Any more, this is the headline I expect to see one of these mornings.
Today, it's this:
and this:
Romney: Obama 'threw Israel under the bus'
And I thought this might happen, too, what with President Obama's speech yesterday, since he expects Israel to do some things, too, in order to have compromise and peace in the Middle East.
The President called on Israel to compromise with the Palestinians--for shame!--and go back to the borders before the 1967 war over there.
It seems reasonable enough, I think, for what that's worth. But far more importantly, apparently these people who are upset think we are to expect or demand nothing of Israel in order to obtain peace.
Apparently it's supposed to be the Palestinians and Arabs--singularly--who do the "giving" on issues over there and Israel isn't supposed to give an inch or compromise in any way.
Sure, I think the Palestinians have to recognize Israel's right to exist, first and foremost, but after that, the Israeli's need to see that the Palestinians need a place to call their own, as well, and that all of them will have to learn they need to--dare I suggest it?--coexist.
And check out presidential candidate Newt Gingrich's response to the speech for ridiculous rhetoric: Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called it "the most dangerous speech
ever made by an American president for the survival of Israel."
That's just silly. If Newt weren't running for Congress, he wouldn't say a thing about the speech--or he'd praise it.
The fact is, it's all about compromise and that's what's needed here.
It won't happen, likely, but that's what is needed.
The rest of the--sane--world for the most part praised the speech as forward-thinking and challenging.
Was it perfect?
No, certainly not.
Did it have merit?
Absolutely.
To close, I'll leave you with a link to an article that's much more rational and balanced in its appraisal of the speech:
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment