National Review: Netanyahu, Not Obama, Speaks for Us

While under fierce attack from President Obama, the Israeli prime minister defends Western values and speaks the truth about Iran.

The leader of the free world will be addressing Congress on Tuesday. The American president is doing everything possible to undermine him.

Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu leads a nation surrounded by enemies, a nation so small that it narrows at one point to just 9.3 miles. Yet, in a world where the Oval Office is manned by someone openly apologetic for most American exercises of power; and where Western Europe’s economy is enervated, its people largely faithless, and its leadership feckless; and where Freedom House has found “an overall drop in [global] freedom for the ninth consecutive year,” the safeguarding of our civilization might rely more on leaders who possess uncommon moral courage than on those who possess the most nukes or biggest armies.

Right now, nobody on the world stage speaks for civilization the way Netanyahu does. While Barack Obama babbles about the supposedly “legitimate grievances” of those who turn to jihad, Netanyahu talks like this (from his speech to the United Nations on September 27, 2012):

The clash between modernity and medievalism need not be a clash between progress and tradition. The traditions of the Jewish people go back thousands of years. They are the source of our collective values and the foundation of our national strength.

Read more…

  • Just a thought

    Democrats are as much the enemies of civilization as are Muslims.

    G-d help us!

  • Glenfilthie

    Let’s understand something. Iran is NOT going nuclear. They will be blown to smithereens if they try. If America won’t stop them Israel will – and if Barkie meddles in that he may very well find himself hanging from a lamp post as a result.
    Iran knows this. They are masters of brinkmanship and will allow themselves to be bought off instead. Play it out: if they develop nukes every two bit moslem nutter will be pressuring them to use it. If they do the retaliation will be massive and absolute – there will be no pieces left to pick up afterward. They will rattle sabres, frighten the usual motely collection of old women, elderly hippies and snot nosed pacifists – and concessions will be made. The Iranians will strut and preen for the leftie press as being peace loving people while cashing in; the Israelis will get a pie in the face along with Uncle Sam – and hopefully the Americans elect their next president based on the content of his character rather than the colour of his skin.

    • Xavier

      Let’s understand something: predictions are hard to make, especially about the future, and most especially about crazy people in the future. 😉

      A nuclear Iran could contain several different threats.

      First, if they even get close enough to nuclear capability that the world believes there’s a possibility they have fissionable material, they have a bargaining tool that can be wielded just as the Norks do.

      Second, non-fissionable grade material could be used to produce a dirty bomb. This sort of weapon is well suited to terrorism, but if Iran provided components to terrorists the material could be traced back to the country of origin.

      Third, a genuine nuclear bomb on a launch platform could threaten Israel or any of Iran’s neighbors. Either of those scenarios would draw the U.S. into the conflict even if a weapon were not deployed.

      My point in these possibilities is that Iran can become a nuclear power and use threats alone to nullify sanctions against them. It’s a well-tested tactic that works against the West – much the same as you’re saying above.

      The fourth possibility is that the Iranians are insane enough to actually launch against the U.S. or Israel. If they do that they will most certainly lose; the only question is whether their civilization could survive the retaliation.

      So a nuclear Iran does not necessarily mean an Iran that launches nuclear weapons. However, who can take that chance? Not Israel. Deterring Iran from developing nuclear capabilities, period, is their best defense.

      My concern is that some material could be “stolen” from Iran and end up in a Southern U.S. Gulf Coast port as a dirty bomb. A small boat and the right weather conditions could wreak havoc on millions of people.

      • Frau Katze

        They’ve typically worked through proxies in the past. E.g. Argentina.

    • dance…dancetotheradio

      Then explain Pawkistawn.

  • Dana Garcia

    It’s kind of astonishing to see what a real leader looks like. I’d forgotten.

  • Hard Little Machine

    The dems have underestimated the backlash to their petulant tantrum that will ensue.

  • Jay Currie

    Bibi made his point. Obama can’t say he wasn’t warned.

    Not that it will make much difference. Obama wants a deal, Kerry wants his chance to play Neville Chamberlain and the ladies who run the National Security Knitting Circle want everyone to play nice. Which means that Israel, with Saudi and Gulf state help is going to have to be the adult here and take out the Iranian nuclear capacity.

    Otherwise the Ayatollahs will nuke Tel Aviv and be told by a very disappointed POTUS that their conduct was totally inappropriate. Well they would be except that most of Iran will be glowing glass.

  • Observer
  • Ron MacDonald

    All Obama cares about is his legacy, Kerry wants a Nobel Peace Prize and both will throw Israel under the bus to achieve it.