RUSH: Arlington, Virginia. This is Joe. Joe, glad you called. Thank you for waiting, sir. Hello.
CALLER: Joe… I’m sorry. Rush, I wasn’t sure if you were gonna take the call because I know it hasn’t come up yet but thank you. I just wanted to call and kind of castigate you. I can’t believe you were CACKLING at the Bibi Netanyahu comments last week. That country wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for this country. We send them billions of dollars every year. We can’t afford unemployment insurance for people in this country but we’re gonna send Israel billion dollars of dollars and this guy comes over to this the country and…? I mean what an ingrate, and here you are CACKLING about what this guy is saying. I mean, seriously, you’re like the right-wing Hanoi Jane!
RUSH: Hanoi Jane? I, El Rushbo, came off as Hanoi Jane?
CALLER: Are you a patriot? Do you support this country or do you support Israel? I mean —
RUSH: Damn right I do — and I support Israel, and I do not appreciate a president of the United States selling Israel out. I do not appreciate a president of the United States who is actually ill-informed, uninformed, a theoretician, putting into practice some stupid theories he’s talked about with professors in the faculty lounge that have no basis in reality whatsoever. I am offended by the fact that we have a president that hasn’t the slightest idea what he’s doing, on the international stage or domestic. I am fed up. I am frustrated as hell that we got a president who is systematically destroying job creation. You talk about unemployment? Don’t blame Netanyahu. Blame Barack Obama! There’s your source for unemployment. We’re not just spending money in Israel. We’re spending money in Egypt, which is falling apart. We’re giving money to Iran, which is falling apart. We’re giving money to all these places around the world, getting nothing for it. What do you got against Israel?
CALLER: I got nothing against Israel. I got something against people coming to this country, ungrateful, and condemning this country, s-s-s-saying — on our soil and then you supporting that condemnation. Politics is supposed to stop at the water’s edge. When a guy comes over here… I — I don’t know, it was just wrong to me, Rush. I don’t get the CACKLING. Not at all.
RUSH: Cackling? I was cackling. I was ecstatically happy, because finally somebody stood up to Obama. Let me ask you, speak about politics ending at the water’s edge: Were you upset at all of the efforts the Democrats made from 2004 to 2008 to secure defeat in Iraq, and have you ever heard Netanyahu condemn this country?
CALLER: (pause) It’s exactly what he was doing.
RUSH: Netanyahu did not condemn this country. He was standing up for his.
CALLER: Listen, no president is ever going to deny Israel. They’ve got… They’ve had people spying on this country, but we’ve convicted spies from Israel. Our own allies spying on us and we’re still spending them billions.
RUSH: We spy on them. They’re spying on Tim Pawlenty right now! Come on, we spy on them. They’re spying on Tim Pawlenty right now. They spy on me. This regime spies on me. I am not going to apologize for my attitude on Friday about Netanyahu. Netanyahu took Obama to school. Netanyahu demonstrated the Republican Party what it’s gonna take to defeat this guy. Everybody treats Obama with kid gloves, and I know the reasons why but it’s time to stop that. It’s two and a half years in now. The reality here is too desperate and what we face is dire. We can’t handle four more years of this guy and hold on and maintain this country as it was founded.
Anyway, Joe, I appreciate the call. I knew, by the way. I predicted that there would be — maybe not to you people, I don’t remember, but I sent a note to some of my friends, I said you watch, there’s gonna be even some Republicans in Washington are gonna be upset that Bibi “was disrespectful to the United States president, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,” and there were a couple. “You just don’t treat the president of the United States this way. This is not something that happens.” I guarantee you Bibi probably said the same stuff in private. That private meeting before what we saw on Friday went an hour longer than it was scheduled. I’m sure Obama heard it then.
I just doubt that he expected to hear it again in public. I’m sure he thought Bibi would play Mr. Diplomat and go in there and eat his excrement sandwich as Obama intends and so forth. To sit there and openly suggest a plan that guarantees the destruction of Israel down the road? You know, at some point stand up and say, “I don’t support this. You know, ‘not in my name,’ as an American citizen. I don’t endorse that policy.” I also happen to know Netanyahu. I’ve had the privilege of meeting him. I’ll tell you, folks, since this has come up, this whole thing is actually bigger than Netanyahu and Obama. It’s bigger than the United States and Israel.
It’s bigger even than the Middle East and the West. The Netanyahu-Obama face-to-face was a confrontation between reality and fantasy — and it was Obama engaged in fantasy. So much of liberalism is a fantasy, theoretical fantasy. They believe still that the Soviet Union woulda worked out if the right people had been in charge and if there had just been enough money spent. People today think FDR goofed by not specked enough, that socialism is the only way to go. If the right people are in charge, have big enough hearts, and unlimited bank accounts, socialism would work. There are still people who believe this — and they are dangerously engaged in Fantasy Island, and those that are not fantasizing who genuinely believe it are even worse and more dangerous.
But this conflict between Netanyahu and Obama was a conflict between words that have consequences and words that sound good but end up being disastrous. I mean, there we had had President Barack Obama speaking of his “commitment to Israeli security,” with all the passion and clarity and conviction that he used when he promised to close Club Gitmo. You could say that he assured his, quote, unquote, “friends in Israel” that he would stand behind them as absolutely as he stood behind fiscal responsibility. He would stand behind Israel as much as he was “laser-like focused on creating jobs and economic growth.”
Just words! Words, words, words in a fantasy world, and Obama lands in Ireland today, and what’s the news? He’s reaching back to his ancestral home! It’s a photo-op! Does anybody know why he’s even there? And the most unseemly part of this confrontation was that all Obama wanted to do was try to “lead from behind,” to catch up to the so-called Arab spring, to make it Obama’s Arab spring. It was, “I killed Osama, and I begat the Arab spring!” Now, if the Arab spring were what we’re told it is (the Middle East throwing off tyranny in favor of freedom and democracy and opportunity) there would be it would be no need to throw Israel into the mix. Israel would be a model!
If there really is this outpouring of democracy, if there is this throwing off of tyranny, Israel — as a democracy — would be a model for the rest of the region to emulate, would it not, if we’re being intellectually honest here? Arab spring = democracy. Arab = equals throwing off tyranny. There’s one democracy in that region. It’s Israel. And there’s one country in that region that’s a target for distribution in that region, and that’s Israel. So none of this makes any intellectual sense at all. I got a couple stories on this, in fact, from the Jerusalem Post: “Mahmoud ElBaradei: Egypt is Disintegrating as Tourism Drops.”
ElBaradei, quote: “‘People don’t feel secure. They’re buying guns. There’s no tourism, there’s no investment, there’s inflation. Right now, socially, we are disintegrating,’ ElBaradei said on CNN’s Fareed Zakaria: GPS. ‘Economically we’re not in the best state. Politically it’s like a black hole. We don’t know where we’re heading.'” Whoa! Wait a minute, I thought this was the Arab spring, that Obama begot. Remember old buddy Nic Robertson went over there talking to Mustapha and Achmed and how great a job Obama was doing? Obama made it all happen! The Egyptians were simply following his “hope and change” campaign, and here’s ElBaradei who wanted to inherit the mess.
He’s been thrown overboard, and now he’s saying: Hey, isn’t it working out as we planned. We’ve got a bigger mess here than what we had. “ElBaradei said he wasn’t sure when a presidential race could begin because there weren’t any laws that outline how you run a campaign, how you raise money, or when candidates can become official.” Well, turn to Israel. They know how. They’re a democracy. If you want democracy and you don’t want to emulate the United States, Israel is just right across the border, Mr. ElBaradei. “He also expressed concern about the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood which has had longer to organize than other nascent political contenders.
“ElBaradei said, ‘The election may slip ’til next year given the uncertainty.'” Well, there may not be an election then. Okay, that’s story number one. From Bloomberg: “Egyptian pro-democracy groups are calling for a second round of so-called ‘rage’ protests on May 27 because of a lack of political progress and perceived failure to prosecute members of former President Hosni Mubarak’s regime. ” So here’s Obama, and he’s talking about the great Arab spring and his acolytes, the great Arab spring, the throwing off of tyranny. The outgrowth and the outbreak of democracy — and Egypt’s falling apart. So the one hand you got a fantasy; on the other hand you got reality.
Obama is the fantasy.
Obama believes in fantasies.
Benjamin Netanyahu is in reality.
There’s a great picture contrast that went around the Internet over the weekend of the two in their youth. One was Netanyahu, as a young man, decked out as a member of the Israeli Defense Forces. The other was Obama smoking a joint or a cigarette or something sitting in a cafe looking Mr. Cool Hip with an ashtray in front of him at some beatnik coffee shop. It was a great, great contrast of the two in their younger days as young men and where they are today, and who’s real and who is a fantasy. So the protests that apparently what? Came from Facebook, social media, the inspiration for which came from the Obama campaign — Egypt leading the Arab spring — and now ElBaradei says it isn’t happening and the protest groups themselves say, “You know, we gotta do this all over again. There isn’t any change. Nothing’s happening.”
RUSH: Here’s Andrea Mitchell on Meet the Press yesterday describing how Benjamin Netanyahu treated Obama on Friday afternoon in their joint presser.
MITCHELL: Netanyahu seized on it even before he got on the plane, he criticized the president, and in such a fashion. He lectured him in the Oval Office. And if you look at that picture that you have up there right now, it was a stone faced Barack Obama, and Netanyahu basically treating him like a schoolboy. People even who work for Netanyahu, some Israeli officials told him later that he went too far, that it was really rude and that there would be blow-back to this.
