↓
 
Home » Obama knows exactly what he’s doing

Obama knows exactly what he’s doing

The New Neo Posted on by

[Hat tip: commenter “Mike Plaiss.”]

Obama: knave, not fool. Here’s an excellent opinion piece in the WSJ by Elie Wiesel’s son Elisha. An excerpt:

Mr. Obama said of the Jewish people that after millennia of persecution, “they took land off people, and they were excessive. And those people understandably said, ‘This is injustice and I want my land back.’ ” …

Consider the word “excessive.” Was it excessive for Jews to buy land, at fair or often inflated prices, from absentee landlords in Beirut and Damascus who were glad to sell malarial swamps? Was it excessive for the Jews of Hebron, a community that had prayed there for centuries, to be slaughtered by rioters in 1929, nearly 20 years before there was a Jewish state, an occupation or a West Bank settlement to blame? Was it excessive for Jews to accept the United Nations’ 1947 partition plan while facing an impending invasion by five armies in 1948? To offer peace at Camp David in 2000, and again in 2008? To pull every soldier and settler out of Gaza in 2005?

Is it excessive to want to live in peace?

And what does “understandably” demanding one’s land back look like? Understanding Palestinian grievances isn’t the same as excusing Hamas, and Mr. Obama knows the difference. But words have consequences. The partition of India in 1947 uprooted more than 10 million people, Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs alike. No American president would tell a crowd that the grandchildren of those who were displaced “understandably” want those homes back, because everyone knows where that leads. We saw where it leads on Oct. 7, 2023. Hamas’s leaders have since vowed to do it again and again until Israel is gone. There can and should be no understanding of those ambitions.

The deeper problem is the story itself. In Mr. Obama’s telling, Jews were oppressed in Europe and then arrived somewhere else and took too much. Jewish history in the land disappears. My father drew a line when he wrote in the New York Times in 2001: “To compromise on territory might seem, under certain conditions, imperative. . . . But to compromise on history is impossible.” That is the line Mr. Obama crossed in Belfast.

The timing of his remarks matters. This week he will rally in Detroit for Abdul El-Sayed, Michigan’s Democratic U.S. Senate nominee, who has accused Israel of “genocide” and “apartheid,” called it “bloodthirsty” and a “rogue state,” and, when asked three times on CNN whether Israel has a right to exist, refused to say yes.

Wiesel goes on to add that his father respected Obama but differed with him on Iran, and attended Netanyahu’s speech to Congress taking a stand against Obama’s Iran Deal. After that, Obama never spoke to him again. This surprises me not at all. He used Wiesel when he was pretending to be friendlier to Israel than he ever was, and dropped him when it no longer served him.

That’s not unusual for politicians. But I wrote long ago (although I don’t know how to find the post; this one written during his first campaign comes closest but isn’t quite it) that Obama was unusual at the time in that he pretended to be far more moderate than he was. I say “was unusual at the time” because now it’s the standard among Democrats. As with so many other things, Obama paved the way.

Yes, many politicians hide things – sexual promiscuity, for example, or their academic records. And sometimes they change their minds on something or even several things. But I can’t offhand think of another president who ran for office in the first place on a lie about who he was and what he intended. Obama did exactly that.

When arguing with people on the topic of Israel, I’ve often brought up India and Pakistan. They all have looked at me blankly; they either have no idea what I’m talking about and/or they don’t care because to them analogies are dangerous because they threaten their entrenched views about Israel. Can’t have that.

Wiesel ends his piece this way:

I hope Mr. Obama reconsiders his words and takes them back. It would be an act worthy of his friendship with my father.

That’s where he shows that he doesn’t quite understand what Obama is about.

Comments

Obama knows exactly what he’s doing — 30 Comments

  1. When arguing with people on the topic of Israel, I’ve often brought up India and Pakistan.

    A family friend told me that his experience of the violence during the 1947 partition was the reason for deciding to emigrate from India—though he didn’t so so immediately. He fortunately acquired the academic credentials to readily find a position outside of India. India’s loss, our gain.

  2. But I can’t offhand think of another president who ran for office in the first place on a lie about who he was and what he intended.
    Didn’t Jimmy Carter do this?

  3. PM:

    In what way? I was an adult during the Carter administration, and although in retrospect I think he was a bad president, I don’t think he was especially deceptive about what he intended to do as president.

  4. “I hope Mr. Obama reconsiders his words and takes them back. It would be an act worthy of his friendship with my father.”

    With all due respect Ms. Wiesel is utterly clueless. I am aware of exactly zero evidence that Obama has ever had a “friend”. To him, other people are strictly objects to be manipulated for his own ends, number one of which is to justify his psychopathic narcissism.

