Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

The wretched Jew-controlled media (and their banker enablers, no doubt) wrongly and unconscionably spun Barack Obama's very very pro-Israel speech to make it seem like his calling on the Jews to surrender Jerusalem and the Christian Holy sites to a cabal of proto-Nazis who, in addition to refusing to recognize the right of Israel to exist, have sworn to exterminate them, was somehow not the the demonstrably pro-Israel, pro-peace bit of superb statemanship and leadership it most clearly was

— At least, that’s the new spin coming from the leftist sharks and at least one “rightwing” Trig truther who clings to their bellies like some hirsute drug-addled Remora.

And if you think about it, a lot of people did immediately conclude that Obama and his talk of a “contiguous” Palestinian state, which is to be made possible by Israel’s relinquishing of the buffer land it uses to guard against attacks (land itself secured after Israel was attacked yet again in 1973 by Arabs who to this day assert Israel has no right to exist), seemed to be presenting Israel with an unworkable ultimatum.

It therefore follows that because such an up-swell of instant agreement on the “right” can’t possibly be attributed to anything Obama actually said — he is, after all, like, totally pro-Israel, an indisputable fact made indisputable by Obama having told us so; and besides, it’s not like he sandbagged Netanyahu and delivered without warning a speech in advance of the Prime Minister’s visit (or rather, the President did do that, but only because that’s the kind of relationship good friends have) — it must of necessity be part of a well-orchestrated conspiracy of propaganda, funded and fueled by a rapid-response Jew-controlled media whose reach is beyond comprehension, deploying blogs and radio personalities and Tweeters whose “reporting” happened in what appeared to be “real time,” but was actually some trick of Jew physics.

So. Q.E.D.

(h/t Doug Ross, who has more).

update: also, do note the trackbacks at Hurley’s site. Head Lizard Charles Johnson so wants back in the lefty clique that he’ll link to just about anything anti-right these days — hoping that none of us remember how, at one point, some on the left were actually calling him a Nazi for his Mideast politics. I guess in time, every lefty eventually reaches the conclusion that, if it means they get patted on the head by the wannabe intelligensia, Israel can go fuck itself.)

****
update: RSM weighs in.

40 Replies to “The wretched Jew-controlled media (and their banker enablers, no doubt) wrongly and unconscionably spun Barack Obama's very very pro-Israel speech to make it seem like his calling on the Jews to surrender Jerusalem and the Christian Holy sites to a cabal of proto-Nazis who, in addition to refusing to recognize the right of Israel to exist, have sworn to exterminate them, was somehow not the the demonstrably pro-Israel, pro-peace bit of superb statemanship and leadership it most clearly was”

  1. Darleen says:

    like some hirsute drug-addled Remora.

    heh, that’s a keeper.

  2. bh says:

    From the Turley post or was it also elsewhere?

    Hey, here’s a fun fact about Charles Johnson: he has no scruples. This is just demonstrably true.

  3. JD says:

    Pro-Israel?!

  4. Anti, pro, what’s the difference really?

    Up is down, black is white…

  5. Joe says:

    Lefties get hard when you talk dirty about Israel. They love that rough trade talk. Teach the dirty Joooos a lesson.

  6. Alec Leamas says:

    Dead Jews have absolute moral authority. It’s the prickly, wanting-to-live kind that cause so many problems.

  7. Joe says:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/05/21/kiss_gene_simmons_obama_has_no_fing_idea_what_the_world_is_like.html

    No Gene. He is not a good guy. He might not shoot a man in Reno, but he would dig watching Israel die.

  8. Spiny Norman says:

    …clings to their bellies like some hirsute drug-addled Remora.

    I second Darleen. That’s effin’ brilliant.

  9. […] best to out-Carter Jimmy Carter when it comes to Israel. Jeff Goldstein has a few thoughts on the President’s throwback policies as well.Yet another Socialist government in Europe has gone down to crushing, and entirely deserved, […]

  10. geoffb says:

    Krauthammer: Obama adopts Bush Middle East doctrine.

