Obama Advocates Apartheid
Print This Post
Email This Post
Jeff Jacoby of the Jewish World Review points out the incredible irony of Obama’s policy on Jerusalem and the construction within, in that we have a black president who, having finally broken through the glass ceiling of the until-now white presidency, is now calling for apartheid and segregation in Jerusalem!
Furthermore, the restrictions that Obama wants to impose would affect only the Jews and not Arabs, meaning that Arabs can buy, own, and build anywhere they like free of scrutiny (legally or illegally, as I pointed out previously), while Jews would be restricted to only certain areas. Arabs can live in the Jewish areas, but Jews cannot live in Obama’s judenrein Arab areas. Jacoby shrewdly sums it up as follows:
The great obstacle to Middle East peace is not that Jews insist on living among Arabs. It is that Arabs insist that Jews not live among them. If Obama doesn’t yet grasp that, he has a lot to learn.
Not surprisingly, this is yet another in a long list of campaign promises that Obama has broken (government transparency, post-partisanship, reversing Bush’s policies, etc.). As Jacoby recounts:
To a 2008 candidate questionnaire that asked about “the likely final status Jerusalem,” Obama replied: “The United States cannot dictate the terms of a final status agreement… . Jerusalem will remain Israel’s capital, and no one should want or expect it to be re-divided.” In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Council, he repeated the point: “Let me be clear … Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”

I previously posted about the latest rash of scandalous photos coming out of Afghanistan showing U.S. military atrocities under Obama’s command, and wondering if the media would pick up on it the way they did when it was Bush’s army… Well, here’s a twist I wasn’t expecting: yes, one of the U.S. media, Rolling Stone, [...]
Jeffrey Goldberg, a correspondent for the Atlantic, cast a spotlight on yet another disgustingly overt example of pure bias in the mainstream media, particularly at the anti-Semitic Reuters newswire. He points to a Reuters news item which contains the following despicable sentences: Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian [...]
In the [sparse] reporting of the Palestinians’ massacre of the Fogel family, several newspapers stand out with their distorted sense of “balance”, i.e., where they feel overwhelmingly uncomfortable describing the barbarity of the Palestinians without at least taking a swipe or two at the Israelis, no matter how patently irrelevant or disgustingly disrespectful it comes [...]