Canada exhibited world leadership today and blocked Barack Obama’s treachery against Israel. The geographically large, population small, country showed the way a world power should conduct itself.
Barack Obama and his crew of thugs had tried to explain the timing of his treacherous attack on Israel last week as a carrot Obama could offer to the G8 leaders in order to forestall a September vote at the United Nations granting the Israel hating Palestinian leadership formal recognition as a state. That rationale is an outright lie which we will address further below. Today Canada demonstrated leadership at the G8 and clobbered Barack Obama and his Israel hating buddies:
“Canadian delegation blocks mention of 1967 lines in Group of Eight leaders’ joint statement calling Israel, Palestinians to return to peace talks.
Group of Eight leaders had to soften a statement urging Israel and the Palestinians to return to negotiations because Canada objected to a specific mention of 1967 borders, diplomats said on Friday.
Canada’s right-leaning Conservative government has adopted a staunchly pro-Israel position in international negotiations since coming to power in 2006, with Prime Minister Stephen Harper saying Canada will back Israel whatever the cost.
Diplomats involved in Middle East discussions at the G8 summit said Ottawa had insisted that no mention of Israel’s pre-1967 borders be made in the leaders’ final communiqué, even though most of the other leaders wanted a mention.
“The Canadians were really very adamant, even though Obama expressly referred to 1967 borders in his speech last week,” one European diplomat said.”
Barack Obama’s lie that he had to stab Israel in the back in order to help Israel this September today was proven, once again, to be the lie that it always has been. Barack Obama, the “Arabs lawyer” joined in the lie pushed by Palestinians that they did not need to negotiate with Israel because this September they could force a vote at the United Nation’s General Assembly.
The Palestinians know they cannot beat Israel militarily. The Palestinians have demonstrated bad faith again and again in their negotiations with Israel – the ultimate proof was their rejection of President Bill Clinton’s initiative to create a Palestinian state with the full support of the Israeli government. What they cannot gain militarily, what they will not provide in recognizing Jewish Israel as a legitimate state, the Palestinians will try to gain with treacherous assistance by Barack Obama. Today, via the Jerusalem Post, the President of the United Nation’s General Assembly proved Barack Obama is a liar and an incompetent, both:
“The Palestinians cannot circumvent the UN Security Council to avoid a likely US veto if they try to join the United Nations as a sovereign state later this year, a top UN official said on Friday.
But the official made clear a US veto would not put the issue of Palestinian statehood and UN membership to rest.
Some Arab diplomats in New York have suggested it would be possible for the Palestinians to bypass the UN Security Council and go straight to the 192-nation General Assembly to win approval for a planned UN membership application.
The UN charter says that new members are admitted by the General Assembly on the recommendation of the 15-nation Security Council, where the United Sates, Britain, France, China and Russia are permanent members with veto powers.
The current president of the General Assembly, Joseph Deiss of Switzerland, was asked by reporters if there was a way for the Palestinians to become a UN member state if its application was vetoed by the United States, which opposes the idea. Deiss said, “No.“
Barack Obama’s flimsy excuse that he had to give the Pearl Harbor style treacherous attack on Israel speech in order to be able to prevent a September recognition of a Palestinian state has once again been proven to be a lie. In our previous three articles on Barack Obama’s treacherous attack on Israel we noted how bizarre it was for Barack Obama to attack Israel treacherously in a Thursday speech, knowing full well that the Jewish powerhouse AIPAC was meeting that very weekend and that not only would Obama be addressing AIPAC but so would Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. In addition Barack Obama knew that Netanyahu was scheduled to address both houses of the American Congress while he, Barack Obama, was flying off to Europe on a “pub crawl” as Tim Pawlenty described it.
Why would Barack Obama attack Israel under such circumstances? Charles Krauthammer today asks whether Obama is merely a Boob or a hate filled Boob? Krauthammer asks the question in a most polite and yet precise manner – “whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur“?:
“Every Arab-Israeli negotiation contains a fundamental asymmetry: Israel gives up land, which is tangible; the Arabs make promises, which are ephemeral. The long-standing American solution has been to nonetheless urge Israel to take risks for peace while America balances things by giving assurances of U.S. support for Israel’s security and diplomatic needs.
