******************** THIS BLOG HAS MOVED TO WWW.LEGALINSURRECTION.COM ********************

This blog is moving to www.legalinsurrection.com. If you have not been automatically redirected please click on the link.

NEW COMMENTS will NOT be put through and will NOT be transferred to the new website.

Friday, May 27, 2011

Question of the Day - Antipathy or Blundering?

Charles Krauthammer (h/t @fuzislippers) has a column today about Obama's Middle East policy, and ends with this question:
The only remaining question is whether this perverse and ultimately self-defeating policy is born of genuine antipathy toward Israel or of the arrogance of a blundering amateur who refuses to see that he is undermining not just peace but the very possibility of negotiations.
Is it really all or nothing, or some combination of lack of the emotional connection a majority of Americans feel towards Israel (but not "antipathy") combined with the arrogance of someone who thinks he can cause the seas to stop rising? 

That third combination has my vote.

Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
Bookmark and Share


  1. I don't give them credit for being smart. A smart con man makes you feel good while robbing you or otherwise doing you wrong.

    What these thugs have been doing to America feels more like rape and assault.

    1- Obama does favor the palestinian terrorists over Isreal (and America for that matter)
    2- His administration is full of moronic trolls who get their way by thuggery and extortion, not finesse and diplomacy. From giving ipods and DVDs to beating down some local police departments for arresting what appeared to be a burglar and calling them stupid--- exactly when has this jack ass or his minions ever been diplomatic? I'm waiting for him to give the Pope an XBox with a used copy of grand theft auto and demand he change the church's stand on abortion. It's like we elected a high school freshman to the highest office in the land.

  2. " Hans Blix had five months to find weapons. He found nothing. We’ve had five weeks. Come back to me in five months. If we haven’t found any, we will have a credibility problem."

    -- Charles Krauthammer, Apr. 2003

  3. Obama hates Israel and Jews. You have a man with a Muslim father, himself ethnically a Muslim, who has sought to connect with his father to the extent that Britain is anathema to him. How many times did Obama meet his father? His grandfather? Yet he absorbed animus against England because of his grandfather. To be approved of his father, Obama must reflect Islamic attitudes and positions towards things, even though he calls himself, nominally, a Christian. What has resulted from this?
    1. As a child, he went to mosque; in his view the Islamic prayer to call at sunset is the most beautiful sound in the world.
    2. When advised to stay away from Jeremiah Wright by Christian pastors in Chicago, Obama gravitated towards the former Muslim who preached a liberation theology doctrine rather than Christ and Him crucified.
    3. Obama says he took nourishment from Wright's sermons, and he took tapes of them to nourish him at law school.
    4. Obama's friends have been anti-American and radicals of every stripe: Jewish and Muslim. These eschewed Israel's legitimate claim to the land and offered no chance of a viable alternative view to false Arab claims to the land.
    5. Obama has consistently shown preference to Muslims over and above the needs of America.
    6. Obama's position on Israel is that of the terrorists. He is America's version of Yasser Arafat; the only difference between Obama and Arafat is that Obama has not openly expressed a desire for the extermination of the Jews. He knows that will happen with his division of Israel and handing off Jerusalem and other parts to the Arabs.

    Therefore, I must conclude that Obama's policy towards Israel is born of genuine antipathy to that nation and to Jews. It is likely, in his view, handing Israel to the Arabs is the ultimate gift to his Muslim father whose love and approval he has long sought.

  4. You should read this essay by Stanley Kurtz, in the National Review ("Pro-Palestionian-In-Chief" 5/26/11). It will answer that question rather emphatically:


  5. My initial response was similar to yours, that it wasn't an "either/or" but a both. I think, too, that he feels a great deal of pressure to "earn" his Nobel Peace Prize, to accomplish anything at all beyond a health care reform law that everyone hates (it's not commie enough for lefties and is too much government control/intrusion for conservatives) and the killing of bin Laden (which, let's face it, ANYONE--except that lunatic Ron Paul--would have ordered sitting in that position with that intel).

    "Earning" that Nobel happens to coincide with his antipathy toward Israel (it is absolutely not a lack of emotional connection; he actively hates Israel, Jews, and Bibi, and he is actively sympathetic toward the "Palestinians" and Islam terror more generally-he's shown that time and again) and his arrogance. He honestly thought that his preempting Mr. Netanyahu's visit with the '67 borders declaration would strong-arm Israel (it's a common Chicago thug tactic, one he used repeatedly against Hillary Clinton and continues to use against the GOP, who are too stupid and disorganized to respond as appropriately as Bibi did).

    He believes his own press. That's good for us. Bad for him.

    (and thanks for the h/t!)

  6. I always find myself amused at exclamations of someone or another being "anti-American". When one makes an allegation, they should at least be able to provide a foundation of factual context for said allegation.

    "anti-Americanism" is intellectually shallow and argumentatively lazy. It's meaningless drivel except on a base, emotional level...and even then only applicable to like minded people.

    That said....why in the world should foreign policy be dictated by emotional connections?