What Obama Said, What the Mideast Heard

nytlogo153x23While President Obama’s speech was addressed to the Arab world, it had been nervously anticipated in Israel, as well. In its aftermath, some Israelis are quibbling with word choices or wondering whether he is naïve in believing that Hamas might renounce terror or that Iranians can be entrusted with civilian nuclear capacity. Others are assailing his comments about settlements.

obamacairoBut the real news is that contrary to what many expected, or feared, President Obama assumed positions virtually identical to those of Israel’s political center — namely, that the Palestinians must renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist, while Israel must cease settlement building and permit a Palestinian state to arise. Now, Benjamin Netanyahu’s problem is that it’s difficult to distinguish between President Obama and Tzipi Livni. And in Israel’s recent elections, Livni and her Kadima party won more votes than anyone else.

But the major “problem” that the speech poses for Israel’s leaders is that Israelis are finally going to have to make painful decisions about our future. No longer will Israel’s fractious politics provide a curtain behind which to hide. Will we abide a Palestinian state, or are we committed to the present stalemate as a matter of principle? Are we committed to keeping the West Bank (for reasons of security, history or theology), or are we open to withdrawing if a genuine peace accord is possible? If all Jews will have to depart the West Bank, what about Arabs in Israel? For years, we’ve fudged on these painful questions; with President Obama, that may no longer be possible.

Once Israelis grow accustomed to the new tenor emanating from Washington, we may see today’s speech in a different light. Barack Obama may or may not bring peace to the Middle East, but he may well force clarity, and perhaps disciplined policy, on an Israeli society that has long desperately needed it.

About Daniel Gordis

Dr. Daniel Gordis is Senior Vice President and the Koret Distinguished Fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem. The author of numerous books on Jewish thought and currents in Israel, and a recent winner of the National Jewish Book Award, Dr. Gordis was the founding dean of the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies at the University of Judaism.

23 Comments on "What Obama Said, What the Mideast Heard"

  • What Obama said in Cairo is identical to the platform of the Israeli left and center: the Israeli government must divorce itself from the ideology of the settlement enterprise in exchange for the abandonment of violence on the part of the Palestinians and the pursuit of a two-state solution. Like arrogant rebellious teenagers, even though we know that Obama’s words are correct and we agree with him, we still resent them in principle simply because they are being dictated to us by outside authority. I believe that Israelis who resent Obama’s intervening in our affairs should keep in mind that without an aggressive push from outside authority, |Netanyahu’s government is not going to have the impetus to give up settlements, and without an outside mediator, the Palestinians are not going to lay aside the ideology of Hamas.
    We may not like having things handed down from above, but in reality, that is the only way we are going to move out of the present state of inertia.

  • Martha Lev-Zion says

    You wrote: “or are we open to withdrawing if a genuine peace accord is possible?”

    That is one heck of a big IF! I still find it an irresolvable question – how do we make peace with a people whose aim is to use that peace to take slice after slice of Israel until they have eliminated the Jewish state? If I thought for a second that there was a chance of success for a two state solution, I would already have taken to the streets to push for it.

    But, alas, I think we saw that this was not possible after Ehud Barak’s [too] generous offer was greeted by Arafat and his people by a prolonged intifada. They just couldn’t say yes to the Jewish state, even though they were offered nearly everything they SAID they wanted! Clearly their mouths and their hearts do not work together!

  • Mitchell Schoen says


    Obama’s pretense of naivete is merely that. He is too clever by far to believe that we could say to each other in public that which we say in private.

    After all, we’d have to confront the uncomfortable fact that, but for a few extremists on each side, we’d probably agree on the broad details. And then where would we be? There’s not much room for posturing under those circumstances. We’d probably have to get down to the business of ironing out those pesky details, and THAT might really kill the day.

    Furthermore, our leaders would have to find the courage to confront their own crazies. For leaders on both sides, that means the potential assassins would come from their own people. The lessons today’s leaders have learned from Anwar Sadat and Yitzchak Rabin have less to do with the mechanics of a security detail, and much more to do with not being too far out front in promoting peace when the population at large is enjoying the ennui of a stalemate.

    The real obstacle to peace is the lack of momentum, and the absence of patrons. Consequently, we have become enmeshed in the present, no matter how dysfunctional it it. But it’s easy to be cynical, and Obama calls upon us to do that which isn’t easy. For that alone, he is to be commended.