  5. Part of the Muslims pulling for end of Israel.
    He won’t take any words back.

    My recollection is Carter wasn’t on Israel side.

  6. I have also used the India-Pakistan partition in discussions with people about the establishment of Israel. In one case, it stopped the argument because my friend realized I was right. In others, people have no idea what I’m talking about.

    Obama, no longer running for re-election and realizing his influence is waning, no longer bothers to try to disguise his evil intentions.

  7. Skip: “My recollection is Carter wasn’t on Israel side.”

    My recollection is that Jimmy Carter was a fanatic incorrigible Jew-hating bigot. I saw him once being interviewed by Bill Moyers. After piously berating Jews for not being sympathetic to the Palestinians (this during the era of the Munich Olympic massacre and Achille Lauro hijacking) he started an unhinged rant about the “Chosen People”, his words and voice dripping with undisguised hatred and venom. An antisemitic scumbag just like Obama.

  8. I agree with everything you said, Neo. But Elisha is a he, not a she. Elisha Wiesel is the son of Elie Wiesel.

  11. I don’t know about Carter (I was a bit young) but definitely Bill Clinton became the model for Democrat Presidential candidates (and many others in or seeking office) lying through their teeth about their policy positions. “Safe, Legal and RARE” anyone?

    IMO this was a direct result of Mondale’s attempt to gotcha Ronald Reagan in his nomination acceptance speech (“Mr. Reagan will raise taxes, and so will I. He won’t tell you. I just did.”) and then losing 49 states. From that time forward it became an article of faith among Democrats their candidates would have to lie about what policies they would actually implement in order to get elected, and it’s not just expected now but actually encouraged.

  13. RELATED DEVELOPMENTS TODAY, from WashPost and analysis by DataRepublican (small r) at X.com.

    Covered in livestream by Robert Gouviea, uncertain time stamp of 20-25m?
    (Sen Slotkin is the second, next story.)

    The WashPost story title is an anodyne one about DoD groups helping states with vote security. But Robert has video from them showing Deep State in coverup trying to undermine Trump and MAGA as a threat to (their own) Democracy!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEw3Dgju_Y

    Seditious Fed employees? Sure seems like it!

    The video goes into Slotkin, covered yesterday by Neo, but is still alarmingly seditious and anti-Constitutional! Scary way to end weeks of election 2026. Sen. Ethics Committee ought to be first to act!

    “Slotkin ought to familiarise herself with the relevant ethics law before she violates it”, says one DC organizational analyst. Trump reacts, too, in this second segment.

  14. Remember there is ONE person standing between saving the country and those who’ve been striving mightily to destroy it.

    The Democrats and their fellow travelers in the government, the judiciary and the Media DO NOT WANT TO BLOW THIS CHANCE.

    KNOW THEY MUST NOT BLOW THIS CHANCE.

  15. “Obama knows exactly what he’s doing“

    As does—former CIA—Slotkin.

    Here’s Shipwreckedcrew with several caustic observations (plus comments):

    “STALINESQUE”—
    https://instapundit.com/830469/

    (Not a coincidence that she absolutely wreaks of John Brennan.)

  16. That’s “reeks” Barry. In more ways than one. Slotkin, Obama, the entire Dem party and deep state traitors alike.

  19. In Mr. Obama’s telling, Jews were oppressed in Europe and then arrived somewhere else and took too much. Jewish history in the land disappears.

    It also overlooks the fact that roughly half the Jews who came to Israel were fleeing from or were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

  21. Fundamental Transformation
    fun·da·men·tal
    noun
    (fundamentals)
    a central or primary rule or principle on which something is based:

    transformation
    : an act, process, or instance of transforming or being transformed
    : change in form, appearance, nature, or character.

    Obama told us his (and Valerie Jarretts’) agenda years ago. No doubt Bill Ayers had some input as well.

  22. It is my impression that Carter, in addition to his incompetence, was raised in a religious environment that emphasized that Christianity “replaced” Israel as “God’s Chosen People.” This is a tragic misunderstanding and faulty Biblical exegesis (eisegesis, more accurately) that has resulted in virulent Jew hatred for centuries. Martin Luther, for all his correct characterization of the abuses requiring corrective action took Aquinas’ error, which relied on the equally faulty but somewhat less harsh interpretation of Augustine and expanded it. One could think that European, especially German antipathy toward Jews had its roots in this error, and one would be correct. I maintain this as a Christian who holds Judaism in the same regard as the Jesus I try to emulate. As to the roots of Obama’s Jew hatred, there are clearly other reasons, because Obama neither was nor is a Christian.

