Rubio Speech Drops Hammer on Anti-Israel President

 

If Marco Rubio keeps talking like this, he’ll be the GOP front runner before we know it.

Two days after Benjamin Netanyahu’s big victory in Israel, one day after Obama’s peevish reaction, and on the same day the White House stated that they foresee “terrible days” for Israel ahead, Rubio spoke up. In 15 minutes, Florida’s junior senator vivisects Obama’s Israel policy before dispatching it once and for all into the depths of hell.

Who would have thought the man who nodded approvingly for two decades in a Farrakhan-friendly “church” would be the one to grant Iran nuclear weapons and sever the ties with the only Jewish state on earth?

Published in Foreign Policy
Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 61 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. AIG Inactive
    AIG
    @AIG

    J. D. Fitzpatrick:Thanks for your reply. Had you done this at the outset, I doubt many people would have referred to you as a troll.

    That, would be a surprise! :)

    Perhaps the most important thing to establish at the outset is Rubio’s thesis: Obama’s treatment of Netanyahu is degrading the relationship with an important Middle Eastern ally, the support of which is not only a pragmatic matter but also a moral one.

    A “theses” which he supports with outright lies, outright twisting of the truth, and irrelevant moral pandering.

    Which part of my argument are you referring to? And why “certainly not Obama”? What comments, precisely, are irrelevant?

    The whole Holocaust thing. It’s simply an appeal to emotion, and it is irrelevant since no one has made any arguments about Israel’s existence, or its Jewishness. Hence, purely unrelated.

    Here we disagree. Obama called, for example, the leaders of Russia, China, and Iran to congratulate them on winning their “elections.” Two of those countries are barely  democracies, the other is not even one. Given his willingness to congratulate just about any leader who takes power for winning an election, his refusal to congratulate Bibi is a clear public snub of a prominent ally.

    Which again is either

    1) An absolute outright lie, since he did call Netanyahu.

    2) Based on, what I can only assume to be ignorance, of the fact that the US calls to congratulate every leader around the world when they take office.

    It is perfectly reasonable to infer from this public snub that Obama wants to reduce his support for Netanyahu. That will inevitably have the effect of reducing support for Israel since Netanyahu is the leader for this election cycle. This reduction of support endangers Israel by emboldening its enemies.

    It is an absolutely unreasonable thing to infer because:

    1) He did call Netanyahu

    2) Netanyahu =/ Israel. Netanyahu’s…snub…of established US policy since 1967...is what is endangering our relationship. A fact that even he knows, since he has been back-pedaling from those statements the moment he assumed office.

    Can you be more precise about your point here? Are you trying to argue that Obama supports Israel, provided Netanyahu is not the leader? See my point above.

    Again, this isn’t the argument.

    Rubio equates the supposed “snub” of Netanyahu, which is an outright lie, with an “assault on Israel”.

    It would be interesting to see the details on how the White House has historically used arms supplies to pressure Israel. I don’t think, though, that Rubio’s argument hinges on this point.

    Rubio’s argument hinges on no particular point, since it is simply a laundry list of fictitious arguments and hearsay.

    Of course, the absurdity of Rubio’s argument is made even more evident by the fact that this administration has provided record levels of military aid to Israel.

    He twists that as the complete opposite. Pure fantasy.

    As for examples of the US using military aid pressures on Israel:

    1) In 1982 the US suspended shipment of certain weapons that Israel used offensively in Lebanon.

    2) In 1990 Bush wanted to cut aid to Israel by 5% in response to Israeli settlement activity.

    3) In 2005 the US suspended Israel’s participation in the JSF development due to its arms sales to China.

    Rubio is clearly completely ignorant of established US policy in relation to Israel. he portrays established US policy (sine 1950 when it comes to weapons delivery to Israel, and since 1967 with relation to their territory)…and twists this as if it’s something new under Obama.

    Pure ignorance, and historical revisionism.

    This claim about appeal to emotion is utterly mendacious. (Yes, you read that right.) Rubio’s speech is loaded with facts.

    It’s loaded with absolutely irrelevant facts. He’s arguing against himself, and against 40-year of US policy. Not Obama.

    Consider, for example, the litany of evidence on the history of Palestinian negotiations, their terror budget, their schoolbooks, etc. You may dispute these facts, if you wish, but you need to use facts to dispute them.

    I don’t dispute those facts, because those are quite irrelevant facts.

    Obama has expressed the same policy in relation to the Arabs as has been US policy for 40 years.

    Rubio isn’t arguing against Obama. He’s arguing against 40 years of US policy.

    I’ll leave with one quote that makes the point your summary willfully ignores: “Allies have differences. But allies like Israel, when you have a difference with them, and it is public, you embolden their enemies. … This is a historic and tragic mistake.”

    Nonsense.

    Bibi =/ Israel. The US has had plenty of disagreements with Israel, and has made them more than public, over decades.

    So again, he’s not arguing against anything Obama has done (since he has done nothing to merit such a silly characterization). He’s arguing with 40 years of established US policy.

    The US absolutely should pressure Israel, when they deviate from OUR policy.

    In my review of the video and your comments, it’s pretty clear that you’re engaging in highly selective reporting of the speech. In a way, you’re right; the question isn’t whether you’ve watched the video or not; you can’t even identify the man’s thesis, or correctly analyze his argument, when you do.

    So I appreciate your efforts in this case, but in the future, no need to bother, at least on my account.

    You haven’t shown me anything in the video which somehow contradicts my points.

    1) He uses “facts” which have been shown to be lies and fabrications.

    2) He uses the exact same policy as the US has pursued towards Israel for the past 40 years, as an “assault on Israel” by Obama.

    3) He appeals to emotions, even though no one is arguing against what he is appealing.

    4) He argues against a 2-state solution, which isn’t even a position that even Netanyahu holds anymore :). So he’s arguing against 60% of the Israeli electorate, against 40 years of US policy, and against even Bibi’s own words of the last few days.

    There’s noting selective about this. This is the essence of his speech.

    • #61
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.