Obama proposes leaving Israel indefensible. http://tinyurl.com/3g28eya
Showing posts with label Israel Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Israel Obama. Show all posts
Thursday, May 26, 2011
Sunday, May 22, 2011
Obama screws up Israeli policy w/ controversial and unwelcome comments; Bibi strikes back
Much has transpired over the past few days after Obama stuck foot firmly in mouth by loudly proclaiming that any peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians should be based on the [indefensible] 1967 lines. Not only is this in fact a major change in stated US policy; Obama continues to deny [i.e. lie] that this is in fact a change in policy. Moreover, Israel was completely blindsided on the eve of PM Netanyahu's visit to DC to meet Obama, and both were due to speak days later at the AIPAC conference.
There is much else wrong with what Obama said and how he said it...
How, you may ask ?
Boy, did President Obama screw up! He gave two-thirds of a great address on Thursday, abandoning his pinched, Realpolitik orientation and promising to put the United States on the side of democrats in the Middle East. It was a ringing call that should have received wide attention, but didn’t. Why not? Because of the final third of his speech, which contained the now-infamous call for a future Israeli-Palestinian peace to be “based on the 1967 lines.”
The president went on to add a caveat to this statement, adding that there would be “mutually agreed swaps, so that secure and recognized borders are established for both states.” He also tossed some other rhetorical concessions Israel’s way, for example decrying “antagonism toward Israel,” warning that “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure,” and telling “Palestinian leaders” that they “will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.” He even eschewed his previous call for an Israeli settlement freeze.
None of it mattered. All of the headlines were about Obama becoming the first U.S. president to declare that the 1967 borders—meaning the 1949 cease-fire lines—should be the basis of any peace treaty.
This is a gratuitous insult to our closest ally in the region and an unearned gift to the Palestinians at a time when they are eschewing talks with Israel. It is all the more puzzling because the entire focus of the region has been on the Arab Spring—not on Israel and Palestine. The only people who want to put the focus back on Israel are dictators like Bashar al-Assad who want to deflect popular anger among their own people. Why is Obama playing their game at the same time that he rightly denounces human-rights abuses by Assad, Qaddafi, and their ilk?
And why is he insisting on putting the focus back on the Israeli-Palestinian “peace process” at a time when prospects for a settlement have never been bleaker because of Fatah’s willingness to form a unity government with the genocidal terrorists of Hamas? Obama even agrees with Prime Minister Netanyahu, at least in public, that Israel cannot negotiate with Hamas until that group renounces violence and recognizes Israel’s right to exist—conditions that are likely to be met around the time that cows start jumping over the moon. So, why, then did Obama upend his own pro-democracy speech with a totally unnecessary and counterproductive foray back into the thickets of Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking?
I don’t know, but can only conclude that this is a mania that he came into office with, and no amount of hard experience can disabuse him of it.
I commented a few days ago on Obama’s ability to learn from his early blunders on many issues. The fact that he is now taking a harder line with Iran and Syria, while embracing the pro-democracy forces in the region, is evidence of his maturation in office. But when it comes to Israel, Obama just can’t seem to escape his ideological straightjacket. He still seems to believe that an Israeli-Palestinian accord is not only of overarching importance but also something that can be accomplished during his term of office. Many presidents going back to the days of Richard Nixon have fallen prey to the same illusion. In Bill Clinton’s case he was still trying to squeeze out a deal even as his last minutes in office ran out.
I had figured that Obama was smarter than that—that he might have learned from experience. Apparently not.
Below I have included many links addressing what has transpired regarding this completely unnecessary and avoidable mess that Obama made.
Obama's May 22nd speech at AIPAC conference:
http://www.israellycool.com/2011/05/22/barack-obamas-aipac-speech/ video of speech, text of speech & commentary
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/22/obama-aipac-speech-2011-p_n_865198.html Obama's Aipac speech
Here is what started this whole brouhaha:
Jennifer Rubin in the Washington Post:
That’s when the boos came. It is not “well known” what the deal will be because the right of return, the demand to flood Israel with the children and grandchildren of Arabs who fled during the war of aggression on the infant Jewish state, and the security arrangements are the core of the matter. Moreover, Obama misquoted himself by insisting he said the parties “will negotiate a border that is different than the one that existed on June 4, 1967.” No, he said it was U.S. policy that the deal would stem from the 1967 lines.
He then disingenuously said he’d always meant “it is the right and responsibility of the Israeli government to make the hard choices that are necessary to protect a Jewish and democratic state for which so many generations have sacrifice.” And there was some pablum about the current situation not being sustainable, the U.S. commitment to Israel and Obama’s fondness for the nation whose bargaining position he has undermined.
The problems in the speech include: 1) Obama made it clear the United States is willing to give away Israel’s bargaining position for nothing in return; 2) Obama never even mentioned the right of return; 3) He did not reiterate specifically the necessity of a military presence in the Jordan Valley. You see, only Israel’s expected concessions are “well known”; 4) Israel can’t be expected to negotiate with those who want to destroy it, but negotiations need to resume; and 5) if anything Obama underscored that the United States has differences with Israel — but it’s between “friends.”
Obama must be very certain that liberal Jews will enthusiastically support him no matter what. And there is evidence he is right. Josh Block, senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and a former AIPAC spokesman, e-mailed: “It [the speech] was a strong reaffirmation of the US-Israel relationship, and was an important and positive change from his remarks on Thursday. It reflected an important continuity of US policy going back to President Johnson.”
This is the sort of spin that pro-Israel Democrats use to justify voting for Obama. But there is a reality that can’t be avoided. This president once again has proved an apt negotiator on behalf of the Palestinians and a thorn in Israel’s side. Now is a time of choosing for the American Jewish community, for Israel and for Congress. And if Obama should be reelected in 2012 one can only imagine how hostile he will become toward the Jewish state.
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Obama, still wrong on Mideast Policy (Hilary too)
The latest Obama panderfest from Indonesia:
Obama Gets It Wrong on Israel, and Canada’s Harper Gets It Right
November 10, 2010
By Benjamin Weinthal
Berlin — It has been about six months since the Obama’s administration’s verbal tirade against Israel’s decision to construct 1,600 apartments in an east Jerusalem neighborhood, and now President Obama has opened Act II.
He used Indonesia, a country that does not diplomatically recognize Israel’s right to exist, as his primary stage, scolding the Jewish state during his visit to the world’s largest Islamic country by saying, “This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office fired back that “Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”
In sharp contrast to Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada found the right language this week: “Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israel mob tell us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us.”
Obama lacks a singleness of purpose when it comes to stopping Iran’s drive to go nuclear. He should be engaging in more saber-rattling and going on the offensive to sanction Swiss, Russian, Indian, and Chinese gas and oil companies propping up Iran’s regime with revenue. As former President Bush notes in his new memoir, Iran suspended its illicit nuclear enrichment program because its rulers were filled with anxiety about U.S. military intervention in Iran following the Iraq war.
One hopes that Act III of Obama’s foreign policy toward the Middle East will focus not on housing units in Jerusalem but on compelling Iran to stop its drive to go nuclear. Moreover, Secretary of State Clinton ought to be more concerned with supporting pro-democracy activists in Iran than with Tweeting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his 54th birthday, a stunning lowlight and great source of embarrassment for Americans concerned with global democracy.
— Benjamin Weinthal is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Obama Gets It Wrong on Israel, and Canada’s Harper Gets It Right
November 10, 2010
By Benjamin Weinthal
Berlin — It has been about six months since the Obama’s administration’s verbal tirade against Israel’s decision to construct 1,600 apartments in an east Jerusalem neighborhood, and now President Obama has opened Act II.
He used Indonesia, a country that does not diplomatically recognize Israel’s right to exist, as his primary stage, scolding the Jewish state during his visit to the world’s largest Islamic country by saying, “This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations.”
Prime Minister Netanyahu’s office fired back that “Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel.”
In sharp contrast to Obama, Prime Minister Stephen Harper of Canada found the right language this week: “Not just because it is the right thing to do, but because history shows us, and the ideology of the anti-Israel mob tell us all too well, that those who threaten the existence of the Jewish people are in the longer term a threat to all of us.”
Obama lacks a singleness of purpose when it comes to stopping Iran’s drive to go nuclear. He should be engaging in more saber-rattling and going on the offensive to sanction Swiss, Russian, Indian, and Chinese gas and oil companies propping up Iran’s regime with revenue. As former President Bush notes in his new memoir, Iran suspended its illicit nuclear enrichment program because its rulers were filled with anxiety about U.S. military intervention in Iran following the Iraq war.
One hopes that Act III of Obama’s foreign policy toward the Middle East will focus not on housing units in Jerusalem but on compelling Iran to stop its drive to go nuclear. Moreover, Secretary of State Clinton ought to be more concerned with supporting pro-democracy activists in Iran than with Tweeting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on his 54th birthday, a stunning lowlight and great source of embarrassment for Americans concerned with global democracy.
— Benjamin Weinthal is a fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Friday, July 9, 2010
Obama is a Smorgasbord of Arrogance & Incompetence
Some good reading on this general topic of Obama the Magnificent:
Poll: 55 Percent Believe Obama a Socialist
Kevin hits this at Exchequer, Jim at Campaign Spot.
http://article.nationalreview.com/437808/the-selective-modesty-of-barack-obama/charles-krauthammer
And this little gem:
Obama: Israelis Mistrust Me Because of My Middle Name [Kevin D. Williamson]
Apparently, his middle name is "Clueless," if this Haaretz headline is any indicator:
Obama: Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein
A friend points out that the Israeli-Jordan peace treaty was signed by a certain King Hussein.
What did Obama study in college?
And those Russian spies:
Dr. K On the Obama administration’s alacrity in expelling the Russian agents:
Everybody treats this as a joke — Anna Chapman the Bond girl and all that. The fact is, that they were here as sleepers for ten years. And one of their charges was to recruit others.
It's true none of the ten were in the government, but who was recruited? Where were those recruits? Any of them in the government? Any information we get on them?
It is quite remarkable to kick ‘em out overnight without any interrogation. If you stick them in jail and you have a plea bargain, you might be able to get information that we don't have today. Why are we not attempting that — like we did with the Detroit bomber who got his Miranda rights in ten minutes?
So that‘s number one. The other part is this is not about justice. This is about diplomacy. It is a swap, but the odd thing is how the administration from the top, from [the] State Department and the White House, was so eager to get rid of this right away.
On June the 29th a State Department spokesman described all this as "some vestiges of old attempts to use intelligence," said nobody is shocked, nobody. In fact, his only complaint seemed to be against Justice for getting in the way of the great [Russian] "reset." He was asked about this investigation and the arrest. And he said: Oh, Justice, it’s on its own track and we are on our track. This is extremely odd. Russia spies on us. We are the victims, [yet] we are the ones who immediately dismiss it as nothing.
And the Russians, who if anything are the aggressors here, are complaining about our arrest of their agents. And we essentially say: Sorry about that, we'll get it off the table. Very odd.
Look, if you want good relations with an adversary and you give him everything and you roll over, of course the relations will remain good. It's a high price, though.