RUSH: Really, really rude. You knew this was gonna be the take in certain quarters. But Netanyahu never once criticized this country. He never once disrespected this country. Quite the opposite. Treated Obama like a schoolboy. It’s exactly what I said. Took him to school. I still say, folks, pleasure to watch.
RUSH: Jennifer Rubin, blogger at the Washington Post, has a little bullet point review of Obama’s appearance at AIPAC yesterday. She calls them the problems in the speech. “1) Obama made it clear the United States is willing to give away Israel’s bargaining position for nothing in return; 2) Obama never even mentioned the right of return,” and folks, I mentioned this all last week, and it really is fundamental. The right of return, if not mentioned or discussed, makes all of this academic. It makes it meaningless. If you can say that there’s a single most divisive point, it is that.
The right of return basically is the Palestinian demand that grandchildren and children of displaced Palestinians all the way back to 1948 be allowed to return to what is now Israel, to their homes. We’re talking four and a half, five million people. If that happened it would be the end of Israel, which is what the objective is throughout the Arab world. They want basically Israel to commit suicide. Obama wants Israel to commit suicide, and I can’t believe people are getting all bent outta shape because of Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to commit suicide in public at a joint appearance with Obama on Friday. What, patriotism requires us to be loyal? Our president wants Israel to commit suicide and we’re supposed to sit here and be offended when the prime minister of Israel refuses to commit suicide and does so in public? About the right of return, the Israelis will never go for it, and the Palestinians will never go without it. So there is no, quote, unquote, peace.
There will be no resolution and Obama not mentioning it is irresponsible. And what Netanyahu was talking about Friday was essentially telling the world in his joint appearance with Obama that if somebody doesn’t tell the Palestinians that there’s no right to return, then they’re being treated irresponsibly, and Netanyahu said, “Let me just tell you, it’s not gonna happen.” It’s not gonna happen, in plainspoken language. And that’s no doubt when the shrieks began on Friday afternoon. If they hadn’t begun already, that’s when they topped out because that was considered to be the number one act of insolence and disrespect, because Netanyahu was essentially saying to Obama, “Your plan isn’t gonna happen and you aren’t being responsible because you’re not telling the Palestinians that there isn’t gonna be a right of return.” They keep dangling that as a carrot in front of ’em, but he doesn’t mention it. He didn’t mention it yesterday to AIPAC.
“3) He did not reiterate specifically the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley. … 4) Israel can’t be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy it, but negotiations need to resume.” That’s what he said. Fantasy. He sits there and he says all these things. (imitating Obama) “Of course our good friends the Israelis can’t be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy them but negotiations need to resume.” Over what? Right of return is the big deal. “5) if anything Obama underscored that the United States has differences with Israel — but it’s between ‘friends.'” But we never hear of the differences we have with the Palestinians, do we? Let’s go back to June the 4th, 2008, when Obama spoke to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, AIPAC. He was singing an entirely different tune when he was running for president, and back then, the Jewish Democrats bought it. Just another Obama campaign promise with an expiration date. Listen.
OBAMA: Any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state with secure, recognized, defensible borders. And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.
RUSH: All that’s off the table now, all that’s off the table, all of that’s off the table, and the very same group just three years ago, he totally changes his tune, and yet they still support him because liberals are liberals first. Netanyahu said the ’67 lines are not defensible, that’s why there was hostility. We can’t go back to ’em, but back in 2008 Obama promised Israel’s identity Jewish state must preserve secure, recognized, defensible borders. All of that pure campaign pap. Oh, I know, he didn’t mention the right of return once in his AIPAC speech. He didn’t mention it once last week. And that’s why what he’s talking about here is irresponsible.
Now, let’s move to Obama’s AIPAC remarks yesterday. Now, Jennifer Rubin, the blogger at the Washington Post, says that what you’re going to hear next was the lowlight of his speech. It was the reiteration of his Thursday remarks on the 1967 lines, but mixed in were blame the media and woe is me sentiments that were shameful displays by a US president.
OBAMA: Let me repeat what I actually said on Thursday; not what I was reported to have said. I said that the United States believes that negotiations should result in two states, with permanent Palestinian with Israel, Jordan, and Egypt, and permanent Israeli borders with Palestine. The borders of Israel and Palestinian should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states. The Palestinian people must have the right to govern themselves and reach their potential in a sovereign and contiguous state.
RUSH: Now, Obama continued. “As for security, every state has the right to self-defense, and Israel must be able to defend itself — by itself — against any threat. Provisions must also be robust enough to prevent a resurgence of terrorism; to stop the infiltration of weapons; and to provide effective border security.” It’s all fantasy. Of course that should happen. Everybody ought to have a house on the beach, too. “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state. The duration of this transition period must be agreed, and the effectiveness of security arrangements must be demonstrated.”