  • Arthur Opolion says

    I was here at the very beginning, and all that united the Arab world was the destruction of the Jewish State. Partition
    did not interest them then or now. We are a tiny Western bastion that sticks in their throats.
    When will we internalize that all problems do not have acceptable solutions. It is of
    value that we not attempt to turn our foes
    into make beleive friends for that is the
    real threat to our very existence. To remember Amalek is essential to our very lives in this part of the world. There is no
    hate greater than a contest over the same
    piece of real estate backed by a supportive Islamic theology. 61 years later and over 22
    thousand Israelis killed and we are still at
    ground zero. We are supposed to absorb millions of Arab so-called refugees, and officiate at our own dismemberment. Justice for all obviously does not include the Jews.

  • Eric Gurvis says


    I just finished reading your new book “Saving Israel” a few days ago. I have to say that I found it one of the most sobering and depressing books I have read in a long time. Amidst that dark impression were several threads which have remained with me in the days since I closed the book. (By the way, while reading it, I was inclined to send to President Obama. Perhaps I am now reminded to follow through on that thought.)

    I only heard the President’s speech hours after it was given. As evidenced by the news reports, and the “forum” in this morning’s New York Times where I found your response, each audience will hear, and is hearing, what it was likely to be predisposed to hearing. Some have expressed surprise. Others disappointment. The disparate responses do not surprise me. The President’s speech held held alot. There’s plenty of room for different folks to hear different messages in it.

    On the whole I found President Obama’s speech a thoughtful and thorough assessment of where we are and we, at least in President Obama’s eyes, we must go. In many respects I found it courageous, and I can only hope he means to act on bringing peace to the beleagured Middle East, and to our world at large.

    With much of his analysis I agree. With some of his words, I found discomfort. I worry, as I believe most Israelis do, about his cautious optimism about turning Iran towards the good. I would love him to be right. But if he is wrong, the risks and the realities are terrifying and devastating. I wonder whether he really gets that. I am uncomfortble with his seeming equation of the horrific atrocities committed by Hamas and others opposed to Israel’s presence in their midst with the plight of the Palestinians. It is not that I dismiss the desparate existential reality in which most Palestinians live. But responsibility for that reality cannot by laid solely at Israel’s feet.

    In chapter four of your book, your write that Israel is still fighting the first war — the War launched by her Arab neighbors who believed — and many still do — that Israel and the Jewish community simply have no place on the land now known as Israel. More than any other part of your book, this chapter has haunted me. I believe you are right. Even one of your co-participants in today’s forum provides amplification of this when he writes that President Obama “adopted the international consensus by declaring settlement in the Palestinian territories ‘illegitimate.'” On the face of it, these words will not alarm most readers. Many will shake their heads in agreement. However, after reading your book, I read these words differently, and so do many in the Arab and Muslim world. Many see “Palestinian territories” as including all of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River; all the land from Lebanon in the north to Egypt and the Red Sea in the south. Some will find in President Obama’s words support for that vision. I believe he is deeply committed to Israel’s safety and security. But as you have so eloquently written in your book, and as the reactions to his speech amplify, Israel is, in so many quarters, still fighting the battle over her very right to exist.

    I do believe, as your write in today’s column in your assessment of the Israeli center, “that the Palestinians must renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist, while Israel must cease settlement building and permit a Palestinian state to arise.” I agree with you that Israelis (and the world) must hear in the President’s comments a clarion call to facing some painful realites. You write “that Israelis are finally going to have to make painful decisions about our future. No longer will Israel’s fractious politics provide a curtain behind which to hide. Will we abide a Palestinian state, or are we committed to the present stalemate as a matter of principle? Are we committed to keeping the West Bank (for reasons of security, history or theology), or are we open to withdrawing if a genuine peace accord is possible? If all Jews will have to depart the West Bank, what about Arabs in Israel? For years, we’ve fudged on these painful questions; with President Obama, that may no longer be possible.”

