Obama hurts Israel

Worse-case (political) scenarios assessed
By Caroline B. Glick
Jewish World Review
November 19, 2010 / 12 Kislev, 5771

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton must have given Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu quite a reception. Otherwise it is hard to understand what possessed him to accept the deal he accepted when he met with her last week.
Under the deal, Netanyahu agreed to retroactively extend the Jewish construction ban ended on September 24 and to carry it forward an additional 90 days.

Clinton's demand was, "not one more brick" for Jews, meaning, no Jew will be allowed to lay even one more brick on a home he is lawfully building even as the US funds massive Palestinian construction projects. The magnitude of this discriminatory infringement on the property rights of law abiding citizens is breathtaking.

The 90 day freeze is supposed to usher in a period of intense negotiations between Israel and Fatah. But those negotiations will not get off the ground because PLO leader Mahmoud Abbas has no interest in talking, and will never accept any peace offer made by Israel.

But the Obama administration doesn't care. They aren't worried about the Palestinians accepting a deal. What they want are more Israeli land surrenders. And Clinton convinced him to agree that the next round of negotiations will be devoted strictly to a discussion of the breadth and depth of Israeli land surrenders.

The Palestinians won't have to recognize that Israel has a right to exist. They won't have to dismantle terrorist organizations. They won't have to stop teaching their children to aspire to become suicide bombers. They won't even have to stop their negotiations towards reconciling with Hamas.


Netanyahu claims that the Americans agreed to continue respecting Jewish property rights in Jerusalem. The Obama administration has refused to confirm this claim. Yet rather than use the US demurral as a justification for walking away from a bad deal, reports indicate that Netanyahu told his lawyers to figure out fancy wording to hide the American refusal.

Netanyahu boasts that he received three major payoffs from Obama in exchange for his agreement to ban Jewish construction and discuss land surrenders with a negotiating partner that refuses to peacefully coexist with the Jewish state. First, he claims that Obama agreed not to renew his demand that Jews be denied their property rights. Second, he says the administration agreed to sell Israel twenty more F-35s. Finally, he says Obama agreed to wait a year before signing onto anti-Israel resolutions in the UN Security Council.

The first payoff is nothing more than the foreign policy equivalent of buying the same dead horse twice. Obama led Netanyahu to believe he had set aside his demand that Jews be denied property rights last November, when Netanyahu announced the first construction freeze. Yet Obama repeated his demands even before the last freeze ended. Obama has no credibility on this issue. Demonstrating this, Obama is now refusing to put this pledge in writing

The F-35 deal is simply bizarre. Israel needs the F-35 to defend against enemies like Iran. Yet the administration claims that its agreement to sell Israel the F-35s is contingent on Israel signing a peace deal with the Palestinians. In other words, the Obama administration is now giving the PLO power to veto American military assistance to Israel by continuing to say no to peace.

More than anything, the F-35 payoff exposes the degree to which Obama holds Israel in contempt. This is a President who is fighting Congress tooth and nail to pass a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia. The administration argues that the arms are necessary to enable Saudi Arabia to deter Iran from attacking it. That would be the same Saudi Arabia that despite its massive arsenal, has never had the courage or the competence to fight its own battles.


On the other hand there is Israel — the US's most reliable, courageous, and competent strategic ally in the region, and even more a target of Iranian aggression than Saudi Arabia. Rather than arm Israel with all the means it requires to fight Iran, the Obama administration is downgrading military assistance by conditioning its sale of the F-35s on an Israeli agreement to commit strategic suicide by surrendering its defensible borders and capital city to its sworn enemies.

Finally there is the administration's pledge to support Israel at the UN for a year. What this pledge actually means is that a year from now, the Obama administration will present the deal as an excuse to abandon what has been the policy of every US administration since Lyndon Johnson and stop blocking anti-Israel resolutions at the UN Security Council.

According to sources close to Netanyahu, it is his fear of US abandonment at the Security Council that has convinced him to capitulate so profoundly to an administration so weak that it couldn't even get South Korea to sign a free trade agreement with it. What most concerns Netanyahu these days is that the US will fail to block a Palestinian bid to have the Security Council recognize a Palestinian state in all of Judea and Samaria and in large swathes of Jerusalem even if the Palestinians refuse to sign a peace treaty with Israel. Since this is what Netanyahu fears the most, it is important to consider what is at stake. While harsh, the truth is not as bad as he thinks it is.

If the Security Council recognizes a Palestinian state in all of Judea and Samaria, in Jerusalem and Gaza it would be a diplomatic blow to Israel. But it would only be a symbolic step. The situation on the ground would remain unchanged.

What is more problematic is what might happen in the wake of such a resolution. The worst case scenario would be for the Security Council to pass a subsequent resolution deploying forces to Judea and Samaria to fight the IDF.

Given the political maelstrom such an effective US declaration of war against Israel would cause him domestically, it is very unlikely that Obama would support such a resolution. He would have to veto it despite the fact that Samantha Power, who holds the UN portfolio on Obama's National Security Council called in the past for US forces to be deployed to Judea and Samaria to fight the IDF.

The other two possibilities are that Israel will become the target of economic sanctions and that Israeli citizens who live beyond the 1949 armistice lines or who have served in the IDF will risk arrest on war crimes charges if we travel abroad. The purpose of such sanctions would be to strangle Israel slowly, in a manner reminiscent of the economic and political warfare that brought down the apartheid regime in South Africa.

In both these cases as well, it is unlikely that Obama will risk the domestic outcry that administration support for such resolutions would provoke. And even if he enabled such resolutions to pass, the US Congress would likely block US participation in enforcing them. This is not to say that Israel should ignore the threat. But such hostile action is best deterred by working quietly with Israel's allies in the US to point out the dangers of a runaway UN campaign against a fellow democracy.

At the same time, these threats of economic and legal warfare should sound familiar, because they are already being implemented against Israel. The Palestinians do not need a new UN Security Council resolution to advance their political and economic war against Israel. They just need the EU. And they have the EU.

The PLO has already convinced several EU member states to establish unofficial trade boycotts of Israel as well as military and academic boycotts of Israel. Israel has been required to remove goods produced beyond the 1949 armistice lines from its free trade agreements with Europe.

The legal war is also well under way. Today no senior military commander or politician is able to travel to Britain for fear of arrest under trumped up war crimes allegations. Israeli officials have been similarly threatened in Spain and elsewhere.

The Palestinian Authority has filed war crimes complaints against Israeli leaders with the International Criminal Court at the Hague. It has done this despite the fact that the Rome Statute which governs the ICC only applies to states and the PA is not a state. Europe's love for international institutions, and readiness to endorse nearly any diplomatic assault on Israel, has blunted European criticism of this perversion of law just is it has convinced the Europeans to support various UN bodies' unlawful campaigns against the Jewish state.

Clearly, a Security Council resolution is not required for the Palestinians to engage in the sort of activities that Netanyahu has just capitulated to the Obama administration to block.

What all this shows is not that Netanyahu is wrong to fear such a resolution, but that a resolution will be a symptom of an already existing problem and blocking it will not end the problem. Pathetically, despite the fact that this campaign has been building for more than a decade, to date Netanyahu's only strategy for dealing with it is to beg Obama for short-term protection. Obviously, this is not constructive.

An alternative strategy would be based on a three pronged approach. First, Israel must attack the source of the problem — Europe. Israel should begin making European nations pay a price for engaging in political and economic warfare against Israel. For instance, Israel should suspend the issuance of diplomatic visas to British officials while it "studies" the British universal jurisdiction statute. It should also pass a law permitting the filing of universal jurisdiction claims in Israel against citizens of states that allow Israelis to be sued, and quietly encourage its supporters to file war crimes complaints for the kinds of acts claimed to be criminal when done by Israel, such as Indian support for Indian settlements in Goa and Russian support for Russian settlements in the Kuril Islands. This would not only point out the double standard applied to Israeli communities, it would compel the British to amend their obnoxious law.

The second thing Israel should do is empower its supporters abroad by actively discrediting the UN, the International Criminal Court and advocates of boycotts and divestiture from Israel. There is ample grassroots support in the US for actions against the ICC whose statute places US servicemen and political leaders in its crosshairs and against the UN whose members seek to curtail US sovereignty and power.

Finally, Israel must actively pursue deeper economic and diplomatic ties with Asian nations like India, China, Japan and South Korea. Enhancing relations with these states should be a top Israelii priority. Such a project would diminish Europe's capacity to harm Israel's economy and reduce Israeli reliance on the US at the Security Council.

Netanyahu made a horrible deal with Clinton. Leaders like Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon have acted as patriots by actively opposing it. It is true that the Obama administration could help us if it wanted to. But it doesn't want to. Happily, Israel has the power to help itself, if it dares.



He honors Israel's enemies
Many in the Jewish community were up in arms when Mary Robinson, the Irish diplomat with a long record of hostility to Israel, , was awarded the Medal of Freedom by President Obama. An argument can be made that one of the other recipients of that medal, Bishop Desmond Tutu, has been and continues to be an even more blatant Israel hater. What does it say about the President of the United States, when both are among the designees in the same year? Bishop Tutu, demonstrating his inner Jimmy Carter, is among those now advocating boycotts, sanctions and divestment from Israel
http://tinyurl.com/26ams5c
Richard Baehr

Obama and the War against Israel
If President Obama had been trying to undermine Israel’s security — and ours — he could hardly have done a better job.

No other country in the world faces an array of existential threats such as the nation of Israel confronts daily. The world’s only Jewish state is also its most precarious. Geographically tiny, Israel is surrounded by theocracies that reject its very existence as a “nakba” — a catastrophe — and call for its destruction. To carry out this malignant ambition, anti-Israel Islamists have mobilized three rocket-wielding armies, sworn to wipe Israel from the face of the earth.

First and most aggressive among them is the Gaza-based Hamas, a fanatical religious party committed in its official charter to obliterating Israel and killing its Jews. Hamas is the creation of the Muslim Brotherhood, the inspirer of al-Qaeda and the global Islamic jihad, whose official motto declares: “Death in the service of Allah is our highest aspiration.” In Gaza, Hamas has created a terrorist state and a national death cult whose path is martyrdom and whose goal is openly proclaimed: “O, our children: The Jews — brothers of the apes, assassins of the prophets, bloodsuckers, warmongers — are murdering you, depriving you of life after having plundered your homeland and your homes. Only Islam can break the Jews and destroy their dream.”

Given that hatred for Jews is the animating passion of the Hamas militants, their response to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 was not surprising. Far from greeting this as a gesture of peace, Hamas regarded the Israeli withdrawal as a surrender to its terrorist attacks and an opportunity to escalate them. In the days and months following the withdrawal, Hamas launched 6,500 unprovoked rocket strikes on towns and schoolyards in Israel before the Israelis decided to strike back.