    Elliot Abrams: Obama rejects Bush Middle East doctrine

    Jeff Fortenberry: Obama reframed Middle east policy stressing the philosophy of just and free societies.

    James Jay Carafano: Obama is Martin Luther King Jr. for non-violent change, “vision” and cheerleading the “Peace Process”.

    And as linked in post.

    Jonathan Turley: “{S}ame policies put forth by George W. Bush”.

    Hirsute Remora: “[S]tandard position … did not strike me as anything new”.

    I reiterate, Obama is a human Rorschach test. A swirling cloud of mist upon which all are persuaded by him to project all their hopes, which got him elected, and fears which may be his downfall yet.

    And to set the record straight on Bush:
    Letter From President Bush to Prime Minister Sharon:

    The United States reiterates its steadfast commitment to Israel’s security, including secure, defensible borders, and to preserve and strengthen Israel’s capability to deter and defend itself, by itself, against any threat or possible combination of threats.
    […]
    Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means. The United States understands that after Israel withdraws from Gaza and/or parts of the West Bank, and pending agreements on other arrangements, existing arrangements regarding control of airspace, territorial waters, and land passages of the West Bank and Gaza will continue. The United States is strongly committed to Israel’s security and well-being as a Jewish state. It seems clear that an agreed, just, fair, and realistic framework for a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue as part of any final status agreement will need to be found through the establishment of a Palestinian state, and the settling of Palestinian refugees there, rather than in Israel.

    As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.
    […]
    As you know, the United States supports the establishment of a Palestinian state that is viable, contiguous, sovereign, and independent, so that the Palestinian people can build their own future in accordance with my vision set forth in June 2002 and with the path set forth in the roadmap.

  11. geoffb says:

    How about the June 10th 1967 borders? Workable?

  12. dicentra says:

    Fill me in on this, plzkthx?

    President Obama’s middle east speech contained this exact quote: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.”

    So started the insanity. The fact that this has been the U.S. policy over several administrations seems to be lost on the outraged.

    Is the bolded statement true? I’m not very hip to the vicissitudes of Mideast policy.

  13. dicentra says:

    hirsute drug-addled remora.

    Weird thing about remoras? The suction cup is on the top of the head; they don’t cling with the mouth. I didn’t know this until I saw some remoras in a pet store in Ithaca, NY, of all places. Dangdest thing.

    You want mouth-clingers, getcha some lampreys.

  14. Joe says:

    Ramoras are too good to be associated with Tina Brown’s latest bitch. This is more appropriate.

  15. Joe says:

    geoffb–nice borders. Sharm el Sheikh as a Israel diving resort again.

  16. Spiny Norman says:

    dicentra,

    So started the insanity. The fact that this has been the U.S. policy over several administrations seems to be lost on the outraged.

    Is the bolded statement true? I’m not very hip to the vicissitudes of Mideast policy.

    Yes and no:

    As part of a final peace settlement, Israel must have secure and recognized borders, which should emerge from negotiations between the parties in accordance with UNSC Resolutions 242 and 338. In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion. It is realistic to expect that any final status agreement will only be achieved on the basis of mutually agreed changes that reflect these realities.

    Previous administrations had no illusions that the 1967 borders could ever be viable or even a reasonable goal. The current administration, based on the concept of a “contiguous Palestine” which would necessarily split Israel in two or require the Israelis giving up substantial territory inside the 1967 border – basically the southern 1/3 of the country – appears to believe it is the starting point moving the other direction.

  17. Spiny Norman says:

    Note that the George Bush letter (the one geoffb also links to) is prior to the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza, which Hamas immediately converted into an armed camp and a base from which they have launched continuous rocket attacks against southern Israeli towns.

    President Obtuse and his supporters seem completely oblivious to the “realities on the ground” of the entire last decade.

  18. Spiny Norman says:

    Obama and the ‘Teutonic Shift’ in the Middle East

    One could safely assume that this will go nowhere — after all, there are no negotiations scheduled, and there are unlikely to be any. There’s not even a U.S. “facilitator,” George Mitchell having pulled out a week ago, when it was clear that Obama’s mucking about had destroyed the possibility of any meaningful talks. He didn’t even suggest a next move in this Opus. So why was this blunder so significant?