    I hope that all are prepared to hear the call, and answer the questions you raise in response to President Obama’s speech. Thank you for your challenging book. Maybe I needed to be depressed about the existential reality of a place I deeply care about and love. Thank you for today’s words. They soften my mood after your book. And I believe that your words in today’s NY Times lift up (as in the name of this week’s parasha — Naso) the essential questions that Israel, the Palestinians, Jews around the world, and the world itself must face with honesty.

    Eric Gurvis

  • Naomi Richman says

    I’ve been thinking about the “settlement” issue a lot lately. Consider this: there are Arab villages (settlements?) inside the Green Line. There are Israeli villages on the West Bank. Option #1 is to let the Arabs stay and make the Jews leave. Option #2 is – as you suggest – to have a swap in which the Arabs leave Israel and the Jews leave the West Bank. But consider Option #3: both the Jewish state AND the Arab state retain significant (10-20%) minorities of the other group. If there is true peace, that should not be a problem. Jews who want to live in their ancestral homeland of Judea and Samaria can do so, and they become citizens of Palestine. If this seems absurd, then that only shows how far away we are from a true peace.

  • William Bilek, M.D. says

    Here we go again. This is such a complex problem, that only becomes more complex with time, and yet another offered solution.

    On the one side, we have Israel. Most Jews feel this state is now an integral part of their Jewish identity, and essential to the continued existence of the Jewish people, as we know it. Not all Jews agree. Most Jews feel that the earthly city of Jerusalem is tied to the very heart of Judaism. Some Jews relate more to the Celestial concept of Jerualem. For sixty years, and more, all Jews have heard the stated goal of the Arabs to “push the Jews into the sea”; the “plan of stages”; the insistence on the refugees’ “right of return”; the refusal to give up “one grain of sand of holy Muslim soil”. Most Israelis believe these words, and believe that the slightest weakening of their security will result in their extinction. Accordingly, the Israeli majority, right or wrong, has voted in the past to support its beliefs. The flames of internal conflict and catastrophe are fanned when the politician they voted for, again, rightly or wrongly, abandons his electoral platform, reneges on promises, (e.g.no recognition of the P.L.O.; no withdrawal from territories;)diminishing the tenets of democracy, and strikes out in an unpopular direction, seen as threatening and irreversible, without the support of the majority of the population. No Israeli politician has been able to be elected on a platform of compromise, because the Israeli electorate sees nothing on the other side to convince them to take the risk that the threat to their existence has dissipated.

    For the Arab and Muslim world, the problem is much more complex, and much more difficult to alleviate. For it is not a question of existence. Theirs is not threatened by Israel. It is not a question of a state for that group of Arabs that now chooses to identify itself as “Palestinian”. They know they could have that tomorrow. And they don’t need the 1967 lines, Jerusalem, the right of return, or a standing army to establish it. It is a problem of “humiliation”, and “loss of dignity”, mixed in with a religious ethos that, at its most basic, believes that Islam is the destiny of all people in the world, and it is the duty of Muslims to promote this ideal. Thus, allowing another national entity, that identifies itself through another religious belief, that has, so far, resisted all the forces that the nations of Islam have thrown against it, is still, totally unacceptable. Any Arab leader that would espouse accepting such “blasphemy” would be rejected (translate that as you wish.)

    How to change that? How to restore Arab dignity, and erase perceived humiliation? Sadat did that by his claimed “victory” in the 1973 War, which enabled him to come to Jerusalem and initiate the steps to Egyptian-Israeli peace. Unfortunately, he, and his successor, did not follow up on that by promoting true reconciliation and acceptance, and so the masses, egged on by the media, the elite, and the religious leaders, remain hostile. Ditto for the Jordanians. No single leader in the Arab world today has the stature to break this long-standing taboo.

    Enter President Obama. He can, using the power of American persuasion, bring a conglomerate of Arab leaders, (strength in numbers) to promote concrete steps that will demonstrate, without doubt or obfuscation, that the Jews have historic roots in the Holy Land, that Jews have historic and religious rights in Jerusalem, that a Jewish state will have to be accepted, if not loved, in the area. Given that, the Israeli government could, in lock step, or shortly thereafter, announce a freeze on further settlement expansion, to last as long as the process moves forward. And let time heal the wounds. Alternatively, Israel goes it alone, along the path it sees as safest for itself. But then we must steele ourselves for sharp reprisal measures from the Europeans, abandonment of the American diplomatic shield, and we must give serious consideration to voluntarily renouncing acceptance of further American economic assistance. Very difficult, but ultimately, doable.