On Israel’s eastern border is the West Bank, home to the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, the Palestine Liberation Organization, and other terrorist groups, armed and protected by the so-called “moderate” Palestinian Authority. Like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority officially rejects Israel’s existence and the right of its Jews to self-determination. Like Hamas, the Palestinian Authority provides a curriculum for its schoolchildren that teaches them to hate Jews and hope to kill them, seeking martyrdom in the process. In pursuit of these genocidal goals, all Palestinian schoolchildren study maps of the region from which Israel has been erased.

On Israel’s northern border, in Lebanon, is Hezbollah, the “Party of God,” which is stockpiling tens of thousands of Iranian rockets in anticipation of the war of annihilation it has promised to wage against the Jewish state. Created by Iran’s Republican Guard and supplied by Syria’s (officially) “fascist” dictatorship, Hezbollah is the largest terrorist army in the world. Like Hamas, it makes explicit its hatred for the Jews and its agenda in regard to them — to “finish the job that Hitler started.” Its fanatical leader, Hassan Nasrallah, leads thousands of believers in chants of “Death to Israel! Death to America!” He has said, “If Jews all gather in Israel, it will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” Under the complicit eye of U.N. “peacekeepers,” Hezbollah continues to amass rockets whose sole purpose is the obliteration of Israel. In May 2006, Nasrallah boasted: “Today all of Israel is in our range.#…#Ports, military bases, factories — everything is in our range.”

But it is Hezbollah’s sponsor, the totalitarian — and soon to be nuclear — state of Iran, that presents the most disturbing threat to Israel’s existence. Its blood-soaked dictators have been targeting Israel for destruction since 1979, when Iran became an Islamic republic and its theocratic ruler, the Ayatollah Khomeini, identified Israel and America as “the Little Satan” and “the Great Satan.” Its former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has publicly announced his support for nuclear war against the Jewish state, reasoning that since Iran is more than 70 times the size of Israel, it could survive a nuclear exchange while Israel could not.

Iran’s current leader, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has also called for America and Israel to be “wiped from the map” — and there was no dissent from the other 56 Islamic states that make up the Organization of the Islamic Conference. Amateur semanticists insist that Ahmadinejad’s words were mistranslated, and that he really meant that both countries should be “erased from the pages of history.” But this is a distinction without a difference. For what can that threat possibly mean if Israel or America should continue to exist? Meanwhile, Iran continues to build long-range nuclear missiles that could be used for just such a purpose, and no serious effort to check that ambition has been made by the international community or by the United States.

Where, indeed, does the international community stand in the face of this brazen preparation to bring about a second Holocaust of the Jews? Since the creation of the state of Israel in 1948, the Arab states have conducted three unprovoked, aggressive conventional wars against it, along with a continuous terrorist war that began in 1949. Yet between 1948 and 2004 there were 322 resolutions in the U.N. General Assembly condemning the victim, Israel, and not one that condemned an Arab state.

The United Nations today is dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group that was established in 1969 at a summit convened, according to its official website, “as a result of criminal arson of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem” — in other words, in response to the criminal Jews. The Organization of the Islamic Conference regularly passes one-sided resolutions that condemn Israel, particularly for its efforts to combat Palestinian terrorism and disrupt Palestinian weapon smuggling into Gaza. The U.N.’s most notorious assault on Israel was the Goldstone Report, which was commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council in September 2009 and which condemned Israel’s belated response to the unprovoked Hamas rocket attacks.

Relying on the testimony of Hamas terrorists, the Goldstone Report charged that Israel had deliberately targeted Palestinian civilians and had committed war crimes in Gaza. Outside the precincts of the Islamic propaganda machine, however, Israel’s record is in fact that of a nation that is extraordinarily protective of enemy civilians. In testimony ignored by the Goldstone Report, for example, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan, stated: “During Operation Cast Lead [the Israeli response to the Hamas attacks], the Israel Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.” Hamas, by contrast, is notorious for building military headquarters under hospitals, for placing its military forces in refugee camps, and for using women and children as “human shields” to deter attacks. Hamas’s rockets are known to be so inaccurate they cannot be directed against military targets; they can only be used effectively against civilians. In addition, since Hamas’s war against Israel was a response to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal, it was a criminal aggression responsible for all the subsequent casualties, something the Goldstone Report and the U.N. Human Rights Council conveniently overlooked.

The Human Rights Council was created in 2006. In its first year, the council listed only one country in the entire world as violating human rights: Israel. It condemned Israel despite the fact that Israel is the only state in the Middle East that recognizes human rights and protects them. Not one of the world’s other 194 countries was even mentioned, including North Korea, Burma, and Iran — the last of which hangs gays from cranes for transgressing the sexual proscriptions of the Koran. The reason for these oversights is no mystery. The U.N. Human Rights Council has been presided over by representatives of such brutal human-rights violators as Libya, China, Saudi Arabia, and Cuba, and it was such a travesty from its inception that it was boycotted by the United States until Barack Obama decided this year to join its ranks. This decision by the Obama administration, along with its overtures to Syria, Iran, and other noxious regimes, lent a stamp of legitimacy to the hypocrisy of the council and encouraged its malice.

In these sinister developments, the world is witnessing a reprise of the 1930s, when the Nazis devised a “final solution” to the “Jewish problem,” and the civilized world did nothing to halt its implementation. This time, the solution is being proposed openly in front of the entire international community, which appears unruffled by the prospect. It has turned its collective back on the Jews, and refuses to recognize the gravity of the threat. Moreover, by enforcing the fiction that there is a “peace process” that needs to be brokered between the sides, and ignoring the overt preparation for Israel’s destruction by the Palestinian side, the “peacemakers” lend their support to its deadly agenda.

For decades now, Israel has been isolated and alone in the community of nations, with one crucial exception. That exception has been the United States, a country on which it has relied for its survival throughout its 60-year history. Every would-be aggressor has understood that the world’s most powerful nation was behind Israel and would not let her be destroyed. Every government harboring ill will toward the Jewish state has had to reckon with the fact that the United States was in Israel’s corner. Every vote of condemnation in the United Nations had to confront a veto by the nation that provides its chief financial support.

Until now.

In the words of a recent Reuters dispatch, “Under President Barack Obama, the United States no longer provides Israel with automatic support at the United Nations, where the Jewish state faces a constant barrage of criticism and condemnation. The subtle but noticeable shift in the U.S. approach to its Middle East ally comes amid what some analysts describe as one of the most serious crises in U.S.-Israel relations in years.”

This change first became apparent during an official visit to Jerusalem by Vice President Biden earlier this year. On March 9, the vice president arrived for a dinner at the home of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu nearly two hours late. His tardiness was not accidental but a calculated diplomatic slight — specifically, a punishment for Israel’s announcement of plans to build 1,600 new homes in a predominantly Jewish section of East Jerusalem. The vice president was embarrassed by the announcement’s being made during his visit.

In fact, the announcement was a routine step, the fourth in a seven-stage bureaucratic approval process for new construction. While its timing might be construed as inopportune, the building of homes in a Jewish neighborhood in Israel’s capital city was hardly an issue that should have created any sort of problem, let alone caused a rupture between allies. Nonetheless, Israeli officials, conscious of their dependence on their American partners, immediately apologized for any perceived offense.

But the Obama administration would have none of it. As severe reproaches of Israel from top U.S. officials followed, the crisis escalated. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton berated Netanyahu, calling Israel’s announcement a “deeply negative signal” for U.S.-Israel ties. Senior presidential adviser David Axelrod delivered the same scolding message to an American audience, going on cable news shows to vent the administration’s displeasure. Branding Israel’s announcement an “affront” and an “insult,” Axelrod claimed that Israel had made the “peace process” with the Palestinians much more “difficult.”

Whereas Israel’s housing announcement was made without Netanyahu’s knowledge, Washington’s response was dictated by President Obama. When the prime minister arrived in the United States for a meeting with the president that same month, there was no ceremony in the White House Rose Garden and no posing before press cameras — the usual goodwill gestures afforded visiting heads of friendly nations.

The reception in private was at least as cold. When Netanyahu arrived at the White House for what he thought was going to be a dinner with the president, Obama unceremoniously presented him with a list of demands — including that Israel cease all housing construction in East Jerusalem — and curtly abandoned his guest to have dinner with his wife and daughters in the White House residential wing. As Obama left the meeting room, he informed his stunned visitors that he would “be around” should the prime minister change his mind. As the Israeli press reported afterwards, “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage.” Washington Post columnist and Middle East expert Jackson Diehl was even more blunt, writing that “Netanyahu is being treated [by Obama] as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator.”

Contrary to the administration’s insistence that Israel was jeopardizing peace by encroaching on negotiable terrain, the construction site in Jerusalem was anything but disputed territory. Jerusalem is Israel’s capital, and the construction site is in Ramat Shlomo, a Jewish neighborhood. Housing construction had been under way in Ramat Shlomo since the early 1990s, and it would remain part of Israel in any conceivable peace settlement. Consequently, when Netanyahu had agreed under pressure to a partial ten-month freeze on settlements in the disputed territories, he specifically excluded Jerusalem. By its insistence that Israel cease all building in East Jerusalem, it was the Obama administration, not Israel, that was breaking with precedent, and opening up the political center of Israel itself to Palestinian claims.

In opposing Israeli construction in a Jewish neighborhood in Jerusalem, the Obama administration embraced a version of Middle Eastern history that directly lends itself to the Arab war against the Jewish state. In the Arab narrative justifying that war, Jerusalem is alleged to occupy a central place in the history of Muslims and Arabs. In the same narrative, Jerusalem is claimed as the capital of a future Palestinian state. But the spiritual centrality of Jerusalem for Muslims is in fact a relatively recent claim and dubious on its face, while the religious claims are by-products of Muslim military conquests.

The Prophet Mohammed never visited Jerusalem, and consequently Jerusalem is never mentioned in the Koran. Today even Islamists regard it as only the third-holiest city in Islam, after Mecca and Medina. It was never the capital of any Arab state. Indeed, for centuries, Jerusalem was a forgotten city to most Arabs, and it was allowed to fall into ruin under Ottoman rule, which lasted until the creation of Israel and Jordan in the aftermath of the First World War. On a trip to Jerusalem in 1867, Mark Twain lamented that the city “has lost all its grandeur, and is become a pauper village.” When Jordan occupied Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, it was treated like a backwater. Only one Arab leader, Morocco’s King Hassan, cared enough to pay a visit to the city that Muslims who are involved in the jihad against Israel now suggest is an essential part of their history.

