Trump’s Middle Eastern Reset: One Sentence Never Before Heard in the Muslim World

President Trump at the Kotel.

Barack Obama spent eight years enabling Iran through a nuclear deal which guarantees them a nuclear device within 10-15 years, and by showering them with money, several million in hard cash — money laundering, anyone? For this America has earned the well-deserved contempt of not just Iran, but Israel and the Sunni states.

Of course, Israel called Obama out for his stupid if not treacherous Iranian deal right from the start.

No lover of Jews or Israel, Obama, a man who spent his entire life in the cheerful company of Jew-haters and leftist fellow travelers, will, to his dying day, maintain that the capitulation to Iran retroactively justifies his dopey Nobel Peace Prize.

Which just goes to show that that prize should be relabeled The Neville Chamberlain Prize for Appeasement.

In Riyadh, President Trump began to turn the disastrous Obama years a full 180 degrees.

He named Iran as the greatest threat to the region, and called for that terrorist state to be isolated.

In addition, President Trump let loose one sentence which has never been uttered anywhere in the Arab Muslim world:

That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews and the slaughter of Christians.

This is beyond refreshing. This is actually an honest expression of the multiple pathologies that rule and ruin the Muslim world, Sunni and Shia.

Of course, speeches do not make policy, and it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will proceed in the Middle East.

I’m sorry that Trump remains boyishly optimistic about bringing peace to the Israelis and the IslamoNazi leadership of the so-called Palestinians. This effort is doomed by their openly and proudly genocidal intentions.

But I am heartened that President’s Trump’s reception in Israel was fulsome and genuine. After eight years of the openly anti-Israel Obama, Israel is anxious for an America President who is ready to resume America’s special relationship with the Jewish state.

It’s also a sign of the times that President Trump is visiting the Kotel, the Western Wall. Presidential candidates like the poisonously cynical Obama make the pilgrimage in order to secure the secular Jewish Democrat vote. But Donald Trump is the first POTUS to visit the Kotel. This sends a powerful message of support, especially to Torah Zionists and our Christian Zionist friends.

President Trump’s visit to the Kotel further puts the so-called Palestinians (the KGB dreamed up the faux Palestinian identity) on notice that their industry of historical lies denying Judaism’s birthright to Eretz Yisroel will find no traction in the Trump administration.

Ivanka Trump prays at the Kotel. You’ll notice that Ivanka is wearing a hat. This is because Ivanka is a Torah Jew and religiously observant women who are married cover their heads in synagogue and at sacred Jewish sites.


Melania Trump touches the stones of the Kotel. It’s amazing but the Saudis are fascinated by Jewish Ivanka. And both Trump women went bare headed in the kingdom and there was no blowback. You see, not bowing to Islam and being all PC gets respect in the Muslim world.

This entry was posted in Barack Hussein Obama, Donald Trump, Iran, Islam, Islam Denial, Islamic State, Islamic Terror, IslamoNazis, Israel and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  1. eyawitz
    Posted May 25, 2017 at 8:56 am | Permalink

    Sorry to sort of nitpick on a generally great article, but it is not true that “religiously observant women who are married cover their heads in synagogue and at sacred Jewish sites.” Jewish married women are supposed to cover their entire hair whenever in public. Yes, I know there are some Orthodox communities where this is honored mainly in the breach, and with some rabbinical authority to rely on, but the accepted halacha among most seriously observant Jews is to follow this law at its face value. To praise Ivanka for going bare-headed in Arabia is pretty strange to my way of thinking (her non-Jewish stepmother can do as she pleases, of course.)

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • kishke
      Posted May 25, 2017 at 9:10 am | Permalink

      Ivanka does as is the norm in the Orthodox community she entered when she converted. Furthermore, there are numerous Orthodox religious communities in which married women do not cover their hair. This is not a new phenomenon. It was widely seen in certain pre-war Europe Orthodox communities; for example, the German and Lithuanian ones. Others were stricter about this. Do not assume that your practice is necessarily the norm.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • eyawitz
        Posted June 1, 2017 at 6:09 am | Permalink

        Read my comment and you will see that I am aware of everything you wrote.

        I am not invoking “my practice”, I am invoking the Talmud and Shulchan Aruch, and although there are leniencies that have become accepted in certain communities (composed mostly of relatively ignorant Jews), it makes no sense to present these as normative Judaism. Especially the practice of women putting on some little symbolic hat, as Ivanka does in the picture, something which has no basis in anything other than a bit of embarrassment that women who were defying the instructions of their Orthodox Rabbi had when entering the synagogue.

