Barack Obama met with a group of Pennsylvania Jewish leaders today. According to reports, he said “We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.” He refused to condemn Jimmy Carter’s Hamas outreach, but said he had a “fundamental disagreement” with Carter. (No word on whether he was asked about visiting graves of terrorists.)
The report concludes: “Obama also said at the meeting that he’s willing to make diplomatic overtures to Iran” even though it had “funded Hamas and other militant groups.” What about applying the standards he applies to Hamas? Nope. And no explanation was given as to why Iran, which is indisputably helping to kill Americans in Iraq, gets better treatment than Hamas. This whirlwind of inconsistency is what we have to look forward to in an Obama administration.
Another report adds this curious response:
Would he continue to veto anti-Israeli resolutions at the UN? He said he would and that he would be “uniquely positioned” to do so due to his background. “That kind of blunt talk is something I can deliver with more credibility than some other presidents might.”
Does he mean to suggest that because he is African-American, Israel’s enemies will accept a veto more readily? It’s hard to imagine what “background” he has that gives him superior credibility in dealing with the Arab-Israeli conflict. This comment is frankly baffling. In a separate interview, Obama made clear the real reasons why he is having a difficult time allaying the concerns of Jewish voters:
“Let’s be clear, there has been a really systematic effort to suggest that I’m not sufficiently pro-Israel,” he said. “The fact that my middle name is Hussein, I’m sure, does not help in that regard . . . Again some of this dates back to the ’60s between the African-American and the Jewish community as a consequence of [Louis] Farrakhan. There was flap about some of Jesse Jackson’s statements during his presidential race, so I inherit all this baggage.”
But not to worry. He says “no one’s been a more stalwart ally of Israel.” Never mind his choice of advisors, his past embrace of Palestinian activists, or his association with the hate-mongering Reverend Wright. It’s the fault of of those pesky Jews, who are (for some incomprehensible, asinine reason) spooked by the rhetoric of his advisers and close associates. Voters can be so dim.