The sudden fracture in the U.S.-Israel relationship in March caught the Israeli government off guard. But close observers of the Obama administration would have recognized it as the logical endpoint of a series of markers that had been laid down since Obama emerged as a leading presidential contender in 2008. With these markers Obama was signaling a major shift in U.S. policy, moving toward the Muslim world and America’s traditional enemies, and away from allies like Israel.

The first sign of this shift was visible during a February 2008 presidential debate, when Obama sought to differentiate himself from Hillary Clinton, his then opponent and future secretary of state, by announcing that, unlike her, he would be willing to meet with hostile governments “without preconditions.” It was a position he justified by asserting that it was critical for the United States to “talk to its enemies.” This was a rare example of a campaign promise Obama has kept.

On entering the White House, Obama quickly moved to set a new tone toward the Arab and Muslim worlds. His very first call to a foreign leader from the Oval Office was to Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas, and it was not an effort to dissuade Abbas from his support for terrorism or his opposition to the existence of a Jewish state. One of the first interviews Obama gave as president, in January 2009, was to the Dubai-based television network Al-Arabiya. In it, Obama effectively offered an apology to the Arab world for alleged American misdeeds. He assured his interviewer that with him in charge Arab states could look to America as a friend. “My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy,” Obama said, adding that the United States “sometimes makes mistakes. We have not been perfect.”

It was the precursor of an extensive apology tour for America’s sins around the world. In April 2009, he visited Turkey, a NATO ally that was rapidly — and alarmingly — becoming an Islamist state. Addressing its parliament, he hailed Turkey as a “true partner” and suggested that it was the United States that had been the faithless friend. In a not-so-oblique attack on President Bush, Obama expressed his regret for the “difficulties of these last few years,” referring to a strain in relations caused by Turkey’s refusal to allow American troops to deploy from Turkish soil during the war in Iraq. Obama lamented that the “trust that binds us has been strained, and I know that strain is shared in many places where the Muslim faith is practiced.” In other words, Turkey’s refusal to help America support the Muslim citizens of Iraq and topple a hated tyranny was a response to America’s prejudice against Muslims.

In his review of past grievances, Obama did not mention the millions of Muslims — including Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza — who had cheered the 9/11 attacks on the United States by Islamic fanatics. Nor did he complain about the spread of anti-American and anti-Israeli conspiracy theories concerning those attacks in the Muslim world, including Turkey. As recently as 2008, polls found that as many Turks (39 percent) believed the United States or Israel was behind the 9/11 attacks as believed Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda were the culprits.

Even more worrisome, Obama used the occasion of his Turkish visit to break with the U.S. policy of treating countries that harbor terrorists as hostile nations. President Bush had declared that there would be no room for neutrality in the war against terror: “You are either with us or against us.” But Obama now assured his listeners in Turkey and throughout the Muslim world that their governments no longer had to choose between America and al-Qaeda. “America’s relationship with the Muslim world,” Obama said, “cannot and will not be based on opposition to al-Qaeda.”

Obama’s pandering to Arab and Muslim sensibilities had already been embarrassingly on display a few days earlier, when he took the step, unprecedented for an American president, of making a deep bow to Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah, the ruler of a nation in which it is illegal to carry a Bible or build a church, and where women are not allowed to drive automobiles. The incident took place when President Obama attended the G-20 economic summit in London. When critics decried the president’s subservient gesture to the Arab despot, the administration was caught by surprise and attempted to deny that it had ever taken place. Inconveniently for White House damage control, a video had captured Obama in full obeisant mode.

The shift in Washington’s policy toward the Arab world reached a new level in Obama’s speech in Cairo two months later. On the one hand, the president defended the U.S. military campaigns in the Middle East as driven by “necessity,” condemned the Holocaust denial and Jew hatred that are rife in the Arab world (and promoted by its governments), and called on Palestinians to abandon violence against Israel. But these statements were accompanied by others that appear particularly troubling in the light of subsequent administration moves.

While Obama rightly condemned Holocaust denial, he left the impression that Israel’s legitimacy derived solely from the legacy of European anti-Semitism and the Nazis’ extermination of six million Jews. This echoed the Arab propaganda claim that Israel is a problem created by Europeans and unfairly imposed on the Arab world. Once again Obama was bolstering an Arab myth that serves to delegitimize the Jewish state.

The Holocaust is not merely a European legacy. Middle Eastern states such as Iraq and Iran actively sided with Hitler’s armies; Arab generals served with Rommel, Hitler’s commander in North Africa; and Arab leaders applauded and actively promoted the extermination of the Jews. The founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hassan al-Banna, was an admirer of Hitler and had Mein Kampf translated into Arabic in the 1930s as a text to guide his followers. Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem and founder of Palestinian nationalism, was an active and vocal supporter of Hitler’s “final solution” and spent the war years in Berlin recruiting Arabs to the Nazi cause. Al-Husseini, a man revered to this day in the West Bank and Gaza as the George Washington of a Palestinian state, organized anti-Jewish pogroms in the 1920s and 1930s, actively planned to build his own Auschwitz in the Middle East, and was thwarted only when Rommel was defeated at El-Alamein.

The Arab canard that Israel is Europe’s attempt to unload its problem onto the backs of the Arabs ignores — as did Obama — the fact that Jerusalem has been the spiritual capital of the Jewish people for nearly 3,000 years and that Jews have lived in their historic homeland continuously for all that time. Jerusalem is at the center of the Jewish spiritual tradition, and Jews have been its largest religious community since 1864. Prime Minister Netanyahu was historically accurate when he admonished Obama, saying that “the Jewish people were building Jerusalem 3,000 years ago, and the Jewish people are building Jerusalem today. Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.”

In his Cairo speech, Obama also showed little appreciation of the modern history of Israel, a nation that was not built on Arab — let alone “Palestinian” — land. The state of Israel was created out of the ruins of the Turkish empire.

In 1922, Great Britain created the state of Jordan out of 80 percent of the Palestine Mandate — a geographical, not an ethnic, designation. The territory in the Mandate had been part of the Turkish (not Arab) empire for the previous four hundred years. Then in 1948, a U.N. “partition plan” provided equal parts of the remaining Turkish land to Arabs and to Jews living on the banks of the Jordan River. In this plan, the Jews were assigned 10 percent of the original Palestine Mandate, while the Arabs received 90 percent. None of this land had belonged to a “Palestinian” nation or a Palestinian entity. In the previous 400 years there had never been a province of the Turkish empire called “Palestine.” The entire region out of which Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank were created was known as “Ottoman Syria.”

In what would prove to be a continuing pattern, the Jews accepted the partition’s grossly unequal terms; their portion consisted of three unconnected slivers of land, of which 60 percent was arid desert. The Arabs, who had already received 80 percent of the Mandate land, rejected their additional portion, as they would continue to reject any arrangement that would allow for a Jewish state.

Immediately, five Arab nations launched a war against the Jews, who repelled the Arab attacks and established a Jewish state. When the fighting ended, the parts of the partitioned land that had been earmarked for the Arabs — namely, the West Bank and Gaza — were annexed by Jordan and Egypt, respectively, and disappeared from the map. There was no protest from the Arab world at the disappearance of “Palestine” into Jordan and Egypt, no Palestine Liberation Organization, no complaint to the U.N. The reason for the silence was that there was no Palestinian identity at the time, no movement for “self-determination,” no “Palestinian” people to make a claim. There were Arabs who lived in the region of the Jordan. But they considered themselves inhabitants of Jordan or of the Syrian province of the former Ottoman Empire. The disappearance of the West Bank and Gaza was an annexation of Arab land by Arab states.

Arab and Western revisionists have turned this history on its head to portray the Jewish war of survival as a racist, imperialist plot to expel “Palestinians” from “Palestine.” This is an utter distortion of the historical record. The term “Palestine Mandate” is a European reference to a geographical section of the defeated Turkish empire. The claim that there was a Palestinian nation from which ethnic Palestinians were expelled and which Israel now “occupies” illegally is a political lie.

In 1967, the Arab states attacked Israel again, with the express aim of “pushing the Jews into the sea.” Again they were defeated. And once again defeat did not prompt the Arab states to make peace or to abandon their efforts to destroy Israel. At an August 1967 summit in Khartoum, Arab leaders declared that they would accept “no peace, no recognition, and no negotiations” with Israel. This is the permanent Arab war against Israel. It is a war driven by religious and ethnic hatred, which is the only durable cause of the conflict in the Middle East.

It is hardly surprising, given this historical reality, that Israel should regard with skepticism the Arab demands that Israel surrender territory — which it captured in defending itself against Arab aggression — in advance of a settlement that recognizes the existence of the Jewish state. As Netanyahu has said, “What kind of moral position is it to say that the failed aggressor should be given back all the territory from which he launched his attack?” In fact, of no other nation that has been victimized — and victimized repeatedly — by aggressors is such a concession demanded.

Yet Israeli concessions are precisely what the Obama administration is demanding as a precondition of peace. It is ostensibly doing so on the dubious assumption that if only Israel would make further concessions to the Palestinians, peace would be possible. But this assumption flies in the face of 60 years of continuous Arab aggression, including unrelenting terror attacks against Israeli civilians and explicit commitments to wipe out the Jewish state.

The very idea that Israeli settlements (let alone Jewish houses in Jewish neighborhoods) are an obstacle to peace perpetuates the mythical claims of the Arab cause. There are a million Arabs settled in Israel, and they enjoy more rights as Israeli citizens than do the Arab citizens of any Arab Muslim state. So why are the settlements of a few hundred thousand Jews on the West Bank a problem? The only possible answer is Jew hatred, the desire to make the West Bank Judenrein, and ultimately the 60-year Arab campaign to push the Jews into the sea.

The Obama administration’s pressure on Israel to give up its settlements and to concede that its capital is disputed terrain feeds the inherent racism of the Arab cause and undermines Israel’s ability to resist the genocidal campaign against it. Such pressure cannot promote peace negotiations when the other party is openly dedicated to Israel’s destruction and has already shown that it will reject even the most generous offers of peace.

Directly following the Obama administration’s attacks on Israel’s building project in Jerusalem, the Palestinians invoked Israeli intransigence as a pretext for pulling out of the indirect peace talks that had been taking place. Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas went on record as refusing to enter into direct talks with Israel unless it instituted an immediate construction freeze in its own capital city. Palestinians had previously participated in talks without that condition, but, as one observer noted, “How could the Palestinian position be softer on Israel than the American position? Of course the Palestinians would have to hold Israel to the newly raised standards of the Obama administration.” In this way did the Obama administration further the efforts of the Arabs to dismantle the Jewish state.

