Yourish.com

There are just so many rebuttals to Obama, I can’t decide which ones I like best.

Let’s start with Commentary. John Podheretz, Jonathan Tobin, and the lie he told about “aggressive” settlement construction.

Elliott Abrams knocks it out of the park.

Obama’s “arguments” about Syria in the Goldberg interview are insulting to his former (and, in Kerry’s case, current) top advisers, whose advice he rejected, and misleading about their advice. He describes a situation where ignorant critics seek “large scale military action,” which is akin to the administration’s claim that those who want sanctions on Iran are “warmongers.” But that is a false description, for what was recommended time after time was serious help to the rebels, and a one-time strike (“incredibly small,” said Kerry, not “large scale”) at chemical weapons assets. So we have the president deriding those who disagreed with him—who include his top aides and top experts—and refusing, even now, to understand that his policy of passivity in Syria has produced nearly the worst of all possible worlds: 150,000 dead, 6 million homeless, and a menacing gathering of perhaps 25,000 jihadists at the heart of the Middle East.

The biggest lie he told, of course, was that Mahmoud Abbas was ready for peace. Condi Rice revealed the details of the deal that Abbas turned down. It was so good, she couldn’t believe Olmert was actually offering it. Abbas never responded to an offer that gave him almost everything he wanted.

Let’s revisit what Obama said about Netanyahu:

But I believe that Bibi is strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it. If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.

Once more, compare that to what he said about Abbas.

I believe that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel’s legitimate security needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion that meets the concerns of the people of Israel.

Netanyahu froze Israeli settlement building for ten months at Obama’s request as a precondition for negotations with the Palestinians. Abbas refused to come to the table for those ten months, and then used settlement construction as an excuse not to talk. But in Obama’s world, Abbas is sincere and Bibi is the one that doesn’t want to make a peace deal.

Over 80 percent of American Jews voted for this idiot. Twice. Great job, people. Great job.

Rashid Khalidi must be happier than a pig in shit today. I’m sure you’ve read the excerpts from Jeffrey Goldberg’s interview with Obama. Read the whole thing instead. It includes Obama misusing Hillel’s most widely-quoted words and passing along two lies: The demographic lie that Jews will eventually be a minority in Israel (this lie counts on including Gaza and exaggerating Palestinian Arab birth rates both in the West Bank and in Israel) and the lie that time is running out for a peace deal. He also included veiled threats that his administration won’t support Israel when the BDSholes convince more nations to boycott the Jewish State. And he insisted that the Palestinians totally, totally, totally want peace with Israel, led by their “moderate” fan of the Jewish State, Mahmoud Abbas. He’s pretty much guaranteed a rerun of the worst meeting between him and Bibi by trying to pressure Netanyahu before he sets foot in the White House.

And here are the president’s words. On Bibi’s motives:

But I believe that Bibi is strong enough that if he decided this was the right thing to do for Israel, that he could do it. If he does not believe that a peace deal with the Palestinians is the right thing to do for Israel, then he needs to articulate an alternative approach. And as I said before, it’s hard to come up with one that’s plausible.

Note that he basically accuses Netanyahu of not wanting peace. It’s another version of the patented Obama “my way or the highway” bullshit. In fact, it can be argued that this is Obama saying you’re either with him, or you’re against him. His way is the only right way. Anything that deviates is wrong.

Here he is using the “I just can’t control the international establishment if Bibi doesn’t do what I say” routine. Note the harsh words for Israel. We’ll come back to that later. Also note the threats.

But what I do believe is that if you see no peace deal and continued aggressive settlement construction — and we have seen more aggressive settlement construction over the last couple years than we’ve seen in a very long time — if Palestinians come to believe that the possibility of a contiguous sovereign Palestinian state is no longer within reach, then our ability to manage the international fallout is going to be limited.

GOLDBERG: Willingness, or ability?

OBAMA: Not necessarily willingness, but ability to manage international fallout is going to be limited. And that has consequences.

This is the new administration line, and it reads like something right out of the Rashid Khalidi/Samantha Power/Susan Rice playbook.

The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.

Translation: If Israel doesn’t go along with me, well, there’s just no telling what the rest of the world will do. And my hands are tied, tied, I tell you.

Now let’s look at how Obama describes Mahmoud Abbas, the man who utterly refused to even sit down and talk with the Israelis for nine months on the flimsiest of charges.

I believe that President Abbas is sincere about his willingness to recognize Israel and its right to exist, to recognize Israel’s legitimate security needs, to shun violence, to resolve these issues in a diplomatic fashion that meets the concerns of the people of Israel. And I think that this is a rare quality not just within the Palestinian territories, but in the Middle East generally.

It’s like night and day. Abbas has used every excuse in the book not to have negotiations. He continues to insist on the “right of return” for all of the millions of Palestinian “refugees” (second-, third-, and fourth-generation descendants of the original 750,000), and yet, he is simply the Most. Moderate. Palestinian. Ever. When Goldberg asks him if he thinks that Abbas, a weak leader of a corrupt organization, can pull things off, Obama’s answer? Well, where’s the harm in trying?

But here’s what I know from my visits to the region: That for all that we’ve seen over the last several decades, all the mistrust that’s been built up, the Palestinians would still prefer peace.

[…] So I actually think that the voices for peace within the Palestinian community will be stronger with a framework agreement and that Abu Mazen’s position will be strengthened with a framework for negotiations.

There would still be huge questions about what happens in Gaza, but I actually think Hamas would be greatly damaged by the prospect of real peace.

“Naive” does not begin to describe the man. And I have yet to cover his thoughts on Iran. That will have to wait for later. Read the whole interview. Then have fun watching the photo shoot after the meeting today. If they so much as meet each other’s eyes, I’ll be surprised.