Meet Barack Hussein Obama, NeoZionist?

What is it about the Light-Bringer (or "Lucifer," which was what Satan was called before he rebelled against God - betcha Obamanationals weren't aware of that theological nuance...) that committed warriors of the Global Jihad and their dhimmi groupies are so convinced he'll provide the "final solution" they so bloodthirstily seek?:

Following is an interview with British MP George Galloway, which aired on Al-Aqsa TV on May 2, 2008:

George Galloway: I hope that the new presidency in the United States... I pray for the safety of Barack Obama, and I pray that he can shift the United States attitude to this question. But as you know, Palestine cannot free itself. It is a small country against a huge superpower. The real problem is not in Palestine. It’s not even in London or Washington. The real problem is in the Arab world. From Marrakesh to Bahrain – three hundred million Arabs, oil at $136 per barrel... If the Arabs wanted to solve this Palestine problem, they could do so in six days.

[...]

The Americans are not in a position to intervene anywhere in the Arab world, because they have been defeated by the muqawama [resistance] in Iraq [?!?]. And so, sunk in this swamp in Iraq and in Afghanistan, the U.S. is no longer able to assist its puppets in the Middle East. So as we come towards the November elections, and the real prospect of a significant victory for Obama, everyone will have to re-find their footing, and these puppet presidents and corrupt kings may discover that the ground has moved under their feet, Allah willing.

[...]

I think there are important changes coming in Israel also. Olmert may be in prison by the weekend. He may be replaced by the foreign minister or by Barak. He may be replaced, God forbid, by Netanyahu. I don’t believe the key lies in Tel Aviv. Israel is not an independent country. It must act under the orders of the United States, which provides every bullet and every dollar. So we have to change the policy of the United States, through our work in Europe, through a change in the attitude, or a change of the leaders of the Arab world, to show the United States that it must change its policy in the region. After all, if the United States can take everything she wants from the Arabs, and still follow a policy of cutting throats of the Arabs – why to change? If you can have whatever you want, and do whatever you want – well, why to change? [emphases added]

"Solve the Palesinian problem in six days"?  As in the Six Day War in reverse?  "Our work in Europe"?  As in Madrid, London, and Paris?  And "a change in the leaders of the Arab world," which clearly means Islamist takeovers of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan.  Not difficult to smell what George Galloway is cooking.  But why, again, does he believe the Enlightened One will want to follow his recipe?

Well, how about the latest of Our Mr. Hussein's radical "acquaintanceships" to come to "light," Rashid Khalidi?:

Actions, as they say, speak louder than words.  Or, at least, they usually do.  The years-long line from the anti-Semitic/anti-American rantings of "Rev'rund" Jeremiah Wright to the Marxist-Leninist anti-American radicalism of Weathermen terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadette Dohn and now the PLO terrorist Rashid Khalidi with Senator Obama as the common thread overwhelm one phony AIPAC speech, it seems to me.  One, therefore, cannot blame George Galloway for getting the impression that a President Hussein would be at least somewhat sympathetic to the jihadist cause.

That impression - or at least the impression of appalling weakness - was trebly reinforced by BO's near-instant sprinting backpedal under PR fire from his Zionist-pandering AIPAC remarks:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Senator Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas....

Obama quickly backtracked today in an interview with CNN.

“Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations,” Obama said when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Ensign Ed thinks it's "obvious," too.  It may not be so to the Jews, of course - recall General Moshe Dayan's words at the Wailing Wall after the IDF took East Jerusalem during the Six Day War (paraphrased) that "We have returned to our holiest of holy places, never to leave her again" - and unlike the lip service most presidential candidates pay to the notion of recognizing the reality of Jerusalem as Israel's capital, I believe it is most definitely in our interests to do so.

Of course, I think the entire "peace process" going all the way back to the Oslo Accords nearly twenty years ago has never been in our national interest (to say nothing of Israel's).  And the balance of evidence (multiple "intifadas," Hamastan in Gaza, the Israeli defeat at the hands of Hezbollah and Hamas two years ago) definitely weighs heavily on my favor.

But does Obama truly share that outlook?  Does he really think Jerusalem should be undivided? 

Acknowledging that the city's status will be determined (ostensibly) between the Israelis and the Pals doesn't contradict that sentiment, as I surmise he is hoping the Israel lobby will read between the lines of his backpedal to conclude.  But that, I think, flows back to why he endorsed a united Jerusalem (and a specifics-absent hawkish stance against Iranian nukes) in the first place: as electoral innoculation against his connections with Wright, Ayers, Dohn, Pfleger, et al, and a pre-emptive flight from the emergence of his Rashid Khalidi association, as well as a borderline schitzophrenic distancing from his own McGovernesque declarations of the Donk primary season.  It was, if you will, "a purely political, not personal, decision," the PR effects and reach of which he "obviously" never gave a moment's consideration.  Ditto the foreign policy implications after he were to become president if he can be rolled so easily as to collapse to the mildest Arab/Islamist bullying inside of twenty-four hours.

The Leader We Can Believe In> (oh, wait, that's McCain) the Ebony JFK, in short, was not attempting Clintonian "triangulation," which would have served him better politically in the electoral short run and governing long run as harder to pin down by either side of this particular issue, but an appallingly simplistic piece of misdirection, spinning a bare-faced lie defyng his entire career Middle East policy baseline that was both unpersuasive to his target Jewish audience and needlessly provocative to his Palestinian jihadi-symp allies.

Barack Hussein Obama is not a bobber & weaver, and he's not a propaganda genius.  He's a left-wing (and anti-Israel) extremist who is in waaaaay over his head as a presidential candidate on the national stage, yet is nonetheless being propelled forward by a veneer of charisma, his skin color, and his country's incurable white guilt neurosis.

One can only flinch from the spectre of how many Americans and Israelis will become history as a result of this attempt at making "history".

But at least George Galloway will be happy, right?