  • Anonymous says

    Did you write this to get quoted a lot in the West? After your new book this sounds like you 10 years ago.
    You write:”And in Israel’s recent elections, Livni and her Kadima party won more votes than anyone else.” That’s intentionally misleading – the Right parties overwhelmingly won, the vote was just split among them. Your premise is wrong.
    As you seem to have forgotten since writing the book, Israeli society is still ready for peace, but intelligently has recognized no one on the other side is.

  • Slahm Emanuel says

    Get out of occupied Palestine now!!! If you dont, there will be Palestinian resistance. Capiche?

  • David Stolow says

    Rabbi Gordis – This one you have absolutely right. Everyone knows the basic peace deal – Arabs give up violence, stop promoting anti-Semitism and recognize Israel as the Jewish homeland. Israel gives up the settlements and recognizes a Palestinian state. What Obama has done is to speak the truth to both sides — something that almost never happens in the Middle East where words are a means of hiding what really goes on and everyone lies. Both sides need to make the decision between peace and war.

  • jojo says


    June 05, 2009, 4:00 a.m.

    Making Believe
    Obama’s speech was deep in fable, short on fact.

    By Andrew C. McCarthy

    The Islamic world has heard the much anticipated speech about the relationship between Islam and America from “Barack Hussein Obama” — emphasis added by the president himself, who until recently considered the use of his middle name a right-wing smear. The oration was called “A New Beginning.” “A Pretend Beginning” would have been a more accurate.

    Though President Obama has won plaudits from some surprising quarters — including from National Review — the speech was warmed-over leftist dogma sprinkled with a fictional accounting of Islam and its history. NR’s editors forgive this as the “obvious consideration” that a presidential address must “stress some truths more than others and soften the harsher ones.” This is a promiscuous conception of truth. What the president did was promote various fictions about Islam while airbrushing truths that are not merely harsh but are the facts behind the rampage that has victimized us for much of the last three decades. That rampage, moreover, was substantially discounted in a haze of moral equivalence.

    It would be bad enough to do this under any circumstances, but it is inexcusable to do it while paying only lip-service to one of the few truths the president did speak: namely, that any “partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t.”

    “What it isn’t” is a religion of peace with a legacy so overflowing with achievement in science, philosophy, and the arts that civilization, as President Obama claimed, owes a great “debt to Islam.” In fact, the ledger runs heavily in the other direction.

    Islam was spread by the sword — not by the allure of its still problematic message — and many of the cultural achievements within the Muslim world that the president glossed occurred despite Islam (particularly in the areas of literature, art, and music) or are more properly understood as the accomplishments (especially in science and architecture) of better-educated peoples whom Muslims conquered. The president rehearsed the claim that Islam single-handedly “carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment.” This is a myth. As Robert Spencer has ably recounted, it is not true that Muslims alone preserved the works of Aristotle, Galen, Plato, Hippocrates, and other pillars of Western enlightenment. More significantly, arrested development in the Islamic world owes to an anti-intellectualism that persists to this day in enclaves holding that no education beyond the study of the Koran is necessary.

    The president, moreover, insisted on pulling from the Muslim apologists’ playbook the expurgation of Islamic scripture in order to render it congenial to Western sensibilities. We were treated to the hidebound claim that terrorist violence is anti-Islamic because what Obama takes pains to call “the Holy Koran” teaches that “whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind.” This conveniently decoupled Sura 5:32 from the next verse (5:33), which, though unmentioned by Obama, is well known by Muslims to read: “The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His Messenger, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land, is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: That is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the hereafter.”

    Noting a bowdlerization even this egregious does not do justice to how misleading the president’s tactic was. Though Obama portrayed Islam as having a “proud tradition of tolerance,” it has a far more consequential legacy of intolerance. Islam strives for hegemony, seeking not to co-exist but to make all the world the realm of the Muslims (dar al-Islam) while regarding those parts not under its dominion as the realm of war (dar al-Harb). What Obama means by “an innocent” and what many Muslims take the term to mean are different.