Observers of this ominous development warned that by attacking Israel over settlements the administration was encouraging a violent buildup that could eventually erupt into a third Intifada. A Hebrew-speaking Arab protester interviewed on Israeli radio called for armed resistance against Israel’s “assault on Jerusalem,” declaring that the time had come for a new Intifada. The call was taken up by Hamas, which declared a “day of rage” to lash out against Israel. Arab rioters protested in the streets, hurled stones at buses, cars, and police, and clashed with Israeli security forces. On Israel’s Highway 443, connecting Jerusalem with the city of Modi’in, Israeli Arabs firebombed passing motorists, wounding a father and his nine-month-old infant. Arab parliamentarians in the Israeli Knesset further fueled the violence. Echoing the Obama administration, one of them said, “Anyone who builds settlements in Jerusalem is digging a grave for peace.”

— David Horowitz is the founder of the David Horowitz Freedom Center. . . . Jacob Laksin is managing editor of Frontpage Magazine. He is co-author, with Horowitz, of One-Party Classroom: How Radical Professors at America’s Top Colleges Indoctrinate Students and Undermine Our Democracy.




Obama's Israel Doctrine
By E.W. Jackson Sr.
When people say "I hate to say I told you so," they rarely mean it. What they really mean is, "I was right, and I am glad to tell you so." A year ago, I wrote,

Obama apparently sees the world and Israel from a Muslim perspective. Those who think clearly about these issues must conclude that President Obama is influenced by a quiet strain of anti-Semitism picked up from elements of the black community, leftist colleagues, Muslim associations and Jeremiah Wright. For the first time in her history, Israel may find the President of the United States openly siding with her enemies. Those who believe that Israel must be protected had better be ready for the fight.


I really do hate to say "I told you so." I did not vote for Barack Obama, but I hoped he would surprise me and not be the kind of president that his background portended. Most Americans, even those who didn't vote for him, wanted to believe that he would transcend the negative forces which might have influenced his thinking. Perhaps the anti-Semitism to which he had been exposed had not gotten into his intellectual DNA. He attempted to reassure us.

During his presidential campaign, Obama declared in a speech to AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) that Jerusalem should remain the undivided capital of Israel. Within days of that speech, he reversed his position and said that what happens to Jerusalem is a matter of negotiation between Israel and the Palestinians. When Israel permitted the building of housing -- i.e., "settlements" -- in east Jerusalem, Obama condemned the activity and made a "settlement freeze" the prerequisite to resuming peace talks. When Netanyahu visited the White House after the "settlement" flap, Obama treated him like a child, leaving him in the White House basement. His positions and policies have turned out to mirror, and in some cases be more anti-Israel than, those of the Palestinians.

In his much-hyped speech in Cairo, reaching out to the "Muslim World," Obama drew a moral equivalence between the "suffering" of the Palestinians and the Holocaust against the Jewish people. He said, "Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust." But he went on to say, "On the other hand, it is also undeniable that Palestinians ... have suffered in pursuit of a homeland."

To equate these two vastly different historical realities borders on the delusional. There is no equivalence between a systematic effort to annihilate the entire Jewish people and the problem of "dislocation" -- as Obama refers to it -- of the Palestinians. If there is any similarity at all, it is that many Palestinians, like the Nazis, want to kill all Jews.

Article 7 of the Hamas Charter -- purported to be a quote from Mohammed -- says, "The Day of Judgment will not come until Muslims fight the Jews [killing the Jews]. When the Jews will hide behind stones and trees, the stones and trees will say, O Moslems, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him." It is Palestinians who want to commit a holocaust against Israel. There is no such threat or desire on the part of Israel against the Palestinians. The Jewish nation simply wants to live in peace.

Helen Thomas, an Obama devotee, recently said the Jews need to "get the hell out of Palestine." Obama is silent. For years, Jews in Israel could hardly sleep for fear that Hamas rockets would land in their homes. Yet when Israel takes reasonable action to search ships to prevent weapons from entering Gaza, she is condemned. Obama is silent. Reuters doctored the pictures of the recent blockade confrontation -- editing out weapons in the hands of the ship's crew -- so as to perpetuate the narrative of Israeli aggression. Obama is silent. Perhaps if he had not spent twenty years in the church of a rabid anti-Semite, President Obama's muteness would not speak so loudly. However, given his close association with Islam and with one of Louis Farrakhan's best friends, his silence must be interpreted as consent. I wish I were wrong about this president, but facts are stubborn things.

Since I sounded the first warning a year ago, Iran is on the brink of having nuclear weapons, and enemies of the Jews have gotten the message that if they attack Israel, this president will do nothing about it. Relations between Israel and the U.S. are the most strained they've ever been, and they will remain tense until Obama is voted out of office. His foreign policy doctrine toward Israel boils down to four words: He doesn't like them. Therefore, things are going to get worse before they get better. Nonetheless, Israel is not alone and never will be. Her defenders will stay in the fight until every Jew sits under his own vine and his own fig tree, and no one shall make them afraid.

E.W. Jackson, Sr. is the President of STAND (Staying True To America's National Destiny) and Bishop of Exodus Faith Ministries. E-mail him at stand@standamerica.us.




Scott Brown, Marco Rubio speak out for Israel
Recent events have given Israel's detractors and its friends ample opportunity to express themselves. Here are examples of friends of Israel speaking out on her behalf:

The new U.S. Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, told an AIPAC meeting:

I don't need polling or political strategists to help define a nuanced stance on Israel. We are engaged in a worldwide struggle against radical, violent jihad. It is the defining issue of our time. Our best friends and the strongest allies in this fight are in the State of Israel.
READ MORE

Marco Rubio, the Republican nominee in the U.S. Senate race in Florida, said:

Of course, we should stand with Israel. Doing otherwise sends a dangerously emboldening signal to Israel's enemies. Sadly, this recent flotilla event is only the latest example of the extent to which our special relationship with Israel has been diminished under the current Administration. Iran and its terrorist proxies have surely been watching approvingly as Washington continues these misguided policies.
READ MORE

Marco Rubio made a major foreign policy address today before an RJC audience.
You can find his remarks here.



.From Richard Baehr The United Sates formally abandoned abandoned Israel last week, allowing a resolution to pass that will target Israel's nuclear program but not Iran's. After allowing the resolution to pass, the U.S expressed regret. If they really regretted its passage, they could have stopped it, which was easy enough to do. So why didn't they stop it- because Barack Obama cares more for the adulation of the international community achieved by going along with measures that hammer Israel, than doing anything to protect Isrel. He cares more about the psycho babble of diplomats calling for non-proliferation, than doing anything substantive about real proliferation- stopping Iran's nuclear program ,a real threat to Israel and others. He chooses to let the international community focus on Israel's program, which has never been a threat to any nation. I am wondering how Steve Sheffey and the NJDC will spin this as a pro-Israel action.
http://tinyurl.com/326957o
More from the Daily Alert: http://www.dailyalert.org/



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.”




Jimmy Carter all over again

[http://www.jpost.com/HttpHandlers/ShowImage.ashx?ID=3D138673]
Photo by: .
Carter thought Begin would fall fast, new documents show
By GIL HOFFMAN
24/05/2010 06:54
JPOST
US official said that due to Likud's election, chances for peace looked ble=
ak at the time.

US president Jimmy Carter's administration tried to undermine prime ministe=
r Menachem Begin's government from the moment he got elected in 1977, docum=
ents published by Yediot Aharonot over the weekend reveal.

The newspaper published a letter written to Carter's national security advi=
ser Zbigniew Brzezinski by the head of the Mideast desk on the council, Wil=
liam Quandt, the day after Begin's landmark first election victory, whose 3=
3rd anniversary was marked by the Likud last week.

In the letter, Quandt suggests not putting too much pressure on Begin at fi=
rst and "allowing him to make his own mistakes" that would encourage Israel=
is to elect a more dovish prime minister in a year or two. It shows how the=
Carter administration interpreted the transfer of power from Left to Right=
as temporary when, in hindsight, the Center-Right has been in power for al=
l but six of the last 33 years.

"Much of our strategy toward the Arab-Israeli conflict has been predicated =
on the assumption that a strong and moderate Israeli government would at so=
me point be able to make difficult decisions on territory and on the Palest=
inians," Quandt wrote Brzezinski. "Now we face the prospect of a very weak =
coalition, a prolonged period of uncertainty, and an Israeli leadership whi=
ch may be significantly more assertive in its policies concerning the West =
Bank, Palestinians, settlements and nuclear weapons."

Quandt said that due to Begin's election victory, chances for Middle East p=
eace looked bleak. He cautioned against appearing to interfere in Israeli p=
olitics, but suggested doing just that.

"We should do nothing in public to indicate disappointment with the Likud v=
ictory," he wrote. "Instead, we should continue to talk of the importance o=
f [the peace process], the requirements of a comprehensive peace, and the n=
eed for flexibility.

"By our actions, we do not want to increase support for Begin, which might =
occur if we reassess our policy too quickly," Quandt wrote.

"At the same time, Israeli voters should know that a hard-line government w=
ill not find it easy to manage the US-Israel relationship.

"Intransigence must be seen to carry a price tag, but we should not be seen=
as the bully. Begin should be allowed to make his own mistakes. If he take=
s positions in his talks with us that preclude the continuation of our peac=
e initiative, we should not hesitate to explain what has happened. Israelis=
can then draw their own conclusions, and perhaps the next election in 1978=
or 1979 will produce different results."

Quandt suggested that American support for Begin's government would be less=
than it was for its predecessors and expressed hope that this could allow =
the Carter administration to make contacts with Palestinians and sell arms =
to Egypt, who were both in a state of war with Israel at the time.

"We should not rush in these directions, but at the right time we may be ab=
le to act without fear of a serious domestic backlash," he wrote.

The Carter administration even sponsored polls in Israel, a month after the=
election, that found that support for the Likud was already falling.

While the Carter administration was actively trying to undermine Begin, Brz=
ezinski sent Begin a letter calling him "His Excellency," praising his mode=
sty and candor, and recalling past meetings "with pleasure."

Herzl Makov, director-general of the capital's Menachem Begin Heritage Cent=
er, whose researchers discovered the documents at the Carter Center in Atla=
nta, said they provided important lessons for Prime Minister Binyamin Netan=
yahu in his current dealings with US President Barack Obama.

"It's interesting to see history repeat itself," Makov told The Jerusalem P=
ost. "Just like we see now that the Carter administration made every mistak=
e possible about the political situation in Israel, I think that in 30 year=
s, studies will show that the Obama administration made the same mistakes. =
History will tell which administration was worse for Israel."






