be cautiously optimistic that Obama has changed, whether it is his own epiphany or one he was forced to become open to.
Time will tell.
I did, I stopped there and didn’t quote forward.
When Obama is in the groove with a teleprompter, if does not impress you with his oratory, it is probably because you know too well what he’s really about. As we’ve seen, it is people who have an agenda or who are not familiar with facts who are likely to get sucked in by the guy. As time passes and everything becomes more screwed-up, he’ll have a tougher time pulling off his shtick.
That’s it in a nut shell, Obama belongs in Hollywood among effeminate leftists actors. He is by far much more like an actor than a true statesman. Sounding credible and coming off as though he means what he says is his ONLY ‘qualification’. He belongs in a theater if he belongs anywhere other than a prison cell. I get ticked-off when I hear him; I know he’s lying between his teeth and doesn’t give a damn about anyone but himself.
But, March 2008; cut Bill some slack.
Navey quotes:
Arizonians Must Be Feeling a Lot Like Israelis These Days
http://www.jewishpostandnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=63&layout=blog&Itemid=138&lang=en
will the real Bill Narvey show himself!!!
Bill just because he expressed sympathy doesn’t mean he is sympathetic as you suggest.
Ted, your position on Obama is clear. What I was getting at was you sought more emphatically to say that in the face of Yamit’s barrage.
I have always given Obama straight A’s on oratorical style, charm and charisma.
That was most apparent with his 1st major March 2008 speech that he felt compelled to give because of the heat he was taking over his association with Rev. Wright. His speech was applauded as historic, even as I recall by you. I was less then enthusiastic on his content. I suspected that contrary to his touting himself as a racial uniter, he would be racially divisive. His July, 2008 speech worsened my suspicions in that regard just as my suspicions of Obama, generally shared by Israpundit, would become increasingly anti-Israel, have been borne out.
The grades I have been giving him on content since his March, 2008 speech were much lower then for his oratory and since then the grades I have been giving him continue to decline. It appears that in spite of some lag time, the American people are coming around to seeing that as well.
I do think it was quite a revelation that in this interview Obama did show sympathy and understanding of Israel’s predicament, contrary to what his critics accused him of.
Is this a new found understanding and sympathy, brought home to him by critical reaction to his Israel policy from both the Repub’s and Dem’s as well as many segments of the American people or has he always had that sympathy and understanding?
As I pointed out, however, while Obama has not before expressed these words vis a vis Israel as he did in his interview with Yonit Levy, Obama has a number of times expressed sympathy for and understanding of the Palestinian situation and his words and deeds in past accorded with those sympathies expressed. That has not changed so far.
The question now is whether his sympathy for and understanding of Palestinians will, as it appeared to be the case before, outweigh his sympathy for and understanding of Israel’s predicament or will his views, words, policies and actions become perceptively balanced?
That is the more relevant question then, when did Obama develop the sympathy for and understanding of Israel’s predicament as he expressed in the interview by Yonit Levy?
As for the meeting with Netanyahu the other day, while we do not know what may have been agreed to in private, one certainly did not get the impression from what both Obama and Netanyahu said in public that Netanyahu gave anything away.
Netanyahu’s interviews with the major media following that W.H. meeting suggest that Netanyahu did not give anything away in private.
I suspect that Obama had forewaring of the negative reaction of Abbas/Fayaad/Erakat to Netanyahu’s call for direct talks now and thus Obama was in no position to really make any demands on Israel for concessions or confidence building measures. I think therefore that this W.H. meeting was for Obama to try to restore confidence amongst the American electorate and especially American Jews in the bone fides of his good intentions vis a vis Israel that he is now trying more desperately then ever, to convince both Americans and Israelis of.
The outcome of the upcoming Arab League meeting as near as one can make out from Abbas’ words, likely will support Abbas’ hard line demands on Israel. That will not likely be a helpful outcome to enabling Obama to kickstart direct peace talks between Israel and Palestinians.
I need no defending by anyone but you sure do narvey. Yes, I agree I tend to be prolix but few can argue that despite my prolixity that there is; unlike your comments, no merit in what I write. Unlike most of your pleonastic and mostly obfuscatory prattle, every attempt by you to express a corpral thought bring with it an army of escorting words, (pleonasm) where in most cases they signify nothing. Can’t ever detect any thunderous sound or fury either.