Poll: 55 Percent Believe Obama a Socialist
Kevin hits this at Exchequer, Jim at Campaign Spot.
http://article.nationalreview.com/437808/the-selective-modesty-of-barack-obama/charles-krauthammer
And this little gem:
Obama: Israelis Mistrust Me Because of My Middle Name [Kevin D. Williamson]
Apparently, his middle name is "Clueless," if this Haaretz headline is any indicator:
Obama: Israelis suspicious of me because my middle name is Hussein
A friend points out that the Israeli-Jordan peace treaty was signed by a certain King Hussein.
What did Obama study in college?
And those Russian spies:
Dr. K On the Obama administration’s alacrity in expelling the Russian agents:
Everybody treats this as a joke — Anna Chapman the Bond girl and all that. The fact is, that they were here as sleepers for ten years. And one of their charges was to recruit others.
It's true none of the ten were in the government, but who was recruited? Where were those recruits? Any of them in the government? Any information we get on them?
It is quite remarkable to kick ‘em out overnight without any interrogation. If you stick them in jail and you have a plea bargain, you might be able to get information that we don't have today. Why are we not attempting that — like we did with the Detroit bomber who got his Miranda rights in ten minutes?
So that‘s number one. The other part is this is not about justice. This is about diplomacy. It is a swap, but the odd thing is how the administration from the top, from [the] State Department and the White House, was so eager to get rid of this right away.
On June the 29th a State Department spokesman described all this as "some vestiges of old attempts to use intelligence," said nobody is shocked, nobody. In fact, his only complaint seemed to be against Justice for getting in the way of the great [Russian] "reset." He was asked about this investigation and the arrest. And he said: Oh, Justice, it’s on its own track and we are on our track. This is extremely odd. Russia spies on us. We are the victims, [yet] we are the ones who immediately dismiss it as nothing.
And the Russians, who if anything are the aggressors here, are complaining about our arrest of their agents. And we essentially say: Sorry about that, we'll get it off the table. Very odd.
Look, if you want good relations with an adversary and you give him everything and you roll over, of course the relations will remain good. It's a high price, though.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Israel again under attack for defending its sovereignty - Gaza naval clash
It was like a well-planned lynch,” one IDF officer said. “These people were anything but peace activists.”
Gaza flotilla was warned for many hours to stand down; but they came for confrontation.
In the end, after all, the flotilla is just another chapter in an int'l campaign to chip away at Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176936
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176970
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177019
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177040
No doubt, Obama and State Dept. will echo the European weenies and combe down hard on Israel, which showed remarkable restraint; and not place blame where it belongs - on the death cult terroirst supporters who only in Bizarro World would be called Peace Activists.
Gaza flotilla was warned for many hours to stand down; but they came for confrontation.
In the end, after all, the flotilla is just another chapter in an int'l campaign to chip away at Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176936
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=176970
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177019
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177040
No doubt, Obama and State Dept. will echo the European weenies and combe down hard on Israel, which showed remarkable restraint; and not place blame where it belongs - on the death cult terroirst supporters who only in Bizarro World would be called Peace Activists.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Obama Statement on Israel's 62nd Independence Day
What, no video ?
Obama on Israel Independence Day
By JPOST.COM STAFF 20/04/2010
In a statement released by the White House Monday, President Barack Obama shared his sentiments on Israel's 62nd anniversary."
On the 62nd Anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, I join the American people in congratulating the government and people of Israel on this celebration of their independence," Obama said.
"Minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence, realizing the dream of a state for the Jewish people in their historic homeland, the United States became the first country to recognize Israel," he added.
"To this day, we continue to share a strong, unbreakable bond of friendship between our two nations, anchored by the United States’ enduring commitment to Israel’s security," Obama stressed.
"Israel remains our important partner and key strategic ally in the Middle East, and I am confident that our special relationship will only be strengthened in the months and years to come," Obama said in his speech.
"I look forward to continuing our efforts with Israel to achieve comprehensive peace and security in the region, including a two-state solution, and to working together to counter the forces that threaten Israel, the United States, and the world," Obama underlined.
"On this day, we once again honor the extraordinary achievements of the people of Israel, and their deep and abiding friendship with the American people. I offer my best wishes to President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel as they celebrate this happy occasion," he concluded.
-------------------------
In the real world:
AIFL slams humiliation of Israel
By JPOST.COM STAFF 17/04/2010
In open letter, pro-Israel group voices its concern over relations.
AIFL slams humiliation of Israel by Obama
In an open letter, the America-Israel Friendship League voices its concern over relations.The America-Israel Friendship League (AIFL) has sent an open letter to US President Barack Obama in concern over what it calls “deteriorating relations that appear to be developing” between the US and Israel.
The organization affirmed Obama’s commitment to relations between the two countries. But it urged the US president to reconsider his apparent intention of pressing Israel to abandon its longstanding Jerusalem policy, particularly regarding construction there, as a precondition to talks with the Palestinians.
The AIFL stressed the special “unbroken” link and place of Jerusalem in the tradition of Israel and Jews worldwide, and noted that Israel’s policy was to continue construction activities in the capital, as it has been doing for the past 40 years. The organization stated that such construction had not encumbered previous negotiations with the Palestinians nor peace treaties achieved between Israel and its neighbors during that period. Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem, it wrote, was recognized in the 2004 agreement between former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US President George W. Bush, which “[Obama’s] administration has apparently decided not to recognize.”
The AIFL acknowledged the “poor timing” of Israel’s announcement of Jerusalem construction during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, but wrote that it did not justify the “public criticism” of Israel nor an apparent attempt to “humiliate its prime minister,” suggesting that such matters have to be resolved “as befitting close allies.”
Both Democrats and Republicans on the AIFL board were “distressed by the actions of the [US] government in this very public shaming of Israel,” especially in light of the current “concerted campaign” by its enemies to de-legitimize Israel’s existence.
Obama’s actions, the AIFL stated, “were not in line with our values.” America’s alignment with the Arab league’s position regarding Jerusalem “reflects an unjustified change in the US Mideast policy.” According to the AIFL, any changes in Israel’s position regarding Jerusalem should only come in the course of direct negotiations with the Palestinians.
The organization questioned whether Israel’s failure to follow US policy would lead to any withdrawal of US diplomatic or material assistance to Israel. It suggested that such actions “could provide our common enemies with succor,” as well as encourage hatred and incitement of Israel and Jews.
At a time of “unparalleled challenges” faced by the world from Iran, “this is not a time to exacerbate any real or perceived slights.”The organization also raised the question of the US’s image among its allies. “If Israel can be disdained with such ease, what does this say about the US and its steadfastness with its other allies?” the letter asks.
The AIFL called on the Obama administration to engage in “an exchange of ideas” on the issues of Mideast peace and Israel’s security.
Obama on Israel Independence Day
By JPOST.COM STAFF 20/04/2010
In a statement released by the White House Monday, President Barack Obama shared his sentiments on Israel's 62nd anniversary."
On the 62nd Anniversary of the establishment of the State of Israel, I join the American people in congratulating the government and people of Israel on this celebration of their independence," Obama said.
"Minutes after David Ben-Gurion declared Israel’s independence, realizing the dream of a state for the Jewish people in their historic homeland, the United States became the first country to recognize Israel," he added.
"To this day, we continue to share a strong, unbreakable bond of friendship between our two nations, anchored by the United States’ enduring commitment to Israel’s security," Obama stressed.
"Israel remains our important partner and key strategic ally in the Middle East, and I am confident that our special relationship will only be strengthened in the months and years to come," Obama said in his speech.
"I look forward to continuing our efforts with Israel to achieve comprehensive peace and security in the region, including a two-state solution, and to working together to counter the forces that threaten Israel, the United States, and the world," Obama underlined.
"On this day, we once again honor the extraordinary achievements of the people of Israel, and their deep and abiding friendship with the American people. I offer my best wishes to President Peres, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and the people of Israel as they celebrate this happy occasion," he concluded.
-------------------------
In the real world:
AIFL slams humiliation of Israel
By JPOST.COM STAFF 17/04/2010
In open letter, pro-Israel group voices its concern over relations.
AIFL slams humiliation of Israel by Obama
In an open letter, the America-Israel Friendship League voices its concern over relations.The America-Israel Friendship League (AIFL) has sent an open letter to US President Barack Obama in concern over what it calls “deteriorating relations that appear to be developing” between the US and Israel.
The organization affirmed Obama’s commitment to relations between the two countries. But it urged the US president to reconsider his apparent intention of pressing Israel to abandon its longstanding Jerusalem policy, particularly regarding construction there, as a precondition to talks with the Palestinians.
The AIFL stressed the special “unbroken” link and place of Jerusalem in the tradition of Israel and Jews worldwide, and noted that Israel’s policy was to continue construction activities in the capital, as it has been doing for the past 40 years. The organization stated that such construction had not encumbered previous negotiations with the Palestinians nor peace treaties achieved between Israel and its neighbors during that period. Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem, it wrote, was recognized in the 2004 agreement between former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and former US President George W. Bush, which “[Obama’s] administration has apparently decided not to recognize.”
The AIFL acknowledged the “poor timing” of Israel’s announcement of Jerusalem construction during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Israel, but wrote that it did not justify the “public criticism” of Israel nor an apparent attempt to “humiliate its prime minister,” suggesting that such matters have to be resolved “as befitting close allies.”
Both Democrats and Republicans on the AIFL board were “distressed by the actions of the [US] government in this very public shaming of Israel,” especially in light of the current “concerted campaign” by its enemies to de-legitimize Israel’s existence.
Obama’s actions, the AIFL stated, “were not in line with our values.” America’s alignment with the Arab league’s position regarding Jerusalem “reflects an unjustified change in the US Mideast policy.” According to the AIFL, any changes in Israel’s position regarding Jerusalem should only come in the course of direct negotiations with the Palestinians.
The organization questioned whether Israel’s failure to follow US policy would lead to any withdrawal of US diplomatic or material assistance to Israel. It suggested that such actions “could provide our common enemies with succor,” as well as encourage hatred and incitement of Israel and Jews.
At a time of “unparalleled challenges” faced by the world from Iran, “this is not a time to exacerbate any real or perceived slights.”The organization also raised the question of the US’s image among its allies. “If Israel can be disdained with such ease, what does this say about the US and its steadfastness with its other allies?” the letter asks.
The AIFL called on the Obama administration to engage in “an exchange of ideas” on the issues of Mideast peace and Israel’s security.
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Ronald Lauder accuses Obama of abandoning Israeli security
http://www.debka.com/article/8716/
The latest American Jewish leader to address a letter of deep concern over the public US feud with Israel is Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress. He voices the concern of Jews around the world not only about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime with genocidal intentions toward Israel, but the deterioration of US-Israeli relations and the Jewish state's deliberate isolation.The WJC president asks why this administration seems to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks when it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate. Settlements were not the key issue when peace talks broke down before and they are not the key issue now.
Lauder then asks if it is true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides Israel with defensible borders. He goes on to ask if friction with Israel is part of the Administration's desire to improve relations with the Muslim world and warns that appeasement does not work.Israel is not only America's closest ally in the Middle East, Lauder stresses. It is the one most committed to this administration's declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons. This is the single biggest threat that confronts the world today.Former New York Mayor Ed Koch condemned the Obama administration's attitude toward Israel in the strongest terms: "I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the US and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust." He goes on to say: "…our closest ally… has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible …for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East."
Ed Koch says he suspects the plan is "to so weaken the resolve of the of the Jewish state and its leaders so that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch."
