President Obama has granted his first televised interview as President to al-Arabiya, the strongly anti-Semitic Arab television station. Had the purpose of the interview been to send a strong, clear and convincing message to the Arab community that terrorism will not be tolerated, and that the United States continues to support our strongest ally, Israel, I could potentially forgive the choice. Instead, however, the interview proves Obama's ego is trumped only by his naivete:
Obama seems to think he can just whisk away 61 years of history (and if we want to be more exact, we should go back to 1922) by simply showing up and talking about feelings rather than policy. Perhaps if Obama had a stronger grasp on what really did happen in the past, he would understand the issue lies squarely with Hamas. In fact, Obama seems to have no earthly idea that this has nothing to do with a Palestinian state, but the hamasholes never ending desire to eradicate Jews. From this interview, it's apparent Obama is unaware that problems such as rockets being lobbed into Israel don't exist in the West Bank as they do in Gaza - where Jewish settlements have been dismantled for years!
Obama addresses the issues in Iran, noting their support of terrorism "in the past" wasn't "helpful". In the past? Not helpful? Does he believe the hype that terrorism ceased to exist January 21, 2009? I wonder if the Muslim leaders of the world are feeling badly that their behavior "isn't helpful". Moreover, Obama equated Islamic terrorism (also occurring in the past) with nebulous other acts of terrorism in the name of religion. What is he referencing here? Perhaps he means all those Amish drive-by shootings.
Troubling as well is Obama's desire to return to a "partnership" with the Muslim world as we had "20 or 30 years ago". I'd love to understand if President Obama was referencing Ronald Reagan's administration, or Jimmy Carter's. To that end, if Obama meant to reference Carter, one could surmise Obama isn't clear when the Carter Administration exactly happened. If we return to Carter's policies, does that really constitute change? I suppose it would, as normal "change" means Clinton policy.