More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors

White House Condemnation Of Berlin Terror Attack Not Like Condemnation Of Israel Terror Attacks

Credit: Fabrizio Bensch, Reuters

Following yesterday’s terror attack in Berlin, in which a person drove a truck into a Christmas market in a public square (ending my suspicion this was perpetrated by a radical Christian terrorist), murdering at least 12 people, the White House was quick to issue this condemnation of the attack.

The United States condemns in the strongest terms what appears to have been a terrorist attack on a Christmas Market in Berlin, Germany, which has killed and wounded dozens.  We send our thoughts and prayers to the families and loved ones of those killed, just as we wish a speedy recovery to all of those wounded.  We also extend our heartfelt condolences to the people and Government of Germany.  We have been in touch with German officials, and we stand ready to provide assistance as they recover from and investigate this horrific incident.  Germany is one of our closest partners and strongest allies, and we stand together with Berlin in the fight against all those who target our way of life and threaten our societies.

Let’s break it down.

Condemnation in strongest terms, thoughts and prayers to the victims and loved ones, condolences to entire German people, offer to provide assistance, followed by a statement as to closeness of ties with Germany and resolve to stand together with them and fight terror.

I thought I would compare to the typical US response after a terror attack in Israel.

Here is one from an attack on the Har Nof synagogue two years ago:

Statement by the President on Attack in Jerusalem

I strongly condemn today’s terrorist attack on worshipers at a synagogue in Jerusalem, which killed four innocent people, including U.S. citizens Aryeh Kupinsky, Cary William Levine, and Mosheh Twersky, and injured several more.  There is and can be no justification for such attacks against innocent civilians.  The thoughts and prayers of the American people are with the victims and families of all those who were killed and injured in this horrific attack and in other recent violence.  At this sensitive moment in Jerusalem, it is all the more important for Israeli and Palestinian leaders and ordinary citizens to work cooperatively together to lower tensions, reject violence, and seek a path forward towards peace.

Let’s break this one down too.

Again, we have strong condemnation, followed by thoughts and prayers to the victims and loved ones. But no offer to provide assistance, statement as to closeness of ties with Israel nor resolve to stand together with us and fight terror. In fact, it ends with a plea for Israeli leaders to work with palestinian leaders to lower tensions, as if this a part of a “cycle of violence” and not a scourge that needs to be fought.

The hypocrisy and double standards have never been so evident.

Here’s hoping the new US administration puts an end to this.

54 thoughts on “White House Condemnation Of Berlin Terror Attack Not Like Condemnation Of Israel Terror Attacks”

  1. Wow, I guess living in a place where a lot of your neighbors would like to kill you makes you a little bit nuts. Taking the American response to the terrorist tragedy in Germany and twisting it the way you have, Dave, really does cause me to question your mental state. 30 days and the big bad Obama will be all gone, so stop twisting yourself into a neurotic pretzel already. Think Rogue One instead.

    1. Twisting? You considering commently on the obvious the outright hypocrisy of Emperor Odumba’s regime to be twisting.

      Only to leftists or other people without a single functioning brain cell

        1. You were the one who leapt to Obama’s defense over the fact that his administration treats terrorist attacks against Israel differently than terrorist attacks elsewhere, so spare us your condescending tripe.

          1. If you have hate in your heart for President Obama, I really can’t help you with that. I can point out facts, and expose false allegations, but I don’t have the expectation of changing your mind on this matter.

        2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

          Sadly, the Iran deal, the strengthening of Hizbollah and Hamas, and much of the other damage he accomplished will not be gone so quickly.

    2. Norman_In_New_York

      Dave did not find any fault with the American response to the German terror tragedy. His disgust at the administration’s response to Israeli terror tragedies is absolutely warranted. Was Secretary of State Kerry wearing a helmet when he fell off the cycle of violence?

      1. I’m faulting Dave for inventing things that aren’t there in making the comparisons between the two statements. Obama’s statement on the attack on the Har Nof synagogue taken in the context of past statements and actions in support of Israel by the Obama Administration makes Dave’s position here irrational. I’m not saying Aussie Dave is completely whacked and has gone all cray cray like a lot of us think Donald Trump is; he’s just a little off base on his comparisons between the two statements.

          1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

            You could have put it in a Venn diagram and accompanied it with mathematical proof and Jim would still not admit it to himself.

        1. Norman_In_New_York

          The media got all bent out of shape over Trump calling this incident Islamic terrorism because of the speed with which he connected the dots. It doesn’t take much for those who are not on the left to recognize a pattern here.

          1. As president, Donald Trump will be held to a higher standard than when he was just a candidate on the campaign trail. It is hard to believe that Donald Trump would have had more facts available to him when he sent his Tweet than the German officials had at that time. Criticism of Trump’s Tweet was completely valid. And his Tweet regarding the motive of the assassin of the Russian ambassador to Turkey has still not been substantiated as factual. We cannot afford a president who is careless with his language.

              1. It is factual but not conclusive. Turkish-Russian relations are very complex. Let’s get all the facts before we draw conclusions.

