May 27, 2010
Contact Morton A. Klein at: 917-974-8795 or 212-481-1500
Attn: NEWS EDITOR
SOME CONCERNS ABOUT OBAMA’S ATTITUDES
TOWARDS JEWS
The Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) has noted a disturbing pattern in President Obama’s words and actions when it comes to the Jewish people. (The ZOA understands that President Obama has appointed Jews to important posts and held Jewish events at the White House. But many of these have turned out to be Jews who are quick to condemn the Jewish state and support President Obama’s agenda. And remember, one of Israel’s most virulent critics, President Carter, also appointed Jews to important posts and even established the U.S. Holocaust Museum in Washington D.C.).
1. Speaking this week upon signing the Daniel Pearl Press Freedom Act, President Obama said, “Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.” President Obama did not mention that Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter, was beheaded on February 1, 2002 by Islamist terrorists because he was a Jew and that he was forced to state in the video recorded of his gruesome murder that he was an American Jew. As noted writer Mark Steyn writes:
“First of all, note the passivity: “The loss of Daniel Pearl.” He wasn’t “lost.” He was kidnapped and beheaded. He was murdered on a snuff video. He was specifically targeted, seized as a trophy, a high-value scalp. And the circumstances of his “loss” merit some vigor in the prose. Yet Obama can muster none … The man who actually did the deed was Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who confessed in March 2007: ‘I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi.’ But Obama’s not the kind to take ‘guilty’ for an answer, so he’s arranging a hugely expensive trial for KSM amid the bright lights of Broadway” (Mark Steyn, ‘One of those moments,’ National Review Online, May 22, 2010).
2. This is not the first occasion in which President Obama has avoided mentioning Jews in a relevant context. In his June 5, 2009 speech at Buchenwald concentration camp, Obama only once mentioned the word “Jews” at this major Holocaust site, where primarily Jews were murdered, speaking instead of the place as one “where people were deemed inhuman because of their differences.” He diminished the murderous anti-Semitism of the Nazis and the relentless anti-Semitism of today to simply one among other cases of “intolerance” such as racism, homophobia, xenophobia and sexism (‘Remarks by President Obama, German Chancellor Merkel, and Eli Wiesel at Buchenwald Concentration Camp,’ June 5, 2009).
3. Also, despite the uniquely Judeo-Christian foundation and heritage of America, which normally has seen Christians and Jews paired in any mention of the character of the nation, President Obama, in his Inaugural address, mentioned Muslims ahead of Jews, even though there are far more Jews in the U.S. than Muslims. Specifically, President Obama said, “We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus – and non believers.”
Again, in an interview on the Saudi-owned Al Arabiya TV on January 26, 2009, he referred to America as “a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers.” In these two instances, President Obama placed Muslims ahead of Jews and, in the second, ahead of Christians as well.
Surveys show that there are some 5 – 7 million Jews living in the United States. Most surveys show that there are 1.8 – 2.8 million Muslims living in the United States.
4. In his Cairo speech on June 4, 2009, President Obama inaccurately referred to “…nearly seven million American Muslims in our country today.” He further inflated the Muslim presence in America by stating on French television, “If you actually took the number of Muslim Americans, we’d be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world.”
These claims are astonishing – and groundless. The figure of 7 million is a three-fold plus exaggeration of the actual number of American Muslims. Inflated figures like these are usually cited only by Islamist organizations like the Council on American Islamic relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA). In contrast, the 2007 Pew Research Center study estimates a U.S. Muslim population of 0.6 percent, resulting in a figure of approximately 1.8 million American Muslims, while a 2008 American Religious Identification Survey, puts the figure even lower, at 1, 349,000.
It seems clear that the reason CAIR and other pro-Muslim groups use the figure of 7 million is to falsely indicate that there are more Muslims than Jews in America, since Jews generally claim the number of 6 million. Why did President Obama use this phony number of 7 million? Didn’t President Obama’s speechwriters and researchers check out this figure before using it?
5. Additionally, President Obama strongly and shockingly implied that Palestinian suffering was equivalent to Jewish suffering during the Holocaust. He also strongly implied the Palestinian situation is equivalent to that of U.S. Blacks during slavery and Blacks during Apartheid-era South Africa. The assumption, just barely left unsaid, is that Israeli Jews are oppressors.
6. Also, he spoke of the need for Jerusalem to become “a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together” – thereby robbing Israel of due credit for actually instituting complete freedom of religion within Jerusalem that was lacking when the eastern half of the city was under Jordanian Arab control.
7. Additionally, in his Cairo speech, President Obama quoted from the Quran, which he called “Holy” and the Bible, which he also called “Holy,” but he conspicuously omitted the adjective “Holy” when he referred to the Talmud, a major Jewish holy book and the one distinctively Jewish document he cited in his speech.
8. In February 2010, in speaking of the outpouring of extraordinary American humanitarian and rescue assistance to Haiti in the wake of the devastating earthquake that had hit that country on January 12, mentioned several other countries helping Haiti but conspicuously omitted the one whose assistance to Haiti exceeded that of all others apart from the U.S. itself – Israel, President Obama said, “… help continues to flow in, not just from the United States but from Brazil, Mexico, Canada, France, Colombia, and the Dominican Republic, among others … The entire world stands with the government and the people of Haiti, for in Haiti's devastation, we all see the common humanity that we share” (‘President Obama's Remarks After His Call with Haitian President Préval,’ White House Blog, January 15, 2010). Obama conspicuously refused to mention Israel and to give Israel well-deserved credit.
In contrast, former President Bill Clinton was outspoken in praise of Israel’s efforts in Haiti, saying, “I don’t know what we would have done without the Israeli hospital at Haiti … The Israeli hospital was the only operational facility which was able to perform surgery and advanced tests. In the name of the aid workers that operated in Haiti, in the name of the people who live there, and on a personal level I want to thank, we all want to thank, Israel from the bottom of our hearts” (‘Bill Clinton hails Israeli relief mission in Haiti,’ Haaretz, January 29, 2010).
9. Very recently, the Obama Administration has used the terms “condemn,” an “insult” and an “affront” when expressing disagreement with Israel’s merely announcing a program of housing construction in a major Jewish neighborhood of in north-eastern Jerusalem – a project which violated no agreement with America. “Condemn,” “insult” and “affront” are harsh and ugly terms that America and Obama have never used in reference to an ally’s actions. These terms have never been used in reference to Iran’s nuclear program or the violent oppression of their citizens; or of the Palestinian Authority when they named schools, streets and sports teams after Jew-killing terrorists or when they continuously promote hatred and violence against Israel in their schools, media, speeches and sermons.
10. President Obama released a photograph of his speaking with Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by phone. What was peculiar and troubling is that the photograph showed President Obama with his feet up on his desk, exposing the soles of his shoes – exposing one’s soles to another is considered a deep insult in the Arab world. No such photograph of President Obama speaking to any other world leader has been ever released. Was this another signal to the Muslim world of his disdain for the Jewish state?
ZOA National President Morton A. Klein said, “Each of these incidents, some important, some less important, have added up over a short period – 16 months – to assume a troubling pattern suggesting that President Obama has an issue in general with the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel (especially compared to statements and actions towards Muslim people and Muslim states).