It’s on the basis of such solemn assurances that Israel undertook, for example, the Gaza withdrawal. In order to mitigate this risk, President George W. Bush gave a written commitment that America supported Israel absorbing major settlement blocs in any peace agreement, opposed any return to the 1967 lines and stood firm against the so-called Palestinian right of return to Israel.
For 2 1/ 2 years, the Obama administration has refused to recognize and reaffirm these assurances. Then last week in his State Department speech, President Obama definitively trashed them. He declared that the Arab-Israeli conflict should indeed be resolved along “the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
Barack Obama stabbed Israel in the back, and then with the blood dripping knife in hand attempted to pretend he had not just attacked Israel. It was a blatant lie from a blatant liar:
“Nothing new here, said Obama three days later. “By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different” from 1967.
It means nothing of the sort. “Mutually” means both parties have to agree. And if one side doesn’t? Then, by definition, you’re back to the 1967 lines.
Nor is this merely a theoretical proposition. Three times the Palestinians have been offered exactly that formula, 1967 plus swaps — at Camp David 2000, Taba 2001, and the 2008 Olmert-Abbas negotiations. Every time, the Palestinians said no and walked away.
And that remains their position today: The 1967 lines. Period. Indeed, in September the Palestinians are going to the United Nations to get the world to ratify precisely that — a Palestinian state on the ’67 lines. No swaps.
Note how Obama has undermined Israel’s negotiating position. He is demanding that Israel go into peace talks having already forfeited its claim to the territory won in the ’67 war — its only bargaining chip. Remember: That ’67 line runs right through Jerusalem. Thus the starting point of negotiations would be that the Western Wall and even Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter are Palestinian — alien territory for which Israel must now bargain.
The very idea that Judaism’s holiest shrine is alien or that Jerusalem’s Jewish Quarter is rightfully or historically or demographically Arab is an absurdity. And the idea that, in order to retain them, Israel has to give up parts of itself is a travesty.“
Barack Obama repeatedly stabbed Israel in the back with that single speech. On the “so-called right of return” Barack Obama sided with Arabs/Muslims against faithful ally Israel. Arabs’ lawyer Obama’s version of a two state solution is the destruction of Israel:
“Yet in his State Department speech, Obama refused to simply restate this position — and refused again in a supposedly corrective speech three days later. Instead, he told Israel it must negotiate the right of return with the Palestinians after having given every inch of territory. Bargaining with what, pray tell?
No matter. “The status quo is unsustainable,” declared Obama, “and Israel too must act boldly to advance a lasting peace.”
Israel too? Exactly what bold steps for peace have the Palestinians taken? Israel made three radically conciliatory offers to establish a Palestinian state, withdrew from Gaza and has been trying to renew negotiations for more than two years. Meanwhile, the Gaza Palestinians have been firing rockets at Israeli towns and villages. And on the West Bank, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas turns down then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer, walks out of negotiations with Binyamin Netanyahu and now defies the United States by seeking not peace talks but instant statehood — without peace, without recognizing Israel — at the United Nations. And to make unmistakable this spurning of any peace process, Abbas agrees to join the openly genocidal Hamas in a unity government, which even Obama acknowledges makes negotiations impossible.
Obama’s response to this relentless Palestinian intransigence? To reward it — by abandoning the Bush assurances, legitimizing the ’67 borders and refusing to reaffirm America’s rejection of the right of return.”
Krauthammer today asks the question we answered years ago:
“The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.”
Barack Obama’s policy is born of a history of Obama treachery (which we have documented starting in December 2007) and as we have also noted Barack Obama is a Boob (except when it comes to career advancement). The boobery was self-evident as we noted above regarding the bizarre timing of Netanyahu in the United States while Barack Obama flew off to European booberies and embarrassments.
The antipathy towards Israel is manifest in the policy which we have also documented in past days and in the now exposed United Nations excuse lie. Barack Obama is also a Narcissist and “Narcissists don’t like being challenged.”:
“Body language expert Tanya Reiman told Bill O’Reilly tonight that Obama lied and was no friend of Netanyahu. Reiman said that Obama has “contempt in his eyes” and displays it with his body language when he is with Benjamin Netanyahu. [snip]
“No, I would say that is a very big lie, when they talk about being friends… They don’t like each other. I’m adamantly convinced that they don’t like each other.”