                1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

                  Yeah, I hear that Quaker terrorists yell that all the time when they murder people. Or maybe the killer was acting from entirely non-religious motives but had just stubbed his toe right before the murders, and that was his way of saying #$@#%^&*!!@#!!

        2. I really don’t recall an unequivocal condemnation, such as that for the attack in Germany, of a terrorist attack against Israel from the Obama Administration.

          1. Good grief. The statement Dave highlighted condemns the terrorist attack unequivocally. Encouraging Israelis and Palestinians to work together cooperatively is hardly an equivocation. I suppose you can read anything into any statement if you want to believe something bad enough.

            1. That statement ignores the reality that, except for disappearing, there is nothing that Israel can do that will “ease the tension” as long as the terrorists of the PLO and Hamas are the leaders of the Palestinian people.

              1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

                And the reality that Israel has made numerous concessions and compromises, and offered even more, only to have the PA refuse to even sit down in the same room with them to negotiate, and demand further and further concessions.

          2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

            At any time during his administration. And neither do I.
            If you add the attack at Hyper Cacher in Paris, it’s fair to say against Israel or against Jews.

        3. Jim, you are the one twisting the facts. Dave’s statement is clear. He did not “read things into” the statement re attack in Germany, or twist it, or find fault with it. He did find fault with the statement about the Har Nof attack. He highlighted the way that the statement about Har Nof attack, was not as unequivocal, not as strong, and importantly, made no mention of the U.S. relationship with Israel or offer assistance. Whereas, that attack involved US citizens, information which the statement includes, so if ever there was a time to stand with Israel and state that this was also an attack against the U.S. and to offer support, this was it. He didn’t equivocate between the terrorists and Israel, but with the last part he did put the terror attack into context of the conflict. It’s the support that’s not equivocal. In the statement about Germany, there is a clear statement of support for one side, the side of America’s ally and a pledge to help fight those who oppose “our way of life”. Whereas in the statement about Har Nof, there is an attempt for the US to be an honest broker, shepherding “both sides”. If “there can be and is no justification” for such an attack, why give credence to the motivation of the attackers? This is the very definition of a forked tongue statement. There can be no justification on one hand, but this is a “sensitive time” and “both sides need to work together and cooperate”. Look at the contrast – Germany: stand with our ally, Germany and help fight terrorism (actually, more explicitly, THOSE WHO THREATEN our way) vs Israel: help both sides work cooperatively. If Dave wanted to nit pick or twist the statement, he could have found fault with the fact that sending prayers to “all those killed or injured” included the terrorists.

          1. In language and intent, the two statements from the White House are nearly identical to anyone not pursuing an agenda against the Obama Administration. This is not even a close call in my judgment.

            1. B.S.
              You are repeating your point, but you are not answering to my comment as I clearly highlighted the differences in language and intent.

              1. OK, but wouldn’t it be helpful to know who the terrorist(s) is/are in Berlin yesterday? We don’t know that vital fact yet.

                1. 1. Are you suggesting that there are good terrorists (ie may be understandable according to their particular brand of jihad or grievances OR where the victims are Jews) and bad terrorists (ie just mad OR where the victims are random people who are not Jews)?

                  2. That’s exactly my point. In this case the administration did not wait to find out the finer points and facts. They correctly condemned the attack AND offered assistance AND said they will FIGHT alongside Germany AGAINST those threatening OUR way of life. Still don’t see the difference?

                  It would have been more similar if in the case of Israel they had, at least, said that they condemn the terror attack AND they condemn salaries being paid to the terrorists and their families AND they condemn Abbas’ calls to release these particular types of prisoners.

                  1. I’m suggesting that constructing or deconstructing any statement coming out of the Obama White House has become a bit of a parlor game when the subject is Israel. I’ll leave it in Bibi’s hands when he claims that Israel has no greater friend in the world than the United States.

                    1. Most of what I know about Bibi’s positions on various issues comes directly from the Israeli press.

                  2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

                    AND that they not imply that there was any significant segment of Israelis — or the Israeli government — ready to take violent revenge on the first innocent Arab they saw.

            2. ahad_ha_amoratsim

              There are subtle but important differences that are apparent to anyone who is not blind to Obama’s double standard when dealing with Israel and his long history of false charges against Israel and its elected leaders.
              And against the American Jewish community and his suggestion that we needed to do some soul searching about why there is no peace in the Middle East.

              1. I agree with Dennis Ross’ assessment of Obama’s treatment of Israel over the past eight years. It is utterly conventional, mainstream American foreign policy consistent with past Republican and Democratic administrations. So if you oppose Obama’s policies towards Israel you are really against American policies over the past 50 years.

        4. ahad_ha_amoratsim

          Taken in the context of Obama’s past statements about terror murders in Israel, his silence about so many others (even when the victims are US citizens), his disgusting ‘folks randomly shot in a deli” remark about terror against Jews and Israelis in France, and his outrage when Arabs with American citizenship are arrested or killed while engaging in terror attacks put things in a very different context than you seem to think, Jim.
          Where the calls for evenhandedness? For Germany to use restraint? For Germans not to engage in terror attacks against Muslims?