“But maybe we shouldn’t be surprised about President Obama’s words and actions concerning Jews and the Jewish state. After all, he spent twenty years sitting with his wife and children in the pews of his church listening to his own pastor, the anti-Israel, anti-Semitic preacher, Jeremiah Wright, whom he has called a great man as well as his friend and mentor. President Obama, by his own admission, helped organize and personally attended Farrakhan’s million man march, and is also friends with Israel-bashers Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Zbigniew Brzezinski among others.”
Friday, May 28, 2010
Don't follow Europe's example
. The real meltdown may not be in Greenland, but western economies:
http://tinyurl.com/35tmq8r
Two Brits discuss the European economic crisis: http://tinyurl.com/26vp8fh
from Richard Baehtr
liberal economists, such as Paul Krugman, try to assure us that the largest annual federal budget deficits in history ($4.5 trillion in total over the first three years) do not matter, and that the ratio of total federal debt to GDP does no matter, and argue we should really be spending even more, there are some who disagree. For the record, in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, the total additional federal debt will be larger than the combined accumulated debt in the nation's history before he took office. But relax: Paul Krugman says it is manageable. Does it strike anyone as odd that while one European country after another announces that it is overextended financially, and has to reduce its entitlement spending, that the Obama administrations seems to be laser focused on driving our economy into a European welfare state model?
No we are not Greece (yet). But we are on track to soon be Greece times 30. The IMF gets worried about America: http://tinyurl.com/25j
. The real meltdown may not be in Greenland, but western economies:
http://tinyurl.com/35tmq8r
Two Brits discuss the European economic crisis: http://tinyurl.com/26vp8fh
from Richard Baehtr
liberal economists, such as Paul Krugman, try to assure us that the largest annual federal budget deficits in history ($4.5 trillion in total over the first three years) do not matter, and that the ratio of total federal debt to GDP does no matter, and argue we should really be spending even more, there are some who disagree. For the record, in the first 4 years of the Obama administration, the total additional federal debt will be larger than the combined accumulated debt in the nation's history before he took office. But relax: Paul Krugman says it is manageable. Does it strike anyone as odd that while one European country after another announces that it is overextended financially, and has to reduce its entitlement spending, that the Obama administrations seems to be laser focused on driving our economy into a European welfare state model?
No we are not Greece (yet). But we are on track to soon be Greece times 30. The IMF gets worried about America: http://tinyurl.com/25j
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Obama at West Point
President Obama's commencement address at
West Point (which took place this morning). You can watch it at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/obamas-west-point-speech-_n_585988.
html
He received the coolest reception that one can imagine from the officers
whom he now commands (very muted applause). Also, while he spoke of
terrorism or extremism, he would never link that to radical Islam. He
spends some time talking about Islam, but manages to circumvent the core of
the problem which is that Radical Islam IS the enemy of the U.S. and Western
Civilization. Friends, unless we can define our enemy, we are destined to
lose.
West Point (which took place this morning). You can watch it at
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/obamas-west-point-speech-_n_585988.
html
He received the coolest reception that one can imagine from the officers
whom he now commands (very muted applause). Also, while he spoke of
terrorism or extremism, he would never link that to radical Islam. He
spends some time talking about Islam, but manages to circumvent the core of
the problem which is that Radical Islam IS the enemy of the U.S. and Western
Civilization. Friends, unless we can define our enemy, we are destined to
lose.
Wednesday, May 19, 2010
“American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.”
“American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.”
By Ben Shapiro
April 28, 2010
Dear American Jews,
I write to you as a charter member of the tribe. I’m not only Jewish, I’m religious. I’m married to an Israeli girl (she’ll receive her citizenship next year and she is a proud soon-to-be American). I go to synagogue regularly, keep kosher, keep the Sabbath.
American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.
I mean that in all sincerity. Your continued support for Democrats and an administration that is openly anti-Semitic is a disgrace. Your embrace of a party that seeks to hamstring Israel in the name of a wholly fictitious Middle East peace process is contemptible. Your loyalty to a president who consistently sides with Palestinian and Iranian mass murder-supporters is disgusting.
Your backing of a man who has spent his life surrounding himself with the worst anti-Semites America has to offer — Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi (former Palestinian terrorist spokesman), Louis Farrakhan (“I don’t like the way [Jews] leech on us”), Samantha Power, Robert Malley, to name a few — is nothing short of reprehensible. Rahm Emanuel’s presence in the Obama cabinet doesn’t ameliorate Obama’s anti-Semitism — it just provides it convenient cover. Al Sharpton wrongly called Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell “house negroes”; Emanuel is a kapo.
Even as you continue to buttress a president who seeks the destruction of your co-religionists, you demonstrate your myopia by rejecting the tea party movement and evangelical Christian Israel-supporters.
The tea party movement is your ally for three important reasons. First, it supports capitalism against the forces of socialism — and capitalism keeps America strong enough to provide Israel with a hand against its evil adversaries. Second, American Jews are, by far, the highest-earning religious group in the United States — the tea party fights for your right to keep your money. Third, the tea party stands against government overreach — and in an era when government overreach promotes anti-religious secularism, Jews must stand with the tea party.
Your rejection of evangelical Christians is even more idiotic. Evangelical Christians are the only major voting bloc preventing President Obama from breaking ties with Israel. When Janet Porter, an evangelical Florida talk show host, heard about Obama’s anti-Israel tyranny, she responded by asking her listeners to buy dozens of yellow roses to send to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office as a show of support. The price per dozen: $19.48, in honor of the year of Israel’s founding (1948). Over 14,000 flowers were delivered. Meanwhile, Adm. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser and the man who brought Jew-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski into Obama’s inner circle, was busy telling anti-Semitic jokes before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“But they want to convert us!” many American Jews shout. Not all Christians do. But for the rest — so what? Would you sacrifice the support of millions of good-hearted Christians because they want to discuss Jesus with you? If your own belief system is so fragile, the weakness is yours, not theirs. While you expend energy whining about Jehovah’s Witnesses who show up at your door with a Bible, Obama supports radical Muslims who would show up at your door with a gun — or, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, a butcher’s knife.
Now, I understand, American Jews, that most of you don’t care about Israel.
I understand that you’re more concerned about a woman’s unconditional right to abort her unborn child (which Judaism rejects) than you are about Israel. Fine. Understand that you have removed yourself from the vast river of Jewish history in favor of a chimerical morality that values libertinism over liberty.
I understand that many of you — all of you above age 70 — still think FDR is alive. He isn’t, but Jimmy Carter is.
I understand that some of you still think that conservatives and Republicans are the same folks they were during the 1950s, when they banned you from country clubs. They aren’t.
The simple fact is this: There is only one mainstream political ideology in this country that asks you to check your principles and cultural history at the door in the name of the greater good — leftism, the same ideology that virtually exterminated Judaism in Russia and Europe. While the left exploits your adherence to bagel-and-lox Judaism by appealing to your watered-down and perverted “tikkun olam” sensibilities, you are enabling your own destruction. The same people who urge you to reach out to terrorists will be the first to sacrifice you to those terrorists’ tender mercies. The same people who urge you to worry about same-sex marriage rather than religious freedom will be the first to take your religious freedoms away.