He is most bothered by what he calls "the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders - Jew and Christian" and asks: Where are the Jews who marched in defense of fellow American citizens in 1963 and heard Martin Luther King's memorable speech. "We have stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters in the Jewish state of Israel?" Ed Koch asks.
Other articles of interest:
Tehran: If Iran is attacked, nuclear devices will go off in American cities
http://www.debka.com/article/8713/
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173302
http://www.debka.com/article/8717/
Hezbollah admits receiving Syrian Scud missiles ("what's the big deal").
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173217
Hows that UN resolution ending the last conflict working out ? Not too well.
And anti-Israel collaborator Richard Goldstone will not attend his own grandson's bar mitzva due to the outrage over his role in legitimizing UN efforts to deligitimize Israel's rights to self defense:
Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed a war crimes probe that has infuriated Israel and Jewish communities around the world, will not be attending his grandson’s bar mitzva in Johannesburg next month, according to a South African newspaper.Goldstone will not be present when his grandson performs the religious rite, following an agreement between the family, the South African Zionist Organization (SAZF) and the Beith Hamedrash Hagadol synagogue in Sandton, where the event will take place, the South African Jewish Report said.Related: What South African Jews think of Richard GoldstoneThe South African jurist led the UN-sanctioned investigation into suspected war crimes committed during last year’s armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.SAZF chairman Avrom Krengel said his organization had “interacted” on the matter with the chief rabbi, the beit din (rabbinical court) and others, adding that the federation was “coming across most forcefully because we represent Israel,” the paper said.Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag, head of the local beit din, commented that the court had not been officially consulted, though there had been “private talks,” and that the synagogue had not asked it to give a ruling on the matter. “But I know that there was a very strong feeling in the shul, a lot of anger [around the issue of Justice Goldstone attending],” the newspaper quoted Kurtstag as saying.“I heard also that the SAZF wanted to organize a protest outside the shul – [there were] all kinds of plans. But I think reason prevailed,” Kurtstag added.Meanwhile, Goldstone was quoted in the newspaper as saying that “in the interests of my grandson, I’ve decided not to attend the ceremony at the synagogue.”
The latest American Jewish leader to address a letter of deep concern over the public US feud with Israel is Ronald Lauder, President of the World Jewish Congress. He voices the concern of Jews around the world not only about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime with genocidal intentions toward Israel, but the deterioration of US-Israeli relations and the Jewish state's deliberate isolation.The WJC president asks why this administration seems to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks when it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate. Settlements were not the key issue when peace talks broke down before and they are not the key issue now.
Lauder then asks if it is true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides Israel with defensible borders. He goes on to ask if friction with Israel is part of the Administration's desire to improve relations with the Muslim world and warns that appeasement does not work.Israel is not only America's closest ally in the Middle East, Lauder stresses. It is the one most committed to this administration's declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons. This is the single biggest threat that confronts the world today.Former New York Mayor Ed Koch condemned the Obama administration's attitude toward Israel in the strongest terms: "I weep today because my president, Barack Obama, in a few weeks has changed the relationship between the US and Israel from that of closest of allies to one in which there is an absence of trust." He goes on to say: "…our closest ally… has been demeaned and slandered, held responsible …for our problems in Afghanistan and Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East."
Ed Koch says he suspects the plan is "to so weaken the resolve of the of the Jewish state and its leaders so that it will be much easier to impose on Israel an American plan to resolve the Israel-Palestinian conflict, leaving Israel's needs for security and defensible borders in the lurch."
He is most bothered by what he calls "the shameful silence and lack of action by community leaders - Jew and Christian" and asks: Where are the Jews who marched in defense of fellow American citizens in 1963 and heard Martin Luther King's memorable speech. "We have stood up for everyone else. When will we stand up for our brothers and sisters in the Jewish state of Israel?" Ed Koch asks.
Other articles of interest:
Tehran: If Iran is attacked, nuclear devices will go off in American cities
http://www.debka.com/article/8713/
http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=173302
http://www.debka.com/article/8717/
Hezbollah admits receiving Syrian Scud missiles ("what's the big deal").
http://www.jpost.com/MiddleEast/Article.aspx?id=173217
Hows that UN resolution ending the last conflict working out ? Not too well.
And anti-Israel collaborator Richard Goldstone will not attend his own grandson's bar mitzva due to the outrage over his role in legitimizing UN efforts to deligitimize Israel's rights to self defense:
Judge Richard Goldstone, who headed a war crimes probe that has infuriated Israel and Jewish communities around the world, will not be attending his grandson’s bar mitzva in Johannesburg next month, according to a South African newspaper.Goldstone will not be present when his grandson performs the religious rite, following an agreement between the family, the South African Zionist Organization (SAZF) and the Beith Hamedrash Hagadol synagogue in Sandton, where the event will take place, the South African Jewish Report said.Related: What South African Jews think of Richard GoldstoneThe South African jurist led the UN-sanctioned investigation into suspected war crimes committed during last year’s armed conflict between Israel and Hamas in Gaza.SAZF chairman Avrom Krengel said his organization had “interacted” on the matter with the chief rabbi, the beit din (rabbinical court) and others, adding that the federation was “coming across most forcefully because we represent Israel,” the paper said.Rabbi Moshe Kurtstag, head of the local beit din, commented that the court had not been officially consulted, though there had been “private talks,” and that the synagogue had not asked it to give a ruling on the matter. “But I know that there was a very strong feeling in the shul, a lot of anger [around the issue of Justice Goldstone attending],” the newspaper quoted Kurtstag as saying.“I heard also that the SAZF wanted to organize a protest outside the shul – [there were] all kinds of plans. But I think reason prevailed,” Kurtstag added.Meanwhile, Goldstone was quoted in the newspaper as saying that “in the interests of my grandson, I’ve decided not to attend the ceremony at the synagogue.”
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Obama's Bizarre Foreign Policy / Mistreatment of Allies Explored
I suspect this will be a topic that we return to often.
Thoughts on Allies Gone By [Victor Davis Hanson]
Whatever the protestations of the Obama administration, many in both Britain and Israel feel that 2009–10 marked a watershed, the beginning of an era in which America was no longer a special friend to either whether gauged by serial symbolic snubs or real policy differences on things like Jerusalem and the Falklands.
Why does this matter, other than that it is stupid for a country to treat old friends like belligerents and old belligerents like friends?
In the case of Britain, history resonates. Over the last century it was Britain that, sometimes alone, defended liberal constitutional government, whether from Prussian militarism or the hydra of fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism. It was always a reliable partner in the Cold War, and aside from normal periodic spats was a loyal ally in most of America’s postwar fights. We forget sometimes the courageous record of the British in Korea, or their lonely alliance with us in Iraq. Note that this is all apart from the British role in general in the shaping of Western liberal political history, and in particular the protocols and values that underlie so much of the American experiment, from a common language to a rich heritage of literature and thought. For an American president to be woefully ignorant of all that, and why it should count, is nothing short of unbelievable.
Obama is equally clueless about why, for a half-century at least, both Republican and Democratic presidents have forged a second special relationship, this one with Israel. There certainly were not always strategic advantages in doing so, given the Arab world’s vast petroleum reserves, its huge size and population in comparison to tiny Israel, and the global fear, first, of rampant Soviet-inspired Palestinian terrorism, and, subsequently, its radical Islamic epigone.
Instead, the United States again, keen to both history and values took on the special defense of the Jewish state for a variety of principled considerations that went well beyond the concerns of Jewish Americans. We understood the long history of anti-Semitism and how, when freely expressed and practiced without objection, it devolves into pogroms and its ultimate nightmare in the Holocaust. We acknowledged the role of Judaism in the foundation of the Western Judaeo-Christian religious experience. And the American public was impressed that a tiny country without natural resources was able not only to survive in a sea of hostility, but to do so under the aegis of consensual government and an open society.
Last, such special consideration for Israel was predicated on some ugly realities. Most of the autocratic world, and some of the contemporary West, simply mask personal prejudice and realpolitik with a postmodern veneer of fashionable multicultural sympathy for the “other” despite the illiberal and often fascistic tendencies of both radical Islam and Arab dictatorship that so galvanize most of Israel’s Middle Eastern enemies. But when the U.S stood by Israel, there was a sort of equilibrium established.
The United Nations knew that nearly half of its resolutions aimed at Israel would come under fire from the United States. We would bite back in New York at the fiery speeches of an extremist like Arafat or Qaddafi. The Arab summits accepted that yet another pan-Arabic resolution damning the Jewish state would go nowhere in convincing the West to drop its alliance. And European triangulators accepted that their flagrant dislike of Israel would always encounter American resistance.
The net result, again, was that Israel’s front-line enemies, whether terrorists or state autocracies, accepted that it was futile to try to destroy Israel, and difficult to galvanize world opinion to turn it into a global pariah.
Now, however, the Obama administration through its symbolic snubs and choice of personnel, and through real policies concerning Jerusalem has sent a message to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, the United Nations, and the European Left that America is no longer particularly interested in playing its traditional role in defending Israel either intellectually or politically and thus perhaps soon not through military assistance either. That will only encourage new adventurism, as a mostly opportunistic world rushes to pile on, at first rhetorically, but soon through material action and global indifference to Israel’s fate.
The origins of Obama’s apparent distaste for both Britain and Israel have been explored, but why the party of Truman and JFK abetted his transformation of American foreign policy is a more complex, but equally disheartening, matter.
Thoughts on Allies Gone By [Victor Davis Hanson]
Whatever the protestations of the Obama administration, many in both Britain and Israel feel that 2009–10 marked a watershed, the beginning of an era in which America was no longer a special friend to either whether gauged by serial symbolic snubs or real policy differences on things like Jerusalem and the Falklands.
Why does this matter, other than that it is stupid for a country to treat old friends like belligerents and old belligerents like friends?
In the case of Britain, history resonates. Over the last century it was Britain that, sometimes alone, defended liberal constitutional government, whether from Prussian militarism or the hydra of fascism, Nazism, and Japanese militarism. It was always a reliable partner in the Cold War, and aside from normal periodic spats was a loyal ally in most of America’s postwar fights. We forget sometimes the courageous record of the British in Korea, or their lonely alliance with us in Iraq. Note that this is all apart from the British role in general in the shaping of Western liberal political history, and in particular the protocols and values that underlie so much of the American experiment, from a common language to a rich heritage of literature and thought. For an American president to be woefully ignorant of all that, and why it should count, is nothing short of unbelievable.
Obama is equally clueless about why, for a half-century at least, both Republican and Democratic presidents have forged a second special relationship, this one with Israel. There certainly were not always strategic advantages in doing so, given the Arab world’s vast petroleum reserves, its huge size and population in comparison to tiny Israel, and the global fear, first, of rampant Soviet-inspired Palestinian terrorism, and, subsequently, its radical Islamic epigone.
Instead, the United States again, keen to both history and values took on the special defense of the Jewish state for a variety of principled considerations that went well beyond the concerns of Jewish Americans. We understood the long history of anti-Semitism and how, when freely expressed and practiced without objection, it devolves into pogroms and its ultimate nightmare in the Holocaust. We acknowledged the role of Judaism in the foundation of the Western Judaeo-Christian religious experience. And the American public was impressed that a tiny country without natural resources was able not only to survive in a sea of hostility, but to do so under the aegis of consensual government and an open society.