“When you look at two people who are friends you don’t see contempt in the eyes of one. So, President Obama is looking and as you see him he starts to grab his chin really hard and he’s staring and he gets that glare in his eye and he’s squeezing his chin as he does this.”
The “one” with the “glare in his eye” is treacherous Barack Obama.
After Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu bravely stood up to Barack Obama, Obama Hopium guzzlers began to say that the “rude” behavior would hurt Netanyahu. That’s not what happened however.
The Israeli newspaper Haaretz reports:
“It’s doubtful that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his wildest, most optimistic dreams, would have dared to imagine when he set off for the United States last week that Israelis would respond to his six-day trip so enthusiastically: According to a new Haaretz poll, they are giving the visit high marks, considering it an overwhelming success.”
“Lawmakers gave Binyamin Netanyahu 59 rounds of applause as the Israeli prime minister addressed a joint meeting of Congress Tuesday. But more revealing was the whisper I heard while watching the speech from the House gallery.
It came as Netanyahu repeated his rejection of the notion, floated by President Obama last week, that peace talks with Palestinians should be based on Israel’s smaller, pre-1967 borders.
“Israel will not return to the indefensible boundaries of 1967,” Netanyahu thundered. “Jerusalem must never again be divided,” he roared.
“Go, Bibi!” the woman next to me said, sotto voce.
It was the voice of Inna Graizel, my daughter’s 21-year-old Israeli au pair, who is spending a year with my family, learning about America.”
Milbank notes that Inna Graizel, the au pair, was not a Netanyahu supporters until this past week. Milbank “saw through her eyes how badly Obama bungled his Middle East speech.” Milbank saw that Obama had make “the remote prospect of peace that much more distant.”
Milbank, via the au pair, saw the bumbling boob called Barack Obama:
“Of this, Inna herself is evidence: Though she’s a moderate who was suspicious of the uncompromising Netanyahu, the episode turned her into a supporter. [snip]
She voted for the centrist Kadima party in the last election because she didn’t share the militant views of Netanyahu’s Likud. [snip]
Obama and his defenders argued that this wasn’t really a new policy, but, as The Post’s Glenn Kessler expertly documented, the statement “represented a major shift.” Later, after the damage had been done, Obama qualified his statement, saying the border should be “different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.”
Inna was stunned. “Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank, the 1967 lines? It’s crazy,” she said. “It’s impossible.” Holding her thumb and forefinger an inch apart, she added, “They’ll be this close to Tel Aviv.” The phrase about “agreed swaps” changed nothing.
To Inna’s ears, Obama had issued an existential threat to Israel, and it put her in an unfamiliar place: in lockstep with Bibi. When he told Obama in the Oval Office that the 1967 lines were “indefensible,” Inna celebrated. “Now, he’s our guy,” she said. “He’s the voice of Israel.”
“An existential threat to Israel” is exactly right. Canada sees it. Netanyahu sees it.
Barack Obama is an existential threat to Israel and America. “Is he doing it on purpose?”
What is perplexing to us is that anyone still has doubts about what we have written for years and years and years. Mark Steyn is still asking himself a question which has been answered repeatedly:
“I mean, what I find fascinating, thinking about this 1967 border stuff, is whether he intended it as a conscious shift in U.S. policy that would alarm the Israeli government, or whether with the casual arrogance of his half-wit 12 year old speechwriters, it just somehow got in there, and he finds himself standing up there saying it. That’s what I don’t understand.”
What is there to understand? Barack Obama is a treacherous boob. How many times do we have to write it?:
“Obama simply cannot be trusted. Obama cannot be trusted on any issue. Obama cannot be trusted by his friends. Obama cannot be trusted by his enemies. Obama cannot be trusted.”
Binyamin Netanyahu understands. Canada understands. Barack Obama must be opposed forcefully.
Last week Netanyahu came to the rescue. Today Canada came to the rescue. On this beginning of the Memorial Day weekend let us hope the American electorate comes to the rescue of the land of the free, home of the brave.