I love you, my brothers and sisters. That’s why I’m writing to you. Time is running out; the clock is winding down. Pick a side.
By Ben Shapiro
April 28, 2010
Dear American Jews,
I write to you as a charter member of the tribe. I’m not only Jewish, I’m religious. I’m married to an Israeli girl (she’ll receive her citizenship next year and she is a proud soon-to-be American). I go to synagogue regularly, keep kosher, keep the Sabbath.
American Jews, I have one request of you: please pull your heads out of your posteriors.
I mean that in all sincerity. Your continued support for Democrats and an administration that is openly anti-Semitic is a disgrace. Your embrace of a party that seeks to hamstring Israel in the name of a wholly fictitious Middle East peace process is contemptible. Your loyalty to a president who consistently sides with Palestinian and Iranian mass murder-supporters is disgusting.
Your backing of a man who has spent his life surrounding himself with the worst anti-Semites America has to offer — Jeremiah Wright, Rashid Khalidi (former Palestinian terrorist spokesman), Louis Farrakhan (“I don’t like the way [Jews] leech on us”), Samantha Power, Robert Malley, to name a few — is nothing short of reprehensible. Rahm Emanuel’s presence in the Obama cabinet doesn’t ameliorate Obama’s anti-Semitism — it just provides it convenient cover. Al Sharpton wrongly called Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell “house negroes”; Emanuel is a kapo.
Even as you continue to buttress a president who seeks the destruction of your co-religionists, you demonstrate your myopia by rejecting the tea party movement and evangelical Christian Israel-supporters.
The tea party movement is your ally for three important reasons. First, it supports capitalism against the forces of socialism — and capitalism keeps America strong enough to provide Israel with a hand against its evil adversaries. Second, American Jews are, by far, the highest-earning religious group in the United States — the tea party fights for your right to keep your money. Third, the tea party stands against government overreach — and in an era when government overreach promotes anti-religious secularism, Jews must stand with the tea party.
Your rejection of evangelical Christians is even more idiotic. Evangelical Christians are the only major voting bloc preventing President Obama from breaking ties with Israel. When Janet Porter, an evangelical Florida talk show host, heard about Obama’s anti-Israel tyranny, she responded by asking her listeners to buy dozens of yellow roses to send to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office as a show of support. The price per dozen: $19.48, in honor of the year of Israel’s founding (1948). Over 14,000 flowers were delivered. Meanwhile, Adm. James Jones, Obama’s national security adviser and the man who brought Jew-hater Zbigniew Brzezinski into Obama’s inner circle, was busy telling anti-Semitic jokes before the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
“But they want to convert us!” many American Jews shout. Not all Christians do. But for the rest — so what? Would you sacrifice the support of millions of good-hearted Christians because they want to discuss Jesus with you? If your own belief system is so fragile, the weakness is yours, not theirs. While you expend energy whining about Jehovah’s Witnesses who show up at your door with a Bible, Obama supports radical Muslims who would show up at your door with a gun — or, as in the case of Daniel Pearl, a butcher’s knife.
Now, I understand, American Jews, that most of you don’t care about Israel.
I understand that you’re more concerned about a woman’s unconditional right to abort her unborn child (which Judaism rejects) than you are about Israel. Fine. Understand that you have removed yourself from the vast river of Jewish history in favor of a chimerical morality that values libertinism over liberty.
I understand that many of you — all of you above age 70 — still think FDR is alive. He isn’t, but Jimmy Carter is.
I understand that some of you still think that conservatives and Republicans are the same folks they were during the 1950s, when they banned you from country clubs. They aren’t.
The simple fact is this: There is only one mainstream political ideology in this country that asks you to check your principles and cultural history at the door in the name of the greater good — leftism, the same ideology that virtually exterminated Judaism in Russia and Europe. While the left exploits your adherence to bagel-and-lox Judaism by appealing to your watered-down and perverted “tikkun olam” sensibilities, you are enabling your own destruction. The same people who urge you to reach out to terrorists will be the first to sacrifice you to those terrorists’ tender mercies. The same people who urge you to worry about same-sex marriage rather than religious freedom will be the first to take your religious freedoms away.
I love you, my brothers and sisters. That’s why I’m writing to you. Time is running out; the clock is winding down. Pick a side.
Here are nine huge problems going on right now that are not being addressed by the U.S. government
Here are nine huge problems going on right now that are not being addressed by the U.S. government and are barely comprehended by the U.S. debate and large portions of the mass media. I defy anyone to show that any of these points is inaccurate. You can claim they are exaggerated, but not by much. You can claim that the U.S. government lacks options, but it is not even trying to find or develop them, nor is it telling the public the truth about these issues.
1. Iran again outmaneuvers the United States, undercutting sanctions. It's now the second half of May, do you know where your sanctions are? The problem isn't just that Tehran now has a new plan to ship out half its enriched uranium (only leaving it with the other 50 percent for building bombs!) but that this scheme was engineered by two countries the Obama Administration has extolled as friends: Turkey and Brazil. Despite constant assurances to the public (illusions it also believed and which misled its policy), the Obama Administration cannot depend on Russia or China to support sanctions.
What is going on is a diplomatic battle between Iran and the United States to see which can have more influence on the positions taken by other countries on the Iran nuclear issue. Here's what's really amazing: Outside of Western and Central Europe, Iran is winning this competition. Despite Obama's vaunted claims of popularity, his government didn't build real alliances in the Third World or persuade people of the extent of the Iranian threat so the United States doesn't get their support. In addition, they view Obama as weak and not a reliable friend, so why should they go out on a limb for him? There could be no better proof that respect and credibility is more important in international affairs than shallow popularity and flattery.
2. Russia has just signed a major arms' deal with Syria and is moving toward being diplomatic patron and arms' supplier of an Iran-Syria-Turkey-Hamas-Hizballah alliance. While the United States has tremendous potential leverage over Russia, it isn't being used and the administration continues to pretend Moscow will support serious sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile, Russia is rebuilding its hegemony over former Soviet territories and neighbors. And the Obama Administration is blind toward Turkey's defection to the other side and the growing Islamism within Turkey itself.
3. The Administration is simply not dealing with nor even informing the public of Iranian cooperation with al-Qaida as well as Tehran's covert war on the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still entangled with illusions of engaging Iran, which thus open the door to the kind of problems discussed in points 1 and 2 above.
4. The government has no real understanding of Iranian strategy or the kind of containment that would be needed once Tehran has nuclear weapons. It thinks-and this is no exaggeration-that the Middle East would not change very much with a nuclear-armed Iran and that U.S. credibility and deterrence would not be substantially damaged.
5. The Obama Administration continues to engage Syria despite that regime's continued war against America in Iraq, takeover efforts in Lebanon, support for revolutionary Islamist groups and sabotage against any progress in peacemaking. A new development is the announcement by the UN-sponsored international tribunal that it will issue indictments in September. If it is honest at all, Syrian leaders will be openly declared as responsible for terrorism and assassinations in Lebanon.
