Obama to force Israel to give up nukes?
posted at 9:29 am on May 6, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The Washington Times reports that Barack Obama may counter demands from Israel to confront Iran over their nuclear program by confronting Israel over theirs. Eli Lake has the exclusive on the Obama administration’s strategy to force Israel under the umbrella of the non-proliferation treaty, apparently as a condition to getting Iran to surrender their nukes. The effort will include India and Pakistan, and comes from a 2006 Saudi peace plan that would leave Israel at the mercy of the armies surrounding the state:
President Obama’s efforts to curb the spread of nuclear weapons threaten to expose and derail a 40-year-old secret U.S. agreement to shield Israel’s nuclear weapons from international scrutiny, former and current U.S. and Israeli officials and nuclear specialists say.
The issue will likely come to a head when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Mr. Obama on May 18 in Washington. Mr. Netanyahu is expected to seek assurances from Mr. Obama that he will uphold the U.S. commitment and will not trade Israeli nuclear concessions for Iranian ones.
Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller, speaking Tuesday at a U.N. meeting on the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), said Israel should join the treaty, which would require Israel to declare and relinquish its nuclear arsenal.
Gottemoeller has a track record of demanding Israeli disarmament:
However, Ms. Gottemoeller endorsed the concept of a nuclear-free Middle East in a 2005 paper that she co-authored, “Universal Compliance: A Strategy for Nuclear Security.”
“Instead of defensively trying to ignore Israels nuclear status, the United States and Israel should proactively call for regional dialogue to specify the conditions necessary to achieve a zone free of nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons,” she wrote.
The paper recommends that Israel take steps to disarm in exchange for its neighbors getting rid of chemical and biological weapons programs as well as Iran forgoing uranium enrichment.
The Obama administration appointed Gottemoeller, fully cognizant of her thinking on this issue. One has to assume that her appointment to the senior position at State constitutes an endorsement of those positions. It wouldn’t be the most radical thinking about Israel from this administration; Samantha Powers, who works between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and UN Ambassador Susan Rice, once called for a Western occupation of Israel and forced disarmament of their entire army.
Gottemoeller’s speech had to have been cleared by the Obama administration, and so appears to represent their foreign-policy position. The Bush administration and its predecessors handled the situation more tactfully, supporting a “nuclear-free Middle East” without naming names. Why? The position of Israel in the Middle East is unique. They are not just simply another nation among many. They had been the one successful continuous democracy in that region, save Turkey, and quite obviously surrounded by nations explicitly threatening to annihilate them. Israel had to develop a deterrent that would keep a nation of 5 million people alive among 100 million enemies.
Over the years, some of those neighbors have moderated their stance somewhat towards Israel; Egypt and Jordan have diplomatic relations with Israel, but in Egypt’s case only because Washington pays them to do it. None of the rest of the nations in that region even recognize Israel’s existence, and two of them — Syria and Iran — have a long-running proxy war of terror running against Israel. Under those conditions, Israel can be forgiven for thinking that a deterrent is still a damned good idea.
Besides, the Iranian nuclear program threatens the US as well. We want to stop Iran from building nukes to keep them out of the hands of terrorists, and not just those aimed at Israel. They don’t call us the Great Satan out of respect, after all, and Iranian leadership has been just as annihilationist towards America as it has been towards Israel. Instead of disarming our allies, maybe we should just concentrate on disarming our enemies.










Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 6 Next »
The Obama administration would have Israel give up its best means of protecting itself from destruction, in exchange for a promise. Yet, Obama’s own promises aren’t worth the air he speaks them into.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM
Gee, I can’t see how Israel could possibly not benefit from completely disarming itself in exchange for Iran’s promise to stop its chemical and nuclear weapons programs.
Assuming that by “benefit” you mean “total destruction of Israel.”
DrAllecon on May 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM
I most sincerely hope that Bibi tells Obambi to get f*cked if he demands that Israel surrender its nuclear deterrent.