        I’m not judging anyone, but it does bother me when silly baseless customs are described as something standard.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  2. GetThereJustAsSoon
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 4:07 pm | Permalink

    Leave it to Donald Trump to make his first foreign trip a tough and demanding. No fluffy trip for him. From what I have seen and heard, thus far, it’s rather astonishing. From the open arms of the Saudis to those of the Israelis, who could have imagined this?

    With so much at stake and with the potential for any number of mis-steps, he has adopted appropriate tones, not sought to “lecture,” identified the issues, and very much stayed on message that all have a stake at tackling them. I saw him walking the straight and narrow in an effort to get persons to talk about what shared interests they have; they already know too well their differences.

    I know it’s just a start, yet I earnestly pray that it will be one followed through on by all parties. I sure hope the rest of his trip goes just as well. And, I hope that he carries some of the presidential posture, diplomacy, and stature back to the U.S.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  3. Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    And, while I understand realpolitik, I think that Israelis recognizing Arabs called Palestinians and their chief, Arafat the Rotting, was one of the greatest mistakes a nation has ever made.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

  4. Barry
    Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    Neville Chamberlain was wrong but he had good reasons in the British national’s interest to attempt what he did, and Winston Churchill, although in disagreement, thought well enough of Neville to bring him into cabinet. What Obama did, was flat out disgraceful — but even worse was the emotional send off he got from the Broadway and film crowds. And, of course CNN.

    Back to Chamberlain. Britain was in poverty. Not yet recovered from the first war and still mired in financial depression. So, it was incorrect, but reasonable to put off conflict for another day. Not at all a bad man, and comparing him to this fool Obama is unfair.

    Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • pkoning
      Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:20 am | Permalink

      Those are fair points. But Chamberlain became the poster child for foolish appeasement not because of his deliberate and reasoned policies, but because of the delusional words he spoke after his trip to meet with Hitler.
      You’re probably right that in the case of Obama the analogous words stem from deliberate policy rather than delusion — which is worse.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Posted May 22, 2017 at 9:29 am | Permalink

      There was no reason to think war would be “put off,” and it was not.
      Plus, Britain did not prepare…
      Plus, it was a vicious digusting “treaty” that gave Germany permission to murder Czechoslovakia.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • David Foster
        Posted May 23, 2017 at 5:45 am | Permalink

        “Britain did not prepare”

        British aircraft production history:

        Also, the build-out of the Chain Home and Chain Low radar network, with its supporting telecommunications links, was considerably advanced between September 1938 and May 1940.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

        • Posted May 23, 2017 at 7:38 am | Permalink

          Thank you for the statistics.
          You seem to be suggesting that Great Britain used the time between September 1938 and Germany’s invasion of Poland in September 1939 to prepare its military forces.
          I don’t see that.

          Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

          • David Foster
            Posted May 23, 2017 at 8:12 am | Permalink

            Without the additional Spitfire and Hurricane production and the creation of an effective air defense network, the outcome of the war would quite likely have been very different.

            Chamberlain made bad decisions re appeasement, and he also was not very good for free speech and free press in Britain, fearing antagonizing of Hitler. (remind you of some people in America today?) But my reading of the evidence is that he did have respect for his country and its people, which IMO Obama did not and does not.

            Had Obama been PM of Britain during the subject time frame, he would likely have shut down the development of the air defense network as “Untested Technology.”

            Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • Barry
              Posted May 23, 2017 at 8:20 am | Permalink

              Dead on, David. (I would just have clicked a like, but neither of my search engines permit that at this time for reasons unknown to me.)

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

            • Posted May 23, 2017 at 8:27 am | Permalink

              Can’t argue with your assessment of our previous Obamanation.

              Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

    • Michael Kennedy
      Posted May 25, 2017 at 8:05 pm | Permalink

      Stanley Baldwin, know as the “Dear Vicar,” was the Obama of the pre-war years. Chamberlain was later and did allow the RAF and the Chain Home stations to be built.

      Baldwin would have lost the war and retired at the right time. Halifax would also have lost the war and it is only good luck, or fate, that but put Churchill in in time. Part of the reason Churchill took Chamberlain into his cabinet was that the Tories still hated Churchill and he might have lost a confidence motion in May 1940. Lukacs has an excellent book about May 1940.

      Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

      • Barry
        Posted May 25, 2017 at 8:17 pm | Permalink

        Winston said and wrote that Neville was a great and good man. So, let’s leave that relationship in the hands of the folks concerned.

        Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Post a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting