Remember in my last blog-posting I wrote how this particular President loves speaking out of both sides of his mouth? Well, it appears he has now risen to new heights of duplicity. Not even a full week after making that disastrous Middle East policy speech at the U.S. State Department where he signaled his stance for the need to have Israel retreat to its 1967 border situation he does what appears to be a public about-face. In a speech this past Sunday at the AIPAC 2011 Conference (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) he says he never actually meant to say that Israel should return to its pre-Six Day War borders, stating "Let me reaffirm what '1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps' means," Obama pontificated. "By definition, it means that the parties themselves—Israelis and Palestinians—will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967." This kind of reminded me of Bill Clinton's "It all depends on what the word 'Is' is." Is there any reason why this supposed intelligent man couldn't have simply said it clearly in his earlier address to the American people, the State Department and the world? Is this President so intelligent and aloof that he cannot speak in the open-tongue of understanding so that anyone of even the mediocre intellectual ability (like myself) might grasp the significance of what spills out of his majestic piehole?
Again the President tried to point out all the positives of the U.S. relationship with its number one ally in the world by praising Israel. Of course he did this in front of more than 10,000 AIPAC delegates. It would have actually meant something if he were to make the same kind of lauding in front of the Arab League or even the United Nations just to prove he really isn't simply pandering and being disingenuous.
I will give the President credit for publically calling Hamas a terror organization at the meeting, but then he was preaching to the choir. The President's speech writers threw in this tasting morsel to appease his audience, "No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction," Obama said. "We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel's right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements." I would feel more comfortable hearing him say that to a joint meeting of Arab Muf'tahs and Iranian Imans, then we would really know that he really believed what he was reading from the tele-prompter. Say what you will about the likes of G.W. Bush, Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan, but they would have no problem calling Hamas a terror organization in any setting. Not so much Obama, he picks his crowd before making his uncommitted pronouncements.
I will reserve any praise I might have to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who stood his ground with the "leader" of the free world before an international press and slowly, delibertly and concisely spelled out to Mr. Obama why it would be impossible to turn Jerusalem over to the Palestinians and how indefensible a 9-mile 1967 border would be. Netanyahu looked like the elder statesman respectfully tutoring his younger, misinformed student on the art of Middle East affairs. While many in the American press thought Mr. Netanyahu overstepped himself by appearing to lecture -- God-forbid -- an American President (e.g. Juan Williams of Fox News), there are some of us who applaud the Prime Minister for throwing cold water on this hapless policy direction and standing firm on his committment to ensure the safety of Israeli borders, something this American President and Congress seem reluctant to do in our own country.
Did the President convince this American Jew of his sincerity as it concerns his committment to Israel? Not hardly!