/un-frickin’ believable!!!
Wanderlust on May 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM
And there you have it. He’s moved from moral relativism to practical relativism. You’ve seen it with Democrats and tax laws, Democrats and crimes against the state and now national policy.
To wit: So long as you have the power and fight hand tooth and nail to keep it, liberals will NOT try to take it away from you.
Skywise on May 6, 2009 at 9:35 AM
MMMmkkkay.
artist on May 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM
D’oh, Loxodonta beat me by that ::holding out thumb and index finger:: much.
DrAllecon on May 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM
Obama can’t be held responsible for adhering to decisions and agreements made when he was only one, can he?
SouthernRoots on May 6, 2009 at 9:36 AM
You have got to be kidding me. But then I know you’re not. This creature, Barack Hussein Obama, is pure evil. He is protecting Iran against Israel. This creature, Barack Hussein Obama, is the Antichrist. This is freaking madness.
Ceroth on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Israel knows how to survive:
Israel would inform, not ask U.S. before hitting Iran
Wed May 6, 2009 5:34am EDT
REUTERS
artist on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Cater. Part II
csdeven on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM
What Soros wants, Ogabe does. I guess Soros regaled Ogabe with tales of his days rounding up Jews to be sent to the camps and confiscating their property.
PimFortuynsGhost on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM
I’m glad all the Jews who still give Obama 79 percent of their approval, will have this to chew over during breakfast.
Obama making our enemies safer one day at a time.
eaglewingz08 on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM
Carter. Part II
csdeven on May 6, 2009 at 9:37 AM
It is going to be a long 4 years for Israel. We can only hope that she is still exists then since she won’t be getting any help from the Obama administration and her enemies will.
DamnCat on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Israel’s response. . . ‘we don’t have any nuclear weapons’.
Obama wouldn’t defend anyone against anybody. Louis Farakhan would be proud. I think Obama is anti-Semitic. Obama is leading this country down a dangerous path internationally. It is a shame really. Is there anyone here who thinks he’d use nuclear weapons against Russia if Russia attacked us? I don’t.
America is officially in trouble if this is his attempt at foreign policy.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 9:38 AM
There is no possible way on earth Israel will agree to this. Nukes are the only thing preventing her from being completely overrun by the barbarians at the gates.
BardMan on May 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM
While I agree with this statement, it also points out the folly of us negiotiating with Iran. Iran is an enemy of ours and vice versa. Why would an nation disarm in the face of another enemy (except by folly) when the threat of force disarmanment is minimally? It would not.
I just do not see how this Iran situation does not end up in a hot war.
WashJeff on May 6, 2009 at 9:39 AM
I’m waiting for a speech from Gottemoeller threatening to nuke Israel if they don’t give up their nuclear weapons.
jon1979 on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM
crazy.
where is he taking my country??
ExTex on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM
That headline is hilarious. Barry can’t force anything.
Vashta.Nerada on May 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM
One could be forgiven for wondering whether Obama has the least clue what he is doing in any sphere of the Presidency…
kiltedscotsman5 on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
I understand it was a typo – but “Cater Part II” is also appropriate here…
Odie1941 on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Time to call Alicia Silverstone because these people are Clueless.
CDeb on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
is zero nuts? God have mercy on us. Holy God, Holy Mighty One, Holy Immortal One, have mercy on Israel and the whole world.
atemely on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
One has to wonder just how absurd this can possibly get. The Empty-Suit-in-Chief may be more of a fool than we ever imagined. I hope his ears don’t bleed when Bibi tells him what he can do with it… To demand that Israel disarm in the face of surrounding savages bent on its total destruction is folly of the highest order. Could it really be that we may be witnessing…. the beginning of the “real” end?
HomeoftheBrave on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Oh … so Israel has never successfully defended itself against Arab attacks before … reality to posters … reality to posters …
corona on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Ask the South Vietnamese what a Democrat’s promise is worth… that is, if there are any left.
mankai on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Damn…he really does think he’s the messiah.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
I believe Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will probably tell POTUS Obama exactly where he can put his ideas regarding Israeli defense.
