Obama: Changing policy toward Israel will not appease Al-Qaeda

Quite a few people have the impression that Al-Qaeda is going to get a free ride from the Obama administration. Others are insisting that if only the United States did not support Israel, it would not be an al-Qaeda target. And yet others are insisting that the Obama administration has decided to abandon Israel in order to appease extremists. None of that seems to be true. According to the CNN Transcript of a student question and answer period in Strasbourg, President Barack Obama said:

 

...And I think that it is important for Europe to understand that even though I'm now president and George Bush is no longer president, al Qaeda is still a threat, and that we cannot pretend somehow that because Barack Hussein Obama got elected president, suddenly, everything is going to be OK.

It is going to be a very difficult challenge. Al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is-- al Qaeda is still bent on carrying out terrorist activity. It is, you know, don't fool yourselves because some people say, well, you know, if we changed our policies with respect to Israeli/Palestinian conflict or if we were more respectful towards the Muslim world, suddenly, these organizations would stop threatening us.

That's just not the case. It is true that we have to change our behavior in showing the Muslim world greater respect and changing our language and changing our tone. It is true that we have to work very hard for Israeli/Palestinian peace.

But what is also true is that these organizations are willing to kill innocent people because of a twisted distorted ideology and we, as democracies and as people who value human life, can't allow those organizations to operate.

That's what he said

 

The IDF Must Hold Fire

http://www.bluetruth.net/2009/03/idf-must-hold-fire.html

Monday, March 30, 2009

 

The latest furor over supposed Israeli war crimes in Gaza has once again followed the classic pattern: a charge made without any evidence later proves to be unverifiable, Israel is put in the untenable position of trying to prove the negative statement, the world media trumpets the charges in bold page 1 headlines, and when the facts are made available, corrections are published in small print well on the inside. The only difference from the alleged Jenin "massacre" is that this time the charges were made by Israelis-- published in English rather than in Hebrew to make it clear that they were playing for the world media rather than attempting to have a serious public discourse within Israel.
Of course, for the next few years anti-Israel websites and public demonstrations will prominently feature "IDF War Crimes" as part of their many grievances against Israel. But focusing on what did and didn't happen, while important both for the historical record and for Israelis who want to know that their sons behaved morally, really isn't the essence of the issue. After all, in every single war there are soldiers who have indeed behaved immorally; in every single war, civilians are killed either by scared teens armed with weapons, by angry soldiers who just watched their friend get blown into small bits, or by human error when shells didn't get aimed where they were intended. And when fighting against an enemy that doesn't hesitate to use human shields, that cynically uses schools as rocket launching pads and hospitals as military headquarters, that tells its own population that the highest calling they can seek is to become martyrs, civilian casualties are bound to be higher.
So what IS the essence of the issue? It's those who are opposed to any defensive action Israel takes, regardless of the provocation, regardless of the rationale, regardless of the situation where one side is clearly told that its fate is to be exterminated. It's well summarized on this sign displayed at the anti-Israel protest in San Francisco during the Second Lebanon War:








Hezbollah or Hamas can murder Israeli civilians at will, can rain rockets down over the entire country, and can blow up buses and cafes. But the IDF? It--and only it-- must hold fire. That's the message that is really being delivered to Israel. Double standards, anyone?

BBC Invents "Annapolis Deal" and "Annapolis Accords"

According to the BBC and Reuters, the "ultranationalist"  Foreign Minister of the "right-leaning"(not to mention Zionist warmonger chauvinist) Israel government has torn up an agreement, just like you know who used to do in the 1930s.  "Israel FM rejects Annapolis deal" headlined the BBC. Reuters claimed that the  "ultranationalist"  Foreign Minister of the "right-leaning" forein Minister said that "ultranationalist" "right-leaning" Israel  would not be bound by "US-backed understandings."

 

But there was never any Annapolis deal, there was never an Annapolis Accord, and there were never any "US-backed understandings." BBC and Reuters invented it all. There were never any agreements, because the Palestinians refused to sign any agreements. More about that here: BBC Invents "Annapolis Accords"