No surprise there.
No Muslim ruler has visited Israel.
I do not believe this is coincidence.
To visit Israel is to recognize it. Obama is being simpatico.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Menu There is no diplomatic solutionIsrael should declare three nos;
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
no to nuclear Iran, no to two-state solution, no to bi-national state
@ Michael Devolin:
Quite so; he pushed for all he was worth
(it just wasn’t worth very much).
Reagan made the visit in spite of Buchanan’s urgings — not ‘because of’ them.
Reagan was ALWAYS all-the-more suspicious of any such suggestion from Buchanan precisely BECAUSE of his pushing.
So goes the popular legend — the operative language, however, being “credited with” — and it surely would have been in character for Buchanan [Communications Director at the time] to have offered such a construction.
— Yet Buchanan himself DENIES that it was his line. (And why would a customer of such brazenness as a Buchanan ‘lie’ about a thing like that?)
Many prominent govt officials, Army officers & celebrities had protested the planned visit. Elie Wiesel spoke out at an unrelated White House ceremony: “I… implore you to do something else, to find another way, another site. That place, Mr. President, is not your place.” 53 senators (incl 11 Repubs), signed a letter asking Reagan to cancel, and 257 representatives (incl 84 Repubs) signed a letter urging Chancellor Kohl to withdraw the invitation.
Kohl responded in an interview with NYT: “I will not give up the idea. If we don’t go to Bitburg, if we don’t do what we jointly planned, we will deeply offend the feelings of [my] people.”
Polls revealed that 72% of W. Germans thought the visit should go forward as planned. Kohl admitted that rarely had German-American relations been so strained, and in the days leading up to the visit, the White House & the Chancellery were pitted against each other in the blame game. The WH claimed the Germans had given assurances that nothing in the Bitburg visit would be an “embarrassment” for the president:
“As clumsily as we handled it, Kohl & Co. have surpassed us in spades.”
A German official said: “The Americans also have a responsibility toward the president. They must also check on the history that is beneath the ground. It was not very intelligent.”
Reagan defended himself by saying: “These [SS troops] were the villains, as we know, that conducted the persecutions and all. But there are 2,000 graves there, and most of those [SS], the average age is about 18. I think that there’s nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.”
It should be noted that these boys were Waffen SS (auxiliaries), not Regular SS.
— Regular SS were never conscripts, but were deliberately selected for their eager viciousness.
This is reaching the length that attracts the moderation net, so I’ll finish it in another post.
Nixon got his Secretary of State, Rogers to propose the Rogers Plan which required full withdrawal by Israel.
Carter called the settlements “illegal”.
Reagan very early in his presidency, said they were not illegal but were an “obstacle to peace.” Reagan also saved Arafat and his minions by preventing Begin from delivering the coup de gras in Beirut. What he did was to arrange for transporting them on American ships to Tunisia. Thus he preserved them to fight again.
@ Michael Dar:
Thanks.
‘Buchanan was vehement in pushing President Reagan — despite protests — to visit Germany’s Bitburg cemetery, where Nazi SS troops were buried. At a White House meeting, Buchanan reportedly reminded Jewish leaders that they were “Americans first” — and repeatedly scrawled the phrase “Succumbing to the pressure of the Jews” in his notebook. Buchanan was credited with crafting Ronald Reagan’s line that the SS troops buried at Bitburg were “victims just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps.”‘ (New York Times, 5/16/85; New Republic, 1/22/96)
@ dweller:
Well said, Dweller,
In the case of Catamarin, she’d make any kind of excuse for Obama – and she’d vote for Hitler were he a Democrat.
With Yamit’s almost pathological attitude towards Republicans, I think he’d do the same. Ironic him bashing Reagan and totally ignoring Obama’s overt Jew-bait and Israel-hate. But as the little boy would say, it is a “constant sore” for Yamit. That “constant sore” was Israel, as far as Obama is concerned, while Yamit stupidly considers that “constant sore” to be Reagan and other Republican Presidents.