    Sura 5:33 is far from aberrant, and the “Holy Koran,” quite apart from its several other commands to violence, dehumanizes Jews in several places as the children of monkeys and pigs. It admonishes that Muslims “take not the Jews and the Christians as friends and protectors” (5:51). The hadiths of the prophet are replete with tales of non-Muslims slaughtered, forced into slavery, and reduced to humiliating dhimmitude. Mohammed’s vision of the end of the world foresaw Jesus returning to abolish Christianity and impose Islam, while Jews are killed by Muslims (with the help of trees and stones, which alert the faithful, “Muslim, there is a Jew behind me — come and kill him!” In fact, even President Obama’s cordial greeting of “assalaamu alaykum” to his Egyptian audience conveys (no doubt unintentionally) something of basic Islamic intolerance. Under sharia (Islamic law), as Spencer explains, “a Muslim may only extend this greeting — Peace be upon you — to a fellow Muslim. To a non-Muslim he is to say, ‘Peace be upon those who are rightly guided,’ i.e., Peace be upon the Muslims.”

    To be sure, no sensible person would suggest that a U.S. president rehash these and other unpleasant facts in order to provoke Muslims gratuitously. But it was Obama’s idea to give this speech — it’s not as if he were put, through no fault of his own, to the awkward choice of telling a few little white lies or insulting his hosts. More to the point, the president takes the risible position (as did his predecessor) that “Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism — it is an important part of promoting peace.” Islam, however, is palpably a huge part of the problem in combating violent extremism, which is serially committed by Muslims under the influence of notable religious scholars (including more than a few educated at al-Azhar University, the “beacon of Islamic learning” that co-hosted the president’s speech) who invoke some of the many scriptures the president elected not to mention.

    It is true enough that Islam must be part of the solution to the promotion of peace, but for two reasons alone. First, while it is possible to ignore Islamic doctrine’s nexus to terrorism, the nexus cannot credibly be denied, and therefore the need to deal with it is unavoidable. Second, and related, there can be no peace unless Islam reforms — unless it purges its savage elements and compellingly condemns the violence committed in its name. This can’t be done as Obama and others would like to do it: by telling Muslims everything is fine, that their religion is wonderful as is, while making believe the bad scriptures don’t exist and radicals are merely a tiny fringe of crazy people. That is a strategy designed by liberals to convince other liberals who don’t need convincing, so desperate are they to believe all is well. It does nothing to discredit the violent fundamentalists in the eyes of other Muslims; in fact, it enhances their credibility because it ignores their doctrinal justifications of terror rather than offering a credible counter-construction.

    Worse, assuming there is no credible counter-construction (which may very well be the case), there is an enormous amount of reform to be done — work that can only be done by Muslims. We cannot rouse them to the task by telling them we think Islam, as it currently exists, is promoting peace.

    All this would require a commitment to come to grips with “what Islam is, not what it isn’t.” It’s too bad we don’t have that commitment.

    — National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at the National Review Institute and the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books, 2008).

  • Gary Berman says

    Your new book “Saving Israel” is a must read raising important points and asking the tough questions. Is there a Hebrew addition that I can get for my Israeli friends who do not like to read in English? If not I believe you are missing the most important audience for your book.
    Gary Berman

  • Michael says

    Let me see if I get this.
    If Israel will only acquiesce one more time we wont attack again? Is that it?
    We can all then live in PEACE?
    What I hear is Israel is supposed to stop expanding “settlements” in “occupied” territory and then supposed to withdraw Israelis from “occupied” territories. I also hear that nearly all of worldwide Islam believes that all of Israel is part of the Islamic world and therefore “occupied”. Logic concludes that it is not about “the West Bank” or “Juden Free” Gaza. It is about no Jews in all of Israel no matter what the borders might be.
    We have already gotten kicked out of Arab lands and European lands including Russia and North African lands including Ethiopia with very little outrage from anywhere in the world. We have been displaced and exterminated for millenia. We continue to be discrimnated against in virtually every country on the planet including the US. Now, the one tiny country where we are able to determine our own fate and pray in peace is no longer supposed to be under our control? As best as I can tell this outright, outloud Anti-Judaism is spreading far and wide. Even when we converted and assimilated they did not accept us. They continue to push back on any attempt on our part to exist and procreate as they always have. I hate to be realistic and use all of recorded history as a basis for coming to conclusions but, why should we acquiesce as we always have and end up getting rounded up and exterminated as we always have?
    By the way that is what our half brother Slahm is saying in his post.