6. The Obama Administration continues to pour money and support into Pakistan even while aware that the Pakistani government is not helping very much against al-Qaida and the Afghan Taliban, not to mention its sponsoring a war of terrorism on its neighbor India. Incidentally, some similar things--on a much smaller scale--apply to Yemen which has been really unhelpful to U.S. counterterrorist efforts lately. Might some pressure and even quiet threats be useful?
7. The U.S. government and mass media cannot even speak honestly most of the time about the nature of the revolutionary Islamist threat.
8. The Obama Administration's policy of winning Arab state support for its policies by flattery and distancing itself from Israel has failed. Arab leaders alternate between bemoaning Washington's weakness and complaining that it isn't doing anything. Here's a remarkable speech by one of Saudi Arabia's most powerful leaders, Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington and London, saying that Obama is no different from past U.S. presidents, has done nothing for the Arabs, and they are demanding a lot more. Naturally, they are not offering to do anything to help or support the United States.
9. A policy of distancing itself from Israel--although this should not be exaggerated--has not yielded any material benefit for U.S. interests. By doing so, and making a freeze of construction on settlements its main theme, the Obama Administration wrecked the chance for any Israel-Palestinian contacts for about a year and have moved them back from direct to indirect talks. The policy is now making the Palestinian Authority think that it need merely sabotage talks and believe that this will yield more U.S. pressure on Israel and unilateral concessions for itself. Moreover, while the administration continues to isolate Hamas, its basic approach is to preserve the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. In short, the U.S. policy is making it harder, rather than easier, to make progress toward a just and stable two-state solution.
To all of this might be added that given the poor performance and inaccurate understanding of the region it holds, the administration is not likely to respond well to crises arising from Iraq, Afghanistan, Egyptian succession, or many other issues likely to arise.
")); // -->
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)
1. Iran again outmaneuvers the United States, undercutting sanctions. It's now the second half of May, do you know where your sanctions are? The problem isn't just that Tehran now has a new plan to ship out half its enriched uranium (only leaving it with the other 50 percent for building bombs!) but that this scheme was engineered by two countries the Obama Administration has extolled as friends: Turkey and Brazil. Despite constant assurances to the public (illusions it also believed and which misled its policy), the Obama Administration cannot depend on Russia or China to support sanctions.
What is going on is a diplomatic battle between Iran and the United States to see which can have more influence on the positions taken by other countries on the Iran nuclear issue. Here's what's really amazing: Outside of Western and Central Europe, Iran is winning this competition. Despite Obama's vaunted claims of popularity, his government didn't build real alliances in the Third World or persuade people of the extent of the Iranian threat so the United States doesn't get their support. In addition, they view Obama as weak and not a reliable friend, so why should they go out on a limb for him? There could be no better proof that respect and credibility is more important in international affairs than shallow popularity and flattery.
2. Russia has just signed a major arms' deal with Syria and is moving toward being diplomatic patron and arms' supplier of an Iran-Syria-Turkey-Hamas-Hizballah alliance. While the United States has tremendous potential leverage over Russia, it isn't being used and the administration continues to pretend Moscow will support serious sanctions against Iran. Meanwhile, Russia is rebuilding its hegemony over former Soviet territories and neighbors. And the Obama Administration is blind toward Turkey's defection to the other side and the growing Islamism within Turkey itself.
3. The Administration is simply not dealing with nor even informing the public of Iranian cooperation with al-Qaida as well as Tehran's covert war on the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is still entangled with illusions of engaging Iran, which thus open the door to the kind of problems discussed in points 1 and 2 above.
4. The government has no real understanding of Iranian strategy or the kind of containment that would be needed once Tehran has nuclear weapons. It thinks-and this is no exaggeration-that the Middle East would not change very much with a nuclear-armed Iran and that U.S. credibility and deterrence would not be substantially damaged.
5. The Obama Administration continues to engage Syria despite that regime's continued war against America in Iraq, takeover efforts in Lebanon, support for revolutionary Islamist groups and sabotage against any progress in peacemaking. A new development is the announcement by the UN-sponsored international tribunal that it will issue indictments in September. If it is honest at all, Syrian leaders will be openly declared as responsible for terrorism and assassinations in Lebanon.
6. The Obama Administration continues to pour money and support into Pakistan even while aware that the Pakistani government is not helping very much against al-Qaida and the Afghan Taliban, not to mention its sponsoring a war of terrorism on its neighbor India. Incidentally, some similar things--on a much smaller scale--apply to Yemen which has been really unhelpful to U.S. counterterrorist efforts lately. Might some pressure and even quiet threats be useful?
7. The U.S. government and mass media cannot even speak honestly most of the time about the nature of the revolutionary Islamist threat.
8. The Obama Administration's policy of winning Arab state support for its policies by flattery and distancing itself from Israel has failed. Arab leaders alternate between bemoaning Washington's weakness and complaining that it isn't doing anything. Here's a remarkable speech by one of Saudi Arabia's most powerful leaders, Prince Turki al-Faisal, former Saudi intelligence chief and former ambassador to Washington and London, saying that Obama is no different from past U.S. presidents, has done nothing for the Arabs, and they are demanding a lot more. Naturally, they are not offering to do anything to help or support the United States.
9. A policy of distancing itself from Israel--although this should not be exaggerated--has not yielded any material benefit for U.S. interests. By doing so, and making a freeze of construction on settlements its main theme, the Obama Administration wrecked the chance for any Israel-Palestinian contacts for about a year and have moved them back from direct to indirect talks. The policy is now making the Palestinian Authority think that it need merely sabotage talks and believe that this will yield more U.S. pressure on Israel and unilateral concessions for itself. Moreover, while the administration continues to isolate Hamas, its basic approach is to preserve the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip. In short, the U.S. policy is making it harder, rather than easier, to make progress toward a just and stable two-state solution.
To all of this might be added that given the poor performance and inaccurate understanding of the region it holds, the administration is not likely to respond well to crises arising from Iraq, Afghanistan, Egyptian succession, or many other issues likely to arise.
")); // -->
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA)
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
"The difference between a Jewish liberal and a Jewish conservative is that when a Jewish liberal walks out of the Holocaust Museum, he feels, 'This shows why we need to have more tolerance and multiculturalism.' The Jewish conservative feels, 'We should have killed a lot more Nazis, and sooner.'"
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/17/how-liberal-jews-are-enabling
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/05/17/how-liberal-jews-are-enabling
Sunday, May 16, 2010
Friday, May 7, 2010
Join the tea partiers-they have Israel interests at heart
Emperor has no clothes
Mainstream Jewish groups driven by need to placate leftist donors
Michael Fenenbock
Published: 05.07.10, 00:03 / Israel Opinion
AIPAC is a parody of itself. AIPAC's donor base is left-wing Democrats. Its chairman is a dyed in the wool supporter of President Obama.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is an antic joke. Their chairman has raised millions for various Obama campaigns and projects. In a moment of prideful boast he publicly assured those of us with doubts that President Obama would be "the first Jewish president."
The emperor has no clothes.
Of course, the actions of mainstream Jewish organizations and their leadership are not necessarily intended to benefit the Jewish state. They are most often driven by the need to placate a left-wing donor base and by a fear of losing their insider status.
It must also be noted that when it comes to mainstream Jewish leadership there is no recall mechanism. These are more or less elitist appointments. Although they make decisions that affect the entire Jewish world, we “hoi polloi” are never part of the process.
Great Expectations
Obama gets it wrong / Eytan Gilboa
Palestinians wholly disregard Obama, expect him to do all work for them
Full Story
It’s certainly no over-exaggeration to say President Obama and his administration have played the mainstream Jewish leaders like a violin.
The scion of a wealthy cosmetics manufacturing Jewish family recently published a full-page open letter of complaint to President Obama about the recent Biden brouhaha. He paid to have his letter appear in several major American newspapers.
In this letter he called for understanding... but also took time to reaffirm Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution and concluded by congratulating the president for his sincerity on issues concerning Israel and peace.
I think the two-state solution will have disastrous consequences and I believe that President Obama’s hostility is deep seated and ideological.
The emperor has no clothes.
Equally demoralizing, the Israeli prime minister is guilty of listening to these voices. Fearing to antagonize the Obama administration and offering bits and pieces of appeasement he has allowed himself to become a caricature… insisting on a recent American Sunday news broadcast that there had been no disagreement between the Obama Administration and Israel.
It is common knowledge in Washington DC that, at the bidding of the president and pressure from mainstream Jewish leadership, the prime minister quietly agreed to halt building in east Jerusalem.
He does this even as the Obama Administration makes no bones about desiring a more malleable government in Israel, encouraging his domestic political opponents to all but overthrow his government.
The emperor has no clothes.
Imposing a two-state solution is at the heart of the Obama foreign policy; for the president, there has been no downside to his assault on the Jewish State. Jewish voters have not abandoned him to any significant degree and the Administration has suffered no meaningful political damage as a consequence of their policy.
Voter revolt
President Obama’s hostility toward the Jewish State far from causing him political angst has actually advanced his cause domestically by reinforcing his pro-Islam, anti-Israel bonafides with his core political base on the American Left. And the American Left controls the Democratic Party.
He can, however, be caused political pain. If we have the will and the strategic intelligence to align ourselves with his opposition.
There is afoot in America a red-hot, boiling opposition to President Obama, his domestic and foreign policies and the direction he and the political establishment have taken the country. It is revolt engined by a tsunami-like wave of populist sentiment. And it has a big, and very influential, megaphone. Talk radio, Fox News and a maze of popular of blogs. Including one influential blog that emanates from Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem.
It is a voter revolt that is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Jewish State.
Mainstream American Jewish leadership fears this voter revolt because they have closed off any mechanism for understanding it. They are addicted to insider politics. They cannot conceptualize an “outsider” voter revolt. Even when faced with polling that tells us nearly half of all Americans identify with the voter revolt; the mainstream Jewish leadership remains in denial.
AIPAC is a case study in denial. Oblivious to American public opinion, AIPAC in the wake of recent events gathered Congressional signatures on a meaningless boilerplate letter to Secretary Clinton.
The political reality in America is that every opinion poll tells us the American public holds members of Congress in utter contempt. This obvious fact never even entered AIPAC’s judgment.
The comedic coup de gras to AIPAC’s Congressional effort came a few days later when ABC News produced this headline about AIPAC letter signer John Kerry, “Kerry says Syria is committed to Mideast Peace.” You cannot make this stuff up.
The emperor has no clothes.
An enthusiastic friend asks, what if the AIPAC staff resigned in a massive show of solidarity. What if the number two guy at Conference of Presidents resigned in protest and declared his intention to lead a real opposition to the Obama Administration hostility toward Israel.
It won’t happen. But here’s what will happen.
Encouraged by the US president, the world - beginning with the UN, followed by Europe, the Muslim countries, Latin America and Canada - will soon unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
Unless we thrown a spanner in the spokes.
The 2010 American elections are ahead. We have friends. They are part of the voter revolt. We need to join with their cause. Bring our cause to the forefront of their revolt. And recognize their leaders as genuine and real.
Because their fight is our fight.
Michael Fenenbock is a veteran American political consultant. He and his wife Daphne Weisbart live in New York, but spend a great deal of time in Jerusalem
Mainstream Jewish groups driven by need to placate leftist donors
Michael Fenenbock
Published: 05.07.10, 00:03 / Israel Opinion
AIPAC is a parody of itself. AIPAC's donor base is left-wing Democrats. Its chairman is a dyed in the wool supporter of President Obama.
The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations is an antic joke. Their chairman has raised millions for various Obama campaigns and projects. In a moment of prideful boast he publicly assured those of us with doubts that President Obama would be "the first Jewish president."
The emperor has no clothes.
Of course, the actions of mainstream Jewish organizations and their leadership are not necessarily intended to benefit the Jewish state. They are most often driven by the need to placate a left-wing donor base and by a fear of losing their insider status.
It must also be noted that when it comes to mainstream Jewish leadership there is no recall mechanism. These are more or less elitist appointments. Although they make decisions that affect the entire Jewish world, we “hoi polloi” are never part of the process.
Great Expectations
Obama gets it wrong / Eytan Gilboa
Palestinians wholly disregard Obama, expect him to do all work for them
Full Story
It’s certainly no over-exaggeration to say President Obama and his administration have played the mainstream Jewish leaders like a violin.
The scion of a wealthy cosmetics manufacturing Jewish family recently published a full-page open letter of complaint to President Obama about the recent Biden brouhaha. He paid to have his letter appear in several major American newspapers.
In this letter he called for understanding... but also took time to reaffirm Israel’s commitment to a two-state solution and concluded by congratulating the president for his sincerity on issues concerning Israel and peace.
I think the two-state solution will have disastrous consequences and I believe that President Obama’s hostility is deep seated and ideological.
The emperor has no clothes.
Equally demoralizing, the Israeli prime minister is guilty of listening to these voices. Fearing to antagonize the Obama administration and offering bits and pieces of appeasement he has allowed himself to become a caricature… insisting on a recent American Sunday news broadcast that there had been no disagreement between the Obama Administration and Israel.
It is common knowledge in Washington DC that, at the bidding of the president and pressure from mainstream Jewish leadership, the prime minister quietly agreed to halt building in east Jerusalem.
He does this even as the Obama Administration makes no bones about desiring a more malleable government in Israel, encouraging his domestic political opponents to all but overthrow his government.
The emperor has no clothes.
Imposing a two-state solution is at the heart of the Obama foreign policy; for the president, there has been no downside to his assault on the Jewish State. Jewish voters have not abandoned him to any significant degree and the Administration has suffered no meaningful political damage as a consequence of their policy.
Voter revolt
President Obama’s hostility toward the Jewish State far from causing him political angst has actually advanced his cause domestically by reinforcing his pro-Islam, anti-Israel bonafides with his core political base on the American Left. And the American Left controls the Democratic Party.
He can, however, be caused political pain. If we have the will and the strategic intelligence to align ourselves with his opposition.
There is afoot in America a red-hot, boiling opposition to President Obama, his domestic and foreign policies and the direction he and the political establishment have taken the country. It is revolt engined by a tsunami-like wave of populist sentiment. And it has a big, and very influential, megaphone. Talk radio, Fox News and a maze of popular of blogs. Including one influential blog that emanates from Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem.
It is a voter revolt that is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Jewish State.
