Taking Sides

The Obama administration claims that in word, policy and deed, it is the best of friends with Israel. During the tenure of that administration I have outlined many words, policies and deeds that clearly refute that contention. In fact, any objective examination of Barack Obama's anti-Israel words, policies or deeds—e.g., the subtly anti-Semitic demonization of those individuals and groups who oppose his Iran "deal"—indicate that he and his advisors are clearly not friends of the only liberal democracy in the Middle East. In fact, wags have indicated that Obama seems considerably more predisposed to give Iran's current Islamist dictator, Ayatolla Kameni, the benefit of the doubt than he is to give similar leeway to Israel's Prime Minister, Bibi Netanyahu.

The incredible irony is that the majority of Jewish voters still support Obama, even as they swallow hard when they watch him take the side of Israel's enemies.

What? He doesn't take sides, you say?

Here's a little tidbit that I doubt you'll see on CNN, MSNBC, the NYT or any of the other trained media hamsters that act to protect this president:

In 2001 and 2004, seven Palestinian terrorist attacks injured hundreds in Israel and killed 33 people, including the murder of members of 11 American families. The families sued in U.S courts.

Andrew Malcolm reports:

The jury's judgment against the Palestinian groups came in a case, Sokolow v. PLO, before Manhattan U.S. District Judge George Daniels in February and could involve penalties of more than $650 million, triple the amount of damages awarded by the jury under U.S. law, plus interest ...

For defendants [the palestinians] to appeal the immense judgment, the judge can require them to post a bond of a substantial portion of the damages in case they lose again. Judge Daniels had said he was likely to order that as “some meaningful demonstration that the defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”

Then something interesting (maybe troubling is a better word) happened. Andrew Malcolm reports further:

In an unusual legal move, the Obama administration has taken the legal side of the Palestinian Authority and Palestine Liberation Organization in a federal court case that American terrorism victims' families had already won.

Lawyers for the Justice and State Departments are arguing that the PA and PLO should not have to post a bond showing they can pay the massive damages during their appeal in U.S. federal court.

I suppose there may be legal subtleties that Obama's lawyers will hide behind, but it is interesting that the Obama administration takes the side of known terrorists against American victims of terror. Of course, I understand that the palestinians are "oppressed," and are the darlings of the hard-Left. After all, if it wasn't for the fact that Israel refuses to commit national suicide as Obama suggests, everything in the Middle East would be just hunky dory. That fantasy dominates Obama's thinking and that of his supporters, but even so, it's hard to understand why the Obama administration would insert itself into this case.

Or is it?