This is Obama still speaking. “Now, it was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what ‘1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps’ means. By definition, it means that the parties themselves — Israelis and Palestinians — will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” Oh, that’s what he means. He didn’t say that, that’s what he meant. See, we’re too stupid to be unable to read his mind.
“It is a well known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation. It allows the parties themselves to account for the changes that have taken place over the last forty-four years, including the new demographic realities on the ground and the needs of both sides. … If there’s a controversy, then, it’s not based in substance. What I did on Thursday was to say publicly what has long been acknowledged privately. I’ve done so because we can’t afford to wait another decade, or another two decades, or another three decades to achieve peace. The world is moving too fast. The extraordinary challenges facing Israel will only grow. Delay will undermine Israel’s security and the peace that the Israeli people deserve.” Why? Who threatens Israel? What’s Israel doing to cause peace not to come to it? And Jennifer Rubin says at this point that’s when the boos came.
“It is not ‘well known’ what the deal will be because the right of return, the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression on the infant Jewish state, and the security arrangements are the core of the matter. Moreover, Obama misquoted himself by insisting he said the parties ‘will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.’ No, he said it was US policy that the deal would stem from the 1967 lines,” and everybody heard it.
So that’s where we are. One more Obama sound bite from AIPAC yesterday in which he’s telling the entire world that they’re just too stupid to understand what he really meant.
OBAMA: It was my reference to the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps that received the lion’s share of the attention, including just now. And since my position has been misrepresented several times, let me reaffirm what 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps means. By definition it means that the parties themselves, Israelis and Palestinians, will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4th, 1967. That’s what mutually agreed upon swaps means. It is a well-known formula to all who have worked on this issue for a generation.
RUSH: Yeah, well, without the right of return being thrown in here, Mr. President, all of it’s meaningless. But that’s not what he said back on Thursday. He said, go back to the ’67 lines. And when Obama spoke at AIPAC in 2008, he said he was misunderstood then, too. He said nobody understood what he meant when he talked about a divided Jerusalem. So we’re always misunderstanding him. We hear what he says, but then when we react to what he says, “Oh, no, no, no, I didn’t mean that. You didn’t understand. You misunderstand what I’m saying,” which is his common out. Living in fantasy. So where are we? Bottom line. Obama chose Palestinians over Israelis. Obama is essentially demanding that Israel commit suicide. Netanyahu says I’m not gonna commit suicide. People say Netanyahu was rude when he refuses to commit suicide.
Obama chose Palestinians over Israelis. He did it after learning that Hamas became a part of the Palestinian ruling class, the terrorist group. Obama chose the Muslim Brotherhood over freedom when he invited them to his Cairo speech and when he endorsed the misnamed Arab Spring without reservations or conditions. We know now what’s happening in Egypt. Obama chose lawlessness and open borders over protecting innocent citizens when he sued Arizona. My friends, there’s a pattern here. Obama chose voter intimidation over civil rights when he chose not to prosecute the New Black Panthers in Philadelphia. Obama chose the public sector over the private sector with his stimulus slush fund.
Obama chose socialism over the private sector when he took over two US car companies. Obama chose a path to socialized medicine over free market solutions to health care when he signed Obamacare into law. Obama chose true cowboyism over Congress when fighting a war on Khadafy and Libya, ignoring the War Powers Act by saying, well, we’re not really all in. Obama chose czars over cabinet members. He chose class warfare over prosperity when he demagogued taxing the rich over cutting out-of-control spending. He chose politics over solutions when he failed to produce a budget or demand one from Congress. It’s clear who Obama is. He’s the sum of his choices. We all are. It’s just that his choices ain’t us.
RUSH: Mort Th’Zuckerman who’s the publisher of the New York Daily News and US News & World Report — a real estate magnate in New York City — was on the syndicated McLaughlin Group over the weekend. The host, John McLaughlin, said to Mort Zuckerman, “US News & World Report editor Mort Zuckerman have this exchange between Obama Middle East speech.” McLaughlin says, “You know what that’s called? It’s called betrayal.”
McLAUGHLIN: You know what that’s called?
McLAUGHLIN: It’s called betrayal.
ZUCKERMAN: The Israelis do not feel that they have the Americans at their back for the first time since the founding of the state of Israel. This is from their point of view.
RUSH: Mort Zuckerman laying it out. That’s exactly what they feel: Betrayal. “The Israelis don’t feel they have the Americans at their back for the first time since the founding of the state of Israel. This is from their point of view.”
*Note: Links to content outside RushLimbaugh.com usually become inactive over time.