Mainstream American Jewish leadership fears this voter revolt because they have closed off any mechanism for understanding it. They are addicted to insider politics. They cannot conceptualize an “outsider” voter revolt. Even when faced with polling that tells us nearly half of all Americans identify with the voter revolt; the mainstream Jewish leadership remains in denial.
AIPAC is a case study in denial. Oblivious to American public opinion, AIPAC in the wake of recent events gathered Congressional signatures on a meaningless boilerplate letter to Secretary Clinton.
The political reality in America is that every opinion poll tells us the American public holds members of Congress in utter contempt. This obvious fact never even entered AIPAC’s judgment.
The comedic coup de gras to AIPAC’s Congressional effort came a few days later when ABC News produced this headline about AIPAC letter signer John Kerry, “Kerry says Syria is committed to Mideast Peace.” You cannot make this stuff up.
The emperor has no clothes.
An enthusiastic friend asks, what if the AIPAC staff resigned in a massive show of solidarity. What if the number two guy at Conference of Presidents resigned in protest and declared his intention to lead a real opposition to the Obama Administration hostility toward Israel.
It won’t happen. But here’s what will happen.
Encouraged by the US president, the world - beginning with the UN, followed by Europe, the Muslim countries, Latin America and Canada - will soon unilaterally recognize a Palestinian state with its capital in east Jerusalem.
Unless we thrown a spanner in the spokes.
The 2010 American elections are ahead. We have friends. They are part of the voter revolt. We need to join with their cause. Bring our cause to the forefront of their revolt. And recognize their leaders as genuine and real.
Because their fight is our fight.
Michael Fenenbock is a veteran American political consultant. He and his wife Daphne Weisbart live in New York, but spend a great deal of time in Jerusalem
Thursday, May 6, 2010
Obama catastrophe
Jewish World Review April 27, 2010 / 13 Iyar 5770
Barreling on, regardless
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If safeguarding international security is the chief aim of US President Barack Obama's foreign policy, then at some point he can be expected to change course in the Middle East. For today, Obama faces the wreckage of every aspect of his Middle East policies. And largely as a consequence of his policies, the region moves ever closer to war.
In Iraq, Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat forces from the country by the summer has emboldened the various forces vying for control of the country to set it ablaze once more.
In Afghanistan, Obama's surge and leave policy has left would-be US allies hedging their bets, at best. And it has caused the US's NATO partners to question the purpose of their deployment in that country.
Then there is Iran. Last week's report by The New York Times that this January Defense Secretary Robert Gates penned a memo to National Security Advisor James Jones warning that the Obama administration has no effective policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program exposed the bitter truth that in the face of the most acute foreign policy problem they face, Obama and his crew are out to lunch.
Gates' attempt to mitigate the story's impact by claiming that actually, the White House is weighing all its option only made things worse. Even before the ink on his correction note was dry, his Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy was telling reporters in Singapore that the military option, "is not on the table in the near term."
Iran for its part continues to escalate its menacing behavior. Last week its naval forces reportedly interdicted a French ship and an Italian ship navigating through the Straits of Hormuz.
President Shimon Peres' announcement last week that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon was a sharp warning that Iran and its underlings are diligently preparing for war with Israel. It also demonstrated that the Obama administration's attempts to use diplomacy to coddle Syria away from Iran have failed completely.
Administration officials' statements in the wake of Peres's bombshell make clear that Syria's bellicose actions have not caused the US President to reconsider his failed policy. Obama's advisors responded to the news by irrelevantly boasting that their policy of "engagement" enabled them to bring the matter up with their Syrian interlocutors three times before Peres' announcement and once more after he made the statement.
And that's not nearly the end of it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced last week, soon the Obama administration will expand its dialogue with Syria by returning the US ambassador to Damascus for the first time since Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri five years ago. That is, Obama has chosen to respond to Syria's open brinkmanship by rewarding Assad with newfound legitimacy and panache.
And that's still not the worst of it. What is worst is that Obama's advisers openly admit that they have no idea why Syria remains a rogue state despite their happy talk. As one administration official told Foreign Policy, understanding why Syria - Iran's Arab client state - is acting like Iran's Arab client state is, "the million dollar question."
"We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem," the official told the magazine.
But while they wait for the Oracle at Damascus to decode itself, they are content to continue wooing Assad as he provokes war.
Then there are the Palestinians. After rejecting Obama's envoy George Mitchell's latest plea to conduct indirect negotiations with Israel, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas explained that Obama's own statements have convinced the Palestinians that there is nothing to negotiate about.
As he put it, "Since you, Mr. President, and you, the members of the American administration, believe in [the urgent need for a Palestinian state] it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution. Impose it. But don't tell me it's a vital national strategic American interest… and then not do anything."
Finally there is Israel. In the same week that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen refused to rule out the possibility that the US will shoot down Israeli jets en route to attack Iran's nuclear installations, and Obama again blamed Israel for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jim Jones tried to reassure Jewish Democrats that despite the administration's hostile actions and statements, it is not hostile to Israel.
Jones's speech was part of a very public outreach plan the administration adopted last week in the face of a groundswell of American Jewish anger at Obama for his adversarial posture towards Israel. Given that American Jews have been the Democratic Party's most secure voting bloc since 1932, recent polls showing that the majority of American Jews oppose Obama's treatment of Israel are a political earthquake.
According to a Quinnipiac poll published last week, a whopping 67 percent of American Jews disapprove of Obama's handling of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. A poll of American Jews taken by John McLaughlin earlier this month showed that a plurality of American Jews would consider voting for a candidate other than Obama in the next presidential elections.
And on Israel, American Jewish disapproval of Obama is fully consonant with the views of the general public. As the Quinnipiac poll shows, only 35 percent of Americans approve of his treatment of Israel.
Jones's speech before the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy was a friendly affair. He waxed on dreamily about how wonderful the US's alliance with Israel is and how much Obama values Israel. And the crowd rewarded him with a standing ovation.
But the substance of his speech made absolutely clear that while Obama and his advisors are concerned that for the first time in 80 years a significant number of American Jews may abandon the Democratic Party, they are unwilling to pay even the slightest substantive price to keep the Jews loyal to their party.
After he finished his declarations of love and his joke about crafty Jewish businessmen in Afghanistan, Jones made clear that the Obama administration continues to view Israel's refusal to surrender more land to the Palestinians as the key reason its efforts to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, the Syrians to quit the Iranian axis, the Palestinians and the Lebanese to quit the terror racket and the Iraqis and the Afghans to behave like Americans have all failed.
As he put it, "One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas."
Jones, Obama and the rest of their gang must have been asleep when the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and the rest of the Arabs told them that Iran is unrelated to the Palestinian issue and that Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons regardless of the status of Israeli-Palestinian relations. This after all has been the main message communicated to Obama and his advisers since January 2009 by every Sunni-majority state in the region as well as by many Iraqi Shiites.
They must have been at the golf course when their generals in Iraq and Afghanistan warned them about Iran providing weapons and training to irregular forces killing US servicemen.
The fact that even as he faced a Jewish audience, Jones couldn't resist the temptation to repeat the central fallacy at the root of the administration's failed policies in the Middle East makes clear that the Obama administration fundamentally does not care that the American people as a whole and the American Jewish community specifically oppose its policies. They will continue to push their policies in the face of that opposition no matter what. And if American Jews want to leave the party, well, they shouldn't slam the door on their way out.
