Dennis Prager:
There is no question about whether President Obama — along with Secretary of State John Kerry and the editorial pages of many newspapers — has a particular dislike of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
But there is another question: Why? And the answer is due to an important rule of life that too few people are aware of:
Those who do not confront evil resent those who do.
Take the case at hand. The prime minister of Israel is at the forefront of the greatest battle against evil in our time — the battle against violent Muslims. No country other than Israel is threatened with extinction, and it is Iran and the many Islamic terror organizations that pose that threat.
It only makes sense, then, that no other country feels the need to warn the world about Iran and Islamic terror as much as does Israel. That’s why when Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to the United Nations about the threat Iran poses to his country’s survival and about the metastasizing cancer of Islamist violence, he, unfortunately, stands alone.
Virtually everyone listening knows he is telling the truth. And most dislike him for it. Appeasers hate those who confront evil.
Given that this president is the least likely of any president in American history to confront evil — or even identify it — while Benjamin Netanyahu is particularly vocal and eloquent about both identifying and confronting evil, it is inevitable that the former will resent the latter.
The negotiations with Iran over its nuclear weapons program are today’s quintessential example. Those who will not confront a tyranny engaged in terror from Argentina to the Middle East, and which is committed to annihilating another country, will deeply resent Israel and its leader.
For those who doubt the truth of this Rule of Life, there are plenty of other examples.
Take the Cold War. Those who lived through it will recall that those who refused to confront Communism vilified those who did. Indeed, they vilified anyone who merely labeled Communism evil. When President Ronald Reagan declared the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” he was excoriated by those who refused to do so. Yet, if the words “evil” and “empire” have any meaning, they perfectly applied to the Soviet Union. But to those who opposed Reagan, these words could not be applied to the Soviet Union.
New York Times columnists lambasted the president for using such language. The newspaper’s most prestigious columnist at the time, James Reston, condemned Reagan for his “violent criticism of Russians as an evil society.”
Is there anything in what Iran’s Ayatollah said today that Obama will disagree with?
Seems as though Obama believes all of the above.
Now, do you want the ”new world,” the Ayatollah has in mind?
I know I don’t.
Pelosi says Netanyahu’s speech insults our intelligence.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/03/pelosi-netanyahu-insults-our-intelligence.php
Didn’t know she and those who boycotted the speech had any.
One only has to look at the photo comparison of Obama and Netanyahu, both in their early 20’s.. Obama, toking on a joint, and Netanyahu, in full uniform defending his nation. One a stone slacker who wants to destroy his nation, the other a warrior who wanted to defend his. One who can’t even say “radical Islam” and the other one who knows the danger to the world caused by radical Islam.”
Chamberlain and Churchill, 21st century.
@David:
Whenever Pelosi speaks she insults her intelligence.
@Redteam:
Whenever Pelosi speaks she insults
herour intelligence.All that Botox had damaged her brain.
Pelosi is a bar fly and possess no real intellect. The issue is that when there is no real intellect, selected fragmentation of beta cells in the brain (SFB) how can one insult the intellect. By DSM-IV, polosi is a sociopath with schizophrenic tendencies.
If I tell the manager of a building that something poses a fire hazard (and it actually does), then the manager is then forced to either deal with the threat or face the possibility of disaster happening, cause by his now willful negligence. A manager in this case would rarely be grateful and appreciative, especially if the rectification of the issue will be expensive.
Same thing. Obama wants to imagine he is reining in Iran simply because he says so. It is irritating for someone else to point out all the factual evidence as to why this is delusional. Same with terror; Obama says he has conquered it, so therefore, he has. If you say otherwise? You are an irritating racist.
Liberals don’t want to hear what a nosey, know-it-all like Netanyahu has to say about a nation with a terrorist history getting a nuclear weapon; he speaks an “inconvenient truth”.