What do Hamas and the liberal blogosphere have in common? They expressed similar disdain over Barack Obama’s recent AIPAC speech. Speaking before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama declared that “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” The remark pleased his audience, which took it for a greater level of support than he, and the democratic party in general, has offered in recent years.

Not pleased was the terrorist organization Hamas, which rescinded its endorsement, and various liberal bloggers.

Obama’s AIPAC Speech Riles Palestinians

Sen. Barack Obama’s speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on Wednesday shocked many Palestinians, who had hoped he would be a sympathetic advocate for the Palestinian cause in the White House.

Ayman abu Syrieh, 45, owns a grocery store owner in the Old City of East Jerusalem and has been following the campaign on a daily basis. “Every time Obama was on TV, I asked everyone to be quiet, so I could listen to him,” Syrieh said. “When he was talking, he represented hope for me and I believed that he would be the one to bring real peace between Palestinians and Israelis.”

But Syrieh’s feelings changed after Obama stressed his support for Israel in the AIPAC speech.

…Obama’s speech to AIPAC on Wednesday was a disappointment, if not a shock, to Hamas, a group considered a terrorist organization by the United States. Hamas, in the past, has expressed support for Obama – support that Obama has rejected.

Hamas now sees no difference between Obama and McCain:

Sen. Barack Obama’s speech to AIPAC has convinced Hamas that he and Sen. John McCain are interchangeable. If the group had its druthers, neither one would win.

“Obama’s comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the U.S. administration’s foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict,” Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters in Gaza.

One would think that something which upset a terrorist organization in such a manner would please Americans, but that’s probably expecting too much from liberals. They were equally dismayed by the speech.

FreeBubba at TPM decried the speech as “beneath contempt” and mourned the bursting of the “change bubble.”

Greg Kafoury frets that Obama is “turning right.”

Writing at HuffPo James Zogby, founder of the Arab American Institute, described the Jerusalem reference as “deeply troubling,” as well as “unnecessarily provocative and contradictory.” He went on to note that Arabs and “Israeli peace activists” (a euphemism for terrorists and their useful idiots) were “deeply disheartened.”

The comments to Zogby’s article were even more hysterical:

With his Jerusalem comment, Obama may have just destroyed our relations with moderate Arabs.

Honestly not a very smart move by Obama.

Obama speech today let the whole world down. He is only fooling himself pandering to AIPAC.

Obama has dissapointed me, he sold out to AIPAC. I donated three times to his camapign, I called I asked what his position was on the Palestians, I got no response. I dont think it was a mistake either. We need to organize and stand up as a group. How many American Arabs are in this country? Lets show our voting skills…

So much for the new politics of change. Sounded like old fashioned pandering to me.

arrgghh…this is SO dissapointing Mr. Obama. Hopefully Jimmy Carter will give you the cahones to correct yourself. BTW why is AIPAC the ONLY lobby that Mr. Obama feels the need to pander too????? I have supported him, but this statement breaks my heart.

Not surprisingly, Obama has already begun to backtrack in the face of this convergence of terrorist and left-wing criticism.

Seattle Times Blogger Bruce Ramsey has jumped the shark in defense of the media’s savior.

Democrats are rebuking President Bush for saying in his speech to the Knesset, here, that to “negotiate with terrorists and radicals” is “appeasement.” The Democrats took it as a slap at Barack Obama. What bothers me is the continual reference to Hitler and his National Socialists, particularly the British and French accommodation at the Munich Conference of 1938.

What Hitler was demanding was not unreasonable. He wanted the German-speaking areas of Europe under German authority. He had just annexed Austria, which was German-speaking, without bloodshed. There were two more small pieces of Germanic territory: the free city of Danzig and the Sudetenland, a border area of what is now the Czech Republic.

We live in an era when you do not change national borders for these sorts of reasons. But in 1938 it was different. Germany’s eastern and western borders had been redrawn 19 years before—and not to its benefit. In the democracies there was some sense of guilt with how Germany had been treated after World War I. Certainly there was a memory of the “Great War.” In 2008, we have entirely forgotten World War I, and how utterly unlike any conception of “The Good War” it was. When the British let Hitler have a slice of Czechoslovakia, they were following their historical wisdom: avoid war. War produces results far more horrible than you expected. War is a bad investment. It is not glorious. Don’t give anyone an excuse to start one.

And yet, give Hitler an excuse is exactly what they did. To the ambitious, weakness is an excuse for war. Hitler’s aggression was not some big surprise. Winston Churchill saw it coming well in time to prevent it. It’s painful how poorly Ramsey missed the point. If the objective is to avoid war, giving in to the demands of thugs, no matter how “reasonable,” is not the way to go about it.

Even if we accept his premise that the Palestinians have some territorial claim (they don’t), their true objective is much more than that. Just as Hitler’s own words made his aggressive intentions perfectly clear, so do those of the Palestinians. They want the total destruction of Israel. Appeasing their territorial demands will only encourage them to pursue this goal just as it did Hitler. That is the lesson that intelligent people were able to learn from WWII: appeasements makes war more, and not less, likely. Sadly, Bruce Ramsey and an ever increasing number of the left are not included in this group.

The lefts favorite permanent victim class, the so-called palestinians, are continuing their campaign of pushing hatred and radicalism on children.

First, there was Jihad Mickey.

