Insecure Dismay: Obama Threatens Israel

The White House Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
November 17, 2009

Statement by White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs on Jerusalem


We are dismayed at the Jerusalem Planning Committee’s decision to move forward on the approval process for the expansion of Gilo in Jerusalem. At a time when we are working to re-launch negotiations, these actions make it more difficult for our efforts to succeed.

Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations. The U.S. also objects to other Israeli practices in Jerusalem related to housing, including the continuing pattern of evictions and demolitions of Palestinian homes.
Our position is clear: the status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved through negotiations between the parties.

And from dismay, Obama then took off and actually threatened Israel:

"The situation in the Middle East is very difficult, and I've said repeatedly and I'll say again, Israel's security is a vital national interest to the United States, and we will make sure they are secure," Obama said. "I think that additional settlement building does not contribute to Israel's security. I think it makes it harder for them to make peace with their neighbors. I think it embitters the Palestinians in a way that could end up being very dangerous."

Here, watch it:



Got that?

Israel's security is a vital interest to the United States.

The US will assure Israel's security.

But, Gilo, which he has included as a settlement, being 'expanded', does not contribute to Israel's security (and he knows?).

Moreover, it embitters Pals. (who might blow themselves up again). And that is dangerous.

So, does he take care of the real danger?

Or does he threaten Israel by intimating that the US will not care for Israel's security in the future?


Even a dovish Hanoch Daum felt the need to lash out at Obama:-

Yet this is not only the demand that we stop building in Gilo – a stipulation that nobody really intends to adhere to – that makes us lose sleep, Mr. President. It’s also the tone of your words.

You say that if we stop building in Gilo, a legitimate neighborhood in Jerusalem, Israel will become a less safe place to live in. You explain that the construction would prompt the Palestinians to commit radical acts. You are hinting to us that terrorism is a direct and unavoidable result of Israel’s conduct.

In fact, you are telling us that just as a plant grows when you water it, if we build homes in Gilo suicide bombers will explode at coffee shops. As if it’s a natural matter.

And so what if we were hit by Qassam rockets after we left Gush Katif and sustained Katyusha attacks after withdrawing from Lebanon? And so what if we got a murderous Intifada after offering the Palestinians everything at Camp David? That’s of less interest to you.

Back then you were just a senator in Chicago. It was not an issue you had to worry about. After all you are only concerned for our security, because if we stop building in Gilo quiet will prevail here. Iran will no longer threaten us with nukes, Hezbollah won’t wish us any harm, and Hamas will decide to disarm forever.

New Administrations come into office with new insights. We certainly accept that, Mr. President. But you would do well to understand at this time already, when your approval rating is at a low point of 46%, that not everything that comes to your mind will be immediately embraced here.

There are especially illogical demands – and the one that views Gilo as a settlement is one of them – that unite us Israelis from the Left and Right and remind us that at the end of the day we, and only we, are entitled to decide where we build, what we build, and what will happen in our sovereign state.

America is a good friend and it will remain such, Mr. President, even if once in a while we have to put it in its place.

And 76% or so of American Jews voted for this man.