Last, such special consideration for Israel was predicated on some ugly realities. Most of the autocratic world, and some of the contemporary West, simply mask personal prejudice and realpolitik with a postmodern veneer of fashionable multicultural sympathy for the “other” despite the illiberal and often fascistic tendencies of both radical Islam and Arab dictatorship that so galvanize most of Israel’s Middle Eastern enemies. But when the U.S stood by Israel, there was a sort of equilibrium established.
The United Nations knew that nearly half of its resolutions aimed at Israel would come under fire from the United States. We would bite back in New York at the fiery speeches of an extremist like Arafat or Qaddafi. The Arab summits accepted that yet another pan-Arabic resolution damning the Jewish state would go nowhere in convincing the West to drop its alliance. And European triangulators accepted that their flagrant dislike of Israel would always encounter American resistance.
The net result, again, was that Israel’s front-line enemies, whether terrorists or state autocracies, accepted that it was futile to try to destroy Israel, and difficult to galvanize world opinion to turn it into a global pariah.
Now, however, the Obama administration through its symbolic snubs and choice of personnel, and through real policies concerning Jerusalem has sent a message to Hezbollah, Hamas, the Palestinian Authority, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iran, the United Nations, and the European Left that America is no longer particularly interested in playing its traditional role in defending Israel either intellectually or politically and thus perhaps soon not through military assistance either. That will only encourage new adventurism, as a mostly opportunistic world rushes to pile on, at first rhetorically, but soon through material action and global indifference to Israel’s fate.
The origins of Obama’s apparent distaste for both Britain and Israel have been explored, but why the party of Truman and JFK abetted his transformation of American foreign policy is a more complex, but equally disheartening, matter.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Obama To Sellout Israel at the UN to placate the Chinese ?
Debka says so ....
Obama, Hu weigh sanctions tradeoff against Iran, Israel
DEBKAfile Special Report April 3, 2010,
http://www.debka.com/article/8697/
Chinese president Hu Jintao indicated a willingness to consider abstaining on a UN Security Council vote imposing sanctions against Iran - if the United States reciprocated by withholding its vote on sanctions against Israel over its construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. debkafile's sources report that US president Barack Obama did not reject the idea out of hand when it was raised in his hour-long telephone conversation with President Hu Thursday, April 1.
They decided to talk again about a coordinated, tit-for-tat US-Chinese sanctions deal with regard to Israel and Iran when they meet at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12-13. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was invited to the conference; Iranian leaders were not.
After the Obama-Hu phone conversation, the foreign ministry in Beijing delivered the Chinese president's consent to attend the summit. His reply was delayed to signal displeasure over US arms sales to Taiwan and Obama's White House welcome for the Dalai Lama. It would be the first time a US president has come close to considering withholding his veto from an anti-Israel resolution at the Security Council. This implied willingness may have been partly responsible for breaking the ice in Sino-US relations.
According to our Middle East sources, White House officials dealing with Arab governments were quick to pass the word around of the evolving Obama approach. They tied it in with the US president's special envoy George Mitchell's new plan to push for a negotiated Israel-Palestinian deal on the borders of a Palestinian state to be struck within four months. Mitchell arrives in Jerusalem on April 12 - shortly before the Israeli prime minister is due to take off for Washington.
The two combined US steps add up to a further widening of the Obama administration's distance from Jerusalem, a rift which may even lead at some point to his facilitating parallel condemnatory sanctions against Israel and Iran. He is determined to force the Netanyahu government to bow to Washington's say-so on issues vital to Israel's security, namely the Iranian nuclear threat and its claim to secure borders.
Beijing's turnabout on sanctions against Iran brought Saeed Jalili, the director of Iran's National Security Council, running to Beijing Thursday to demand explanations. The US president's openness to Beijing's proposed sanctions trade belies the outreach his aide Dan Shapiro, National Security Council Middle East Senior Director, sought to achieve in a call to Jewish community representatives Friday. He tried denying relations were in crisis after Netanyahu's chilly welcome at the White House last month and insisted that there had been more agreement than disagreement between the two leaders.
debkafile's Washington sources report that the American-Jewish leaders addressed by Shapiro received his message with extreme skepticism.
Obama, Hu weigh sanctions tradeoff against Iran, Israel
DEBKAfile Special Report April 3, 2010,
http://www.debka.com/article/8697/
Chinese president Hu Jintao indicated a willingness to consider abstaining on a UN Security Council vote imposing sanctions against Iran - if the United States reciprocated by withholding its vote on sanctions against Israel over its construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. debkafile's sources report that US president Barack Obama did not reject the idea out of hand when it was raised in his hour-long telephone conversation with President Hu Thursday, April 1.
They decided to talk again about a coordinated, tit-for-tat US-Chinese sanctions deal with regard to Israel and Iran when they meet at the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington on April 12-13. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was invited to the conference; Iranian leaders were not.
After the Obama-Hu phone conversation, the foreign ministry in Beijing delivered the Chinese president's consent to attend the summit. His reply was delayed to signal displeasure over US arms sales to Taiwan and Obama's White House welcome for the Dalai Lama. It would be the first time a US president has come close to considering withholding his veto from an anti-Israel resolution at the Security Council. This implied willingness may have been partly responsible for breaking the ice in Sino-US relations.
According to our Middle East sources, White House officials dealing with Arab governments were quick to pass the word around of the evolving Obama approach. They tied it in with the US president's special envoy George Mitchell's new plan to push for a negotiated Israel-Palestinian deal on the borders of a Palestinian state to be struck within four months. Mitchell arrives in Jerusalem on April 12 - shortly before the Israeli prime minister is due to take off for Washington.
The two combined US steps add up to a further widening of the Obama administration's distance from Jerusalem, a rift which may even lead at some point to his facilitating parallel condemnatory sanctions against Israel and Iran. He is determined to force the Netanyahu government to bow to Washington's say-so on issues vital to Israel's security, namely the Iranian nuclear threat and its claim to secure borders.
Beijing's turnabout on sanctions against Iran brought Saeed Jalili, the director of Iran's National Security Council, running to Beijing Thursday to demand explanations. The US president's openness to Beijing's proposed sanctions trade belies the outreach his aide Dan Shapiro, National Security Council Middle East Senior Director, sought to achieve in a call to Jewish community representatives Friday. He tried denying relations were in crisis after Netanyahu's chilly welcome at the White House last month and insisted that there had been more agreement than disagreement between the two leaders.
debkafile's Washington sources report that the American-Jewish leaders addressed by Shapiro received his message with extreme skepticism.
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Obama Passover Wish: Next Year in Al Quds ?
In today's Jerusalem post, we learn of a spoof / satire piece that hits close to home because it could plausibly be true:
A spoof of an Associated Press article, headlined, “Passover Hagaddah conclusion ‘Next Year in Jerusalem’ deemed ‘unhelpful’ by Obama administration,” made theInternet rounds on Friday, and the degree to which people fell for the prank speaks volumes about Israel’s current relationship with the US.
According to the “article,” which even though purportedly written by one Shana Habbab, still looked and felt genuine, “An unidentified Israeli official has confirmed that private discussions between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu included a strong request from the president that the upcoming Passover holiday not include the familiar refrain of ‘next year in Jerusalem,’ citing the passage as being provocative and unhelpful for future peace talks.
“The administration suggested replacing it with ‘next year in peace’ or ‘next year in Israel,’ but leaving the final wording up to both the Israelis and Palestinians.”
This e-mail was sent to thousands, and the fact that some rather astute people fell for the spoof indicates the degree of mistrust that many Israeli and US Jews harbor toward Obama. That people actually believed this story was real illustrates the depth of Israel’s problems right now with the US.
According to the “article,” which even though purportedly written by one Shana Habbab, still looked and felt genuine, “An unidentified Israeli official has confirmed that private discussions between President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu included a strong request from the president that the upcoming Passover holiday not include the familiar refrain of ‘next year in Jerusalem,’ citing the passage as being provocative and unhelpful for future peace talks.
“The administration suggested replacing it with ‘next year in peace’ or ‘next year in Israel,’ but leaving the final wording up to both the Israelis and Palestinians.”
This e-mail was sent to thousands, and the fact that some rather astute people fell for the spoof indicates the degree of mistrust that many Israeli and US Jews harbor toward Obama. That people actually believed this story was real illustrates the depth of Israel’s problems right now with the US.
It seems to me that as part of its hostility towards Israel, that the Obama Administration is trying to bring down Netanyahu, in an effort to replace it with a weaker, more left leaning and capitulationist government. This is not only morally bankrupt on the part of Obama and his advisors, it misreads not only the US public support of Israel vs. terror states; it misreads the Israeli public as well.
Of course, as we saw w/ health care; the Obama-ites just don't care what the people think. Supreme arrogance and wrong headed policy.
See more here:
And some BS / damage control from Obama advisors Axelrod and Jarrett http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171979
And John Bolton says that Obama admin is ready to accept a nuclear Iran, which explains the pressure being put on Israel (in part, at least) http://www.jpost.com/IranianThreat/News/Article.aspx?id=171949
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Obama Skewered over Israel Mistreatment
by Charles Krauthammer; who makes some very good points about the White House not allowing coverage of the meetings between President Obama and Israeli prime minister Netanyahu:
They meet for several hours — no press, no pictures, no joint appearances, as if the prime minister of Israel is toxic, as if somehow he represents a pariah state.
It feeds into the perception around the world, particularly in the Arab world and in some elements in Europe, of Israel as a pariah state.
Over what? This example of the Shepherd Hotel: The eastern part of Jerusalem has Jewish neighborhoods, Arab neighborhoods, and mixed neighborhoods. People are purchasing land, selling it all the time.
There are about 200,000 Jews in the eastern area of Jerusalem. Imagine a city in the United States of that size where you have every day construction, permits issued, as a matter of routine. So, of course, there's going to be an announcement here or there. It's a breathing, living city.
The idea that there should be no construction or no purchase or selling of houses is absurd. It would mean strangling the Jewish areas in Jerusalem and essentially extinguishing them ultimately.
And this idea that it's Arab east Jerusalem: It houses the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter. It's odd, isn't it, that you have the Jewish Quarter in what people are calling Arab east Jerusalem? It has been — continually there has been Jewish habitation for over 2,000 years.
And the only reason it was Arab was [that] for 20 years [1948 — 1967] the Jordanian army expelled all the Jews! In '67 the Jews returned, and that's why it's a mixed area in the eastern side of Jerusalem. It's Jewish and it's Arab.
On the allegation that Jerusalem construction announcements were timed by the Israeli government to wreck negotiations with the Palestinians:
It's absurd. It's a large city with its own municipal government with its own [commissions] and councils. It's got construction transactions all over. Israel is incredibly bureaucratic. Every construction requires 20 approvals.
So on any afternoon you are going to have an announcement of some sort. It would happen in any city of that size anywhere in America.
They meet for several hours — no press, no pictures, no joint appearances, as if the prime minister of Israel is toxic, as if somehow he represents a pariah state.
It feeds into the perception around the world, particularly in the Arab world and in some elements in Europe, of Israel as a pariah state.