@ catarin:
They do that in every state of the USA, and he’s been doing a lot of visiting of THEM, Catarin.
You honestly believe that’s how Israelis think of weaponry, Catarin? — “War Toys”?
— Or that Obama believes that?
Look at the map. Consider the neighborhood. Listen to the radio.
We’re not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
@ Alan:
MAYBE they would but I doubt it, Alan.
They’d’ve been courteous, correct, proper & all that, TBS — but I seriously doubt that they’d have entertained any residual open questions as to where he was at.
They knew the score early-on.
During the 2008 election cycle, Israelis [i.e., Israeli JEWS] overwhelmingly supported McCain [midsummer ’08 pollings ran 40-29%] over Obama — whom they found “naïve,” as well as “unrealistic and insensitive to the existential challenges facing the Jewish state.” [Mitchell Barak, Managing Director, Keevon Research, Strategy and Communications, based in Jerusalem].
Three weeks before Election Day, Willy Stern also noted [Weekly Standard, “Where Jews Vote Republican,” 13 Oct 08] that “the leaders of all three of Israel’s major political parties — Likud, Kadima & Avodah [i.e., Labor] — prefer McCain, but they don’t dare say so publicly…Why not? Because they know they might have to deal with Obama for the next four years.”
@ catarin:
The word was in regular usage long before the labor movement ever got hold of it.
Georgia farmers were often called “rednecks” because of what the sun used to do to their pale skin.
@ Sam Goldblatt:
Not so.
Not even slightly.
A fact which frustrated the hell out of Buchanan.
@ Alan:
“On balance,” I’d strongly disagree that Nixon was the “better friend,” though I won’t quarrel with the part of your comment in parentheses.
He didn’t quite ‘drop everything’ to do it.
And actually, Alan, by the time the stuff arrived, the reversal in Sinai was already accomplished.
As I recall, Yamit had some experience with the conflict, and I’m sure he will confirm this (but don’t hold your breath expecting him to do it in a courteous way).
@ yamit82:
As I said, Yamit is an inveterate slanderer
— a slanderer not only of Reagan
but also of YoursTruly.
Frankly, I must say I’m honored to find myself in such good and decent (not to say, august) company.
I have no need for idols, unlike some who frequent this site.
What’s more, Mr Reagan (z”l) has NO need for me — or anybody else — to whitewash him.
If Yamit’s body were as clean as Reagan’s memory is
— he wouldn’t need a bath for a month.
“Published facts”? — really?
PRODUCE a few
— we’ll see just how factual those published ‘facts’ turn out to be. . . .
That’s not an ‘opinion’ — that’s a personal wish from a twisted mind
— our correspondent, Yamit, is a true sicko who NEEDS to believe this tommyrot.
“Whitewash”? — How would YOU know? — have you even read it?
Have you read ANY of Lou Cannon’s writing?
Cannon was no whitewasher.
He was a hard-nosed, and very thorough, reporter from the days when journalists got the facts
— and didn’t get in the tank with anybody.
Indeed, unlike yourself, shmendrick, he had no use — and no time — for SMEARS.
@ yamit82:
Evidence for either of these remarks?
He did nothing of the kind.
Quite contrary, in fact, he pushed for Pali recognition of Israel.
Not only is Yamit’s prejudice against Reagan (and his record) dishonest.
— His hatred of the man is clearly pathological& personal.
That is a steaming, slushy, sticky pile of malodorous
— horseshit.
It was REAGAN who first declared the settlements LEGAL — completely reversing the holding of the Carter State Dept.
— and to this day, NO succeeding administration has ever DARED to backtrack on that.
Not even Obama.
To this very day, the Obami will never, EVER, use the word “illegal” in re the settlements.
— They’ve never done it one single time. They always — without exception — use the word “illegitimate.”
@ yamit82:
You can blame Begin HIMSELF for that.
Reagan had thought the $8 Bil AWACS sale to the Sa’udi’s would encourage them to help sustain the early cease fire in Lebanon after the IAF raid on PLO HQ a year before the ’82 Lebanon War.
— Phil Habib, the special M-E envoy, regarded the Sa’udi role as “indispensable.”
Begin was understandably alarmed at the prospect of such a sale, and bluntly said so — but he also gave Reagan to understand that his oppposition would be strictly thru channels; that he wouldn’t go public with it.
Then, however, Begin did — inexplicably — make a huge splash out of it: a speech to the US Congress, numerous TV interviews, etc. Essentially Begin overplayed his hand. You could call it grandstanding, I suppose, on the PM’s part. (Bibi does the same thing from time to time, but he‘s never said or suggested he wouldn’t.)
RR was only the 2nd American president Begin had ever had dealings with as PM, and he may have assumed that ALL US presidents — chief execs of a big country, accustomed to throwing their weight around — were going to be cut from the same devious cloth as Jimmy Carter — and that therefore he (Begin) also would have to be wily, to play fast & loose, to keep from being run-roughshod over. (Granted, this bit is sheer speculation on my part — though not, I think, especially far-fetched.)
In any event, Reagan perceived himself betrayed — and now, even challenged: to show that “other nations don’t control US foreign policy.” (He personally lobbied 44 GOP senators in precisely those terms.) So when the vote came up in the Senate, the AWACS bill passed.
Ironicaly, if Begin had let well-enough alone — had simply refrained from the public campaign at that particular juncture & just left the matter in the perfectly competent hands of AIPAC & the rest of the “Israeli Lobby” — the bill would probably have been defeated. (That’s the common perception among the better informed observers.)
What’s more, the President’s trust in Begin wouldn’t have been challenged.
In any case, however, there is no way that this can be fobbed off to ‘antisemitism’ — howsoever much Yamit & his warped heroes like Francisco Gil-White would like to
— that dog simply won’t hunt.
@ yamit82:
Pure politics, all the way around.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Reagan’s suspension (not cancellation) of the F-15 deliveries — in the wake of the Osirak strike — was clearly for popular consumption (domestic & international)
— just as Begin’s Rebuttal: to the State Dept & Ambassador Sam Lewis — not to Reagan [read the end of the Begin statement]
was ALSO for popular consumption.
BOTH sets of remarks — Reagan’s AND Begin’s — were perceived by the delivering party to be necessary in the present climate.
And likewise in BOTH cases, the receiving party understood that fact perfectly well.
The only party who seems to have been actually fooled in all this dancing & posturing
— is Yamit.
But he was already primed for it. Still is. No surprises there.
Standard, garden variety, Yamit bile & flagrant slander — coming, as it does, from somebody who has repeatedly stated — on this very blogsite
— that he has no problem with bearing false witness against his neighbor. He thinks the injunction doesn’t apply to him unless his “neighbors” are JEWS (and then, ‘Jews’ only as HE defines the word).
Bullshit. He (wrongly) cooperated with a State Dept decision.
(I seriously doubt that ANY president would have had the wherewithal to be able to resist it. All the same, it was a wrong decision.)
Oh, really? — in that case you should have no trouble naming a few, their positions & departments, their US superior officers, etc?
J.S. Said:
The very first official phone call he made as POTUS was to Abbas. That says it all.
catarin Said:
Catarin, war is not a game, people die in a war. And the Israelis have lots of dead to mourn. It is very inconsiderate to present them as if they enjoy the whole thing.
catarin Said:
There cannot be peace with the Palestinians because the Palestinians do not want peace. When Israel surrendered Gaza and got a Palestinian “thank you” in the form of daily rocket fire, that was the point that the two-state solution died, since the Palestinians made their intentions very clear: no peace, just annihilation of Israel.
