Skip to content

Orrin Hatch to introduce a resolution in the Senate opposing Barack Obama’s new Israeli policy

May 22, 2011

  Israel is America’s one and only true, reliable ally in the Middle East. Sure we have other so-called allies in that part of the country, but they are begrudgingly tenuous allies of necessity whereas Israel has been our one true friend in the region. As everyone knows by now, during his “Muslim outreach” speech last week Barack Obama reversed America’s long standing position and threw Israel under the bus (to use Mitt Romney’s analysis of the speech) by demanding that she return her borders to the pre 1967 lines, thus giving her enemies red meat in the struggle for Israel’s survival–and further straining the relationship between the United States and Israel.

  Barack Obama’s proposal would take from Israel some of her holiest sites as well as the Golan Heights–her only defensible position against Syria, and land that she won in battle after being attacked by Syria from that very spot. Barack Obama’s decision either shows a lack of understanding of Israel’s history, a certain naivety and lack of experience, or worse, a certain hostility towards Israel that hasn’t been seen in a United States president since the 1970’s.

  I happen to think that it is the latter; all the signs were there during the election that Barack Obama wasn’t going to be Israel’s friend and so this move comes as no surprise to me whatsoever. Barack Obama is an appeaser what else can this proposal be called but appeasement?

 I find it interesting that shortly after killing Osama bin Laden, Barack Obama went on national television and promised billions of dollars in aid to Middle Eastern countries while at the same time telling Israel it was time for her to give up what is rightfully her’s. Barack Obama has traveled the world apologizing for America and this seems like another round, it certainly seems as if this pledge of billions of dollars is apology money for making a decision which he did not want to make–killing Osama bin Laden–coupled with the territorial demands from Israel this is his way of trying to make up for the killing with those that supported the al Qaeda leader.

  Israel is threatened from all sides–just last week she was attacked from three sides–and lives under the threat that she could be attacked at any time and Barack Obama is of the belief that if only she were to give the other countries her holiest of sites that these other countries would suddenly declare that Israel does have a right to exist after all?

  Orrin Hatch said it best when he stated, “President Obama is rewarding those who threaten Israel’s very right to exist, this is not only ridiculous, but dangerous,” and he has promised to introduce a resolution in the Senate next week opposing Barack Obama’s new Israeli policy.

  While this resolution would be non-binding and would have no effect on Barack Obama’s policy it will still serve two objectives if it passes. First, it will show Israel that the government of the United States still supports her and does not agree with the president on this issue. This would give Israel justification to continue to defend herself without ceding any land to her enemies and secondly; this will get everyone in the Senate on the record as to whether they are for or against our one true ally in the Middle East.

  Here is some more of what Senator Hatch had to say on Barack Obama’s new policy:

Israel is the United States’ strongest friend and ally,” Hatch said in the statement. “By calling for a return to the pre-1967 borders, President Obama has directly undermined her.

“Now, more than ever, the security interests of the United States and Israel are linked,” Hatch said. “Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons is a clear and present danger to both of our nations.”

“We cannot distance ourselves from our Israeli friends.”

    He is absolutely right, the world is a more dangerous place today than it was when Barack Obama took office and now is not the time to stoke the fires between Israel and her enemies for our national security is also on the line here. His speech emboldened not only Israel’s enemies but our enemies as well for we are allies against a common enemy and I have to believe that Barack Obama–or somebody within the regime–knows this so there has to be an ulterior motive.

  Using the template which the left has used over the last two years–you are either pro-Obama or you are a racist–it will be great to get on record who in the government is pro-Israel and who is an anti-Semite, we already know where Barack Obama stands.

8 Comments leave one →
  1. Conservatives on Fire's avatar
    May 22, 2011 11:30 am

    Good for Orin Hatch! Call me a cynic, Steve, but I think Obama wants a war to breakout in the Middle East prior to the 2012 elections. I believe he thinks this war is just what he needs to get himself reelected.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      May 22, 2011 8:47 pm

      You may be right, but I don’t see how the man who won the Nobel Peace Prize can benefit from expanding the war. I think he wants a war in the Middle East becuase he feels as if Israel doesn’t have the right to exist. Now that is cynical!

      Like

  2. The Georgia Yankee's avatar
    The Georgia Yankee permalink
    May 22, 2011 12:15 pm

    “Demanding?” Here’s the relevant paragraph:

    “So while the core issues of the conflict must be negotiated, the basis of those negotiations is clear: a viable Palestine, and a secure Israel. The United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian borders with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves, and reach their potential, in a sovereign and contiguous state.”

    If the President has said “must” I’d agree that he was making a demand

    This approach – the 1967 borders after mutually agreed-upon swaps – is hardly new; I understand Secretary Clinton used almost the exact same language in a speech a few months ago, and it’s recognized by experts as a reasonable approach – as long as those swaps aren’t left out.

    Unfortunately, this whole controversy is terribly complex, and it’s nuanced in this country by those who seek religious prophesy in the unfolding events of the region.

    Take good care and may God bless us all!

    TGY

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      May 22, 2011 8:52 pm

      You got me on a technicality TGY, demanding was the wrong word to use. Sometimes when I get involved in a rant I use the wrong words to describe what I am trying to say, But I believe that to ask Israel to give up her holy lands, and her one true defensive position against Syria to be a non-starter. Why is it that we have to ask Israel–who is the non-agresser to give in to those that are trying to cause all the problems? That is a rhetorical question, we all know why and you are right that this is a complex problem but Barack Obama has reversed the official policy of the United States and it seems to me that we should be supporting our only ally in the Middle East at this time.

      Like

  3. Harrison's avatar
    May 22, 2011 4:16 pm

    Good job for Hatch but I think Obama has sunk himself for 2012. Hopefully Jews will withdraw support for him and if all hell does break out in the ME, we can point to who started it.

    Like

    • Steve Dennis's avatar
      May 22, 2011 8:54 pm

      I am not sure that this issue will sink Obama because I feel there are many people in this country who blame Israel for all of the problems over there, but I can’t see hos any Jewish person living in the United States could possibly vote for him again.

      Like

  4. rjjrdq's avatar
    May 22, 2011 11:29 pm

    remember Obama said “a contiguous” Palestinian state. That would surround Israel with a country that as of this very day does not recognize their right to exist.

    Like

Leave a reply to Steve Dennis Cancel reply