Over what? This example of the Shepherd Hotel: The eastern part of Jerusalem has Jewish neighborhoods, Arab neighborhoods, and mixed neighborhoods. People are purchasing land, selling it all the time.
There are about 200,000 Jews in the eastern area of Jerusalem. Imagine a city in the United States of that size where you have every day construction, permits issued, as a matter of routine. So, of course, there's going to be an announcement here or there. It's a breathing, living city.
The idea that there should be no construction or no purchase or selling of houses is absurd. It would mean strangling the Jewish areas in Jerusalem and essentially extinguishing them ultimately.
And this idea that it's Arab east Jerusalem: It houses the Western Wall and the Jewish Quarter. It's odd, isn't it, that you have the Jewish Quarter in what people are calling Arab east Jerusalem? It has been — continually there has been Jewish habitation for over 2,000 years.
And the only reason it was Arab was [that] for 20 years [1948 — 1967] the Jordanian army expelled all the Jews! In '67 the Jews returned, and that's why it's a mixed area in the eastern side of Jerusalem. It's Jewish and it's Arab.
On the allegation that Jerusalem construction announcements were timed by the Israeli government to wreck negotiations with the Palestinians:
It's absurd. It's a large city with its own municipal government with its own [commissions] and councils. It's got construction transactions all over. Israel is incredibly bureaucratic. Every construction requires 20 approvals.
So on any afternoon you are going to have an announcement of some sort. It would happen in any city of that size anywhere in America.
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
The Moral Bankruptcy of Obama & Hilary's Mideast "Policy"
If you can call their Israel bashing a policy.
Consider their silence about the Palestinian Death Cult:
Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate mistake By ITAMAR MARCUS AND NAN JACQUES ZILBERDIK 24/03/2010 10:42
This message to the Palestinian Authority from the US, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.
Someone in the State Department is giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imprecise information about Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
On Monday night, in her speech to AIPAC, Clinton condemned Hamas for renaming “a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” saying it was “wrong and must be condemned.”
On the other hand Clinton “commended” PA Chairman Abbas.
Clinton’s condemnation of Hamas alone, because the municipality that named the square after the terrorist is run by Hamas, was erroneous. For in fact, it has been the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas, who have been leading the Palestinians in glorifying Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist bus hijacker who was responsible for the killing of 37 civilians in 1978, whom Clinton accurately called the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.”
Palestinian Media Watch has documented the continuous Mughrabi veneration by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in recent years, both in connection to the square near Ramallah in the West Bank and in many other contexts. THE FOLLOWING are 15 examples of the glorification of this one particular terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, five by Abbas himself, five by the Palestinian Authority or its leaders, and five by Fatah or its leaders:
1. It was Abbas himself who defended the naming of the square after Mughrabi: “I do not deny it. Of course we want to name a square after her.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]
2. It was Abbas himself who on December 31, 2009, honored that same terrorist by sponsoring a celebration of her birthday. [PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 29, 2009]
3. It was Abbas’s Fatah youth movement who prepared the Mughrabi square for the ceremony. [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 8, 2010]
4. It was Abbas himself who funded a computer center after that same terrorist. “Present at the event were President Mahmoud Abbas’s advisor... inaugurating the [Dalal Mughrabi] center, funded by a contribution from the President’s [Abbas’s] Office.” [Al-Ayyam, May 5, 2009]
5. It was Abbas who sent his secretary-general of the Presidency, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, to speak in his name, and called the terrorist the “bridge over which we pass on the way to our freedom.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 9, 2010]
6. It was Abbas himself who sponsored high school graduation ceremonies in honor of the same terrorist Mughrabi at which “the representative of the President [Abbas] … reviewed the heroic life of [Mughrabi] the Shahida (Martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 24, 2008]
7. It was Abbas’s minister of culture, Siham Barghouti (Fatah) who defended naming the square after the terrorist: “Honoring them [the martyrs] this way is the least we can give them, and this is our right.” [Al-Ayyam, January 11, 2010]
8. It was Abbas’s PA TV that opened its broadcasting this month on March 11, the anniversary of the attack, by praising the terror attack as: “A glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people.” [PA TV Fatah March 11, 2010]
9. It was not Hamas but Fatah, the party headed by Abbas, which decided to go ahead and dedicate that square after “a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis” and it was Fatah leaders who held up a banner which read: “On the anniversary of the Coastal Road Operation we renew our commitment and our oath that we will not stray from the path of the shahids (martyrs), Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square, Shabiba (Fatah) students’ movement] [Al-Quds, March 12, 2010]
10. It was Abbas’s Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi who said at the square’s dedication: “We shall not submit to any threats, and we are here today to celebrate our history and our battle in naming the square after Mughrabi.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 12, 2010]
11. It was Abbas’s Fatah spokesman Dr. Faiz Abu Aytah who emphasized “the right of Fatah, of the Palestinian Authority, and of the Palestinian people to celebrate the anniversary of her [Mughrabi’s] martyrdom... Fatah is proud of Dalal’s affiliation with it as a movement.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 11, 2010]
12. It was Abbas’s PA TV that interviewed the sister of the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” on the anniversary of the terror attack introducing her as follows: “Now, dear viewers, we move on to a glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people… Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian shahida (martyr), has become a symbol and model.” Rashida Mughrabi, sister of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi responded: “This is a day of glory and pride for our Palestinian people.” [PA TV March 11, 2010]
13. It was Abbas’s PA that held a soccer tournament named after the same “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), August 8, 2008]
14. It was Abbas’s Fatah that held a summer camp named after the same Mughrabi “out of honor and admiration for the shahida (martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 23, 2008]
15. It was at the opening ceremony of Abbas’s Fatah’s Sixth General Conference where Fatah leaders responded with applause when former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) honored Mughrabi and her co-terrorists: “We have in our midst the hero Khaled Abu Usbah, hero of the operation [terror attack] led by the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi [applause]. We salute him and welcome him. And [we salute] the hero, the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal. [He shouts:] All the glory! All the glory! All the glory! All the sisters here are Dalal’s sisters.” [PA TV (Fatah), August 4, 2009]
MOST OF the above terror glorification by Abbas and Fatah has happened in the last few months; and it has all happened in the last two and a half years under Abbas. All has been reported by Palestinian Media Watch. Yet, tragically, people in the US State Department are not giving Secretary of State Clinton accurate information about Palestinian Authority President Abbas.
When Hamas is condemned for the terror glorification while it is Abbas and the PA who are guilty, the message to the Palestinian leadership is that they can continue with their incitement to hatred and violence, and no one will call them to account. This message to the Palestinian Authority from the United States, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch. Nan Jacques Zilberdik is an analyst at Palestinian Media Watch.
Consider their silence about the Palestinian Death Cult:
Hillary Clinton’s unfortunate mistake By ITAMAR MARCUS AND NAN JACQUES ZILBERDIK 24/03/2010 10:42
This message to the Palestinian Authority from the US, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.
Someone in the State Department is giving Secretary of State Hillary Clinton imprecise information about Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.
On Monday night, in her speech to AIPAC, Clinton condemned Hamas for renaming “a square after a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” saying it was “wrong and must be condemned.”
On the other hand Clinton “commended” PA Chairman Abbas.
Clinton’s condemnation of Hamas alone, because the municipality that named the square after the terrorist is run by Hamas, was erroneous. For in fact, it has been the Palestinian Authority and Mahmoud Abbas, not Hamas, who have been leading the Palestinians in glorifying Dalal Mughrabi, the terrorist bus hijacker who was responsible for the killing of 37 civilians in 1978, whom Clinton accurately called the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.”
Palestinian Media Watch has documented the continuous Mughrabi veneration by Abbas and the Palestinian Authority in recent years, both in connection to the square near Ramallah in the West Bank and in many other contexts. THE FOLLOWING are 15 examples of the glorification of this one particular terrorist, Dalal Mughrabi, five by Abbas himself, five by the Palestinian Authority or its leaders, and five by Fatah or its leaders:
1. It was Abbas himself who defended the naming of the square after Mughrabi: “I do not deny it. Of course we want to name a square after her.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, Jan. 17, 2010]
2. It was Abbas himself who on December 31, 2009, honored that same terrorist by sponsoring a celebration of her birthday. [PA TV (Fatah) News, Dec. 29, 2009]
3. It was Abbas’s Fatah youth movement who prepared the Mughrabi square for the ceremony. [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 8, 2010]
4. It was Abbas himself who funded a computer center after that same terrorist. “Present at the event were President Mahmoud Abbas’s advisor... inaugurating the [Dalal Mughrabi] center, funded by a contribution from the President’s [Abbas’s] Office.” [Al-Ayyam, May 5, 2009]
5. It was Abbas who sent his secretary-general of the Presidency, Tayeb Abd Al-Rahim, to speak in his name, and called the terrorist the “bridge over which we pass on the way to our freedom.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 9, 2010]
6. It was Abbas himself who sponsored high school graduation ceremonies in honor of the same terrorist Mughrabi at which “the representative of the President [Abbas] … reviewed the heroic life of [Mughrabi] the Shahida (Martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 24, 2008]
7. It was Abbas’s minister of culture, Siham Barghouti (Fatah) who defended naming the square after the terrorist: “Honoring them [the martyrs] this way is the least we can give them, and this is our right.” [Al-Ayyam, January 11, 2010]
8. It was Abbas’s PA TV that opened its broadcasting this month on March 11, the anniversary of the attack, by praising the terror attack as: “A glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people.” [PA TV Fatah March 11, 2010]
9. It was not Hamas but Fatah, the party headed by Abbas, which decided to go ahead and dedicate that square after “a terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis” and it was Fatah leaders who held up a banner which read: “On the anniversary of the Coastal Road Operation we renew our commitment and our oath that we will not stray from the path of the shahids (martyrs), Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi Square, Shabiba (Fatah) students’ movement] [Al-Quds, March 12, 2010]
10. It was Abbas’s Fatah Central Committee member Tawfiq Tirawi who said at the square’s dedication: “We shall not submit to any threats, and we are here today to celebrate our history and our battle in naming the square after Mughrabi.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 12, 2010]
11. It was Abbas’s Fatah spokesman Dr. Faiz Abu Aytah who emphasized “the right of Fatah, of the Palestinian Authority, and of the Palestinian people to celebrate the anniversary of her [Mughrabi’s] martyrdom... Fatah is proud of Dalal’s affiliation with it as a movement.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida, March 11, 2010]
12. It was Abbas’s PA TV that interviewed the sister of the “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis,” on the anniversary of the terror attack introducing her as follows: “Now, dear viewers, we move on to a glorious chapter in the history of the Palestinian people… Dalal Mughrabi, the Palestinian shahida (martyr), has become a symbol and model.” Rashida Mughrabi, sister of terrorist Dalal Mughrabi responded: “This is a day of glory and pride for our Palestinian people.” [PA TV March 11, 2010]
13. It was Abbas’s PA that held a soccer tournament named after the same “terrorist who murdered innocent Israelis.” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), August 8, 2008]
14. It was Abbas’s Fatah that held a summer camp named after the same Mughrabi “out of honor and admiration for the shahida (martyr).” [Al-Hayat al-Jadida (Fatah), July 23, 2008]
15. It was at the opening ceremony of Abbas’s Fatah’s Sixth General Conference where Fatah leaders responded with applause when former PA prime minister Ahmed Qurei (Abu Alaa) honored Mughrabi and her co-terrorists: “We have in our midst the hero Khaled Abu Usbah, hero of the operation [terror attack] led by the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal Mughrabi [applause]. We salute him and welcome him. And [we salute] the hero, the Shahida (Martyr) Dalal. [He shouts:] All the glory! All the glory! All the glory! All the sisters here are Dalal’s sisters.” [PA TV (Fatah), August 4, 2009]
MOST OF the above terror glorification by Abbas and Fatah has happened in the last few months; and it has all happened in the last two and a half years under Abbas. All has been reported by Palestinian Media Watch. Yet, tragically, people in the US State Department are not giving Secretary of State Clinton accurate information about Palestinian Authority President Abbas.