He will probably do it very publically. Netanyahu is fully aware of who has a spine and who doesn’t. He is also very aware of Obama’s thin skin. I expect him to have a street thug for breakfast.
Obama will be “furious”!
Yoop on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Disarm a nation…
Israel.
[The United States? Seems we are on track for that as well.]
Yep, that’s how tyrants and despots and Islamists are brought to a halt.
From the US State Department’s own website:
“The Kellogg-Briand Pact, like the Washington and London conferences, failed to prevent the outbreak of another general war. Although American support for these conferences was evidence of a new American internationalism, disarmament itself would not overcome the forces leading to World War II.”
History is such a dumb subject to study… /s
Disarming an enemy, and if that is not possible, make their costs of waging war so steep that their own people will take them out…that would be a rational policy for the long term. We, of all the nations in the world, should be encouraging this sort of peoples revolution by any means necessary.
Instead, we are asking a nation (Israel), and the United States for that matter, to disarm first, hoping that this change will make everybody love us?
Just as in the 1920′s, Obama’s mantra, let’s sit down and talk, and destroy our defenses while we are at it, that sort of stance will encourage more war, not lessen the possibility of war.
Insanity.
coldwarrior on May 6, 2009 at 9:41 AM
Well then, Barry is about to get a big phuck-off from Israel… excellent.
D2Boston on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
If Israel is disarmed, I am sure that you could trust the Palestinians, Syrians and Iranians to also disarm. They have been trustworthy so far, haven’t they?
Johan Klaus on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Nukes? What nukes?
BadgerHawk on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Actually, upon reflection, I really HOPE that Obama hasn’t got a clue what he is doing… the possibility that he does, and is doing these things anyway, is just too terrifying to contemplate.
kiltedscotsman5 on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
America’s problem for a while now is that we can’t really identify our enemy.
ThackerAgency on May 6, 2009 at 9:42 AM
Nuclear weapons? Consider them gone. Now we call them “peaceful nuclear powered on demand martyr makers”.
the_nile on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Bibi should say to Bambi, “Thanks for the suggestion. Now go put your nose in your ear and sneeze.”
Daggett on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Yo, Jews!
Happy you voted overwhelmingly for Obama now?
Realist on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM
never forget that Hamas not only contributed to Obama’s campaign, they ran Phone banks for him out of Gaza
jp on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM
Bambi is about 10 x as bad as Carter … so far. It’s more like Al Capone, POTUS.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 9:43 AM
First: bow to the Saudi King
Second: tell Israel to give up deterrent against the mass murder of its citizens,
Third?
clnurnberg on May 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM
And why should Israel agree to become defenseless, for no reason other than “I am Obama and I WON the election you hear, I WON I WON I WON”?
Netanyahu is no idiot. Not even this congress is going to take the political risk of cutting off Israel and facing the consequences of the jihad dream of driving the Jews into the sea and the backlash against THEM that would ensue.
He’s wise enough to see that while this is an unpleasant time, that Obama’s power has an expiration date and that it’s only going to get weaker as his popularity falls and he starts losing elections.
It would be suicidal for Israel to give up it’s weapons and I don’t think they will do such a thing no matter WHO asks them to do it, and they certainly won’t on the word of a weak willed president who is a jihad sympathizer.
wildcat84 on May 6, 2009 at 9:44 AM
Obama: “strength through voluntary weakness”
see no evil, hear no evil….
jp on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Interesting….
If Iran actually has (or will have) nukes, which is a major threat to us, we will only make them give them up if our ally gives up theirs.
If Iran does not have nukes and is not actually trying to get nukes (as Iran says, and many liberals want to believe) then we want to force our ally to give up their nukes so that their enemy can give up their “pretend” nukes.
Either way, even the discussions of putting Israel’s nukes on the table for negotiations just encourages Iran to continue to either develop nukes or pretend to develop nukes.