Obama Muslim roots




Richard Baehr
I guess we needed to wait for Barack Obama, the first man smart enough to find the answer to resolving this conflict, after 91 years of others trying and failing. . I am not sure, however, that Obama is that naive , or narcissistic, or that unaware of the history of peace processing failure, to really think he has the key to bringing the parties together on a deal. So something else, I fear, may be going on- the preparation for the wholesale American abandonment of Israel in order to achieve Obama's goal of a Palestinian state in two years. Such a state would, soon upon its creation, continue on with the the real Palestinian struggle- the destruction of Israel, but with Israel in a far weaker strategic position to defend itself. . The President asked Abbas this week to do his best to control Palestinian incitement again Israel. This is what goes for evenhandedness in this Administration- treat Israel like a rogue state, or a non-sovereign dependent, while routinely lashing out at them, and make requests of the Palestinians that have been ignored for decades, and will bring no sanction from America or the other peace processors, for the Palestinians' continued non-cooperation. . Obama buys into the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis, that Israel has lost its strategic usefulness to America,and is in fact , a liability, in that it hampers the U.S rapprochement with the Muslim world , which Obama sees as his mission. Creating a rift with Israel, as Obama did over housing in a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, , is both symbolic, in terms of messaging the Muslim world, and real , in terms of the formal strategic distancing from Israel. As Barry Rubin points out http://tinyurl.com/39bplwb :

"After all, we know that if an Israeli construction crew turns over some shovels of dirt for a construction project in east Jerusalem, the United States will scream out protest. But if the PA names squares for terrorists, produces broadcasts delegitimizing Israel, secretly lets terrorists out of jail, and so on, there will not be a peep.

But let's consider what's going on meanwhile in the real world. Palestinian Media Watch reports that on the PA's own television station this week the program "We Are Returning," shows a map in which all of Israel is erased and covered with a Palestinian flag.

The program explains that Israeli Jews should go to places like the Ukraine and Ethiopia: "Please, I ask of you, return to your original homeland, so that I can return to my original homeland. This is my homeland; go back to your homeland!"

This kind of thing goes on in PA-controlled mosques, classrooms, media, and in speeches by PA or Fatah officials on a daily basis. The U.S. government virtually ignores it. There are no programs, articles, classes, sermons, and speeches in which PA officials and employees urge their people to live peacefully side by side with Israel and accept that country's existence permanently."


The sad truth is that the Palestinians will never settle for just the West Bank and Gaza, even with their own capital in a redivided Jerusalem. They are not fighting to reverse the results of the 67 War, or even the results of the 48 War, but the original partition plan of 1947 and before that the British Mandate for Palestine , both of which contemplated some land reserved for a Jewish majority state. Such a state has always been unacceptable to the Arab world and the Muslim world. It still is.
Daniel Pipes agrees that whether the Palestinians, Arab states, and the greater Muslim world will ever accept Israel as a Jewish state is the real issue in determining whether the conflict can end peaceably. If the answer is no, the negotiating process is a colossal waste of time, and doomed to failure.
http://tinyurl.com/3xuhw5p


What has changed is the chill in U.S. Israel relations and how that is perceived both abroad and in the U.S. It is not by accident that colleges are now seriously considering divesting from Israel, that Arab and Muslim radicals attempt to disrupt every appearance by Israelis (speakers, music groups, film festivals) in a Western venue, that journalists in major European papers, and politicians of major political parties in Western nations, can accuse Israel of murdering Palestinians so as to harvest their organs.


While Obama obsesses over Jewish apartments in Jerusalem, Hezbollah and Syria prepare for a very deadly new war with Israel. Both Hezbollah and Syria are clients of Iran, supplied directly by Iran, and by North Korea.
Jonathan Tobin: http://tinyurl.com/3xljaxr


Charge: Obama Systematically Ignores PA Hate-Mongering

by Hillel Fendel
Follow Israel news on and .

Ever since U.S. President Barack Obama’s famous Cairo speech, and up until these very days, incitement against Israel in and by the Palestinian Authority is being whitewashed by the Obama-Clinton administration. This is the unambiguous conclusion reached by the Director of the Center for Middle East Policy (CMEP) and the President of the Zionist Organization of America.


A list of incidents documented by the ZOA’s Morton Klein and Daniel Mandel of the CMEP includes the following:

1. June 4,2009 – Obama’s Cairo address criticized Holocaust denial and hatred of Jews in the Muslim world, without mentioning the PA or the word incitement.

Klein and Mandel write that Obama was “criticized for ignoring this issue,” and that he and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton later mentioned the word incitement, but gave no indication that the PA was responsible for incitement. In no way was it implied that the PA might face penalties for such incitement.

“On the contrary,” Klein and Mandel write. "When Obama referred to the problem of Palestinian incitement in his speech at Buchenwald on June 5, 2009, he even praised [PA chairman] Abbas for having made some “progress” in dealing with it – implying that Abbas and the PA were part of the solution rather than the problem.”

2. August 2009: No reaction from Obama to a Fatah conference that “reaffirmed Fatah’s refusal to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state, glorified terrorists living and dead by name, praised the ‘armed struggle,’ [and in which] Abbas himself declared ‘We maintain the right to launch an armed resistance.’”

Clinton’s response: The conference showed “a broad consensus supporting … negotiations with Israel, and the two-state solution” and that contrary statements by unnamed “individuals” there “did not represent Fatah’s official positions.” The ZOA/CMEP report noted that in the past, as a US Senator from New York, Clinton had been outspoken about the need to end PA incitement.

3. January 2010: The Obama administration was silent when leading PA figures, including Abbas and prime minister Salam Fayyad, publicly praised and lauded three Fatah terrorists killed by Israel who had murdered an Israeli civilian, Rabbi Meir Chai.

4. January 2010: No response from Obama or Clinton when PA TV broadcast a mosque sermon in which Jews were declared “the enemies of Allah and of His Messenger … Enemies of humanity in general” and Muslims were exhorted to murder them with the words “The Prophet says: ‘You shall fight the Jews and kill Them.”

5. March 2010: Obama and company took unprecedented umbrage at an Israeli announcement of progress towards building Jewish homes in Ramat Shlomo, Jerusalem, during Vice-President Biden’s visit – but failed to respond when a public square in Ramallah was named, the same week, after the terrorist who had led the worst terror attack against Israel in history.

6. Ultimately, when Secretary Clinton criticized the square-naming, “it was only to whitewash and protect Abbas, Fayyad and the PA by incorrectly suggesting that it was ‘a Hamas-controlled municipality’ that had initiated the event. Adding insult to injury, Clinton actually praised Abbas and Fayyad for their strengthening of ‘law and order.’”

7. “At the time of these remarks,” the report notes, “the PA was actively instigating violence in and around Jerusalem. Here, too, Clinton avoided any mention of the PA in referring to the disorders, speaking only of unidentified ‘instigators.’”

“The conclusion is inevitable,” the report sums up. “The Obama Administration is not interested in Palestinian incitement and sees it as its brief to protect the PA from exposure as sponsors of violence and purveyors of hate.” (IsraelNationalNews.com



http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=3D175129


Monday, May 10, 2010 26 Iyar, 5770
Make JPOST.COM your Home Page

J'lem increasingly jittery as IAEA seeks to turn spotlight on Israel.
Talkbacks (31) Jerusalem is increasingly jittery that cracks are appearin=
g in the nearly half-century-old US policy of upholding Israel's right to m=
aintain its "nuclear ambiguity," following reports that Israeli nuclear cap=
abilities are, for the first time, scheduled to be on the agenda of the Int=
ernational Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) board meeting next month.

One diplomatic official said that the US has relayed messages to Israel tha=
t it will not let its nuclear position be harmed, but added that these assu=
rances are being received with some skepticism amid the realization that wh=
ile in the past the US has killed such discussions in international forums,=
this time it failed to do so.

If the US is slowly changing its policy, it would, one observer pointed out=
, run against commitments former US President George Bush gave former Prime=
Minister Ariel Sharon in his famous 2004 letter that paved the way for Sha=
ron's decision to disengage from Gaza.



Fearing Iran's bomb

Iran, Hezbollah, and the Bomb
BY William Harris

May 7, 2010 12:00 AM



When Iran gets the bomb, the nuclear club will have a crucial new feature. Without an Iranian bomb and barring regime change in Pakistan, we know that no nuclear power will transfer a device to a private army of the religious elect like Hezbollah in Lebanon. With an Iranian bomb, such assurance instantly ends. This is a looming, tangible state of affairs--in contrast to the hype about loose nuclear materials at the April 2010 Washington nuclear security summit.

Proponents of containing a nuclear Iran in and around the Obama administration conceive of deterring Iran in standard realist style. The Islamic Republic of Iran, however, has become a hybrid of the government of God and ruthless militarized mafias. It is well practiced in long-range subversion, intimidation, and weapons smuggling. It may be confidently expected to shred so-called containment, especially when equipped with a nuclear aura and facing the quivering potentates of Arabia.

In any case, Iran has a strategic extension across the Middle East to the Mediterranean that puts it beyond containment. On February 25, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah met in Damascus to celebrate their alignment and its achievements. The Syrian-Iranian partnership has enabled the Syrian ruling clique to go from strength to strength in dealing with the West and the Arabs. Syria only looks forward to more gains from the partnership as Iran moves toward the bomb. At the tripartite summit, Assad mocked Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's call for Syria to steer away from Iran.

What of Hezbollah? Thanks to Western promoted demoralization of the West's own friends in Lebanon, Hezbollah has advanced from commanding a large part of Lebanon to effectively commanding the Lebanese state. This is the fruit of the West's courting of Bashar al-Assad, and pressing "consensus" with absolutists on the Lebanese. As a result, Lebanon is more than ever the business end of Iran's Middle Eastern operations.

Hezbollah is integral to the ruling clerical and military establishment in Iran. It has pledged itself to supreme guide Ali Khamenei, and from the perspective of Iran's leaders it is a wing of their apparatus. The party's formidable armory, fortified territory, and intelligence capability give it credibility as a base for Iranian strategic weaponry bordering Israel, in the heart of the Arab world, and half way to Europe.

It would be entirely within character for the Iranian Revolutionary Guard to establish a clandestine strategic unit in Lebanon, with nuclear devices. There are considerable temptations: targeting Israel without needing to use ballistic missiles; deniability (at least in the mind of Tehran); and a secret reserve outside Iran. If a speedboat brought a ten-kiloton surprise early one morning to the Tel Aviv shore, with all evidence vaporized who could say for sure who was responsible? The mere prospect that Iran might implement a nuclear transfer to its base in Lebanon after crossing the weapons threshold would drastically change calculations on the Israel/Hezbollah front.

