• Text smaller
  • Text bigger

Barack Obama came to American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC, on Sunday and declared that the U.S.-Israel relationship was ironclad. I was there and heard him say it, but it did not reassure me. I am dubious about Obama’s promise. After all, he caused fright and worry amongst freedom-loving peoples when he endorsed the 1967 Auschwitz borders for Israel, and he did not dispel that concern at AIPAC.

Obama’s idea of ironclad is sketchy at best. In 2008, he vowed at the AIPAC conference that Jerusalem would remain the undivided capital of the state of Israel if he was elected. He walked back on that promise the next day. In 2009 at Cairo University (with the Muslim Brotherhood in attendance at his invitation), he called on Israel to stop all the settlement activity, and created a crisis in U.S.-Israel relations when Israel approved 1,600 houses in Jerusalem.

Obama was at the 2007 AIPAC conference also. Having researched and documented his background and history of Jew-hating friends and alliances, I was embarrassed by the panting and fawning over him, particularly after he had just said, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” Obama’s longtime anti-Israel allegiances and radical connections were deeply disturbing and meticulously documented in my book, “The Post American Presidency.

Nonetheless, when Obama was introduced Sunday, he was given a standing ovation. One has to wonder: If Hitler came to AIPAC before the world became aware of the Holocaust, would he, too, have received a standing ovation out of respect for a head of state? No, I am not equating Obama to Hitler. What I am saying is that not every head of state is worthy of respect just because he is a head of state. And while many did not stand up, the fact is that many did because they wanted to be reassured. Could we come any cheaper?

Obama fell off the teleprompter when he was describing Iran as wanting to wipe Israel “off the face of the map.” If Sarah Palin had said that they wanted to wipe Israel “off the face of the map,” “face of the map” would be the new bumper sticker and the crawl at CNN all through the news cycle.

Once again, Obama lauded the Muslim revolutions taking place across the world, as if he were living in a completely alternative reality. In speaking about the revolutions in the Middle East, Obama cited “the new generation of Arabs changing the region.” As if this new generation of goose-steppers have any other intention than to destroy the state of Israel – which is why the peace treaty with Egypt is now in jeopardy.

Obama also began to whine that his call in his Thursday speech for a return to the Auschwitz borders was not controversial and not his original idea. Did anyone really think he was capable of an original idea? His cop-out was that these 1967 borders had been whispered about behind the scenes for years by previous administrations. But this weak excuse rings hollow. You don’t publicly start negotiations with your end position. The Muslims in Gaza, and in Judea and Samaria, have given nothing, have agreed to nothing. Their only movement has been toward radicalization by aligning with Hamas. And have you noticed when Obama gets into trouble in the public square, he immediately trots out Bush? Bush did it, so it’s all good. The anti-Bush is Bush’s biggest cheerleader.

In a rare, useless skill set mastered by our clumsy president, Obama managed to double down and backpedal at the same time. He tried to soft-shoe his infamous remark about Israel returning to the ’67 borders (or worse) by focusing instead on the caveat of mutually agreed-upon swaps. He admonished us for taking him the wrong way. I kid you not.

As if the Muslims would swap anything with the Jews and allow the Jews peace in their rightful homeland. Lunacy.

The money quote of the day was, “If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance.” Oh, really? I vill gaslight you and you vill like it.

I’m glad he said the U.N. won’t create “Palestine.” While this is elemental, with Obama, you’ve gotta be happy with any crumb. When he said Israel’s isolation in the international arena won’t be sanctioned or tolerated, he did not expand upon that. So while his propaganda ministers will spin this for the Jewish campaign dollar, when you really look at it, it’s a lot of empty rhetoric. He used AIPAC to reassure the Jews – and many bought the ruse.

Outside, there were numerous Jew-hating demonstrators on Obama’s side. It is important to mention that in previous years the Jew-haters’ protests were small and insignificant. This is the Obama effect. There was a malevolent carnival atmosphere, the strange dirge of death music played by awful musicians and drummers. It was a surreal hell.

There is something about the Jews that brings out the best in the best people and the worst in the worst people, as evidenced at AIPAC.


Pamela Geller is author of “The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War On America” (Simon & Schuster).

  • Text smaller
  • Text bigger
Note: Read our discussion guidelines before commenting.