AverageJoe on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
I think the majority of American jewish people who gave Obama their support deserve what’s coming to them. However, Am. liberals who are also Jewish have little to do with being religious. They are fundamentally secularists.
Israel is not the same as American secular jewry. Am. jews ought not even claim “jewishness” as they confuse it with some cultural remnants from their past, and with being progressives. We (whoever we are these days, but that’s a diff. question) have many good and honorable reasons to give Israel our support, for what it represents in a sea of Islamic backwardness, as well as for being a good ally to us and an outpost of westernism, even Americanism, far away.
So blame Am. “jews” as much as u like for being the a-holes they so obviously are, but please try to keep your support for Israel in spite of it.
JiangxiDad on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Hey, Obama voting Jews! How’s that Israel policy working out for ya? Schmucks.
marklmail on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
I can’t even say unbelieveable anymore. I guess this is change you can believe in. Let’s get warm & cuzzy with douchebag dictators and piss on our friends. Yeah that’s change alright.
I hope Israel tells The Stink to go “F” himself.
Thanks to the 57% of Americans who felt a tingle run up their legs when they heard The Stink speak.
Song of the Day nomination……AC/DC “Highway to Hell”
VikingGoneWild on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM
Well, if it comes to that, I hope Netanyahu pulls a Reagan and just walks out of the room.
Note to Obama: 1) Bibi’s alot tougher than you are. 2)You are going to need a Super Teleprompter for this meeting. 3)Send Joe Biden to the other end of the earth while he (Netanyahu) is in D.C., and do not let him near a microphone. Ditto for Hillary.
BigD on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
I am torn between thinking that Obama is an out and out Fascist (witness his attempts at extortion in the Chrysler Chapter 11 filing) or just another gangster from Chicago. Obama knows that as long as Israel has an independent nuclear deterent that they can tell him to pound sand. No gangster or Fascist dictator can tolerate that.
Benjamin Netanyahu already has taken the measure of Obama and sees him as a weak reed. If he won’t go after Iran’s or North Korea’s nukes, he will back down when Bebe tells him to go f**k himself. Obama’s attempt to pressure Israel will backfire and Israel will see that its only hope for survival is a strike against Iran.
jerryofva on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Bambi si playing a dangerous game, aside from the obvious. By making these so-called demands, he is positioning his admin as “the ones who have tried”, most likely to “earn” a Nobel Peace Prize, ala Carter and Arafat – yet is creating a divide between Isreal and the western world and the anti-semetic UN – because he knows damn well Isreal will never give up their nuclear arsenal.
I imagine the UN will pepper their next anti-Isreal tirade with “even America has called for the Zionist terrorists to disarm”. It will foster more funds from the Muslim world, to be funneled into Syria and the Palestinians – with no backlash.
He is once again, creating a bigger problem for our “allies”, while posturing for “peace”
I guess Bambi’s Islamic studies are paying off… and not for Isreal.
Odie1941 on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Be careful Mr. President.
jake-the-goose on May 6, 2009 at 9:46 AM
Would be a brilliant plan – if it works. I will reiterate the emphasis on if.
I’m sure Iran, Pakisan, and India will get on board. See, things work on paper, that means they work in the real world too.
Seixon on May 6, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Obama’s promises, so much hot air and CO2, not much meaning. Israel would be a fool.
I assume our thug president assumes just because he says, it will be made so. What a conceited fart we have for a president.
tarpon on May 6, 2009 at 9:47 AM
Administration= STUPIDITY REIGNS SUPREME!
heshtesh on May 6, 2009 at 9:47 AM
why have a proliferation regime at all if it only comes to bear on you when you begin antagonizing the united states?
I mean the true hypocricy in all this is more India than Israel, but then again India’s the one with a currently nuclear enemy. Iran has no nukes. While I don’t see it necessary to confront Israel about them, if one wishes to save the non-proliferation treaty, one must begin to address the inconsistencies…
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 9:48 AM
OMG! /sarc
this administration never ceases to underwhelm me. they are jouvenile and predictable, and yes – quite amateurish.
gatorboy on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Benjamin will tell Barack to come and get them.
molonlabe28 on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Gee, I wonder what Netanyahu will say?
ctmom on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM
“Peace through superior surrender”
the_nile on May 6, 2009 at 9:49 AM
Line forms to the right.