The Obama administration's treatment of New York Senator Charles Schumer this week is case in point. Schumer has been one of Obama's most loyal supporters. If as expected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his reelection bid in November, Schumer is in line to replace him as the Democratic leader in the Senate.
Yet this week, responding to what has likely been an enormous outcry from his constituents, Schumer blasted Obama for his shabby and dangerous treatment of Israel. Rather than respond graciously to Schumer's criticism, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed it sneeringly saying, "I don't think that it's a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said in those remarks."
In his interview last week with Channel 2, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he has no doubt that if Obama wishes to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons he is capable of doing so. As he put it, "Barack Obama demonstrated his determination with regard to issues he felt were important, and his determination was quite impressive. I think President Obama can show that same determination with regard to Iran."
No doubt Netanyahu is correct. Moreover, the politics of such a move would make sense for him. Whereas Obama's decision to ram the nationalization of the US healthcare industry through Congress against the wishes of the American public caused his personal ratings and those of his party to plummet, were Obama to decide to take on Iran, he would win the overwhelming support of the American public. Indeed, a determined and successful bid by Obama to block Iran's nuclear aspirations could potentially block what is currently looking like a midterm election catastrophe for his party in November.
But as Gates's memo about Iran, Clinton's announcement that the administration will go ahead with its plan to dispatch an ambassador to Damascus, Mitchell's latest failure with the Palestinians, Jones's newest accusation against Israel, and the US's strategic incoherence in Iraq and Afghanistan all show, mere politics are irrelevant to Obama. It doesn't bother him that his most loyal supporters abandoning him. It doesn't matter that his policies have endangered the Middle East and the world as a whole.
Obama's refusal to acknowledge his own failures make clear that his goal is different than that of his predecessors. He is here to transform America's place in the world, not to safeguard the world. And he will move ahead with his transformative change even if it means abetting war. He will push on with his transformative change even if it means that Iran becomes a nuclear power. And he will push on with his transformative change even if it means that US forces are forced to leave Afghanistan and Iraq in defeat.
Barreling on, regardless
By Caroline B. Glick
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | If safeguarding international security is the chief aim of US President Barack Obama's foreign policy, then at some point he can be expected to change course in the Middle East. For today, Obama faces the wreckage of every aspect of his Middle East policies. And largely as a consequence of his policies, the region moves ever closer to war.
In Iraq, Obama's pledge to withdraw all combat forces from the country by the summer has emboldened the various forces vying for control of the country to set it ablaze once more.
In Afghanistan, Obama's surge and leave policy has left would-be US allies hedging their bets, at best. And it has caused the US's NATO partners to question the purpose of their deployment in that country.
Then there is Iran. Last week's report by The New York Times that this January Defense Secretary Robert Gates penned a memo to National Security Advisor James Jones warning that the Obama administration has no effective policy for dealing with Iran's nuclear weapons program exposed the bitter truth that in the face of the most acute foreign policy problem they face, Obama and his crew are out to lunch.
Gates' attempt to mitigate the story's impact by claiming that actually, the White House is weighing all its option only made things worse. Even before the ink on his correction note was dry, his Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michele Flournoy was telling reporters in Singapore that the military option, "is not on the table in the near term."
Iran for its part continues to escalate its menacing behavior. Last week its naval forces reportedly interdicted a French ship and an Italian ship navigating through the Straits of Hormuz.
President Shimon Peres' announcement last week that Syria has transferred Scud missiles to Hizbullah in Lebanon was a sharp warning that Iran and its underlings are diligently preparing for war with Israel. It also demonstrated that the Obama administration's attempts to use diplomacy to coddle Syria away from Iran have failed completely.
Administration officials' statements in the wake of Peres's bombshell make clear that Syria's bellicose actions have not caused the US President to reconsider his failed policy. Obama's advisors responded to the news by irrelevantly boasting that their policy of "engagement" enabled them to bring the matter up with their Syrian interlocutors three times before Peres' announcement and once more after he made the statement.
And that's not nearly the end of it. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced last week, soon the Obama administration will expand its dialogue with Syria by returning the US ambassador to Damascus for the first time since Syrian President Bashar Assad ordered the assassination of former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri five years ago. That is, Obama has chosen to respond to Syria's open brinkmanship by rewarding Assad with newfound legitimacy and panache.
And that's still not the worst of it. What is worst is that Obama's advisers openly admit that they have no idea why Syria remains a rogue state despite their happy talk. As one administration official told Foreign Policy, understanding why Syria - Iran's Arab client state - is acting like Iran's Arab client state is, "the million dollar question."
"We do not understand Syrian intentions. No one does, and until we get to that question we can never get to the root of the problem," the official told the magazine.
But while they wait for the Oracle at Damascus to decode itself, they are content to continue wooing Assad as he provokes war.
Then there are the Palestinians. After rejecting Obama's envoy George Mitchell's latest plea to conduct indirect negotiations with Israel, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas explained that Obama's own statements have convinced the Palestinians that there is nothing to negotiate about.
As he put it, "Since you, Mr. President, and you, the members of the American administration, believe in [the urgent need for a Palestinian state] it is your duty to call for the steps in order to reach the solution and impose the solution. Impose it. But don't tell me it's a vital national strategic American interest… and then not do anything."
Finally there is Israel. In the same week that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen refused to rule out the possibility that the US will shoot down Israeli jets en route to attack Iran's nuclear installations, and Obama again blamed Israel for the deaths of US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, Jim Jones tried to reassure Jewish Democrats that despite the administration's hostile actions and statements, it is not hostile to Israel.
Jones's speech was part of a very public outreach plan the administration adopted last week in the face of a groundswell of American Jewish anger at Obama for his adversarial posture towards Israel. Given that American Jews have been the Democratic Party's most secure voting bloc since 1932, recent polls showing that the majority of American Jews oppose Obama's treatment of Israel are a political earthquake.
According to a Quinnipiac poll published last week, a whopping 67 percent of American Jews disapprove of Obama's handling of the situation between Israel and the Palestinians. A poll of American Jews taken by John McLaughlin earlier this month showed that a plurality of American Jews would consider voting for a candidate other than Obama in the next presidential elections.
And on Israel, American Jewish disapproval of Obama is fully consonant with the views of the general public. As the Quinnipiac poll shows, only 35 percent of Americans approve of his treatment of Israel.
Jones's speech before the Washington Institute for Middle East Policy was a friendly affair. He waxed on dreamily about how wonderful the US's alliance with Israel is and how much Obama values Israel. And the crowd rewarded him with a standing ovation.
But the substance of his speech made absolutely clear that while Obama and his advisors are concerned that for the first time in 80 years a significant number of American Jews may abandon the Democratic Party, they are unwilling to pay even the slightest substantive price to keep the Jews loyal to their party.
After he finished his declarations of love and his joke about crafty Jewish businessmen in Afghanistan, Jones made clear that the Obama administration continues to view Israel's refusal to surrender more land to the Palestinians as the key reason its efforts to convince Iran to give up its nuclear program, the Syrians to quit the Iranian axis, the Palestinians and the Lebanese to quit the terror racket and the Iraqis and the Afghans to behave like Americans have all failed.
