Get the Ricochet app
Ricochet will work fine in a browser on your mobile devices, but for the best experience please download our app.
I have always thought Obama an anti-Semite. He has opened his mouth again and removed all doubt, at least in my mind.
The Israeli government's decision to cut off food, water and electricity to a captive civilian population (in Gaza) threatens not only to worsen a growing humanitarian crisis; it could further harden Palestinian attitudes for generations, erode global support for Israel, play in to the hands of Israel's enemies, and undermine long term efforts to achieve peace and stability in the region.
Who is holding the civilian population captive in Gaza? Not Israel. Hamas. And the larger Arab world. Consider that the entire population of Gaza could be transferred to Qatar, and instantly the per capita GDP of Qatar would fall by half--putting it on par with the per capita GDP of the United States. Qatar is the richest nation on the planet based on per capita GDP. The Hamas leadership hangs out in Qatar. Why not the rest of the Gaza population? All the breast-beating about the "captive civilian population" in Gaza would disappear instantly. Why has no one called for relocating the Gaza population to Qatar? Or Turkey, for that matter, whose leader has fully endorsed the Hamas atrocities. Reward them with a nice apartment each in Istanbul. Why not? Might be a little crowded for a while, but resources abound to address that.
Consider that when Israel was created, and close to a million Jews fled Arab lands to Israel, they were welcomed with open arms. And that the Palestinians who fled Israel were welcomed--nowhere by anyone, but placed in refugee camps. Adjacent to Israel. With the express purpose of putting international pressure on Israel. And so it has been ever since. And so we have: Terrorists to the East of Israel: Terrorists to the north of Israel; Terrorists to the South of Israel. All Iranian proxies, to a lesser extent Arab proxies.
So of course the terrorists must be allowed to continue to surround Israel, to continue the pressure on Israel. The international opprobrium visited on Israel would dissipate, even disappear if that were to happen. That's not what Obama is interested in, or the Left, or the International community. Or Iran. They are all interested only in doing harm to and destroying Israel. Why?
The Iranians greenlit the Hamas attack (according to Hamas) and that at a time when Israel was about to conclude a peace with Saudi Arabia. If that were to happen, the "captive citizen population" of Gaza would become more or less irrelevant, Israel would be far more secure, peace would be more likely to break out all over the Middle East, and Iran would be disempowered. That peace that was about to break out had to be stopped, from Iran's point of view. And Obama's point of view. So, while Israel was engaged in bringing peace to the Middle East, Hamas attacked to prevent that peace, which is now dead, and Obama criticizes Israel for endangering peace? Ultimate Chutzpah. Unfortunately, ignorance and gullible Americans, even the ones who are not hard-core Leftists seeking the destruction of Israel (as is the majority of Democrats in America now), will nod and criticize Israel.
The Hamas attack was aided and abetted by Obama policies, now employed by Biden. It is almost as if Biden were sitting in Tehran conspiring with the Mullahs. His policies could hardly be more favorable and empowering to Iran. Financially, economically, politically, militarily. All aspects of Biden's policies point to support for Iran. His supposed funding for Israel's military is a joke--the money is going to Ukraine (or elsewhere--including Hamas), where, one tends to think, Biden is keeping open prospects for family grifting and financing the US military-industrial complex to get contributions from American military materiel manufacturers. While he provides supplies to Hamas. And sends hundreds of millions of dollars to Islamic Jihad, aiding Hamas. And timidly responds to Iranian attacks on the American military with pinpricks designed, as the British say in order to keep up appearances.
Obama undertook rapproachment with Iran during his administration, leading to Hamas attacks on Israel, to which Israel responded, which gave Obama the pretext for giving a billion dollars to Hamas. To rebuild infrastrucure, of course, used to shield Hamas military equipment.
Obama released some $150 billion in assets to Iran, gave them billions in pallets of cash (unmarked bills?) for "hostage" (read, deserter) exchange, tried to give $4 billion in military equipment, including fighter jets, to the Muslim Brotherhood (the original organization out of which, Al Qaeda, Isis, etc., grew), and worked overtime to allow Iran a path to atomic weapons while trying to look like he was doing the opposite. Anyone who was fooled by that wanted to be fooled by that. And Joe is at it again, deja vu all over again.