I expect many world leaders to get into line soon for their chance to tell Obama, publicly, to go f**k himself. It is going to get internationally interesting, sooner than we expected.
Yoop on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Only in the super happy kumbaya theoretical world of the left…
BardMan on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
We have educated ourselves to imbecility – G.K. Chesterton
Obama is one of the educated idiots.
CynicalOptimist on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
Regardless of whom American Jews voted for, they don’t deserve this betrayal. And neither do any of us who support Israel’s right to exist as a free and secure Jewish state.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
One of the inconsistencies of life is that some people want to kill you Ernesto, and some don’t. Libs teach us to treat them the same. Every fiber of your being tells you the opposite.
JiangxiDad on May 6, 2009 at 9:50 AM
And those of us who support Israel because they are the ONLY beacon of freedom and democracy in the cesspool that is the otherwise muslim fascist dominated middle east.
wildcat84 on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Yes they do. Everyone deserves the opportunity to learn.
JiangxiDad on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM
That 79 percent Jewish vote for Obama was amazing.
I voted against Obama because given his expressed positions and associations over the years, nothing much he’s done so far has come as a particular surprise. I knew he was going to try to sell Israel down the river – it was utterly obvious.
From the New York Times, April 1, 2008 (no joke):
How’s that working out for you, Josh?
Realist on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Agree.
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM
I’d love to be a fly on the wall during that exchange where Obama tells Netanyahu to give up nukes.
People, 50+% of our countrymen elected a wolf in sheep’s clothing to the presidency. I do believe he is purely evil. Well, he’s either evil or so completely and totally “rose-colored glasses pie-in-the-sky” naive that he’s just as equally dangerous.
Oink on May 6, 2009 at 9:51 AM
Obama and crew are idiots. Israel is never going to give up its nukes. They also want to pressure India who will also never give up its nukes. It’s just all for show.
Blake on May 6, 2009 at 9:52 AM
Well…since you put it that way…
ladyingray on May 6, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Muslems want Israel to be destroyed.
Obama wants Israel to be destroyed.
You do the math.
Rebar on May 6, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Two blogs heavily covering Israel being thrown under the bus:
IsraPundit
Israel Matzav
Shy Guy on May 6, 2009 at 9:53 AM
Somehow, I don’t think Israel will give up anything.
Nothing like several hundred thousand Arabs and Persians who wish you dead to clarify things.
Mew
acat on May 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM
Team Obama will be have one huge problem to overcome on this latest endeavor of disarming Israel of their nukes–Netanyahu. To think the hardliner will give up his nations sovereignty and security to the hopeychange green one is laughable…but demonstrates the breadth of arrogance and incompetency this admin is operating under.
Expect the Net to get threatened and browbeaten by “the forces that be” for not acquiescing to the Won’s great plans…don’t put it past these folk and their press corps to demonize the Israeli Prime Minister in the coming months for daring to impede the progress of Barack’s Big World of Faux Peace.
RepubChica on May 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM
this may be a way to pander to his lunatic base, then gradually and silently back off from actually following through.
/optimistic theory
jp on May 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM
IF the US didn’t object to sanctions/embargo against Israel coming the from UN, Israel would wither and die.
JiangxiDad on May 6, 2009 at 9:54 AM
+1
Disgusted, yes. Nauseated, absolutely. Appalled, angered, insulted, no question.
But surprised? Not a chance.
Anyone who tells me they are surprised by anything Bambi has done earns an automatic D- for intelligence.
kiltedscotsman5 on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I agree. The sad thing is I get a big chuckle out of it when foreign leaders aren’t as enamored with the Big O as our media and the lefties in this country. But I don’t associate their lack of respect toward our country. I think they disrespect the Big O.