As he put it, "One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict. Iran uses the conflict to keep others in the region on the defensive and to try to limit its own isolation. Ending this conflict, achieving peace between Israelis and Palestinians, and establishing a sovereign Palestinian state would therefore take such an evocative issue away from Iran, Hizbullah, and Hamas."
Jones, Obama and the rest of their gang must have been asleep when the Saudis, Egyptians, Jordanians and the rest of the Arabs told them that Iran is unrelated to the Palestinian issue and that Iran must be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons regardless of the status of Israeli-Palestinian relations. This after all has been the main message communicated to Obama and his advisers since January 2009 by every Sunni-majority state in the region as well as by many Iraqi Shiites.
They must have been at the golf course when their generals in Iraq and Afghanistan warned them about Iran providing weapons and training to irregular forces killing US servicemen.
The fact that even as he faced a Jewish audience, Jones couldn't resist the temptation to repeat the central fallacy at the root of the administration's failed policies in the Middle East makes clear that the Obama administration fundamentally does not care that the American people as a whole and the American Jewish community specifically oppose its policies. They will continue to push their policies in the face of that opposition no matter what. And if American Jews want to leave the party, well, they shouldn't slam the door on their way out.
The Obama administration's treatment of New York Senator Charles Schumer this week is case in point. Schumer has been one of Obama's most loyal supporters. If as expected Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid loses his reelection bid in November, Schumer is in line to replace him as the Democratic leader in the Senate.
Yet this week, responding to what has likely been an enormous outcry from his constituents, Schumer blasted Obama for his shabby and dangerous treatment of Israel. Rather than respond graciously to Schumer's criticism, Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs dismissed it sneeringly saying, "I don't think that it's a stretch to say we don't agree with what Senator Schumer said in those remarks."
In his interview last week with Channel 2, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu said he has no doubt that if Obama wishes to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons he is capable of doing so. As he put it, "Barack Obama demonstrated his determination with regard to issues he felt were important, and his determination was quite impressive. I think President Obama can show that same determination with regard to Iran."
No doubt Netanyahu is correct. Moreover, the politics of such a move would make sense for him. Whereas Obama's decision to ram the nationalization of the US healthcare industry through Congress against the wishes of the American public caused his personal ratings and those of his party to plummet, were Obama to decide to take on Iran, he would win the overwhelming support of the American public. Indeed, a determined and successful bid by Obama to block Iran's nuclear aspirations could potentially block what is currently looking like a midterm election catastrophe for his party in November.
But as Gates's memo about Iran, Clinton's announcement that the administration will go ahead with its plan to dispatch an ambassador to Damascus, Mitchell's latest failure with the Palestinians, Jones's newest accusation against Israel, and the US's strategic incoherence in Iraq and Afghanistan all show, mere politics are irrelevant to Obama. It doesn't bother him that his most loyal supporters abandoning him. It doesn't matter that his policies have endangered the Middle East and the world as a whole.
Obama's refusal to acknowledge his own failures make clear that his goal is different than that of his predecessors. He is here to transform America's place in the world, not to safeguard the world. And he will move ahead with his transformative change even if it means abetting war. He will push on with his transformative change even if it means that Iran becomes a nuclear power. And he will push on with his transformative change even if it means that US forces are forced to leave Afghanistan and Iraq in defeat.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Illegal immigration?
Yes Jews are descendants of immigrants. but does that mean we have to support illegal immigration?
Arguments for the Arizona bill
Of course I know there are prejudiced individuals in any community,
including law enforcement, but a blanket condemnation
of all law enforcement in Arizona?: ""It would certainly not be difficult
for AZ law enforcement officials to use one other 'factor' as cover for their
prejudice." The vast majority of American law
enforcement officers and officials -- including those in Arizona -- are honest
and fair.
As for usurping Federal authority: Arizona would not have needed to write
the law into the State legal code if the Federal government had been
enforcing Federal law. As Clarissa Martinez De Castro of the National Council of
La Raza said to CNN, "It goes back to the federal government. If they
abdicate their responsibility, they leave state and local governments to grapple
with this issue, and the only thing that happens is that we create greater
chaos."
As for criminalizing a Federal civil offense: Quoting directly from her
remarks at the signing ceremony, Governor Janice K. Brewer said, "Despite
erroneous and misleading statements suggesting otherwise, the new state
misdemeanor crime of willful failure to complete or carry an alien registration
document is adopted, verbatim, from the same offense found in federal
statute." (Emphasis added.)
As for trampling 4th Amendment rights: I quote from ABC15.com:
"These new statements make it crystal clear and undeniable that racial
profiling is illegal, and will not be tolerated in Arizona," [Governor Brewer]
said in a statement.
Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from
the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate
complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin." [sic]
Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop,
detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to
question a victim or witness about their legal status.
A third change specifies that police contact over violations for local
civil ordinances can trigger questioning on immigration status.
MOVING TO MEXICO
Dear President Obama:
I'm planning to move my family and extended family into Mexico for my health, and I would like to ask you to assist me.
We're planning to simply walk across the border from the U.S. Into Mexico, and we'll need your help to make a few arrangements.
We plan to skip all the legal stuff like visas, passports, immigration quotas and laws.
I'm sure they handle those things the same way you do here. So, would you mind telling your buddy, President Calderon, that I'm on my way over?
Please let him know that I will be expecting the following:
1. Free medical care for my entire family.
2. English-speaking government bureaucrats for all services I might need, whether I use them or not.
3. Please print all Mexican government forms in English.
4. I want my grandkids to be taught Spanish by English-speaking (bi-lingual) teachers.
5. Tell their schools they need to include classes on American culture and history.
6. I want my grandkids to see the American flag on one of the flag poles at their school.
7. Please plan to feed my grandkids at school for both breakfast and lunch.
8. I will need a local Mexican driver's license so I can get easy access to government services.
9. I do plan to get a car and drive in Mexico , but, I don't plan to purchase car insurance, and I probably won't make any special effort to learn local traffic laws.
10. In case one of the Mexican police officers does not get the memo from their president to leave me alone, please be sure that every patrol car has at least one English-speaking officer.
11. I plan to fly the U.S. Flag from my house top, put U S. Flag decals on my car, and have a gigantic celebration on July 4th. I do not want any complaints or negative comments from the locals.
12. I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, or have any labor or tax laws enforced on any business I may start.
13. Please have the president tell all the Mexican people to be extremely nice and never say critical things about me or my family, or about the strain we might place on their economy.
14. I want to receive free food stamps.
15. Naturally, I'll expect free rent subsidies.
16. I'll need Income tax credits so although I don't pay Mexican Taxes, I'll receive money from the government.
17. Please arrange it so that the Mexican Gov't pays $4,500 to help me buy a new car.
18. Oh yes, I almost forgot, please enroll me free into the Mexican Social Security program so that I'll get a monthly income in retirement.
I know this is an easy request because you already do all these things for all his people who walk over to the U..S. From Mexico . I am sure that President Calderon won't mind returning the favor if you ask him nicely..
Thank you so much for your kind help. You're the man!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