Every day the Palestinians extol their kids to become martyrs and die for their cause. Have a look at this link, and tell me if you think that people who want peace would make their children so full of hate and death wish. http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=846
catarin Said:
If Obama sets a clear red line on Iran, trust me, Israel will applaud.
catarin Said:
The modern Jewish thinking that you predict, should be directed to making the Palestinians less intransigent, not the Israelis more capitulating. Asking the Israelis to bring Tel Aviv to the artillery range of Palestinian terrorists will not work.
Ezra Levant a while ago made an interesting observation. He asked (in so many words, not quoting directly). Who was Obama addressing in his Cairo speech? Who was it? It was an address delivered to “the Muslim world”. I believe he was speaking as a Muslim to Muslims (and he made sure the front row seats were occupied by the Muslim Brotherhood — never mind what Mubarek thought). (Similarly, the very first interview he gave was to an al-Arabiya reporter. The bowing to a Saudi king, etc.) Over and over again Obama has demonstrated his preferences (and conversely, he has demonstrated his antipathies, his dislike for America/Americans/Israel.)
@ Alan:
@ Alan:
Hey Alan…
“Ted has had to restrain me on a few”
LOL Welcome to the club, Alan. I’m like a John Deere without a clutch when I get started.
“…they’re are about as new and modern as those who advised Hitler, and not much different than they were.”
Reminds me of that line in Ecclesiastes, “If an anyone says, ‘This is new.’ It has been already of old time.” (or something like that)
@ Alan:
@ Alan:
Hey Alan…
Maybe Obama (by not visiting Israel) wants to illustrate to the Arab world that, yes, indeed he is willing to put “daylight” between America and Israel. (I don’t think he cares at all what Israelis think about him — what he cares about is what the Arab/Muslim world thinks about him. Maybe also, he wants them to love him — he wants their adulation — remember he was abandoned by his Muslim father, ditto for his Muslim step-dad.)
@ Michael Devolin:
She’s probably thinking toilet water scum like Beinart, MJ Rosenberg, and Axelrod…they’re are about as new and modern as those who advised Hitler, and not much different than they were.
@ Michael Devolin:
Michael, Catamarin is one of those who likes to spew and run. I’ve had my moments with the girl, Ted has had to restrain me on a few – lol. But she really doesn’t get it, nor does she make any sense at all.
If I recollect correctly, she isn’t even Jewish, but somehow she thinks she’s a supporter of Israel when if you support Obama as much as she does, it just cannot be. Like the boy himself, she cannot justify any of his policies because deep down inside she knows he’s a failure – and an anti-Semite.
If one suggests that a proposition should be accepted on the grounds that it’s “new and modern” — that is to engage in fallacious reasoning — it’s an appeal that is flawed.
“…more modern thinking Jews”
I read all I can, so I would like to know who are these “more modern thinking Jews”.
“Anyway, I’m through engaging in anti-Obama posts.”
If you’re so sure of Obama and his philosophy (I would like to hear that one!), why not engage? Who can believe he even has a philosophy he actually adheres to? I honestly think he is a mole who, it will be someday discovered, makes Kim Philby look like Fred Flinstone by comparison.
Appreciate it, Yamit. The Pat Buchanan angle on Reagan paying tribute to the SS is not mere speculation. When he worked for Nixon – Buchanan advised him to never contact Martin Luther King’s widow Coretta because in Buchanan’s reasoning it would stir up whites. Buchanan is an open Hitler admirer, in his mind the SS were misunderstood heroes. I don’t know if Reagan was an anti-Semite. One would think not because of his Hollywood experience. But, he was definitely under the sway of Buchanan.
“That doesn’t mean giving the Holy Land away but finding solutions to make things work.”
Did you say “finding solutions” or Final Solution? Obama is fond of suggesting the latter.
What American president bowes to a Saudi prince (a contradiction in terms).
Trying to make peace with Arab Muslims would be, to borrow one of my grandfather’s phrases, like “asking a whore for money.”
@ catarin:
Our resident Ovomit groupie speaks…and it is pap and smear as usual.