When Ahmadinejad speaks of Nasrallah's uprooting Israel in the "grand victory," it is difficult to think of a mechanism other than nuclear. Perhaps Ahmadinejad actually means what he says. He tells us that he has seen the light of the Twelfth Imam while speaking at the U.N. General Assembly. While he may not command Iran, his mode of thinking is widespread in ruling circles.

Hezbollah having any link to nuclear devices is terrifying, not least for Lebanese Shiites. The party combines technical sophistication, global reach, and delusional demagogy. For Nasrallah, Israel is nothing more than "a spider's web," to be swept away at a blow. Hezbollah restrains itself for the present, but its impetus and soaring ambition after Iran acquires the bomb will be another matter.

The future is bleak; the Lebanese mountain communities sport a history of disastrous miscalculations. The Druze lord Fakhr al-Din Ma'n invited and received an Ottoman avalanche after he expanded east to Palmyra and north toward Aleppo in the early 1630s. Within the mountain, the Maronites came to grief in 1845 and 1860 in overestimating themselves against the Druze. Hezbollah's journey to wherever its insouciance and hubris take it, with the Shiite community and all Lebanon along for the ride, is an escalated version of an old story, now with stratospheric stakes.

In the meantime, U.S. engagement of Syria's ruling clique only encourages Bashar al-Assad's provision of missiles and munitions of diverse descriptions to Hezbollah. One of the Syrian regime's sub-plots is to blackmail acceptance of its return to Beirut. The arsonist is selling himself to the credulous as a fire fighter, but he remains an incorrigible arsonist—not to mention a murder suspect, fingered in the 2005 reports of the U.N. investigation into the killing of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

What to do? Suspending the policy of engaging Syria and Iran, of repeatedly proven futility, would be a start. Indeed, the principal utility of engagement may be the impact of publicly acknowledging it as unproductive and stepping back from it. Given the near certain provenance of the 2005 political murder in Lebanon, insistence on pursuing international justice to the end of the trail would also not go amiss. Despite the sclerotic condition of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, international justice might still pull down Iran's friends in the Levant. To the east, Iraq should not be considered hostage to engagement; the determination of the Syrian and Iranian regimes to wreck a pluralist Iraq has never wavered. As for Iran's rulers, the trick is to integrate whatever can be squeezed out of the U.N. Security Council with a new level of Euro-American sanctions. Only rigor with the regime might affect Iran's domestic environment in the couple of years that are probably all that are left. President Obama has spoken of proceeding "boldly and quickly." So far this is just hot air.



May 4th, 2010 5:20 pm Ron Radosh
Will American Jews Accept the Obama Administration’s “Charm” Offensive?

I suspect there may be something wrong with many of the leading lights of the American Jewish community, who are succumbing to the phony charm offensive of the Obama administration. Maybe it’s a case of denial. As a two-week-old report by Laura Rozen of Politico put so well, “The White House is engaged in an aggressive effort to reassure Jewish leaders that the tense relationship between the Obama administration and the Israeli government that has played out in public in the past few months does not signify any fundamental change in U.S. policy.” The problem is precisely that they are just reassurances which do not in any way indicate a fundamental shift in Obama’s new anti-Israeli policy.

One White House spokesman told Rozen that the administration has always “been consistent in our rhetoric.” Rhetoric is one thing; reality, however, is another. Sending administration spokesmen to say kind words is so transparent a PR maneuver that it is rather amazing that anyone thinks it will work. But the reasons for it are quite clear. As a congressional staffer put it, they are all concerned “that the White House is losing the Jewish community,” and that concern might well translate into Republican votes in the near future. The effect of the ads I discussed earlier by Elie Wiesel, Ronald Lauder and David A. Harris could simply not be ignored.

Yet liberal Jewish groups, grasping at straws in the hope that Obama will stand with Israel and the special relationship between the U.S. and the Jewish state, have quickly sought to reassure their members that all is well, despite evidence to the contrary. All it took for Hadassah to inform its members that all is well were some carefully chosen words from David Axelrod. On April 29th, a backgrounder alert sent to its members informed them that “the Obama administration has responded to concerns from the Jewish community with a letter to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and speeches by prominent administration officials to Jewish organizations, affirming the administration’s support for Israel and the need for peace.”

Last Friday, I attended the evening plenary session at the American Jewish Committee national conference in Washington, D.C., where Secretary of State Hillary Clinton received a standing ovation and a very warm reception. Her speech was a perfect example of reassuring spin meant to wow the crowd. “We know,” Clinton told the audience, “that Israel faces unique challenges. A nation forced to defend itself at every turn, living under existential threat for decades. We Americans may never fully understand the implications of this history on the daily lives of Israelis – the worry that a mother feels watching a child board a school bus or a child watching a parent go off to work. But we know deep in our souls that we have an unshakable bond and we will always stand not just with the Government of Israel but with the people of Israel.”

Instead of addressing the specifics and the reasons Lauder, Ed Koch and others have pointed to, Secretary Clinton merely asserted “that there has been some of what he called ‘noise and distortion’ about this Administration’s approach in the Middle East. Over the past month, we have attempted to remove any ambiguity. The President and this Administration have repeatedly reaffirmed our commitment to Israel’s security in word and in deed.” On Iran, for example, she said, “We are now working with our partners at the United Nations to craft tough new sanctions. The United States is committed to pursuing this diplomatic path. But we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.”

That morning, however, the newspapers had headlines noting that the administration was asking for a softening of proposed sanctions so that Russia and China, two nations that do not want to jeopardize their trade deals with Iran, could sign on.

Clinton stressed the importance of the so-called “proximity talks,” although shrewd observers have all noted that they are likely to lead nowhere. Both Richard Haas and Aaron David Miller recently wrote powerful essays about what Miller calls “the false religion of Mideast peace,” something that Clinton continually invoked, without addressing their concerns. Both men, formerly “realists” and believers in the peace process, now realize its chimerical value. Instead, she offered her audience what Marty Peretz correctly called big clichés “that are the mark of Obama’s foreign policy.”

At Commentary’s “Contentions” blog, Jennifer Rubin points out that at the recent White House Correspondents’ dinner, WH advisor Denis McDonough sat at Josh Marshall’s Talking Points Memo table with Brent Scowcroft and Zbig Brzezinski, who are feverishly trying to get Obama to accept their own peace plan with Israel. As Rubin puts it so well: “One of the administration’s key foreign-policy hands goes to the most highly publicized event in town to hob-nob with the advisor who Obama had sworn during the campaign not to be an advisor, who has suggested that we shoot down Israeli planes if they cross Iraqi air space on the way to Iran, and who wants to impose a peace deal on Israel. And, for good measure, he sits with the purveyors of a website infamous for puff pieces on terrorists and committed to a hard-left anti-Israel line.”

Rubin asks whether a few “carefully worded speeches” by Obama administration officials will in fact bamboozle the leadership of the American Jewish community. Or will they fall over themselves “to make up with the administration”? My answer: unfortunately, the latter seems to be the case


Obama bullies Israel, continued
Reports this week indicate that the Obama administration is keeping the diplomatic heat on Israel, even as "proximity talks" with the Palestinians begin.

The New York Times reported on May 1:
Separately, these officials said, Mr. Mitchell's deputy, David Hale, indicated to the Palestinians that if Israel proceeded with the construction of 1,600 housing units in Jerusalem's ultra-orthodox neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, the United States would abstain from, rather than veto, a resolution in the United Nations Security Council condemning the move.

This is an unprecedented threat. As Jennifer Rubin points out at Commentary, the Bush administration routinely vetoed anti-Israel resolutions in the UN as a matter of principle. Previous Democratic administrations at least waited to see the language of UN resolutions against Israel before offering to abstain on them.

Now that the "proximity talks" have started, how will they end? Well, we know what will happen if they fail: President Obama will try to impose a solution. Haaretz reports:
U.S. President Barack Obama has told several European leaders that if Israeli-Palestinian talks remain stalemated into September or October, he will convene an international summit on achieving Mideast peace, senior Israeli officials told Haaretz on Thursday.

The officials said the conference would be run by the Quartet of Middle East peacemakers - the United States, European Union, United Nations and Russia - in a bid to forge a united global front for creating a Palestinian state. The summit, they said, would address such core issues as borders, security arrangements, Palestinian refugees and the status of Jerusalem.

Obama is determined to exert his influence to establish a Palestinian state, the officials said, and several European leaders have vowed that the EU would support any peace plan proposed by Washington.

When White House spokesman Robert Gibbs did not respond to a question about the Haaretz report above, Rick Richman at Commentary concluded that the "proximity talks" are intended to fail:
Consider the Haaretz report confirmed, and watch the Palestinians adopt a negotiating position intended to create the necessary "stalemate."

In related news, the latest CBS News/New York Times poll shows once again the significant gap in support for Israel between Democrats and Republicans. When asked - "Is your overall opinion of Israel very favorable, mostly favorable, mostly unfavorable, or very unfavorable?" - 48% of Democrats said "very favorable" (7%) or "mostly favorable" (41%). Among Republicans, 70% answered "very favorable" (24%) or "mostly favorable" (46%).


He is now talking about a
nuclear free Middle East - sounds nice doesn't it?

The undeclared Israeli nuclear capability was Israel's ace in the hole
against overwhelming Arab conventional superiority in numbers. He now wants
Israel to give that up. See this article in the Jerusalem Post.

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=174653

My opinion, if Obama gives Israel an ultimatum and says either give up your
nukes or a total embargo on U.S. arms shipments will be put in force, I
think Israel would be far better off keeping her nukes and forfeiting US
conventional arms.

Maybe Obama just wants to be in a position to blame Israel when Iran gets
nuclear weapons.

Who is actually going to enforce a nuclear free middle east when dictatorial
regimes can find ways of hiding their arsenal? Will any European country -
or even Obama's America - actually dare and confront a dictatorial regime
that is producing nuclear weapons in violation of a signed agreement? I
think not.



Dangerous influences
Realists capture McDonough, for a night

Kim Kardashian and Justin Bieber drew the camera flashes at the White House Correspondents dinner, but foreign policy geeks took closer note of the TPM table, where National Security Council Chief of Staff Denis McDonough -- probably the most powerful foreign policy staffer in the administration -- was seated with the two grand old men of "realist politics," former National Security Advisors Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Also at the table, New America's Steve Clemons, who qualified that he and the others are "progressive realists" and added that the table also included "Sex and the City" creator Darren Starr and TPM founder Josh Marshall, the host.

Scowcroft and Brzezinski have been vying for influence in the Obama White House since Obama introduced the latter in Iowa, then distanced himself from him over Israel. They're currently central to the efforts to persuade Obama to advance his own Mideast peace plan.