  23. About Carter, for a successful politician, he had amazingly poor people skills one-on-one. Tip O’Neill once told one of his staff, ‘you guys came in like a bunch of pricks and you’re going out like a bunch of pricks’. Obama is stylistically different, has no serious religious perspective, and never had to prove himself in the Navy or in the business world. He is, however, rather like Carter in his deficiencies one-on-one.
    ==
    My wager is that Menachem Begin was not impressed with the various schemes Carter floated in re the West Bank and Gaza and was fairly plain about that. I’ll wager as well that Begin was adept at making Carter feel inadequate and Netanyahu doubly so in re Obama.
    ==
    Carter’s obnoxious book on the Near East appeared in 2006, six years after Yasser Arafat had blown up the Oslo process. Two years later, Ehud Olmert offered all of the West Bank and Gaza to Mohammed Abbas and was turned down. Purveyors of a ‘two state solution’ have a problem: the Arab bosses on the West Bank and Gaza want no such solution and most of the Arab rank-and-file agree with the. It’s either self-delusion or pretense which was guiding Carter. Neither is appealing.

  24. It is my impression that Carter, in addition to his incompetence,
    ==
    Carter was no more ‘incompetent’ than any other occupant of the White House. He made bad policy decisions in crucial areas and had trouble setting priorities and delegating authority. (Had he been more in tune with the cognoscenti in the Democratic Party, he’d have made worse policy decisions).

  26. “Understanding Palestinian grievances”
    I point out again that there has never been a country called Palestine. It’s an imaginary country like Wakanda, a country in Africa where everything works well.
    Mandatory Palestine was an area established by treaty after WW1 and administered by the British from 1920 to 1948.

  27. The 1982 book “The Claim of Dispossession: Jewish Land-Settlement and the Arabs, 1878-1948 by Aryeh L. (or Arieh L.) Avneri” persuaded me that the Jewish settlers paid for their land twice, first to the title holders and then more to the tenants who objected when their landlords sold out. It sounded much like the complaints against gentrifiers voiced by people who sold their homes when the prices became attractive.

  28. @ Cornhead “No other former President has been so politically active.”

    True, but Carter continued to meddle from his “humanitarian” perch, and he did do some good work there, which gives him the high ground over Obama (a low bar to begin with).

    https://millercenter.org/president/carter/life-after-the-presidency

    Teddy Roosevelt meddled to the point of losing the Republicans a presidency they should have won, but he “went private” afterwards, other than giving public support for WWI efforts.

    https://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/life-after-the-presidency

    I just discovered this resource, it looks very useful.

    Teddy was a progressive, just not as much as Wilson. In essence, the election was between two Democrats, with no conservatives in sight.

    https://millercenter.org/president/roosevelt/campaigns-and-elections

    Pressured by the progressive wing of the Republican Party to challenge Taft in 1912, Roosevelt weighed his options. Eventually he decided to throw “his hat into the ring” and run against his former protégé.

    The Republicans met in Chicago in June 1912, hopelessly split between the Roosevelt progressives and the supporters of President Taft. Roosevelt came to the convention having won a series of preferential primaries that put him ahead of the President in the race for party delegates. Taft, however, controlled the convention floor, and his backers managed to exclude most of the Roosevelt delegates by not recognizing their credentials. These tactics enraged TR, who then refused to allow himself to be nominated, paving the way for Taft to win on the first ballot.

    Roosevelt and his supporters abandoned the G.O.P. and reconvened in Chicago two weeks later to form the Progressive Party. They then nominated TR as their presidential candidate with Governor Hiram Johnson of California as his running mate. Roosevelt electrified the convention with a dramatic speech in which he announced that “we stand at Armageddon, and we battle for the Lord.” Declaring that he felt “as strong as a Bull Moose,” Roosevelt gave the new party its popular name—the Bull Moose Party—and described its party platform as “New Nationalism.” Its tenets included political justice and economic opportunity, and it sought a minimum wage for women; an eight-hour workday; a social security system; a national health service; a federal securities commission; and direct election of U.S. senators. The platform also supported the initiative, referendum, and recall as means for the people to exert more direct control over government. TR worried about the power of the minority—often politicians—over the majority and thought these changes would make government more accountable to the people.

    The Democrats nominated the reform governor of New Jersey, Woodrow Wilson, for President and Thomas R. Marshall, the governor of Indiana, as vice president. Wilson’s platform, known as “New Freedom,” called for limits on campaign contributions by corporations, tariff reductions, new and stronger antitrust laws, banking and currency reform, a federal income tax, direct election of senators, and a single-term presidency. Although Roosevelt and Wilson were both progressives, they differed over the means and extent to which government should intervene or regulate the states and the economy.