Correcto Mundo, Cat, Ovomit could have easily gone to Israel at the same time he went to visit his bosom buddies in Cairo and Saudi Arabia. At that time Israelis would have still been open-minded towards him. He BLATANTLY refused to do so. Since then, he has all but parroted the Palestinian line, giving them more US taxpayer dollars than any other President, and at a time when that money would have been better used at home.
He was an anti-Semite before he took office and he remains one now. Israel – and America will be in for rough times should he get re-elected. But thankfully due to his own incompetence, lies and cowardice re: Libya, and a few other things, that doesn’t look like it’ll be happening. Care to move to Gaza when President Romney takes office, Kat? I’m quite sure they respect women and womens rights there – just ask Lara Logan…
I believe I read Obama did visit Israel before he became president.
Why doesn’t he visit now? Who wants to go to a place where some citizens constantly revile him, are angry because their boys haven’t been given the latest toys with which to play war, disagree with his philosophy to make peace between Jews and Arabs, and no matter what he does, heap loads of criticism down upon him on a daily basis.
Would I go to a backwoods meeting to speak about equal rights for women? No, I would not. I don’t like to use the term redneck anymore since it referred to West Virginia men about a hundred years ago who wore red scarfs around the neck in their battles with mine owners for better wages and safety. The workers rarely won back then and were frequently killed by musclemen the owners hired to break the strikes (and their necks).
Has it occured to you that your views are now behind the times, and it will be other more modern thinking Jews who will accomplish changes that need to be made? That doesn’t mean giving the Holy Land away but finding solutions to make things work. Anyway, I’m through engaging in anti-Obama posts.
I agree with Alan regarding Obama — Obama is an enemy of Israel, and a very dangerous one at that (since the liar Obama captivates so many).
“The person who advised Reagan to pay homage to the SS was his Communications Director Pat Buchanan.”
Pat Buchannan: May the rats eat his mail.
@ Laura:
Laura –
Thank You, you are absolutely correct. Yamit is a hypocrite, to put it very mildly.
@Goldblatt and Yamit,
P.S. Two things…
On balance, I’d say Nixon was probably a better friend than Reagan (but BOTH were friends, unlike Obama) – after all, even despite his obscenity-laden attitudes towards Liberal JINOs (which I share even more so now in the age of Ovomit), he dropped everything and organized that airlift to save Israel in October 1973. If he was a Barack Obama, he would NEVER have lifted a finger. We know that now in four years of doing virtually NOTHING to stop Iran while the centrifuges spin.
Re: Yamit, read his usual pap and smear. He’s an Obama advocate despite his supposed “right-wing hawk” attitude on Israel. Nothing more, nothing less. Yamit still cannot get it that if you’re pro-Obama, you’re NOT pro-Israel.
@ yamit82:
Sam you are correct. Reagan was a antisemite and NAZI lover.
@ Sam Goldblatt:
Oh, please.
While I for one was always mystified why Reagan never went, we always knew he was a FRIEND. Even when there was tension, i.e., the AWACs sale, the bombing of the reactor, the Lebanon War, and Bitburg, we always knew where his heart was. In fact, during one of those rough moments he, unlike Obama, said words to the effect that he knew what Israel’s pre-June 5, 1967 borders were, and he would never ask Israel to go back to them – and he NEVER pushed the Palestinian cause, UNLIKE Barry Soetero Hussein Obama.
Barack Obama not only is not a friend, he is an ENEMY of Israel – and of real Jews he always befriend the Axelrods, Emanuels, Lews, et. al., because they are either “red diaper” babies, lox-and-bagel Jews, or simply put an increasingly anti-semitic Democratic Party over their own people and definitely over Israel.
It’s that simple, Sam. BTW – since you made the snide anti-Reagan remark, are you with Obama and his Islamist agenda or with us?
