Slaughter in Israel: Obama’s legacy |

Slaughter in Israel: Obama’s legacy

As horrendous as was Tuesday’s Palestinian terrorist attack on a Jerusalem synagogue that left five people dead, the Obama administration’s underlying response reprehensibly approached the same level of abhorrence.

Indeed, President Obama condemned “in the strongest terms” the cowardly attack in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhood of Har Nof in West Jerusalem that, among the dead, claimed three Americans in worship. But then he quickly lapsed into the refuge of a principle-less scoundrel — that of moral equivalency, the hallmark of a rudderless president at the helm of a deferential foreign policy that always, always, borders on appeasement.

“Too many Israelis have died; too many Palestinians have died,” Mr. Obama said. “And at this difficult time I think it’s important for both Palestinians and Israelis to try to work together to lower tensions and to reject violence.”

Considering the facts on the ground, how daft. How utterly preposterous to rationalize the dastardly actions of slaughterers while transferring culpability to the victims.

But then this has been part and parcel to Obama’s modus operandi when it comes to not just Israel but to the world. It’s a sickening policy of, as author Thomas Sowell once noted, “selling out our allies to curry favor with our adversaries.”

And, most assuredly, to the detriment of the security of the United States and the world. That is Barack Obama’s tragic foreign policy legacy.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.