Is Israel safer than it was four years ago?

Punchenko on September 4, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Well played, my friend. Well played!

When it became clear that the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, had been intentionally misquoted by the Chairwoman of the party in power in Washington, D.C., in a thuggish attempt to use him to falsely smear her political opponents, you really have to wonder how many of the people of Israel would continue to view the current United States government’s commitment to their security.

That was an utterly inexcusable offense on her part, and a broad cross-section of people have to demand an unequivocal rebuke of her statement, one coming from the President himself.

2008: It is in the best interests of all parties, including the United States, that we take an active role to help secure a lasting settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with a democratic, viable Palestinian state dedicated to living in peace and security side by side with the Jewish State of Israel.

2012: A just and lasting Israeli-Palestinian accord, producing two states for two peoples, would contribute to regional stability and help sustain Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state.

In other words, it’s Israel’s democracy which is now supposedly shaky. There is no demand from the Palestinian state to be democratic.

Also, Israel’s character as a Jewish state is not absolute anymore. It’s dependent on there being peace.

I’m thinking of a caller on C-Span after the RNC convention.
Sounded like an elderly woman.
She said Mitt did not mention God in his speech, that she could not vote for a Mormon because she was a Christian and the Mormon religion leaves out God.

I wonder what she is thinking now. The Dems entire platform leaves God out.

I was so furious watching that idiot Durbin refuse to answer why God was not on the platform I had to go outside for a walk.

He used one of BO’s tactics. Make the interviewer look stupid for asking the question rather than answer the question. Brett did a good job.

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2012 at 6:18 PM

Exactly. These things were discussed/debated and then actively removed. I guess God doesn’t play well with lefties. But we’ll never know why since Durbin preferred acting like a total knob rather than answering the question.

My favorite bit was when Durbin said that nobody reads the platforms and Baier shot back that the Dems complained about the GOP platform in Tampa. Nice, though I would have sent Brett a check if he has replied with “You mean like that $2 trillion HC bill you voted for?” That would have been classic. Ah well.

Taking out the specific references to Hamas was sensible.

The west’s stubbornly suicidal accommodation of Islam within western states will prove far more toxic to Israel, the west in general and the rest of the world than any party manifesto.

Maybe Barry is getting a few mil for his campaign fund under the table from the Saudis in exchange for this concession/appeasement.

Or maybe Barack Hussein is hoping the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas, and the PLO extend him honorary memberships.

rcpjr on September 4, 2012 at 6:14 PM

If they didn’t want anyone to notice the changes, why make them?

Wow, I’m watching Durbin on Special Report and their strategy is obvious. He is arguing and very very defensive. And I find him offensive.

Cindy Munford on September 4, 2012 at 6:10 PM

Agree. Durbin was angry and rude. Interesting that he immediately assumed conclusions that Brett had not drawn, no? Never actually answered the question on why, either.

That depends on how far back you want to go. :)

Well, for the Left, that would be 1948. After all, there were no Jews in the area before then.

Ya, know, according to the secret plan back then, the Jews who were directed there by European governments and who encouraged them to go, weren’t supposed to succeed. Screwed up everything when they did.

Israeli security officials on Saturday tried to downplay the Pentagon’s decision to significantly scale back its participation in a joint military exercise with Israel next month, but some government officials said the decision came as a response to the growing tensions between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office and the Obama administration.

“This is the Obama administration’s response to the dinner party Netanyahu held in (Mitt) Romney’s honor,” a senior member of the political-security cabinet told Ynet, while another official said the Pentagon’s decision “isn’t boosting deterrence and is not making the Iranians sweat.

separately, Israeli Ambassador ‘categorically’ denies DWS (Debbie Weaselwords Shultz) claim he said GOP was ‘dangerous for Israel’

That depends on how far back you want to go. :)

It boggles the mind how the left can be so indifferent to the survival of Israel. Is it that they beleive that with the destruction of Israel the middle east will be more stable?

What matters more to many in the left, is that they’ve been indoctrinated to believe the Jews swarmed in, kicked out the native Palestinians who had been living peacefully in the area for centuries, stole their land to make a modern paradise for the Jews to exclusively enjoy.

The Jews must give back that stolen land to its rightful owners, no?

Hmmm: New Democratic platform drops some pro-Israel language

THE PLATFORM “DROPS” JERUSALEM AS ISRAEL’S CAPITAL.

Since when does the United States get to decide which cities will be the capitals of other people’s countries?

“Pro-Israel,” my arse.

It boggles the mind how the left can be so indifferent to the survival of Israel. Is it that they beleive that with the destruction of Israel the middle east will be more stable?

HoustonRight on September 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

That’s what David Petraeus believes.

The platform also excises all references to God. The American Democrat party is now officially Godless.

rrpjr on September 4, 2012 at 4:34 PM

They have plenty Allah though.