    Because the president’s comment lends support to the anticipated effort to get the U.N. Security Council to mandate an Israeli return to the 1967 borders, the Obama plan is more than silly and faithless — it would mean Israel’s destruction. And any suggestion that some international peacekeepers could protect Israel after a massive shift of its population to forty-year-old boundaries is beneath consideration.

    As well, anyone who still believes Hamas/Fatah are honest negotiating partners is willfully deluded. That is a “fact on the ground” the left refuses to recognize.

  19. Richard Cranium says:

    I’m still not seeing how the relationship between Israel and Palestine is our problem. I’d let both sides go at it hammer and tongs until one side is convinced that it’s defeated. That’s the only way that you’ll end up with a peace of any kind.

    I think, however, that the Israeli’s would have to become a lot more vicious in order to convince the Palestinians that trying to extinguish Israel is a Really Bad Idea™. I don’t know if they have that in them.

  20. serr8d says:

    I’m still not seeing how the relationship between Israel and Palestine is our problem.

    Well, they are our ally, our only true friend in the region. We’ve always stood with Israel. It’s a good thing that we’ve done so. It’s what we do. It’s who we are.

    Or, were, until the far-left Democrats came undermining and knocking down our basic goodnesses.

    OK Sen. Inhofe gave a speech in 2002 outlining 7 reasons Israel should keep her land. The speech, here, is a jumble; I’ve rearranged and picked out the seven points he’s clumsily making…

    Showing restraint and giving in has not produced any kind of peace. It is so much so that today the leftist peace movement in Israel does not exist because the people feel they were deceived.

    They did offer a hand of peace, and it was not taken. That is why the politics of Israel have changed drastically over the past 12 months. The Israelis have come to see that, “No matter what we do, these people do not want to deal with us. ….. They want to destroy us.” That is why even yet today the stationery of the PLO still has upon it the map of the entire state of Israel, not just the tiny little part they call the West Bank that they want. They want it all.

    We have to get out of this mind set that somehow you can buy peace in the Middle East by giving little plots of land. It has not worked before when it has been offered.

    These seven reasons show why Israel is entitled to that land.

    The first reason is that Israel has the right to the land because of all of the archeological evidence.

    The second proof of Israel’s right to the land is the historic right.

    The third reason that land belongs to Israel is the practical value of the Israelis being there. Israel today is a modern marvel of agriculture.

    The fourth reason I believe Israel has the right to the land is on the grounds of humanitarian concern.

    The fifth reason Israel ought to have their land is that she is a strategic ally of the United States.

    The sixth reason is that Israel is a roadblock to terrorism.

    No. 7, I believe very strongly that we ought to support Israel; that it has a right to the land. This is the most important reason: Because God said so.

    There’s some overlap. Well, he’s a Senator, speaking sans teleprompter, so there you have it.

    He’s a Good Man.

  21. Pablo says:

    Even the NY Times is getting into the act. In one sentence they claim that “using the 1967 boundaries as the baseline for a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian dispute” is a first by an American president, and just two paragraphs later quote President George W. Bush using the phrase: “it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949,” another way of describing the 1967 boundaries. Those two statements, by Obama and Bush, convey the same concept.

    “You can forget about 1949” is the same as “1967 is the shiznit!”?

    lolwut?

  22. Darleen says:

    RC

    It is our problem is our Prez gives the implicit green light to the Arabs they get a redo of 1967 – with this time succeeding in pushing the JOOOOS into the sea.

    Obama’s own words at AIPAC

    I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps — (applause) — so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.

    Look at a freakin’ map … this means cutting Israel in two and the “border with Jordan” means giving up the security zones in the Rift Valley. Such a “Palestinian” state is being set forth in Obama’s own language as a demanded “result” of any “negotiations”.