McDonough, who came up on the process-oriented Hill, tends to keep his own broader views on foreign policy close to the vest.

Jewish World ReviewApril 19, 2010 / 5 Iyar 5770

The New York Times Makes It Official: Obama Has Shifted U.S. Policy Against Israel

By Jonathan Tobin

If there were any lingering doubts in the minds of Democrats who care about Israel that the president they helped elect has fundamentally altered American foreign policy to the Jewish state's disadvantage, they are now gone. The New York Times officially proclaimed the administration's changed attitude in a front-page story last week that ought to send chills down the spine of anyone who believed Barack Obama when he pledged in 2008 that he would be a loyal friend of Israel.

In the view of the paper's Washington correspondents, the moment that signaled what had already been apparent to anyone who was paying attention was the president's declaration at a Tuesday news conference that resolving the Middle East conflict was "a vital national security interest of the United States." Mr. Obama went on to state that the conflict is "costing us significantly in terms of blood and treasure," thus attempting to draw a link between Israel's attempts to defend itself with the safety of American troops who are fighting Islamist terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere in the world. By claiming the Arab-Israeli conflict to be a "vital national security interest" that must be resolved, the "frustrated" Obama is making it clear that he will push hard to impose a solution on the parties.

The significance of this false argument is that it not only seeks to wrongly put the onus on Israel for the lack of a peace agreement but that it also now attempts to paint any Israeli refusal to accede to Obama's demands as a betrayal in which a selfish Israel is stabbing America in the back. The response from Obama to this will be, the Times predicts, "tougher policies toward Israel," since it is, in this view, ignoring America's interests and even costing American lives.

The problem with this policy is that the basic premise behind it is false. Islamists may hate Israel, but that is not why they are fighting the United States. They are fighting America because they rightly see the West and its culture, values, and belief in democracy as antithetical to their own beliefs and a threat to its survival and growth as they seek to impose their medieval system everywhere they can. Americans are not dying because Israelis want to live in Jerusalem or even the West Bank or even because there is an Israel. If Israel were to disappear tomorrow, that catastrophe would certainly be cheered in the Arab and Islamic world, but it would not end the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan, cause Iran to stop its nuclear program, or put al-Qaeda out of business. In fact, a defeat for a country allied with the United States would strengthen Iran and al-Qaeda.

But undeterred by the facts and the experience of a generation of failed peace plans that have always foundered not on Israeli intransigence but rather on the absolute refusal of any Palestinian leader to put his signature on a document that will legitimize a Jewish state within any borders, Obama is pushing ahead. In the view of unnamed administration officials who have helpfully explained Obama's policies to the Times, it is now only a matter of time before the president puts forward his own peace plan. And as the debate on health care illustrated, Obama will attempt to shove his diktat down the throats of the Israelis, whether the vast majority of Americans who support Israel like it or not.

As the Times notes, there is a great irony to Obama's blazing anger at the Israelis and the urgency with which he views the issue. It comes at a time when the overwhelming majority of Israelis have "become disillusioned with the whole idea of resolving the conflict. Mr. Netanyahu's right-wing coalition government has long been skeptical about the benefits of a peace deal with the Palestinians. But skepticism has taken root in the Israeli public as well, particularly after Israel saw little benefit from its traumatic withdrawal from Gaza in 2005." In other words, after countless concessions made to the Arabs at Oslo, and in subsequent accords and after offers from Israel of a state comprising Gaza, the West Bank, and parts of Jerusalem were refused by the Palestinians in 2000 and 2008, most Israelis have finally figured out that the other side doesn't want to end the conflict. And they are baffled as to why Obama and his advisers haven't come to the same all too obvious conclusion.

But with the Obama administration now so passionately committed to hammering Israel even as it apparently neglects to take action to stop Iran's nuclear program, the question remains what will be the response of pro-Israel Democrats. As Obama draws closer to all-out diplomatic war on Israel's government, the obligation for principled Democrats to speak up in open opposition to these policies cannot be avoided. While many Democrats have sought to confuse the issue or avoid conflict with the president, stories such as the one on the front page of the Times makes it clear that sooner or later, pro-Israel Democrats are going to have to decide whether partisan loyalties will trump their support for the Jewish state's survival.


WJD May 3 U.S. President Barack Obama has promised Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas that the U.S. will help isolate Israel at the United Nations by not vetoing a future measure condemning Israel for building in East Jerusalem, The Wall Street Journal reports.

The U.S. president has also promised the Palestinians an independent, contiguous state, a pledge made in a letter presented by U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell last week.

The U.S. pledge to allow a U.N. resolution condemning Israel reverses decades of U.S. policy. The Journal reports the promise was made to woo the Palestinians back to the negotiating table.

Withholding a veto from a U.N. resolution critical of Israel—though there is none now before the Security Council—would be a significant reversal of decades of U.S. policy of largely unwavering support for Israel in the body.

The U.S. has vetoed more than 40 U.N. resolutions critical of Israel since 1972—at least three of them explicit condemnations of Israeli construction activity in East Jerusalem. There is no resolution before the Security Council at this time to condemn Israel for such construction.


Obama claims he met Bill Ayers in 1995. but Santa Clara Law School Professor Steve Diamond, who is no conservative, seems to have found a witness able to establish a relationship between Barack Obama and William Ayers going back to the mid-1980s. why is obama lying about it?

Barack Obama visited the house of Tom and Mary Ayers, parents of former Weather Underground activist turned education professor Bill Ayers, in the mid-1980s to thank the Ayers’ for their support of his education, according to Allen Hulton, the letter carrier who delivered mail to the Ayers’ Glen Ellyn home at that time. Glen Ellyn is a suburb of Chicago, southwest of the city. ...

At the time of their encounter, Hulton recalls, Obama “looked about 19 years old” but was probably in his early 20s. Obama graduated from Columbia University in 1983 and moved to Chicago in 1985 at age 24 or 25 to head up the DCP, a fledgling community organization modeled after similar groups started by Saul Alinsky, on the south side of Chicago. The DCP had secured a grant from the Woods Fund, endowed by the Woods family, to finance the hiring of Obama.

The Woods family owned Sahara Coal Company, which supplied coal to utility companies in the Midwest possibly including Commonwealth Edison. Tom Ayers was Chairman and CEO of Commonwealth Edison from 1973 until 1980. Ayers died in June of 2007 at the age of 92 in Hyde Park where he had been living with his son Bill and Dohrn.

“Mrs. Ayers told me that her family had been helping out a brilliant young black man,” Hulton said and whom he believes she said was from Kenya. Hulton said that over the period of six to ten years that he delivered mail to the Ayers home he had numerous conversations with Mrs. Ayers, one conversation with Thomas Ayers and several brief encounters with Bernardine Dohrn who he said lived at the home for several months at one point in time. He never met or saw Bill Ayers at the home. ...



Israel as a Security Asset for the United States: Statement by 50 retired
U.S. Flag & General Officers

In response to the recent ridiculous treatment Israel has gotten from the
Obama administration, a group of about 50 retired United States generals and
admirals put together the following letter urging him as well as Congress
and the general American public to recognize how truly intertwined Israel's
success is with America's. Here, is the unedited letter, directly from the
officers:



Israel as a Security Asset for the United States



We, the undersigned, have traveled to Israel over the years with The Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA). We brought with us our
decades of military experience and, following unrestricted access to
Israel's civilian and military leaders, came away with the unswerving belief
that the security of the State of Israel is a matter of great importance to
the United States and its policy in the Middle East and Eastern
Mediterranean. A strong, secure Israel is an asset upon which American
military planners and political leaders can rely. Israel is a democracy - a
rare and precious commodity in the region - and Israel shares our commitment
to freedom, personal liberty and rule of law.

Throughout our travels and our talks, the determination of Israelis to
protect their country and to pursue a fair and workable peace with their
neighbors was clearly articulated. Thus we view the current tension between
the United States and Israel with dismay and grave concern that political
differences may be allowed to outweigh our larger mutual interests.

As American defense professionals, we view events in the Middle East through
the prism of American security interests.

The United States and Israel established security cooperation during the
Cold War, and today the two countries face the common threat of terrorism by
those who fear freedom and liberty. Historically close cooperation between
the United States. and Israel at all levels including the IDF, military
research and development, shared intelligence and bilateral military
training exercises enhances the security of both countries. American police
and law enforcement officials have reaped the benefit of close cooperation
with Israeli professionals in the areas of domestic counter-terrorism
practices and first response to terrorist attacks.

Israel and the United States are drawn together by shared values and shared
threats to our well-being.

The proliferation of weapons and nuclear technology across the Middle East
and Asia, and the ballistic missile technology to deliver systems across
wide areas require cooperation in intelligence, technology and security
policy. Terrorism, as well as the origins of financing, training and
executing terrorist acts, need to be addressed multilaterally when possible.
The dissemination of hatred and support of terrorism by violent extremists
in the name of Islam, whether state or non-state actors, must be addressed
as a threat to global peace.

In the Middle East, a volatile region so vital to U.S. interests, it would
be foolish to disengage - or denigrate - an ally such as Israel.

__________________________________________________________



Lieutenant General Mark Anderson, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Charles Beers, USN (ret.)

General William Begert, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Stanley W. Bryant, USN (ret.)

Lieutenant General Anthony Burshnick, USAF (ret.)

Lieutenant General Paul Cerjan, USA (ret.)

Admiral Leon Edney, USN (ret.)

Brigadier General William F. Engel, USA (ret.)

Major General Bobby Floyd, USAF (ret.)

General John Foss, USA (ret.)

Major General Paul Fratarangelo, USMC (ret.)

Major General David Grange, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Tom Griffin, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Earl Hailston, USMC (ret.)

Lieutenant General John Hall, USAF (ret.)

General Alfred Hansen, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral James Hinkle, USN (ret.)

General Hal Hornburg, USAF (ret.)

Major General James T. Jackson, USA (ret.)

Admiral Jerome Johnson, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Herb Kaler, USN (ret.)

Vice Admiral Bernard Kauderer, USN (ret.)

General William F. Kernan, USA (ret.)

Major General Homer Long, USA (ret.)

Major General Jarvis Lynch, USMC (ret.)

General Robert Magnus, USMC (ret.)

Lieutenant General Charles May, Jr., USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral Martin Mayer, USN (ret.)

Major General James McCombs, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Fred McCorkle, USMC (ret.)

Rear Admiral W. F. Merlin, USCG (ret.)

Rear Admiral Mark Milliken, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Riley Mixson, USN (ret.)

Major General William Moore, USA (ret.)

Lieutenant General Carol Mutter, USMC (ret.)

Major General Larry T. Northington, USAF (ret.)

Lieutenant General Tad Oelstrom, USAF (ret.)

