Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
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
That, would be a surprise! :)
A “theses” which he supports with outright lies, outright twisting of the truth, and irrelevant moral pandering.
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.
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 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.
Again, this isn’t the argument.
Rubio equates the supposed “snub” of Netanyahu, which is an outright lie, with an “assault on Israel”.
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.
It’s loaded with absolutely irrelevant facts. He’s arguing against himself, and against 40-year of US policy. Not Obama.
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.
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.
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.