Orthodox NY State Assemblyman With Extremist Past Equates Obama With Hamas

In a statement released this afternoon after the president's speech, Dov Hikind said Obama "is not a friend of Israel," calling the president's remarks "outlandish" and saying President Obama "is of the same mindset as Hamas."

 

What President Obama actually called for is a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders but with land swaps with Israel, which is significantly different from Hikind's claim, although still problematic for many Israelis.

Hikind is opposed to Israel ceding any land and is ideologically in sync with many of Israel's extreme right wing fringe groups and West Bank settlers, so it's no surprise Hikind was very upset with the president's speech.

Even so, Hikind's rhetoric crosses a line that should not be crossed and for which there is no factual support.

But that is the way with extremists – especially extremists of the fundamentalist kind who have begun to realize that their goals are slipping away.

Here is Hikind's statement as it appeared on VIN:

“Once again, President Obama has proven that he is not a friend of Israel. His outrageous remarks today calling for a two-state solution and the establishment of a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders indicate a blatant disregard of Israeli history and of the constant threat of terror and violence Israel faces from all sides. In fact, President Obama is of the same mindset as Hamas who have also called for a return to the 1967 borders.

Mr. Obama does not live in a world of reality as is evidenced by his attempts to befriend Iran, Syria and other nations who seek to destroy both the United States and Israel. In trying to force Israel to return to the 1967 borders, Mr. Obama has effectively condemned the State of Israel to a slow and painful death. We cannot and will not allow that to happen. President Obama’s comments have only reaffirmed that he still does not get it and never will.”

Comments

[ah-pee-chorus]

itchiemayer - bush got us in a useless war in iraq that will cost up to 3 TRILLION dollars and we have no idea who will be in charge when we leave and the inevitable bloodbath starts. and that is separate from the debt forgiveness they got. and youre upset about $1B in debt forgiveness to egypt? and another billion in loan guarantees? egypt was expecting obama to forgive their entire 3.6B debt just for starters.

[chabib]

The Manchurian President in the White
House is a hater of both Israel and the\
Jews.

[tooclose2detroit]

just tell me what the hell proton soup is already, wudya?-then i will re-engage-but i have to know!

didnt call for that, apc?-where were the borders in 1967, before the 6 day war?--crazy me, but i seem to remember israel capturing the kotel in the 6 day war-maybe it was just a movie.

[tooclose2detroit]

i already sed that ovomit doesnt hate jews-r u kiddin?-liberal jews r his biggest financial supporters-and to say that no one is askin me to give up land is true-i live tooclose2detroit, so I aint the issue-but to say that no one is asking Israel to give up land?-is u b drinkin, mahn?

[tooclose2detroit]

mr soupy sayles?-i responded to you-where the fu are you?

[ah-pee-chorus]

tooclose2detroit -

youre not paying attention. obama not only mentioned land swaps, which means he is aware that there is no way israel is going to give up strategic and populous land such as those surrounding jerusalem, but he also took the israeli side in saying that the seemingly insurmountable issues of the palest. right of return and jerusalem should be left for a later date.
stop worrying about the kotel.
if you hear someone call for a complete withdrawal to the 67 borders without making any allowance for a land swap, THEN you can worry. obamas position is not new or disturbing. of course that hasnt stopped the christian evangelicalicans led by their favorite network, 'fixed noise' from pretending that obama has just nuked israel.

[tooclose2detroit]

he didnt "only" mention land swaps-he did mention the 67 border-anyhow, I dont even understand what land swaps means-you give us part of the west bank, and we give you what?-in addition, I dont think the Pals will ever give up the right to return, so its probably a non starter anyhow.

[ah-pee-chorus]

after further reading i think i see what the uproar is about. it seems obama is calling for a complete withdrawal to the 67 borders (with land trades to make the settlement blocs part of israel) but with no israeli military presence on the eastern borders. that would leave israel in an indefensible position and is unacceptable.

[Shmarya]

He isn't.

He said any settlement should be based on that and that there should be land swaps.

What he said is no different the George W Bush said,

[OMG]

this is a good read

http://www.hartman.org.il/Opinion_C_View_Eng.asp?Article_Id=671

[ah-pee-chorus]

according to debka....

" Israeli security demands an IDF presence on the Jordan River. Israel appreciates the US president's commitment to peace but a Palestinian state cannot rise at the expense of Israel's existence...."

and

"Obama was also the first US president to demand that Israeli Defense Forces withdraw from the Palestinian state without the security measures Israel required after numerous Arab and Palestinian attacks and still threatened. The US President's plan would also entail the IDF's evacuation of its the vital defense lines in the Jordan Valley against invasion from the east, which would pass to the Palestinian state.

The US president stated repeatedly that the Palestinian state was entitled to "a sovereign, contiguous state" bordering on Egypt, Jordan and Israel. This would give the Palestinian state sole control of its borders without regard to Israeli's security requirements. Israel was advised to be satisfied with America's "unshakeable commitment" to its security....... The Palestinians state would be "non-militarized," he said - not demilitarized as Israel has demanded but possessed of an army of a size to be negotiated by the parties."

http://www.debka.com/article/20947/

assuming debka's reporting is accurate, this would be a departure from past US policy. another fair point of concern is that considering the recent unification of hamas and the PA , and that hamas is recognized as a terrorist entity by both israel AND the US, the timing of the policy statement is odd. i would have preferred that obama waited until the new hamas/PA entity showed that it was in compliance with the quartets demands , which include a complete renunciation of violence,and recognizing israels right to exist, prior to this statement.

[OMG]

@ ah-pee-chorus
I checked debka.com, but I am not sure if they are a rightwing or left of center, news media, one thing I noticed that the say that their commentators frequently appear of FOX news. So I could say they are right of center, therefore I will not take for granted their view.

[ah-pee-chorus]

OMG -
they are definitely right wing, but i have found them to be quite accurate except when they make predictions of what they think will occur, when they are hit or miss. that said, i'd like to see what is said over the next few weeks when the president is scheduled to speak and meet with groups and further clarify his position.
the point i made about the timing is still somewhat troubling.

[ah-pee-chorus]

i was very pleased with obamas speech to AIPAC today. he clarified his position to where my fears have been allayed.

[OMG]

@ ah-pee-chorus,
I am relieved that you came to the same conclusion that I came to. Even before President Obama’s clarification at the APIC conference, I was listing to MSNBC Jonathan Alter explained on Hardball that in realty this is no different from Bush’s policy and what was in the Clinton plan. In addition, I read Haaretz, which they said the same.