Reader opinion about Israel and Trump
Of all the criticism about Trump, that which is most absurd is the charge that he is anti-Semitic. For starters, this charge is simply not true. Trumps hopes to move the American Embassy into Jerusalem, something that has been tried before, but without success. P. M. Netanyahu is on public record celebrating his hope to work with our new president, something the Prime Minister had hoped for with Hussein Obama, but without realization. In fact, Barack did everything he could, in a political sense, to undermine the Jewish State, including sending a committee of Americans along with five million dollars, to Israel, in a failed effort at defeating Netanyahu in his most recent re-election campaign.
Simply looking at Barack's record in the Middle East, confirms his anti-Israel bias and places him, Barack Obama, at the top of the list of anti-Semites, even above Jimmy Carter.
No, time will tell us in no uncertain terms that Donald Trump is "all in" for the nation state of Israel.
___________________
Related articles:
I dislike Trump but voted for him. The Israelis have no worst enemies than the Left, both in the US and Israel and am disappointed that they are not indicted for treason. They should be wiped out, otherwise Israel will perish.
ReplyDeleteMost of our family, including two California college students support Trump. We've had to caution both of them to curb their enthusiam on campus, though they've been very brave. It's horrible that the freedom to support him can risk their safety, but it is California.
ReplyDeleteNice column ... but Trump has insisted that he wants to remain "neutral" on Israel. I don't vote for people who cannot differentiate between a Hamas terrorist and an Israeli civilian.
ReplyDeleteYou take his sense of neutrality too far. In terms of negotiations, Trump intends to be fair minded. While he may believe in a two state solution to the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, he clearly intends to be both a political and military ally of the Israeli State.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSince he entered office nearly eight years ago, Obama’s foreign policy has always sought to kill two birds with one stone. On the one hand, his policies are geared toward fundamentally transforming the US’s global posture. On the other, they work to weaken if not entirely neutralize his congressional opponents at home.
Be the first to know - Join our Facebook page.
The second goal is no mean task. After all, the US Constitution empowers Congress with the foreign policy powers aimed at checking and balancing the president’s.
For instance, to ensure that no president could adopt foreign policies that harm US national interests or undercut the will of the people, the Constitution required that all treaties be approved by two-thirds of the Senate before they can take effect.
Were it not for Obama’s double tracked foreign policy, that constitutional provision should have blocked Obama’s radical and dangerous nuclear deal with Iran. Understanding that he lacked not merely the support of two-thirds of the Senate but of even a bare majority of senators for his deal, Obama decided to sideline the Senate.
To this end, Obama speciously claimed that the deal was not significant enough to be considered a treaty. The Iran deal of course is a more radical course change than the US’s approval of the UN Charter and the NATO Treaty. The nuclear deal radically changes not only the US’s policy toward Iran and toward every nation, friend and foe, in the Middle East. As former secretaries of state Henry Kissinger and George Schultz argued during the nuclear negotiations, it upends 70 years of US nuclear policy, undermining the foundations of the US’s nonproliferation policies. Take it to the bank, the man is the most dangerous kind of anti-Semite, the kind that only pretends friendship .