Come on folks do not pretend you didn’t understand what Ted meant to say..No Muslim ever did pay us a serious official visit in full recognition of Israel’s sovereignty..and those who did visit did it only in some frameworks, forced to do so, to please international community, to gain from it and to further their own selfish interests…also never with good and honest intentions..
Shy Guy Said:
Israel gives away the Sinai for a piece of paper. Sadat is then welcomed to Israel wearing his “finest”. I wish I had something witty or insightful to say but I don’t. Its just plain depressing.
@ Shy Guy:
Who would have thought? 😛
Andrew Said:
Yeh, dressed in his finest.
@ Sam Goldblatt:
Both of my comments to you were blocked by spammer. Pay the author of #6 no mind.
You are CORRECT !!! And then some.
Reagan whitewash, Reaganophiles love it.
@ Sam Goldblatt:
Sam I wrote a more detailed response that has been blocked by the spam filter.
Pay no attention to dwellers comment; he is a Reagan ideologue and lover. Remember Begin’s response to him:
@ Sam Goldblatt:
“You have no moral right to preach to us about civilian casualties” ” you punished us: you suspended delivery of F-15 planes.” Begin to Reagan
Sam you are correct. Reagan was a antisemite and NAZI lover. Besides his overt public displays of loving Nazis like Bitsburg, his speech equating victims with murderers is telling. He saved the Pali Terrorists who were his special pets and American diplomats and representatives special body guards in Lebanon. He pushed for Pali Terrorist recognition in Washington and the UN. He supported twice the Nazi Waldheim. His administration especially the CIA allowed Known Nazis into America and employed by mostly CIA and State Depts.
He approved AWACS to the the Saudis that was opposed vigorously by Israel the Jewish Leadership of the USA and caused AIPAC to lose their most important effort up to that date. That reduced AIPAC to nothing more than a country club for the rich and powerless.
He withheld important military material because of the Israeli bombing of Iraq. Opposed settlements stronger than any previous administration and Caused Begin to remark in light of Reagan’s threats and pressure : Statement by Prime Minister Begin on U.S. Measures Against Israel, 20 December 1981.
In an unprecedented move, Mr. Begin summoned the United States ambassador to Israel, and read to him the following statement. It was later read to the cabinet and issued to the public. Mr. Begin complained that the U.S. had punished Israel three times in the past six months. Israel was no. “vassal state” or a “banana republic.” He also hinted of anti-Semitic overtones in some of the punitive measures taken by the United States. Text:
Three times during the past six months, the U.S. Government has “punished” Israel. Read the whole Statement
Dweller is a blind ideologue apologist of the Antisemite and Nazi lover, Israel hating Reagan. He will blame like Obama everybody and everything to whitewash his IDOL Reagan. The truth and the published facts speak for themselves.
In MO, he was worse for Israel and the Jews than Obama and Carter and Lastly Georgie Bush.
@ Sam Goldblatt:
Oh, please.
Bury your OWN dead. . . .
Didn’t attend a church regularly either.
What’s that tell you about his personal piety?
Tells you exactly the same thing — NOTHING.
Buchanan had little say in the matter.
From an earlier post of mine:
Lou Cannon, Reagan’s biographer — and one of the best political reporters of the past century — discusses this stuff in considerable detail.
Cannon’s book, The Role of a Lifetime, is quite good. Highly recommended.
@ yamit82:
I discount the Palestinians and King Hussain because they are involved with Israel. The fact remains that Muslim rulers in general don’t visit on principle. I am suggesting that Obama didn’t visit to show solidarity.
Reagan not only never visited Israel, he never spoke before AIPAC. However, he did visit the Nazi SS cemetery in Bitburg, Germany. The person who advised Reagan to pay homage to the SS was his Communications Director Pat Buchanan.
@ Ted Belman:
King Husein many times,
Arafat many times,
Abu Mazen many times.
Even Achmid Yassin was our guest for many years 😛
@ Andrew:
Yes and so did some leaders to attend Rabin’s funeral.
Didn’t Sadat visit Israel?