But in a dramatic broadcast, the Palestinian hate-mongers had Jihad Mickey killed off by an evil Jew.

The little girl “anchor” of this children’s show of Islamist propaganda declared solemnly:

Yes, my dear children, we have lost our dearest friend, Farfour. Farfour was martyerd while defending his land, the land of his father and forefathers. He was martyred at the hand of the criminals, the murderes, the murderes of innocent children, who killed Iman Hijo, Muhammad Al-Dura, and many others.

Ah yes, these people can be reasoned with.

Anyway, with Jihad Mickey lost, who’s a budding terrorist to look up to? Fear not, terror tykes, there’s a barbarous bumble bee ready to lead you into death for Allah! Narhoul, who claims to be the cousin of the late Farfour, promises to follow in his predecessors path by “[taking] revenge upon the enemies of Allah, the killer of the prophets and of the innocent children. . .”

Various international organizations still can’t contain their reflexive moonbattery whenever the topic of Israel comes up. This time it’s the Red Cross displaying its ignorance.

The international Red Cross has privately accused Israel of reshaping Jerusalem to further its own interests, in violation of international law.

A leaked ICRC report says Israeli policy has far-reaching humanitarian consequences for Palestinians living under occupation in East Jerusalem.

Israel captured East Jerusalem in 1967, and the territory is regarded as occupied land under international law.

But Israel rejects this, and says the report’s premise is, therefore, wrong.

The report says Israel shows “general disregard” for its obligations under international humanitarian law and the law of military occupation in particular.

Violations that change the status of East Jerusalem include the West Bank barrier, an outer ring of Jewish settlements around the city and roads to connect Israeli districts and settlements, the report says.

This is pure revisionist nonsense. Nothing about the situation warrants the label “occupation”. Let’s take a simple history lesson. A gang of Arab nations decides to invade Israel in 1967. Israel spanks them and captures land. That land becomes their own. It is not occupied, it is part of Israel. If the arabs wanted to keep their land, they should have thought of that before the launched an ill-thought out invasion.

Is it reasonable to think peace through any means other than victory with people who brainwash their children with such hate is plausible?

Arabs want peace, the media declares with glee with headlines like “Arab leaders urge Israel to take peace offer”

Arab leaders urged Israel and the world on Thursday to take up a 5-year-old peace plan to end the conflict with Israel, and the Palestinian president warned of more violence if the “hand of peace” was rejected.

Hmm. So, what do you call it when someone tells you to take a course of action or face violence? If it were Israel or the U.S. making such a statement, it would be called a threat. But apparently when Arabs do it, it’s called a “peace offer”. And that doesn’t even address that fact that what they are actually demanding is a return of land the Arabs lost in a war of aggression against Israel. This isn’t a peace offer; this is extortion. But by dressing up their demands in the cloak of “peace” they get to bemoan the warmongering Israeli’s when their land grab is rightfully rejected, with the media there to help them every step of the way.

The Palestinians have decided to end the self inflicted bloodshed and unite in their common cause of destroying Israel. Their new cohesive message to the west: Give us what we demand and in return we’ll kick sand in your face.

MECCA, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) - Hamas urged the West on Friday to accept a new Palestinian unity government but leading officials from the Islamist group said they would never recognize Israel nor abide by existing peace accords.

Sounds fair to me.

Secretary of State Rice is making the rounds proclaiming a new campaign to “kickstart” peace in the Middle East. The U.S. is, once again, declaring how “committed” it is to peace, and yet fails to offer any action that might actually lead to it. But this is nothing new. Every so often the U.S. government proclaims a renewed interest in the subject, and the result is always the same, a continuation of the status quo.

There are two ways peace will be achieved. One is the destruction of Israel. The other is the destruction of those committed to the destruction of Israel. It’s time to stop pussy-footing around and commit to one of these choices. And since Israel is our ally (for numerous good reasons) and those that oppose Israel are our enemies (for what they consider numerous good reasons), which we choose should be obvious.

The All-Israel-All-The-Time United Nations is set to register complaints about those dastardly Jews Israel, this time regarding that evil fence they have constructed.

The United Nations General Assembly is expected to pass a decision Friday evening to set up an official registry to receive complaints from Palestinian citizens regarding damages incurred as a result of the security fence route.

It is not yet clear when such a registry would go into effect. Thus far it has been agreed that it would be located in Vienna and would receive complaints via the mail.

Two and a half years ago the International Court of Justice at the Hague gave an advisory ruling stating that the fence violates international law because its route fails to take sufficient account of damage caused to Palestinians.

At a forum entitled ?Israel?s illegal activities in East Jerusalem and the occupied Palestinian territories,? the group of Palestinians who proposed the registry suggested that a large-scale system be set up to receive Palestinian complaints on damages caused ?by the Israeli occupation.? European pressures led the proposal to be reduced to a smaller registry solely against the fence.

Gee, I wonder what their agenda is? The reason these groups are so upset should be obvious, as terrorists have admitted that the fence is an “obstacle” to their efforts.

Are you listening, Mr. Baker?

Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh said the Palestinians will ?continue the jihad until Jerusalem is liberated,? on his visit to Iran.

Haniyeh spoke to thousands of students at the University of Teheran saying, ?The braggart of the world [the United States] and the Zionists … want us to accept the theft of Palestinian lands, stop the jihad and the resistance and accept the agreements signed with the Zionist enemy. We will never recognize the Zionist government.?