  23. Pablo says:

    update: also, do note the trackbacks at Hurley’s site. Head Lizard Charles Johnson so wants back in the lefty clique that he’ll link to just about anything anti-right these days — hoping that none of us remember how, at one point, some on the left were actually calling him a Nazi for his Mideast politics. I guess in time, every lefty eventually reaches the conclusion that, if it means they get patted on the head by the wannabe intelligensia, Israel can go fuck itself.)

    It is astounding to note that after all those years of blogging the RoP, and with the ascendency of the Muslim Brotherhood and the mainstreaming of Hamas, Charles now finds that the root of the Middle East problem is the GOP.

    Ferchrissakes, Charles, hie thee to Iowa and just get yourself gay married already.

  24. Darleen says:

    Say’s later in his AIPAC speech “borders of June 4, 1967” not June 10, so yes Obama is insisting that “negotiations” start with the 1949 lines (which Arabs never accepted at the time) and the 6 day war be ignored. “Land swaps” starting with Israel having no claim to Jerusalem and the Western Wall.

    But Obama is Israel’s friend! He said so!

  25. Pablo says:

    Hey, if Obama didn’t divert from previous policy, why is the left so bent about what Netanyahu said in the Oval Office? We’re all still on the same page, no?

  26. Pablo says:

    “Land swaps” starting with Israel having no claim to Jerusalem and the Western Wall.

    …and Muslims in control of all of it. That the al-Aqsa mosque was built upon the Temple Mount is obviously no coincidence. So, who wants to help them finish what they started?

    No, Adolph, I wasn’t asking you.

  27. serr8d says:

    Even the NY Times is getting into the act.

    Bibi stung BHO’s ass, in the White House. All the Party’s comrades will now gather ’round to give it suckle, to make it all better.

  28. alppuccino says:

    Harry Hamlin is Jewish, as is Henry Winkler. And after you find out, you don’t then say, “Really? Maybe Harry shouldn’t have played Perseus in the original ‘Clash of the Titans'”, or “Maybe Fonzie wasn’t that cool”. You don’t say that, because who else’s acting method can hold up to horribly over-dubbed claymation, or who else could pull off a catch phrase like “Ayyyyyyy” (thumbs up)? Nobody, Jew or Gentile, that’s who.

    So, you don’t worry about the Jew thing. Yet, those Jew folks sit in their seats and applaud Obama as he does what he does constantly and best: explain his failures. What makes a liberal? Someone who is always making excuses for failure. What makes an old-school American? Someone who is strategizing for his next success.

    So, if the liberal Jews keep voting for these cluster-fuck-explainers, a lot of people will get the feeling that they really don’t want the support of Americans.

  29. dicentra says:

    So does “Teutonic Shift” mean that they’re going full-on Nazi?

    President Obtuse and his supporters seem completely oblivious to the “realities on the ground” of the entire last decade.

    They’re not obtuse; they just have different goals.

  30. McGehee says:

    “Teutonic Shift”

    TOTUS: “Damn you, auto-correct!”

  31. Slartibartfast says:

    This just in: President Obama has asked the People’s Republic of China to revert to its 1945 borders.

  32. McGehee says:

    How about if the U.S. reverts to its, say, 1897 borders, retroactive to 1961?

  33. […] II: Linked by Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom – thanks! Category: Andrew Sullivan, Doug Ross, […]

  34. Slartibartfast says:

    How about we revert to our 1803 borders?

  35. Spiny Norman says:

    Ward Churchill and a big chunk of the Academic Left would probably take that as a “starting point”, Slart.

  36. guinsPen says:

    54° 40′ or fight!

  37. serr8d says:

    Stanley Fish writes a decent piece on JOOOOOOOS! (at the NYT) seemingly (to me at least) devoid of intent or spin. He’s good like that.

  38. shari.hodges says:

    I really must share this comment from Gene Simmons:

    Gene Simmons summed it up best this weekend, “Obama hasn’t a F@cking Clue, he doesn’t have to live in Israel”…… now before some dope troll starts whining about what does some old rock star know about Israel that the lord messiah Obama doesn’t…… Simmons, aka Chaim Witz, was born in Israel, has family there and actually cares to save Israel, unlike the guy in the white house who only cares about Jews come donation time.

Comments are closed.