The Odious Obama Interview: Part 2

UPDATES:

6 pm Israel time, Thursday, June 4 2015

The remains of one of the missiles fired at Sdot Negev yesterday. If you are “rocket-proficient”, you will see that this was a larger missile than the usual “qassam” (photo: Sdot Negev Regional Council.)

**As hard as the IDF has tried to obscure the reality of what happened yesterday, the facts are clear: 3 Palestinian terrorist missiles were fired out of Gaza at the northern Negev at 10:58 pm. Again, some 500,000 Israeli men, women, and children were sent running to their bomb shelters from Ashkelon south to the Gaza border.

Again, the IDF tried to claim that there was only one missile, but this time too many people heard the explosions–and this morning the missile remains were found in the area of Sdot Negev.

And again, it is difficult to gauge what Israel has done in response. The initial report was that Israel fired “flares” over northern Gaza. Secondary reports indicate that empty buildings and fields were hit in central Gaza. Basically, Israel seems to have once again done nothing.

By the way, the missiles were fired from what had been a Jewish community in Gaza–a community that Ariel Sharon ordered forcibly evacuated in 2005 during Israel’s unilateral disengagement.

By, by the way, Hamas says it is not responsible for the missiles–that it is IS operating in Gaza that is shooting to obtain the release of IS prisoners held by Hamas.

By, by, by the way, Hamas just “test-fired” another missile into the Mediterranean in the last hour.

TODAY’S BLOG

Yesterday, israelstreet began an analysis of President Obama’s odious Israeli television interview earlier this week with ultra-leftist Israeli journalist Ilana Dayan.  We saw how Obama lectured Israelis about history and morality, lied about his ability to reach the Israeli people in an unfiltered way, and whined about how we should feel sorry for him.

We left Obama yesterday castigating PM Netanyahu for thinking that “peace is naive” and accusing Netanyahu of seeing “the worst possibilities Arab partners or Palestinian partners.”

President Obama was just getting started with his lies and dissembling.

Obama:

“Well, and I want to be clear, though, that in all my discussions with Prime Minister Netanyahu and all my public statements, I have never suggested that Israel should ever trade away its security for the prospect of peace.”

[Say what? Every Obama action has been a demand that Israel trade away its security for peace–from his insistence on the “June 4 1967 lines” to the demand that Israel cease construction of Jewish homes, schools, and hospitals to the demand that Israel release of more than 100 of the worst Palestinian murderers back on the street.]

Obama continued:

“And I’ve never suggested that it is inappropriate for Israel to insist on any two-state solution taking into account the risks that what appears to be a peaceful government Palestinian Authority today could turn hostile . . .”

[Say what? A peaceful government in the Palestinian Authority? The same Palestinian government that daily calls for boycotts against Israel, that reconciled with Hamas, and that sent its military wing into Gaza last summer to fire missiles at Israel?

Side comment: wasn’t it supposed to be “‘without’ taking into account”?]

Dayan:

“You heard our Prime Minister one day before the election saying very clearly he does not want to see a Palestinian state on his watch.  A day after the election, and over and over again ever since, Prime Minister Netanyahu is saying he is committed to the two-state solution.  Just yesterday he said he wants to cooperate with other Arab countries on that matter.  He does endorse a Palestinian state alongside the state of Israel.  Why not take him at his word?“

Obama:

“Well, I think that when he spoke right before the election, he was fairly unequivocal in saying that it wouldn’t happen during his prime ministership.  As long as he was Prime Minister, there wouldn’t be two states.  I think subsequently, his statements have suggested that there is the possibility of a Palestinian state, but it has so many caveats, so many conditions, that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met any time in the near future.  And so the danger here is that Israel as a whole loses credibility.”
As you are not able to enjoy sex neither satisfy your female you remain tensed and have insecurity of losing your partner to cheap brand cialis some other man. Ever got those generico viagra on line http://amerikabulteni.com/2012/05/08/google-kullanicilari-artik-evlerinden-tum-dunyaya-canli-yayin-yapabilecek/ posted on your Honda fansite? The spammers probably thought a triangular blue pill spins up your twinturbos more rapidly. People who are getting old, it is also familiar that ejaculation takes place with petite or no intentional management. levitra for sale online Plus your therapist will sildenafil professional likely be important in locating available scholarships and also educational funding.

[What are those “so many caveats” and “so many conditions” that Obama so facilely dismisses? Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state; Palestinian demilitarization in Judea, Samaria, and Gaza with solid security measures; and consideration of the situation on Israel’s borders.

Your humble servant has pointed out before (click on “No flip-flops, absolute consistency; does anyone ever listen to what Netanyahu actually says?) that Netanyahu’s tune has not changed by one note since he accepted the two state solution in his noted speech at Bar-Ilan University in 2009. The only problem is that the world in general, and Barack Obama in particular is not listening.]

Obama continues:

“Already, the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution.  The statement the Prime Minister made compounded that belief that there’s not a commitment there.  And I think that it is difficult to simply accept at face value the statement made after an election that would appear to look as if this is simply an effort to return to the previous status quo in which we talk about peace in the abstract, but it’s always tomorrow, it’s always later.”

Note how facilely Obama calls Netanyahu a liar: “it is difficult to simply accept at face value the statement”.]

Dayan:

“. . .  I’m asking you on a very practical level, Mr. President, what is it that Israel is getting from the United States today that it might not get in the future?”

Obama:

“Well, when I said after the election that we would have to evaluate our policy, I was referring to something very specific, and that is how we approach defending Israel on the international stage around the Palestinian issue.  So in terms of what the United States provides to Israel, the most important thing we provide—security and intelligence and military assistance—that doesn’t go away, because that is part of the commitment, the solemn commitment that I’ve made with respect to Israel’s security.  And that’s something I feel very deeply and that’s not something that’s conditioned on any particular policy.

But the practical consequence that I refer to—let’s be very specific—if there are additional resolutions introduced in the United Nations, up until this point, we have pushed away against European efforts, for example, or other efforts because we’ve said, the only way this gets resolved is if the two parties work together.”

[Again, we have Obama the master of disingenuousness: we will continue to supply Israel security, intelligence, and military assistance . . . BUT watch out in the United Nations . . .]

Dayan: 

“But you’re not sure you’re going to continue doing that?”

Obama:

“Well, here’s the challenge.  If, in fact, there’s no prospect of an actual peace process, if nobody believes there’s a peace process, then it becomes more difficult to argue with those who are concerned about settlement construction, those who are concerned about the current situation—it’s more difficult for me to say to them, be patient and wait because we have a process here—because all they need to do is to point to the statements that have been made saying there is no process.”

[Process. Process. Process. Process. The holy mantra of “the peace process”.]

And so we bring today’s blog to an end, to resume again tomorrow with our final installment on the odious Obama interview.

And by the way, do you notice anything that is missing from Obama’s recitation?

There has yet to be one syllable about Palestinian responsibility for peace.