When Hamas is condemned for the terror glorification while it is Abbas and the PA who are guilty, the message to the Palestinian leadership is that they can continue with their incitement to hatred and violence, and no one will call them to account. This message to the Palestinian Authority from the United States, if not immediately rectified, will have devastating implications for peace.Itamar Marcus is director of Palestinian Media Watch. Nan Jacques Zilberdik is an analyst at Palestinian Media Watch.
Eric Cantor gets a shout out re: Israel
A Tale of Two Meetings [Rep. Eric Cantor]
It’s a tale of two meetings.
Yesterday, I sat alongside Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, and a bipartisan group of other congressional leaders to reaffirm to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu our unequivocal support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Underlying our discussions was a clear commitment on all sides to move beyond the trivial bilateral rift the administration has inflamed over the past week — and to refocus America’s attention on truly pressing issues like Iran’s quest to obtain nuclear weapons.
A few hours later, President Obama offered a stunning contrast when he treated Mr. Netanyahu to a remarkably cooler reception at the White House. Conspicuously absent were all the niceties befitting a visiting head of state (and the leader of a critical strategic ally and historic friend to the United States, no less). No press in the room. No photo ops. No friendly gestures to suggest to the world that the United States stands with its fellow democracy at a dangerous moment for both nations.
Why the lack of a sincere effort on the part of the administration to dial back the tension? Could the White House truly be this offended by an Israeli decision to build 1,600 homes years from now in a part of its capital city that everyone understands will remain a part of Israel in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians? Or was the president simply trying to avoid difficult questions from the press? To whom was the White House sending a message — America’s allies or our enemies?
The administration’s disproportionate focus on Israel is counterproductive, because it draws attention away from the real stumbling block to peace in the Middle East: the widespread Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish State.
With the world’s collective gaze on Israel, the Palestinians continue to promote a culture antithetical to peace. This month, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square to a notorious terrorist responsible for killing 37 Israelis, including 13 children, on a bus in the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history. This is the same Palestinian Authority whose “moderate” leader was treated to a photo-op at the White House last May.
Congress has not forgotten who our true friends are in the Middle East. Yesterday, President Obama missed an opportunity to show the world that the special relationship between Israel and the United States remains strong. If the administration thinks it can bring about Mideast peace by currying favor with the Arab world at Israel’s expense, it is bound to fail.— Rep. Eric Cantor is the House Republican whip.
It’s a tale of two meetings.
Yesterday, I sat alongside Speaker Pelosi, Steny Hoyer, John Boehner, and a bipartisan group of other congressional leaders to reaffirm to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu our unequivocal support for a strong U.S.-Israel relationship. Underlying our discussions was a clear commitment on all sides to move beyond the trivial bilateral rift the administration has inflamed over the past week — and to refocus America’s attention on truly pressing issues like Iran’s quest to obtain nuclear weapons.
A few hours later, President Obama offered a stunning contrast when he treated Mr. Netanyahu to a remarkably cooler reception at the White House. Conspicuously absent were all the niceties befitting a visiting head of state (and the leader of a critical strategic ally and historic friend to the United States, no less). No press in the room. No photo ops. No friendly gestures to suggest to the world that the United States stands with its fellow democracy at a dangerous moment for both nations.
Why the lack of a sincere effort on the part of the administration to dial back the tension? Could the White House truly be this offended by an Israeli decision to build 1,600 homes years from now in a part of its capital city that everyone understands will remain a part of Israel in any future peace agreement with the Palestinians? Or was the president simply trying to avoid difficult questions from the press? To whom was the White House sending a message — America’s allies or our enemies?
The administration’s disproportionate focus on Israel is counterproductive, because it draws attention away from the real stumbling block to peace in the Middle East: the widespread Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as a Jewish State.
With the world’s collective gaze on Israel, the Palestinians continue to promote a culture antithetical to peace. This month, the Palestinian Authority dedicated a public square to a notorious terrorist responsible for killing 37 Israelis, including 13 children, on a bus in the deadliest terror attack in Israel’s history. This is the same Palestinian Authority whose “moderate” leader was treated to a photo-op at the White House last May.
Congress has not forgotten who our true friends are in the Middle East. Yesterday, President Obama missed an opportunity to show the world that the special relationship between Israel and the United States remains strong. If the administration thinks it can bring about Mideast peace by currying favor with the Arab world at Israel’s expense, it is bound to fail.— Rep. Eric Cantor is the House Republican whip.
Obama's Visceral Dislike of Israel
This piece by VDH describes clearly where Obama & Co's warped view comes from:
Israel: One of Many [Victor Davis Hanson]
Some strong supporters of both Obama and Israel are disappointed in the latest hysterical Biden-Clinton-Obama smack-down over the settlement issue. But why, I don't know — this is a logical, not an aberrant, development from President Obama.
Once it was thought to be unprincipled guilt-by-association for pro-Israeli, anti-Obama groups to question candidate Obama’s dubious associations; after all, Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Power, et al. were all on record as hostile to the Jewish state. Few likewise seemed to take note when a key Obama campaign foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in September 2009 suggested that the U.S. might, and perhaps should, shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq on their way to Iran: e.g., “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.” Then there was the nomination of Charles Freeman. And of course the present outreach to the two most terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle East, theocratic Iran and authoritarian Syria. Someone from Mars might conclude that the United States has spent far more effort in courting Ahmadinejad and Assad than Netayanhau.
Each of these steps — and there are others — in isolation can be contextualized, but in aggregate they paint a pretty clear picture that for this administration the benefits of supporting Israel are far outweighed by the downside.
So we are watching unfold a sort of Chicago-style Realpolitik, flavored with the traditional academic leftist disdain for the Jewish state. The subsequent result is not so much a cut-off of U.S. aid as a subtle shift in perception abroad: Israel’s multiple enemies now are almost giddy in sensing that America is not all that into protecting the Jewish state, intellectually or morally. And given the nature of the UN, given the power of oil, given endemic anti-Semitism, given the collapse of classical liberal thought in Europe (e.g., Britain was far more deferential to Libya in repatriating a supposedly “terminally ill” mass murderer to Tripoli than it is currently with Israel), and given the realpolitik amorality of Russian and Chinese foreign policy, the world as a whole can now far more easily step up its own natural pressure on Israel, at just the moment when it increasingly has no margin of error with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
Once the U.S. blinks, the floodgates open — that is the real lesson from the incremental, but unmistakable shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. Like radical shifts in thinking about health care, energy use, and amnesty, so too abroad Obama realizes that the difficult process of "change," in this case of becoming a neutral in the Middle East and deeming Israel's democracy unexceptional in the region, will require all sorts of dissimulation, denials, clarifications, and acrimony. But ultimately, the end of "solving" the Middle East crisis will be seen as well worth the now unpleasant and often tawdry means of doing it.
Israel: One of Many [Victor Davis Hanson]
Some strong supporters of both Obama and Israel are disappointed in the latest hysterical Biden-Clinton-Obama smack-down over the settlement issue. But why, I don't know — this is a logical, not an aberrant, development from President Obama.
Once it was thought to be unprincipled guilt-by-association for pro-Israeli, anti-Obama groups to question candidate Obama’s dubious associations; after all, Reverend Wright, Rashid Khalidi, Samantha Power, et al. were all on record as hostile to the Jewish state. Few likewise seemed to take note when a key Obama campaign foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, in September 2009 suggested that the U.S. might, and perhaps should, shoot down Israeli planes over Iraq on their way to Iran: e.g., “If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse.” Then there was the nomination of Charles Freeman. And of course the present outreach to the two most terrorist-friendly regimes in the Middle East, theocratic Iran and authoritarian Syria. Someone from Mars might conclude that the United States has spent far more effort in courting Ahmadinejad and Assad than Netayanhau.
Each of these steps — and there are others — in isolation can be contextualized, but in aggregate they paint a pretty clear picture that for this administration the benefits of supporting Israel are far outweighed by the downside.
So we are watching unfold a sort of Chicago-style Realpolitik, flavored with the traditional academic leftist disdain for the Jewish state. The subsequent result is not so much a cut-off of U.S. aid as a subtle shift in perception abroad: Israel’s multiple enemies now are almost giddy in sensing that America is not all that into protecting the Jewish state, intellectually or morally. And given the nature of the UN, given the power of oil, given endemic anti-Semitism, given the collapse of classical liberal thought in Europe (e.g., Britain was far more deferential to Libya in repatriating a supposedly “terminally ill” mass murderer to Tripoli than it is currently with Israel), and given the realpolitik amorality of Russian and Chinese foreign policy, the world as a whole can now far more easily step up its own natural pressure on Israel, at just the moment when it increasingly has no margin of error with a soon-to-be nuclear Iran.
Once the U.S. blinks, the floodgates open — that is the real lesson from the incremental, but unmistakable shift in U.S.-Israeli relations. Like radical shifts in thinking about health care, energy use, and amnesty, so too abroad Obama realizes that the difficult process of "change," in this case of becoming a neutral in the Middle East and deeming Israel's democracy unexceptional in the region, will require all sorts of dissimulation, denials, clarifications, and acrimony. But ultimately, the end of "solving" the Middle East crisis will be seen as well worth the now unpleasant and often tawdry means of doing it.
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Obama's reckless antipathy towards Israel analyzed
If accurate, this is the highly disturbing ....
http://debka.com/article/8657/
Washington sharpens crisis with Israel, may give Palestinians military shield DEBKAfile Special Report March 18, 2010
Tags: Gen. Petraeus Israel Obama
"Israel is one of our closest allies and we and the Israeli people have a special bond that's not going to go away," said President Barack Obama to Fox News Wednesday, March 17, after denying any crisis in the relationship. debkafile's Washington sources note that denial makes a lot of sense for the president because it lets him off the hook for dealing with it. However, in Jerusalem, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu called his inner cabinet into its second session on the crisis that same night. The seven ministers were asked to review the situation after President Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton turned down their initial proposals for easing the upset and laid down three pre-conditions for restoring normal relations with Jerusalem:1. The Netanyahu government must extend the 10-month freeze on West Bank settlement construction to include East Jerusalem;
2. When the moratorium runs out in September, it must be renewed for the duration of peace negotiations with the Palestinians;3. Israeli must make more concessions to the Palestinian Authority and its chairman Mahmoud Abbas.The Israeli government was informed that until those conditions were met, its ministers would not be received in Washington by high-level American officials - a virtual boycott, which downgrades the normal diplomatic, strategic and security exchanges between the two administrations to the level of senators and the special Middle East envoy George Mitchell.Netanyahu tried offering the Obama administration a number of compromise proposals, such as the suspension of construction in East Jerusalem and the city's outlying Jewish suburbs until September, but they were rejected, as was an offer to prohibit further Jewish purchases of land and buildings in Jerusalem's Arab districts during peace negotiations.