How so? because you believe he understands by his comments that he does have an understanding of our history and current geopolitical realities? Maybe, just maybe it is your own lack of understanding of both our history and geopolitical realities which allows you to see in Hussein that which others don’t?
Seems some people only see and hear what they want to. You believe Hussein because you want to. Once a liberal always a Liberal?
This is the only point of worth in your whole pleonastic attempt to defend yourself. It should have been your first para..
If they do then as usual they are mistaken or if correct BB ignores their conclusions and recommendations. BB is much like you . Anything that goes contra to his preconceived notions tend to be ignored or reinterpreted erroneously.
Do you think I spew out my views here because I believe they will influence the Israeli government? I may be a lot of things but I’m not delusional. Funny you always resort to the personal when you can’t defend your own positions at least when you express a position. Most of the time you offer polemics of explaining all sides of a psosition without firmly taking sides or a position of your own. I suppose it allows you deny-ability when pressed and confronted.
Why not remind us with a few examples. Some are new here and don’t know what they are. Tell you the truth I don’t know what they are.
I am interested in discussion but a discussion based on truth and facts not he said she said they said. Arguing with you is like arguing with soft mush. You are not firm or convincing about anything in you arguments and positions. You will never allow yourself to be pinned down on anything and disappear when it gets to rough for you. No I don’t think I know everything and mostly express my opinions on what I believe I do know. If you believe me wrong show me where. I’ve been waiting for over 4 years for you to show me I am wrong and am still waiting.
That’s me, Mr. Predictability and Mr.Consistancey
Yamit. As for the Bush letter I agree that parts of it are not binding and have taken that position in the past, Just because he wrote that certain things are “unrealistic” doesn’t prevent the US from demanding said things. But the letter contained other statements which I consider binding.i/e/ that the US was committed to preventing any other plan from being imposed and that Israel was entitled to defensible borders.
Elliot Abrams argued that after long negotiations it was agreed where Israel could build i.e. “internal growth” and what went into the letter. Some parts are binding.
Nevertheless I will argue that the Bush letter is binding forcing this admin to weasel out if they can.
Bill I didn’t backtrack one iota. perhaps my previous comment explains better what I meant in my original post. If you still maintain that I backtracked, u read more into my post then I intended.
Not for a moment have I been taken in. Obama is not good for israel. He means us no good regardless what he says. But that doesn’t prevent me from recognizing a good performance when I see one.
I agree, Yamit is predictable, but aren’t we all? Yamit believes he has all the answers and everyone who disagrees with his is wrong. I fit somewhere in between the two of you.
Both of us function as litigation lawyers. We strive to make the best case we can for Israel with a view to getting a good settlement; Yamit doesn’t want to settle. He wants to go for broke.
I’ll tell u what I consider impressive.When a politician puts on a performance, as Obama did, in which he has to make a silk purse out of a pig’s ear and he succeeds in doing so, that’s impressive. But it is still a pig’s ear.
I believe that many people will be swayed by this performance to give him a pass on his past transgressions. Obama presented himself very well.
Could anyone have done better with the cards he has dealt himself? I think not. Essentially he is a smooth con artist. That’s how he got elected.
You are just being argumentative.
Ted, why are you backtracking and soft peddling what you said before? Are you trying to appease the prolix yamit who dominates so much of this discussion?
As for you, Yamit, you are wrong again, but what else is new?
So many have said at Israpundit and elsewhere, that Obama does not know Mid East history and has little to no understanding and appreciation for what Jews faced from Arabs until the creation of the state of Israel and what Israel has faced from Palestinians and Arabs ever since.
Obama’s words dispel that belief. He appears from this interview, unlike is past words, to well and truly understand and appreciate Israel’s circumstances and needs. That said, Obama also has an understanding and sympathy for the Arabs/Palestinians which he has before openly and repeatedly expressed and seemed singularly sympathetic to them.
My point is that Obama is facing a loss of Jewish and others’ support re: Israel because he has been viewed as anti-Israel. That loss of support however, is in the main due moreso to increasing numbers of Americans doubting Obama’s policies, especially domestic.
I suggested these circumstances of his support waning, might force Obama to become balanced in his thinking and comments vis a vis his sympathies for Israelis and Palestinians to at least regain some support on that conflict that he has lost overall.