Obama, as Walter Russell Mead and others have long pointed out, wanted to empower Iran to become the hegemon in the Middle East to "stabilize" the Middle East and allow America to reduce its footprint and influence in the region. Mead and others now tell us that strategy has failed. As if that were a serious policy initiative in America's interest. Give the Mullahs everything they want, including nuclear weapons and the means to deliver them, and how could that not increase American security and prosperity, with nuclear capability in the hands of extreme, terrorist, fanatics that shout "death to America"? Is our foreign policy commentariat so blind, deaf, and dumb? It appears so. Or complicit.
The only perfectly predictable effects of such a policy would be to existentially endanger Israel, ourselves, and Western Civilization. So, we get to the crux of the issue:
Obama's policies were and are designed to destroy the Western World. Not just Israel. But Western Civilization entirely, based as it is on a Judeo-Christian ethic. Which Obama, and the Left, nationally and internationally, hate with a great passion.
Jurgen Habermas, the famous German philosopher of the public square, noted, when he emerged from his discussion with Cardinal Ratzinger:
For the normative self-understanding of modernity, Christianity has functioned as more than just a precursor or catalyst. Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of a continual critical reappropriating and reinterpretation. Up to this very day there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a post-national constellation, we must draw sustenance now, as in the past, from this substance. Everything else is idle postmodern talk.
That is what Obama objects to. That is what Hamas objects to. That is what the Mullahs in Iran object to. That is what the UN objects to. That is what the pro-Palestinian demonstrators here and around the world object to. That is what the Enlightenment objects to. That is what postmodernism objects to. This is what "science" objects to. This is what the Democrat party objects to.
First, they destroy the Jews.....
Discussion (37)
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
He conveniently fails to complete the sentence: "The Israeli government's decision to cut off food, water, and electricity to a captive civilian population" . . . until Hamas releases the 200 Israeli hostages.
Great post in every way. Thank you.
We cannot let up for a second in refuting every single thing the Left says on the subject of Israel.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
None of the people who are complaining about the cutting off of utilities are willing to answer this question: Why, after all these years, is Gaza still dependent on Israel for electricity, water, etc.? Billions upon billions have been given to the governing authorities in Gaza. This money could have been used to build generating facilities, water desalination facilities, etc. but the people running Gaza have made the choice to spend that money on other things such as tunnels and weapons. They have made Gaza vulnerable by their own choices. I don't have an iota of sympathy for them in this predicament. It was entirely avoidable.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
If Gaza is a de facto independent nation then Israel has no legal or moral duty to allow trade goods to cross the border (especially since Gaza also has a border with Egypt).
Israel only has a duty to allow trade goods to cross the border if Gaza is Israeli territory.
Which one is it, Barack?
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
Obama's waffling on giving unconditional support to Israel's right to exist has always been hard to read. Like most Democrats, he says one thing and does another.
I came across an interesting story, as told by the Israelis. When the Israelis wanted to construct the Iron Dome missile defense system, George Bush, a president I greatly admire, said no. Apparently, he didn't think it was worth the money, and he preferred a different system. When Obama was elected, Obama pushed it through, and the Israelis were very grateful to him. And in the attacks from Hamas in 2017, the Iron Dome worked well.
But I have been reading here and there that this latest assault of 3,000 missiles overwhelmed the Iron Dome system pretty easily. That puts a question mark in the Obama column for me. Did he know that it would fail so easily? Did he set up Israel for this attack? It's interesting because it is the only thing I can point to that could be construed as positive for Israel. And now I don't think it was.
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
These are children playing in an adult world, despite their claims to the opposite. Obama, Rice, Sullivan, et. al will gamble long term security and stability if it gives them an immediate headline.
Sullivan's greatest frustration in all this is probably whatever perception of cred he has should be in tatters after penning a self-congratulatory article in Foreign Policy about how quiet the Middle East was. He had few qualifications to begin with and has since been proven wrong on just about everything. I don't want to be around for his inevitable meltdown. "He was a quiet person," is the vibe he emits in a strong way.
You have to feel a bit for them, the world just doesn't behave as it should according to the books they read and wrote. My only question at this point is why they're so desperate to empower Iran, but I guess we've seen it: instability and war. What DC wants is war and epidemics to keep those payoffs rolling.
You're seeing five of 37 comments. Sign in, or join for just $5 per month, to read them all and add your own.