Obama and Clinton made it clear they would brook no departures from their three demands, which Israel is required to treat as an ultimatum.Neither party to the difference has mentioned the US administration's fourth condition for resuming normal relations: an Israeli commitment to refrain from attacking Iran's nuclear program without prior US consent. Because that commitment has not been offered, administration officials are continuing to hammer Israel in every possible arena. Indeed, the gloves are now off in earnest for insinuations that Israel's settlement policy is the root-cause of Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb and of the conflicts endangering American lives in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Vice President Joe Biden launched this drive, when he reportedly attacked Netanyahu for the announcement of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem by saying: "What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
A much-admired American military figure, CENTCOM chief, Gen. David Petraeus, was the next US official to put this linkage into words. In his briefing to a Senate panel, he said Wednesday, March 16: Clearly the tensions on these issues [with Israel] have enormous effect on the strategic context in which we operate in the Central Command's area of responsibility."
The general denied he had as yet formally asked for the Palestinian territories to be transferred to his command, but added: "In fact, staff members at various times have discussed asking for the Palestinian territories to be added to CENTCOM's turf."debkafile's military sources explain that, if approved, this step would be tantamount to providing the Palestinians with an American military umbrella against Israel.More than one friend of Israel demurred against the Petraeus suggestion.
Former presidential candidate, Republican Senator John McCain, caught on fast to the way the wind is blowing in Obama's Washington: During his testimony, he put in: "Isn't the issue not the issue of settlements as much as it is the existence of the state of Israel…? So maybe you could put it all into the larger context of what needs to be done to reduce tensions on the US's closest ally and friend in many respects."The general did not rise to the senator's challenge, except for a polite: "Absolutely true."Some of the more respectable US and British media are playing up the theme that Israel has shot itself in the foot and therefore deserves what's coming, namely escalating punishment from the Obama administration.
http://debka.com/article/8665/
Obama recalls bunker-buster bomb kits to bar Israeli strike on Iran DEBKAfile Special Report March 20, 2010,
Tags: bunker-busters Israel Obama
Shortly after Vice President Joe Biden's Israel visit ended on March 11 in high dudgeon over the approval 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, US president Barack Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munition- JDAM already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. This step, the pointer to a US arms embargo for preventing Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites, is first revealed here by debkafile's military sources.US military sources describe the consignment as consisting of 387 JDAM kits for attachment to the warheads of 2,000-pound BLU-109/MK-84 or the 1,000-pound BLU-110/MK-83 bunker-busters for their conversion into smart bombs. On March 13, debkafile disclosed that the Obama administration was pondering withholding from Israel military hardware that could be used for an Israeli attack on Iran. In late February, we reported that defense minister Ehud Barak had submitted to defense secretary Robert Gates a list of the items Israel required urgently to stand up to a four-front assault by Iran and its allies - mainly air force ordnance, certain types of missile and advanced electronic devices. Barak made it clear that all these items must be present in Israel before the outbreak of hostilities. The requests were so urgent that the minister proposed that if Washington was reluctant to hand them directly to Israel, they could be stored for the interim in the big American emergency depots in Israel's Negev.
The 387 DJAP kits were due for delivery at one of the Israeli Air Force's Negev bases in March. Because of his concern over the US president's step to divert the shipment, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided to take the defense minister with him to Washington next Monday, March 22 and have him present at the meeting with Obama which the US media reports has been fixed for Tuesday (the day after his address to the AIPAC annual conference). Together they will ask for the delayed munitions to be released and handed over as part of any general understandings they may reach.debkafile reports that the pair of Israeli Gulfstream Vs converted to spy planes sighted over Budapest on March 17 may have been an Israeli signal of its concern over White House measures for keeping the means of attacking Iran out of its hands. The long-haul flights, demonstrating the Israel Air Force's ability to cover the distance to Iran, took the aircraft over Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania as well as Hungary. The two planes carried out maneuvers over Budapest international airport with no attempt at concealment. Because they fly in pairs, Western aviation experts say the electronic measures aboard are able to detect the functioning of electronic devices, radar stations, communications centers and cell phones on the ground, locate them and relay the data for warplanes to destroy them. Two years ago, in June 2008, Israel deployed more that 100 Air Force F-16 and F-15 warplanes over Greece and the Aegean Sea in a big exercise designed to showcase its long-range capabilities.
[this latter piece is interesting in that there was a news report recently from Scotland about these weapons; and the story being peddled was that the US was stockpiling weapons at Diego Garcia to attack Iran with. I thought this was ludicrous given Obama's overall fecklessness towards Iran and antipathy to military action. the Debka article makes more sense; although it is still troubling)].
http://debka.com/article/8657/
Washington sharpens crisis with Israel, may give Palestinians military shield DEBKAfile Special Report March 18, 2010
Tags: Gen. Petraeus Israel Obama
"Israel is one of our closest allies and we and the Israeli people have a special bond that's not going to go away," said President Barack Obama to Fox News Wednesday, March 17, after denying any crisis in the relationship. debkafile's Washington sources note that denial makes a lot of sense for the president because it lets him off the hook for dealing with it. However, in Jerusalem, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu called his inner cabinet into its second session on the crisis that same night. The seven ministers were asked to review the situation after President Obama and secretary of state Hillary Clinton turned down their initial proposals for easing the upset and laid down three pre-conditions for restoring normal relations with Jerusalem:1. The Netanyahu government must extend the 10-month freeze on West Bank settlement construction to include East Jerusalem;
2. When the moratorium runs out in September, it must be renewed for the duration of peace negotiations with the Palestinians;3. Israeli must make more concessions to the Palestinian Authority and its chairman Mahmoud Abbas.The Israeli government was informed that until those conditions were met, its ministers would not be received in Washington by high-level American officials - a virtual boycott, which downgrades the normal diplomatic, strategic and security exchanges between the two administrations to the level of senators and the special Middle East envoy George Mitchell.Netanyahu tried offering the Obama administration a number of compromise proposals, such as the suspension of construction in East Jerusalem and the city's outlying Jewish suburbs until September, but they were rejected, as was an offer to prohibit further Jewish purchases of land and buildings in Jerusalem's Arab districts during peace negotiations.
Obama and Clinton made it clear they would brook no departures from their three demands, which Israel is required to treat as an ultimatum.Neither party to the difference has mentioned the US administration's fourth condition for resuming normal relations: an Israeli commitment to refrain from attacking Iran's nuclear program without prior US consent. Because that commitment has not been offered, administration officials are continuing to hammer Israel in every possible arena. Indeed, the gloves are now off in earnest for insinuations that Israel's settlement policy is the root-cause of Iran's drive for a nuclear bomb and of the conflicts endangering American lives in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Vice President Joe Biden launched this drive, when he reportedly attacked Netanyahu for the announcement of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem by saying: "What you are doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan."
A much-admired American military figure, CENTCOM chief, Gen. David Petraeus, was the next US official to put this linkage into words. In his briefing to a Senate panel, he said Wednesday, March 16: Clearly the tensions on these issues [with Israel] have enormous effect on the strategic context in which we operate in the Central Command's area of responsibility."
The general denied he had as yet formally asked for the Palestinian territories to be transferred to his command, but added: "In fact, staff members at various times have discussed asking for the Palestinian territories to be added to CENTCOM's turf."debkafile's military sources explain that, if approved, this step would be tantamount to providing the Palestinians with an American military umbrella against Israel.More than one friend of Israel demurred against the Petraeus suggestion.
Former presidential candidate, Republican Senator John McCain, caught on fast to the way the wind is blowing in Obama's Washington: During his testimony, he put in: "Isn't the issue not the issue of settlements as much as it is the existence of the state of Israel…? So maybe you could put it all into the larger context of what needs to be done to reduce tensions on the US's closest ally and friend in many respects."The general did not rise to the senator's challenge, except for a polite: "Absolutely true."Some of the more respectable US and British media are playing up the theme that Israel has shot itself in the foot and therefore deserves what's coming, namely escalating punishment from the Obama administration.
http://debka.com/article/8665/
Obama recalls bunker-buster bomb kits to bar Israeli strike on Iran DEBKAfile Special Report March 20, 2010,
Tags: bunker-busters Israel Obama
Shortly after Vice President Joe Biden's Israel visit ended on March 11 in high dudgeon over the approval 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem, US president Barack Obama ordered a consignment of Joint Direct Attack Munition- JDAM already on its way to Israel to be diverted to the US Air Force base on the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. This step, the pointer to a US arms embargo for preventing Israel attacking Iran's nuclear sites, is first revealed here by debkafile's military sources.US military sources describe the consignment as consisting of 387 JDAM kits for attachment to the warheads of 2,000-pound BLU-109/MK-84 or the 1,000-pound BLU-110/MK-83 bunker-busters for their conversion into smart bombs. On March 13, debkafile disclosed that the Obama administration was pondering withholding from Israel military hardware that could be used for an Israeli attack on Iran. In late February, we reported that defense minister Ehud Barak had submitted to defense secretary Robert Gates a list of the items Israel required urgently to stand up to a four-front assault by Iran and its allies - mainly air force ordnance, certain types of missile and advanced electronic devices. Barak made it clear that all these items must be present in Israel before the outbreak of hostilities. The requests were so urgent that the minister proposed that if Washington was reluctant to hand them directly to Israel, they could be stored for the interim in the big American emergency depots in Israel's Negev.
The 387 DJAP kits were due for delivery at one of the Israeli Air Force's Negev bases in March. Because of his concern over the US president's step to divert the shipment, prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu decided to take the defense minister with him to Washington next Monday, March 22 and have him present at the meeting with Obama which the US media reports has been fixed for Tuesday (the day after his address to the AIPAC annual conference). Together they will ask for the delayed munitions to be released and handed over as part of any general understandings they may reach.debkafile reports that the pair of Israeli Gulfstream Vs converted to spy planes sighted over Budapest on March 17 may have been an Israeli signal of its concern over White House measures for keeping the means of attacking Iran out of its hands. The long-haul flights, demonstrating the Israel Air Force's ability to cover the distance to Iran, took the aircraft over Turkey, Bulgaria and Romania as well as Hungary. The two planes carried out maneuvers over Budapest international airport with no attempt at concealment. Because they fly in pairs, Western aviation experts say the electronic measures aboard are able to detect the functioning of electronic devices, radar stations, communications centers and cell phones on the ground, locate them and relay the data for warplanes to destroy them. Two years ago, in June 2008, Israel deployed more that 100 Air Force F-16 and F-15 warplanes over Greece and the Aegean Sea in a big exercise designed to showcase its long-range capabilities.
[this latter piece is interesting in that there was a news report recently from Scotland about these weapons; and the story being peddled was that the US was stockpiling weapons at Diego Garcia to attack Iran with. I thought this was ludicrous given Obama's overall fecklessness towards Iran and antipathy to military action. the Debka article makes more sense; although it is still troubling)].
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Obama's anti-Israel leanings exposed and criticized - "crossed the line"
Must reads:
16/03/2010 06:42
It will hopefully also encourage the Obama administration to relate to us with at least the same level of courtesy and respect it extends to rogue states.