    Differences between New Nationalism and New Freedom over trusts and the tariff became a central issue of the campaign. Roosevelt believed the federal government should act as a “trustee” for the American people, controlling and supervising the economy in the public interest. Wilson had greater reservations about a large federal government and sought a return to a more decentralized republic. He argued that if big business were deprived of artificial advantages, such as the protective tariff and monopolies, the natural forces of competition would assure everyone an equal chance at success—thus minimizing the role of government. Whereas Roosevelt differentiated between “good” and “bad” trusts, Wilson suggested that all monopolies were harmful to the nation. Roosevelt’s colorful personality helped him overcome the disadvantage of running as a third-party candidate, and he and Wilson contended fiercely for the support of voters interested in reform. Near the end of the campaign, TR dramatized his vitality by insisting on finishing a campaign speech even with an assailant’s bullet lodged in his chest. Fortunately, the bullet had been slowed down by the pages of a thick speech he had in his coat pocket, but Roosevelt’s courageous—perhaps foolhardy—act reminded Americans of what they loved about him.

    Wilson captured 41.9 percent of the vote to Roosevelt’s 27.4 percent and Taft’s 23.1 percent. Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs won 6 percent of the vote. Despite the divided popular vote, Wilson compiled 435 electoral votes compared to Roosevelt’s 88 and Taft’s 8. Roosevelt won in six states—California, Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, and Washington. Despite its loss, the strong showing of the Progressive Party signaled the emergence of a significant force in U.S. political history. It also reflected a rising progressive spirit in the United States. Together with Wilson and Debs, Roosevelt had challenged the conservative wing of the Republican Party and left it discredited. In addition, although TR lost the election, much of his New Nationalism program was enacted during Wilson’s presidency.

  29. @ Christopher B > ” From that time forward it became an article of faith among Democrats their candidates would have to lie about what policies they would actually implement in order to get elected, and it’s not just expected now but actually encouraged.”

    This may be why the “normal” Democrat politicians are looking so askance at the Democrat Socialists running under their banner: the DSA isn’t being circumspect at all.

  30. On the subject of lying Democrats, hypocrisy is a major subgenre of that political sport.

    https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2026/10/a-nonsensical-indictment.php

    European governments are dismayed by President Trump’s waiver of the anti-Russian sanctions in the Lindsey Graham Act, as well as our buying diesel fuel from Russia.
    …
    Try to stay with me here, as Ross Perot used to say. Russian diesel fuel will arrive in the U.S. “in 15 to 20 days, once contracts are signed.” Which hasn’t happened yet. Midterm voting is under way now, and will conclude on November 3, 16 days from today. So the Russian diesel deal will have zero impact on prices at the pump prior to the conclusion of midterm voting.

    Is it too hard to imagine that President Trump sees lower petroleum prices, including diesel prices, as being good for our economy and for the American people, and therefore is trying to bring them down?

    Europeans are also irate over President Trump’s exercising his statutory authority to waive the anti-Russian sanctions in the Lindsey Graham Act, passed earlier this year. What he waived, was increased tariffs on goods from countries that buy Russian oil. Put aside the fact that Trump’s critics generally claim that tariffs are the devil’s handiwork. Has the U.K., for example, imposed tariffs on goods from countries that buy Russian oil? No, it hasn’t. I don’t know that any country has. So Trump’s critics are complaining that he didn’t do something that they didn’t do, either.

    Trump’s European critics say that Trump has “betrayed Ukraine in the middle of a war, fighting for its very existence,” as in the linked article. But in fact, the U.S. has given Ukraine more military aid than any other country. In the case of the diesel agreement and his waiver of Graham Act sanctions, has President Trump prioritized the interests of American consumers over those of Ukraine? Yes. But, as I said on News 24 television last night, Trump ran on a platform of America First, not Ukraine First.

    Moreover, Democrats are basing their appeal in the midterms on an alleged determination to reduce the cost of living for Americans, even though, in fact, everything they do raises, rather than lowering, the cost of living. In that context, is it somehow out of bounds for the President to take actions that actually will reduce our cost of living?

    I don’t think so.

    I haven’t seen any public speculations about an aspect that I think could have some bearing, which is that Trump has sent envoys to Russia to negotiate the release of some Americans imprisoned there (do we dare call them hostages?), and maybe this is part of the deal.

    Relevant search term: News about Trump Envoys To Russia Release Americans

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Web Analytics
↑