          1. Do you think the two terrorist attacks in Germany and in Israel are exactly the same requiring the same response? As of 30 minutes ago, CNN was reporting that the Germans had the wrong guy and so there is an ongoing manhunt to capture the driver of the semi used in the almost certain terrorist attack. The language in the statement from two years ago from the White House expressed sympathy and compassion for the victims of the attack and their families. It also expressed encouragement for Israelis and Palestinians to work together cooperatively for peace and in opposition to violence. The statement did not use the words “even-handedness” or “restraint.” You can make stuff up all you want, but it doesn’t make it true or reflect the supportive words and actions of the Obama Administration towards Israel over the last eight years.

            1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

              No, it did not use the word evenhanded. Or the word false equivalence. Or the word hypocrisy.
              Hypocritical application of false equivalence intended to demonstrate evenhandedness seldom do.

    3. “really does cause me to question your mental state”

      I have been so tolerant of your at times wacky comments and opinions, Jim, but that crosses the line.

      1. I apologize for any offense my words have caused you. I like and respect you, Dave, and feel you put out one of the best blogs on Israel there is. I do think you have misjudged President Obama in this case.

        1. the coming storm

          Jim, misunderstandings often arise whereby people assume that others have the same background knowledge and context that they have had. Blogs like Israellycool are immersed in this world and have examined statements by the White House and Obama over the years finding multiple incidents of hypocrisy and double standards when it comes to Israel.

          Although I see you comment on a large number of posts on this blog, I don’t know whether you have been subjected to this context, but from your comment it seems you haven’t. Perhaps taken alone, the disparity between these statements isn’t that egregious, but when taken together with all the other things they do, it is just another illustration of the impossible standard Israel is held to.

          Also you seem to be ridiculing people who dislike Obama in rather a condescending way. In my mind he is a smug, condescending prick who has ruined America in the eyes of the world.

          1. I’ve done my share of criticism of Obama as well, but I find attacks on the Obama Administration’s Israel policies by Dave and others here really off base. I understand where I’m at, and I don’t expect to find a lot of allies defending Obama here. I’m more in agreement when the issues are BDS, Hamas or Fatah, Jew Haters and anti-Semitism, people and organizations engaged in pro-Israel efforts including free speech efforts on American campuses.

            1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

              Back in January of this year, Jeff
              Dunetz observed:
              “Is President Obama’s Adminstration anti-Semitic? It is impossible to
              look into their hearts, there may be other reasons why he’s surrounded
              himself with people who make anti-Semitic statements or led anti-Semitic
              pogroms, honored people with a history of anti-Semitism , and made some statements and policy decisions which could be interpreted as
              anti-Semitic, and objects to Jews purchasing homes where-ever they would like. Any one or two of the above could reasonably be ignored (and if you disagree with any there’s many more left out of this post). Whether
              one believes he is an anti-Semite or not it, what cannot be argued that
              there is much more than a “smidgen” of evidence one could use to make a factual based argument that this president has an issue with Jews.”

  2. ok dave, you will soon get what you thought you wanted
    an administration who shoots from the hip
    you may not like the results

    1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

      Like it or not, Walt, he won the election. People also complained that Bush was a cowboy and shoots from the hip.
      Yeah, Trump leaves a lot to be desired. Hillary leaves a lot to be desired, too. And Trump’s choice for Ambassador to Israel is a very hopeful sign.

      1. When it comes to Iraq, Bush WAS a cowboy and he DID shoot from the hip. Even after most of his cabinet appointments have been announced, I cannot tell you what if any governing principle Trump is trying to advance. Maybe other than “greed is good.”

        1. ahad_ha_amoratsim

          How about, “Let’s appoint people who have succeeded at something?” And in the case of his picks for Ambassador to Israel, chief of NSA and SecDef, people who actually know something about the topic.
          I’m not sure what Gen. Mattis has to do with greed, but hey, it’s Trump and it’s GOP, so whatever. At least we can look forward to 4 years without your pointing at neocon boogey men every 30 seconds.

          1. I like the Mattis pick. Elections have consequences and I think the Senate should confirm his appointments unless there are compelling reasons not to. This would only occur with strong bipartisan opposition.

      2. trump picked a reader of this site to be the ambassador to israel
        couldve picked me, ive said the same things
        but he picked the guy who helped through multiple bankruptcies and is his personal atty, and did good things with the money he was paid
        thats wonderful
        but a diplomat he does not make
        and i know that most ambassadorships go to monied individuals….except when it comes to places like israel, where what the ambassador says makes a difference
        the one positive of the choice is that it is making leftist jews lose it….and it will be nice to have their voices muted for once
        as for bush…please….the man got america into an illegal war, destabilized the middle east, screwed israel and then crashed the world
        he was a cowboy….a retarded cowboy
        and now he sits at home and paints pictures….like other retarded cowboys

  3. ahad_ha_amoratsim

    “The hypocrisy and double standards have never been so evident.”
    Of course they have.
    Lots of times.
    Compare this with the White House statement about the three murdered boys HYD, Eyal Yifrach, Naftali Fraenkel and Gilad Shaar, even though one of them was a US citizen.
    Or the Fogel family, HYD.
    Or any others.
    When has it not been evident?

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top