Then again, whatever his sympathies, understanding and appreciation of Israel’s situation that he either always had or has just come to have, could prove to be less then the same sentiments he has shown and appeared to be most guided by, in his words, policies and actions that have been characterized as anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.
Its so easy for you, Shebrew, Ron, et all to say Obama is a bullshitter, a liar and such and suggest there is no point in understanding the why’s and the wherefore’s that move him to say and do the things he does. You can bet that Netanyahu’s government and intelligence experts and analysts pour over every word and nuance to figure him out.
Oh yeah, I just remembered, you just spew out your views on Israpundit, like the Israeli government is really going to listen to you. Well you can hope I guess.
Unlike you, I am interested in trying to better understand what moves Obama to say and do the things he does. In doing so, I raise my thoughts and invite discussion.
Oh, I forgot you are not interested in discussion Yamit, because you believe you know everything there is to know.
As for suggesting I have not taken a position vis a vis Obama, I have quite a number of times and in different ways that all pretty much add up to the same thing.
I see no need however, to keep repeating myself each time I write on these matters to cater to your most peculiar and usually twisted way you choose to interpret what I might say on the matter, just to set yourself up a straw man and give yourself a launching pad to attack me once again.
You are so darn predictable Yamit.
I guess what you consider impressive and what I consider impressive are not the same. C’est la vie
Firstof all I didn’t intend to cover all the misstatements. Secondly I said he was “impressive” and stand by that. By that I didn’t mean that he was truthfull but that he was smooth and believable. Not that I believed him.
I have an article covering this in great detail. American Thinker will be publishing it in a day or two.
So far on this blog your are alone in thinking so , maybe Ted thinks so as well I can’t really tell from his comment.
Ted and the foregoing commenters have seized on several of his statements to suggest Obama is stretching the truth or stating falsehoods.
What’s your opinion?
a and b you conclude he is a Liar without saying he’s a liar. I would eviscerate you in a court room.
He uses blood libel against the Jews and you sit and ponder his meaning and motivations?
It’s Obama who is racist and antisemetc. He is the one who used the race card he is the one that 95% 0f all Blacks who voted for him voted blindly just because he was Black. That’s racism of Blacks against whites. So I call him the Black plague and it’s a statement of fact and if he can use race to get elected I can use race to malign him.
Words are the primary weapon of all demagogues.
.
You believed him? Unbelievable!
Apparent understanding? He doesn’t understand America and her problems and you accept that he understands ours. he wants us to disappear like in dead/ That’s what he understands.
Right, Narvey he had a sudden spontaneous Epiphany on the road to Damascus.
Tilted against Israel. What do you think of here?
The Leaning Tower of Pisa??
You wrote a thousand words and said essentially nothing. You took no definitive positions and wrote as though you were watching and describing a tennis match. What for?
Bill, Shebrew is correct, obama is a bullshitter, a lying bastard.
Think for a minute, forget what he says. Follow his actions not what he says. He is one asshole and I can tell you I have Fox news on in my office all day and they cover a majority of his speeches. He is by no means presidential, he is a fucking clown. He tries to be funny and the only funny I see is one stupid looking jerk with big ears trying to act like a comedian.
The only support is getting now is the blacks. Soon they will wake up discover he is nothing more than a black Muslim Mulatto.
No one should deny or underestimate Obama’s brilliant mind and oratory skills.
Ted and the foregoing commenters have seized on several of his statements to suggest Obama is stretching the truth or stating falsehoods.
It was interesting that Obama:
a. still refers to Abbas/Fayaad as moderates who are sincere about pursuing peace with Israel. There is so much to conclude otherwise, it would take a long essay to enumerate that evidence. A window of opportunity is a neat, but much overused phrase. What Obama fails to appreciate when he speaks of there now being a narrow window of opportunity is that from the Palestinian/Arab side, that window has alwasy been and remains closed. The words of Abbas, Fayaad and Erekat since this interview about the prospects of direct talks, speaks volumes to that conclusion.
b. Obama stated that with all the people he has met, he is ever more convinced that people at their core share the same values and aspirations and that all people at their core are universally decent.
Again, there is so much evidence to lead to a different conclusion, it would take far too long to enumerate that evidence.
c. Obama stated that one of the reasons perhaps contributing to Israelis suspicion of him is his middle name, Hussein. That was an obligue and mild accusation that some Israelis are anti-Muslim racists.
Obama’s core concerns about racism against blacks for instance were expressed in his March and July 2008 addresses to the American people. He was criticized for that in a number of respects, including that while he cast himself as being dedicated to eliminating racism from the American psyche, he was being racially divisive when he spoke of racism in America as it was, back in the 1950’s and failed to praise Americans for having come as far as they had from the racism of the 195-‘s.
Obama’s visceral preoccupation with believing racism still is a very signifcant factor in the American psyche was evident in 2009 when, seized of few facts regarding Sergeant Crowley’s arrest of Henry Gates, he accused Crowly and the police department of stupidity.
More recently Obama’s reaction to the Arizona anti-illegal alien immigration law in April, 2010 was to clearly imply that it was a potentially racist law. By his knee jerk reaction to the announcement of the law, without he or his Attorney General Holder or Sec. of Homeland Security even reading the law, many Americans, including a number of States took the President’s lead to accuse Arizona of being racist.
Obama should know as much as anyone that words do matter, since he tries to capitalize and make the most of his words. Obama does not however, appreciate that his words at times matter for the worse.
What however, did emerge from this interview is his understanding of and sympathies for what Israel is up against vis a vis Palestinians and Middle Eastern states, that heretofore were very unclear or considered absent in his thinking.
The question still remains however, as to whether Obama’s thinking, words, deeds and policies are guided in a balanced way by his apparent understanding of Israel’s history vis a vis her neighbors and whether his feelings on the issues are truly balanced by his sympathies between Israelis and Palestinians.
Until now, Obama’s thinking, words, deeds and policies have seemed tilted to very tilted against Israel, so much so that John Bolton and others have characterized Obama as the most anti-Israel president in memory.
Perhaps Obama’s words during this interview derive from a new and greater understanding of and sympathy for Israel’s plight and her needs, which came to him in light of events over the past several months and some fear he is not just losing the confidence of American Jews over Israel, but many more Americans as well.
We should know soon enough whether Obama’s apparent newly expressed sympathy and understanding of Israel and Israelis will find expression in his words, deeds and policies or whether he reverts to his default position tilted against Israel, that has so raised concerns amongst Israelis, American Jews and indeed an increasing number of Americans.
You’ve fallen victim to the same con job that led Jews to support Obama. Obama knows exactly what Jews want to hear, and this is an election year so they get to hear his phony sweet talk. Next year, they get to hear the opposite, just like last time. This will be the second straight election where Mr. Anti-Israel sweet talks naive Jews into jumping off the cliff. Fool me once, fool me twice. In 2012, I guess it’ll be fool me three times. It floors me that you of all people would be impressed by a grifter running the same con over and over. What did you think Obama was going to say? “I’ll pretend to like you now, but after the election you’re in big trouble?” It’s crazy that this con job still works. Do you read your own site, Mr. Ted Belman? After posting all these stories about what a shameless liar Obama is, you still find his words impressive? He’s a bullshitter, and you know it but you’re impressed anyway. Thank God Shebrew is finally here to lead you out of the wilderness. I want you to think of me as Moses with a great rack.
Who is the bigger Liar Hussein or BB? Who is the better liar Hussein or BB?
I disagree with you on this one. The letter was non binding and only given to Sharon under pressure to get some Ministers and MK an excuse to vote with Sharon’s ethnic cleansing of Gaza. Obama can choose to accept or reject as it is a worthless piece of paper good for wall decorations and in a pinch for something more mundane. If Bush wanted to give Sharon a binding letter of agreement he could have and they do know how to make a binding agreement when they want to.
I agree with Shy Guy, Seems as though Ted missed many of the salient points.
Obama has a visceral hatred for Jewish nationalism. Netanyahu knows that Israel cannot trust Obama when the poseur has already reneged on Bush’s letter guaranteeing Israel secure and defensible borders. Netanyahu is pursuing a deal with the Palis for other reasons, i.e., some type of quid pro quo on Iran as well as his own legacy. Bibi reveals all in his speech before the CFR:
“risks for peace”
“educate my people on what should be done”
“Obama is an asset because he has credibility with the Arabs”
Watching this interview, all I could think of is what the Arabs would do to Yonit Levi if she ever got lost in Ramallah.
Ted, perhaps you missed a few points.