Obama has crossed the line: http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Columnists/Article.aspx?id=171110
- a really excellent piece
2 Congressman send Obama letter suggesting he tone down the rhetoric: http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=171170 Congress expresses support for Israel
http://www.debka.com/article/8654/ Did Obama shut down a secret US-Israel joint project to confront Iran ?
Obama has crossed the line
By ISI LEIBLER16/03/2010 06:42
The bureaucratic fashla [blunder] of our dysfunctional government to forestall the announcement of a new housing project in Jerusalem during the visit of US Vice President Joe Biden provided a pretext for the Obama administration to launch one of the harshest condemnations ever leveled against us by a US government. But while the timing of the announcement was appalling, it involved no breach of undertaking.
In fact, the Obama administration had previously publicly praised the Israeli governmentfor making a “major concession” by imposing a settlement freeze which explicitly excluded Jerusalem.
The campaign was personally orchestrated by President Barack Obama. His Vice President Biden accused us of “endangering US lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s abject apology, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused him of “insulting” the US. Obama’s chief political adviser David Axelrod even claimed that the Israeli government was deliberately undermining peace talks.
These hostile outbursts must be viewed in the context of the fact that despite strong ongoing support for Israel by the American people, the US-Israel relationship has been on a downward spiral since the election of the new administration. Former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy attributes this to Obama’s determination to rehabilitate Islam’s global tarnished image.
Yet his strategy of “engaging” Islamic rogue states has been disastrous. The effort to prevent the nuclearization of Iran by appeasing the Iranian tyrants backfired with the ayatollahs literally mocking the US. The response of Syrian President Bashar Assad to US groveling and the appointment of an ambassador to Damascus, was to host a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and ridicule the US demand that he curtail his relationship with Iran. President Obama did not consider this “insulting,” prompting the editor of the LebaneseThe Daily Star to say that “the Obama administration these days provokes little confidence in its allies and even less fear in its adversaries.”
The Arab League refuses to modify its hard-line against Israel. It insists that Israel unconditionally accept the Saudi peace plan, a full retreat to the ‘67 borders and the implementation of the Arab right of return which would signal an end to Jewish sovereignty in the region.
THERE ARE now ominous signals that to obviate their failures, White House strategists are cynically distancing themselves from us in order to curry popularity by capitalizing on the anti-Israeli hatred which has engulfed the world.
Despite continuously incanting the mantra that it remains committed to the alliance with Israel, the White House is not behaving in an even-handed manner. Obama does not disguise his animosity and repeatedly humiliates our prime minister. Theadministration “condemns” us for building homes, not in densely Arab populated areas of Jerusalem but in Jewish suburbs like Gilo and most recently Ramat Shlomo which most of us regard as Israel no less than Tel Aviv.
Instead of condemning the brutal Palestinian murderer of an Israeli civilian in December, the US requested “clarification” after Israel apprehended the killers who the PA extolled as heroes. They failed to block a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli police for protecting worshippers at the Temple Mount from Arabs hurling stones at them. They even condemned us for authorizing repairs on Jewish heritage sites over the Green Line.
In stark contrast, the US has not publicly reprimanded the PA on a single issue over the past twelve months. It is unconscionable that neither the White House nor the State Department conveyed a word of protest concerning the ongoing incitement and spate of ceremonies sanctifying the memory of the most degenerate suicide killers and mass murderers. Not even when our peace partners President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad personally partook in these ghoulish ceremonies. In fact, during Biden’s visit, the PA announced that they would postpone a ceremony to name a public square in Ramallah to honor Dalal Mughrabi, the female monster responsible for the abominable 1978 massacre in which 37 Israelis including 13 children were butchered. Nevertheless the ceremony took place and the PA TV interviewed Mughrabi’s sister who stated: “This is a day of glory and pride for the Palestinian people. We must unite, and our rifles must unite, against the enemy who steals our land.” The US failed to register a protest.
NETANYAHU HAS extended more concessions than any other Israeli leader. Hisgovernment immediately agreed to negotiations with the Palestinians. In contrast, Abbas told The Washington Post that being confident that the US would ensure that the Palestinians obtained whatever they sought, he saw no benefit in negotiating with the Israelis. This scenario is now being realized.
Netanyahu also overcame Likud resistance to a two-state solution and acceded to a temporary settlement freeze which no previous Israeli government was willing to consider. He authorized the release of prisoners and reduced checkpoints, even compromising the security of Israeli civilians.
Yet, far from acting as an honest broker, the US effectively endorsed most of the Palestinian positions and is poised to pressure Israel into making further unilateral concessions.
In a recent chilling document, reiterated by Biden in the course of his condemnation of construction in Jerusalem, the US assured the PA that the principal objective of the “indirect” negotiations was not peace, but the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and that parties who adopted negative positions would be dealt with “in order to overcome that obstacle.”
Our relations with the US will now be further tested.
Obama is surely aware that recent statements by his administration will only embolden the Palestinians and Jihadists to be more extreme in their demands, making it inevitable that the talks will almost certainly fail. Some may infer that this is precisely his intention. We will then be blamed for the breakdown and the US, with the backing of the Quartet and others, will then seek to impose a solution upon us.
There are certain red lines which nogovernment of Israel may cross. Netanyahu, on this occasion, must stand firm. The current crisis transcends political or ideological differences between Likud, Labor and Kadima. All mainstream parties should unite and convey to President Obama that Israel is a sovereign state and will not automatically bow to diktats of the US administration. They need to make the US administration and public understand that no government of Israel will agree to freeze construction in Jerusalem, the heart and soul of the Jewish people.
We may not be a superpower but the Obama administration will hesitate to pursue a path which rejects the consensus of the nation. A demonstration of unity against the unprecedented attacks on Israel’s sovereignty by the Obama administration will also encourage the American people and Congress to publicly support and assist us to reaffirm the traditional alliance and bonds of friendship between our two nations.
In fact, the Obama administration had previously publicly praised the Israeli governmentfor making a “major concession” by imposing a settlement freeze which explicitly excluded Jerusalem.
The campaign was personally orchestrated by President Barack Obama. His Vice President Biden accused us of “endangering US lives in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.” Despite Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s abject apology, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton accused him of “insulting” the US. Obama’s chief political adviser David Axelrod even claimed that the Israeli government was deliberately undermining peace talks.
These hostile outbursts must be viewed in the context of the fact that despite strong ongoing support for Israel by the American people, the US-Israel relationship has been on a downward spiral since the election of the new administration. Former Mossad head Ephraim Halevy attributes this to Obama’s determination to rehabilitate Islam’s global tarnished image.
Yet his strategy of “engaging” Islamic rogue states has been disastrous. The effort to prevent the nuclearization of Iran by appeasing the Iranian tyrants backfired with the ayatollahs literally mocking the US. The response of Syrian President Bashar Assad to US groveling and the appointment of an ambassador to Damascus, was to host a summit with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Hizbullah terrorist leader Hassan Nasrallah and ridicule the US demand that he curtail his relationship with Iran. President Obama did not consider this “insulting,” prompting the editor of the LebaneseThe Daily Star to say that “the Obama administration these days provokes little confidence in its allies and even less fear in its adversaries.”
The Arab League refuses to modify its hard-line against Israel. It insists that Israel unconditionally accept the Saudi peace plan, a full retreat to the ‘67 borders and the implementation of the Arab right of return which would signal an end to Jewish sovereignty in the region.
THERE ARE now ominous signals that to obviate their failures, White House strategists are cynically distancing themselves from us in order to curry popularity by capitalizing on the anti-Israeli hatred which has engulfed the world.
Despite continuously incanting the mantra that it remains committed to the alliance with Israel, the White House is not behaving in an even-handed manner. Obama does not disguise his animosity and repeatedly humiliates our prime minister. Theadministration “condemns” us for building homes, not in densely Arab populated areas of Jerusalem but in Jewish suburbs like Gilo and most recently Ramat Shlomo which most of us regard as Israel no less than Tel Aviv.
Instead of condemning the brutal Palestinian murderer of an Israeli civilian in December, the US requested “clarification” after Israel apprehended the killers who the PA extolled as heroes. They failed to block a UN Security Council resolution criticizing Israeli police for protecting worshippers at the Temple Mount from Arabs hurling stones at them. They even condemned us for authorizing repairs on Jewish heritage sites over the Green Line.
In stark contrast, the US has not publicly reprimanded the PA on a single issue over the past twelve months. It is unconscionable that neither the White House nor the State Department conveyed a word of protest concerning the ongoing incitement and spate of ceremonies sanctifying the memory of the most degenerate suicide killers and mass murderers. Not even when our peace partners President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad personally partook in these ghoulish ceremonies. In fact, during Biden’s visit, the PA announced that they would postpone a ceremony to name a public square in Ramallah to honor Dalal Mughrabi, the female monster responsible for the abominable 1978 massacre in which 37 Israelis including 13 children were butchered. Nevertheless the ceremony took place and the PA TV interviewed Mughrabi’s sister who stated: “This is a day of glory and pride for the Palestinian people. We must unite, and our rifles must unite, against the enemy who steals our land.” The US failed to register a protest.
NETANYAHU HAS extended more concessions than any other Israeli leader. Hisgovernment immediately agreed to negotiations with the Palestinians. In contrast, Abbas told The Washington Post that being confident that the US would ensure that the Palestinians obtained whatever they sought, he saw no benefit in negotiating with the Israelis. This scenario is now being realized.
Netanyahu also overcame Likud resistance to a two-state solution and acceded to a temporary settlement freeze which no previous Israeli government was willing to consider. He authorized the release of prisoners and reduced checkpoints, even compromising the security of Israeli civilians.
Yet, far from acting as an honest broker, the US effectively endorsed most of the Palestinian positions and is poised to pressure Israel into making further unilateral concessions.
In a recent chilling document, reiterated by Biden in the course of his condemnation of construction in Jerusalem, the US assured the PA that the principal objective of the “indirect” negotiations was not peace, but the establishment of an independent Palestinian state and that parties who adopted negative positions would be dealt with “in order to overcome that obstacle.”
Our relations with the US will now be further tested.
Obama is surely aware that recent statements by his administration will only embolden the Palestinians and Jihadists to be more extreme in their demands, making it inevitable that the talks will almost certainly fail. Some may infer that this is precisely his intention. We will then be blamed for the breakdown and the US, with the backing of the Quartet and others, will then seek to impose a solution upon us.
There are certain red lines which nogovernment of Israel may cross. Netanyahu, on this occasion, must stand firm. The current crisis transcends political or ideological differences between Likud, Labor and Kadima. All mainstream parties should unite and convey to President Obama that Israel is a sovereign state and will not automatically bow to diktats of the US administration. They need to make the US administration and public understand that no government of Israel will agree to freeze construction in Jerusalem, the heart and soul of the Jewish people.
We may not be a superpower but the Obama administration will hesitate to pursue a path which rejects the consensus of the nation. A demonstration of unity against the unprecedented attacks on Israel’s sovereignty by the Obama administration will also encourage the American people and Congress to publicly support and assist us to reaffirm the traditional alliance and bonds of friendship between our two nations.
It will hopefully also encourage the Obama administration to relate to us with at least the same level of courtesy and respect it extends to rogue states.
ileibler@netvision.net.il
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