I am positive that people around the world who have access to the internet and very much aware of the political divide in this country. They’ve seen the teaparties and you can bet those were reported in Europe and elsewhere more accurately than they were reported here by CNN, MSNBC and the other networks.
Oink on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM
I agree with the rest of your post but I don’t think it’s all for show. I just wish we had some idea of what his real intentions are. Nothing he says is good for much.
gh on May 6, 2009 at 9:55 AM
If Obama is willing to force Israel to disarm in exchange for a promise of peace, how long before he pushes that for our country? And what happens if a Democratic Congress goes along?
We might not survive such a learning opportunity.
Loxodonta on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM
meanwhile
In an Iranian bunker lab a mile underground…
blatantblue on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM
the writing was on the wall for everyone to see…he is what he is…an American hating, affirmative action, narcissistic malcontent…we are breeding his like everyday…i don’t know how things change without a catastrophic event…
winston on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Netanyahu’s nickname = Bibi
Obama’s nickname = Bambi
Hmmm, I wonder who would win in a death match of wills.
AverageJoe on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM
It seems that Obama is pushing national suicide for the US, so he thinks that Israel should do the same thing? Is Obama sane?
BottomLine5 on May 6, 2009 at 9:56 AM
Evidently there’s some ‘reefer madness’ going on at the White House. Israel will give up it’s nukes when pigs fly.
GarandFan on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Maybe I’m now the one being naive, but I don’t believe Israel will ever wither and die. I believe they’ll be the last ones standing. Not naive just faithful.
Oink on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
ernesto:
By all means let’s save the non-proliferation treaty even if it back actors will violate it anyway. Kellog-Briand worked so well didn’t it?
jerryofva on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
ernesto:
By all means let’s save the non-proliferation treaty even if it back actors will violate it anyway. Kellog-Briand worked so well didn’t it?
jerryofva on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Anti-Semite?
aigle on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
not only does bambi want to sell Israel down the river, he is doing nothing to keep the taliban from taking Pakistan’s nukes (which currently are pointed at India).
so bambi’s outreach has been to Iran who keeps condemning us.
and by the way, bambi is doing all this on purpose.
kelley in virginia on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
not only does bambi want to sell Israel down the river, he is doing nothing to keep the taliban from taking Pakistan’s nukes (which currently are pointed at India).
so bambi’s outreach has been to Iran who keeps condemning us.
and by the way, bambi is doing all this on purpose.
kelley in virginia on May 6, 2009 at 9:57 AM
Carter. Part
IIdeuxThere, its fixed.
belad on May 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Either Bibi walks out early, or, more likely, they do not hold a press conference after their meeting out of fear of making the divide public.
WashJeff on May 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Someday, there’s sure going to be a whole lot of regretting goin’ on for electing this ignorant SOB communist. We’ll be lucky just to survive it.
Griz on May 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM
“Hey, Obama voting Jews! How’s that Israel policy working out for ya? Schmucks.
marklmail on May 6, 2009 at 9:45 AM”
Doesn’t matter. They’ll still vote for him. He’s black.
LtE126 on May 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I don’t doubt that. But assessing the capabilities of those exhibit the antagonistic behavior of a nation like Iran must be a sober and deliberate exercise. While again, i see no reason to approach the Iranian nuclear situation this way, I see no justification in the matter of fact way Iranian capabilities/intent…that they will without a doubt destroy Israel the moment they are capable, all consequences be damned. This is not a sober, deliberate assessment, but rather one made out of fear. Let us hope that somewhere along the middle of the divide that exists between your views and Obama’s rests a solution someone can actually run with.
ernesto on May 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM
I may be the only American that feels this way, but Isreal’s survival ranks far higher to me than that of the Obama Administration.
Immolate on May 6, 2009 at 9:58 AM
F*** You, Barack Obama.
bluelightbrigade on May 6, 2009 at 9:59 AM
Comment pages: 1 2 3 … 6 Next »