  • Morris R.Levy DVM says

    Have we forgotten about the expulsion of the /Sephardic Jews from the various Arab countries in 1949? I saw these people in Haifa. They were deprived of their homes and possessions by those Arab governments, who felt that Israel’s War of Independence victory against the attacking Arab nations, felt the need to expel their Jewish citizens.Israel accepted their brethren with open arms despite the physical difficulties of providing sustenance,temporary homes and hope.Will the expelled Jews be compensated in any way through any peace efforts?What about the Palestinians in Refugee Camps?Will their Arab brethren provide for them instead of the U.N who continue to feed,house and cloth them?
    The education of Palestinian children to generate hatred of Jews should be addressed.I vision,only with a new generation of Palestinian children educated to learn to avoid hatred of Jews will there ever be true peace between Palestinians and Jews.Giving land for peace with the present Palestinians is hopeless.Leaving occupied zones in Gaza and Lebanon showed Israel’s weakness in the eyes of the Palestinians,resulting in their desire to bomb Israel.Let’s be realistic about a future with Hamas and the fate of those opposing their true goals of destruction of the Jewish State.

  • Vicky says

    There alraedy is a Palestinian state–Jordan!! Stop pushing Jews out of thier land and homes.

  • The question becomes: is everything allowed in the name of clarity?

    Just because one wants to be clear on things doesn’t mean the other needs to commit suicide…

    Clarity forces the black and white to show stronger and forces you choose one or the other.

    Maybe what we need is Gray that allows you to go in-and-out of color for the sake of survival.

    I’m clear on one thing only: keeping the state of Israel Strong, Safe, and Beautiful, with a massive foundation for growth.

  • barry blau says

    sad to see you talk about the zionist “narrative”.
    the “narrative” almost by definition says
    pretty much,you have your history and i have
    one as good as the other.
    also sad to republish times editorial.
    the times does enough damage to good without
    any help from you.
    finally,looking for good news in the obama
    speech is like walking through a field filled with land mines.
    it is lucky to discover a few square feet
    of safe ground but the area is littered
    with death.bb

  • T. says

    “The Israeli Center” is a code for left wingers like Gordis who want to disguise themselves as moderate.

    Nice try Mr. Gordis…

  • T. says


    And yes Livni is Left-Winger not “Centrist”.

  • barry blau says

    unfortunately gordis–who is a good guy–is
    hopelessly faked out by his instinctive left
    while gordis tries not to be yossi beilin,
    he ends up in the same place despite himself.

  • Judy says

    While many of the previous comments have an antagonistic, even rude, style – I can’t help but agree that Daniel’s comments on Obama’s speech are more in line with the pieces he wrote 5 years ago than with his more recent stuff. Personally – I find it much more appealing! We knew you’d come back around eventually. Hope it doesn’t get you thrown out of the Shalem Center, though – as that’s a very attractive platform from which to launch a political career – which it seems is in the cards….

  • “IF” a genuine peace can be concluded – what evidence or history do we have that would give even one ray of hope that the Arabs/Palestinians/Muslims can be counted on to agree to “peace – and for how long?
    Obama’s speech was littered with isotiral inaccuracies (to put the best light on it). FOr 19 years from 1948-1967 Jordan controlled the West bank and Egypt the Gaze Strip – it was they, Arab brethren, who forced the “Palestinians” into ‘refuge’ camps as a propaganda tool – NOT the Isrealis. For Obama to lump the past six decades of ‘refugee camps’ on the shoulders of the ISraelis is worse than a distortion of what actually happened. Unlike the Israelis and Jews the world over who absorbed assimilated and SUPPORTED their fellow coreligionists since partition, the ‘refugees’ have been living on the dole of the US, the UN particularly but not their oil reich Arab brothers.
    Obama is wrong – yet he will force Israeli to accede to his platform for what – so he can continue to make ‘nice’ to the terrorists and nuclear-pursuing mid east nations like Iran. I may yet regret my vote for this American president.

  • Martha says

    You say what, Joanne?

    “Obama’s speech was littered with isotiral inaccuracies…”

    I couldn’t find isotiral in the English-English dictionary.


Leave a Reply

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