Major General James D. Parker, USA (ret.)

Vice Admiral J. T. Parker, USN (ret.)

Major General Robert Patterson, USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral James Perkins, USN (ret.)

Rear Admiral Brian Peterman, USCG (ret.)

Lieutenant General Alan V. Rogers, USAF (ret.)

Rear Admiral Richard Rybacki, USCG (ret.)

General Crosbie Saint, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Norm Saunders, USCG (ret.)

General Lawrence Skantze, USAF (ret.)

Major General Sid Shachnow, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Jeremy Taylor, USN (ret.)

Major General Larry Taylor, USMCR (ret.)

Lieutenant General Lanny Trapp, USAF (ret.)

Vice Admiral Jerry O. Tuttle, USN (ret.)

General Louis Wagner, USA (ret.)

Rear Admiral Thomas Wilson, USN (ret.)

Lieutenant General Robert Winglass, USMC (ret.)

Rear Admiral Guy Zeller, USN (ret.)www.jinsa.org





- signatures as of April 7, 2010

Source: JINSA


Obama endangers US National security by undermining Israel
Caroline Glick


http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Israel's status as the US's most vital ally in the Middle East has been so widely recognized for so long that over the years, Israeli and American leaders alike have felt it unnecessary to explain what it is about the alliance that makes it so important for the US.

Today, as the Obama administration is openly distancing the US from Israel while giving the impression that Israel is a strategic impediment to the administration's attempts to strengthen its relations with the Arab world, recalling why Israel is the US's most important ally in the Middle East has become a matter of some urgency.

Much is made of the fact that Israel is a democracy. But we seldom consider why the fact that Israel is a representative democracy matters. The fact that Israel is a democracy means that its alliance with America reflects the will of the Israeli people. As such, it remains constant regardless of who is power in Jerusalem.

All of the US's other alliances in the Middle East are with authoritarian regimes whose people do not share the pro-American views of their leaders. The death of leaders or other political developments are liable to bring about rapid and dramatic changes in their relations with the US.

For instance, until 1979, Iran was one of the US's closest strategic allies in the region. Owing to the gap between the Iranian people and their leadership, the Islamic revolution put an end to the US-Iran alliance.

Egypt flipped from a bitter foe to an ally of the US when Gamal Abdel Nasser died in 1969. Octogenarian President Hosni Mubarak's encroaching death is liable to cause a similar shift in the opposite direction.

Instability in the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan and the Saudi regime could transform those countries from allies to adversaries.

Only Israel, where the government reflects the will of the people is a reliable, permanent US ally.



America reaps the benefits of its alliance with Israel every day. As the US suffers from chronic intelligence gaps, Israel remains the US's most reliable source for accurate intelligence on the US's enemies in the region.

Israel is the US's only ally in the Middle East that always fights its own battles. Indeed, Israel has never asked the US for direct military assistance in time of war. Since the US and Israel share the same regional foes, when Israel is called upon to fight its enemies, its successes redound to the US's benefit.

FREE SUBSCRIPTION TO INFLUENTIAL NEWSLETTER
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". HUNDREDS of columnists and cartoonists regularly appear. Sign up for the daily update. It's free. Just click here.


Here it bears recalling Israel's June 1982 destruction of Syria's Soviet-made anti-aircraft batteries and the Syrian air force. Those stunning Israeli achievements were the first clear demonstration of the absolute superiority of US military technology over Soviet military technology. Many have argued that it was this Israeli demonstration of Soviet technological inferiority that convinced the Reagan administration it was possible to win the Cold War.

In both military and non-military spheres, Israeli technological achievements - often developed with US support - are shared with America. The benefits the US has gained from Israeli technological advances in everything from medical equipment to microchips to pilotless aircraft are without peer worldwide.

Beyond the daily benefits the US enjoys from its close ties with Israel, the US has three fundamental, permanent, vital national security interests in the Middle East. A strong Israel is a prerequisite for securing all of these interests.

America's three permanent strategic interests in the Middle East are as follows:

1 - Ensuring the smooth flow of affordable petroleum products from the region to global consumers through the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Aden and the Suez Canal.

2 - Preventing the most radical regimes, sub-state and non-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.

3 - Maintaining the US's capacity to project its power to the region.

A strong Israel is the best guarantor of all of these interests. Indeed, the stronger Israel is, the more secure these vital American interests are. Three permanent and unique aspects to Israel's regional position dictate this state of affairs.

1 - As the first target of the most radical regimes and radical sub-state actors in the region, Israel has a permanent, existential interest in preventing these regimes and sub-state actors from acquiring the means to cause catastrophic harm.


Israel's 1981 airstrike that destroyed Iraq's Osirak nuclear reactor prevented Iraq from acquiring nuclear weapons. Despite US condemnation at the time, the US later acknowledged that the strike was a necessary precondition to the success of Operation Desert Storm ten years later. Richard Cheney - who served as secretary of defense during Operation Desert Storm - has stated that if Iraq had been a nuclear power in 1991, the US would have been hard pressed to eject Saddam Hussein's Iraqi army from Kuwait and so block his regime from asserting control over oil supplies in the Persian Gulf.

2 - Israel is a non-expansionist state and its neighbors know it. In its 62 year history, Israel has only controlled territory vital for its national security and territory that was legally allotted to it in the 1922 League of Nations Mandate which has never been abrogated or superseded.

Israel's strength, which it has used only in self-defense, is inherently non-threatening. Far from destabilizing the region, a strong Israel stabilizes the Middle East by deterring the most radical actors from attacking.

In 1970, Israel blocked Syria's bid to use the PLO to overthrow the Hashemite regime in Jordan. Israel's threat to attack Syria not only saved the Hashemites then, it has deterred Syria from attempting to overthrow the Jordanian regime ever since.

Similarly, Israel's neighbors understand that its purported nuclear arsenal is a weapon of national survival and hence they view it as non-threatening. This is the reason Israel's alleged nuclear arsenal has never spurred a regional nuclear arms race.

In stark contrast, if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, a regional nuclear arms race will ensue immediately.

Although they will never admit it, Israel's non-radical neighbors feel more secure when Israel is strong. On the other hand, the region's most radical regimes and non-state actors will always seek to emasculate Israel.

3-- Since as the Jewish state Israel is the regional bogeyman, no Arab state will agree to form a permanent alliance with it. Hence, Israel will never be in a position to join forces with another nation against a third nation.

In contrast, the Egyptian-Syrian United Arab Republic of the 1960s was formed to attack Israel. Today, the Syrian-Iranian alliance is an inherently aggressive alliance against Israel and the non-radical Arab states in the region. Recognizing the stabilizing force of a strong Israel, the moderate states of the region prefer for Israel to remain strong.

From the US's perspective, far from impairing its alliance-making capabilities in the region, by providing military assistance to Israel, America isn't just strengthening the most stabilizing force in the region. It is showing all states and non-state actors in the greater Middle East it is trustworthy.

On the other hand, every time the US seeks to attenuate its ties with Israel, it is viewed as an untrustworthy ally by the nations of the Middle East. US hostility towards Israel causes Israel's neighbors to hedge their bets by distancing themselves from the US lest America abandon them to their neighboring adversaries.

A strong Israel empowers the relatively moderate actors in the region to stand up to the radical actors in the region because they trust Israel to keep the radicals in check. Today's regional balance of power in which the moderates have the upper hand over the radicals is predicated on a strong Israel.

On the other hand, when Israel is weakened the radical forces are emboldened to threaten the status quo. Regional stability is thrown asunder. Wars become more likely. Attacks on oil resources increase. The most radical sub-state actors and regimes are emboldened.

To the extent that the two-state solution assumes that Israel must contract itself to within the indefensible 1949 ceasefire lines, and allow a hostile Palestinian state allied with terrorist organizations to take power in the areas it vacates, the two-state solution is predicated on making Israel weak and empowering radicals. In light of this, the two-state solution as presently constituted is antithetical to America's most vital strategic interests in the Middle East.

When we bear in mind the foundations for the US's alliance with Israel, it is obvious that US support for Israel over the years has been the most cost-effective national security investment in post-World War II US history.

One third of Americans approve of how President Obama is handling the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, according to a new poll.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/img/2.0/mosaic/base_skins/baseplate/corner_wire_BL.gif

Washington (CNN) - Only a third of Americans approve of the way President Obama's handling the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, according to a new national poll.

A Quinnipiac University survey released Thursday morning indicates that 35 percent of the public gives the president a thumbs up on how he's dealing with the situation between Israel and the Palestinians, with 44 percent saying they disapprove, and just over one in five unsure.

This stands in contrast with how Americans feel about Obama's overall handling of foreign policy, with 48 percent approving and 42 percent saying they disapprove.

According to the poll, two-thirds of Jewish voters disapprove of how the president's handling Israeli-Palestinian relations, with 28 percent saying they approve. Jewish voters were big backers of Obama in the 2008 presidential election, with exit polls indicating that nearly eight of ten backed the Democratic candidate.

Two-thirds of people questioned in the survey say that the president should be a strong supporter of Israel but, by a 42 percent to 34 percent margin, voters say Obama's not a strong supporter of Israel.

Relations between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government and the Obama administration have soured in recent months over Israel's continued housing construction in East Jerusalem. Americans realize it


Why are Jews deserting Obama?
from Richard baehr
this Presidents's attachment to the Jewish community and the pro-Israel community are two fold- to suck up campaign contributions, and to win the votes of loyal liberal Jews, who think their left hand would fall off if they voted Republican. Israel does not move him, but is rather an obstacle to his new overriding strategy of linking the U.S more closely with the Muslim world. The Obama policies have driven the Palestinians away from even indirect peace talks with Israel , giving the PA an excuse that Israel is not accepting the Obama framework to begin talks. The Administration has signaled it will do nothing to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power, and is preparing for a containment strategy for the time when Iran becomes a nuclear power due to our dithering and fecklessness. Containment worked between the U.S and the Soviet Union during the Cold War. The Soviets were our enemy, but also a rational nuclear power. It is, I think, too much to expect Israel to accept that Iran will also be a rational member if they join the nuclear club.



Alan Edelstein and his wife are prominent members of the Jewish community in Sacramento and have been active in the Democratic party.

Dear Mr. President:

After 40 years as a registered Democrat (following in my father’s and his father’s footsteps), I just dropped my affiliation. I did it because of your policies on the Israel-Palestinian dispute and your apparent attitude and approach toward Israel. Simply put, I feel misled and hurt by what you have done and I am searching for tangible ways to express my feelings that will hopefully cause you to change course.

You should know at the outset that I am not one of those hardliner “don’t give up an inch, all of Biblical Israel belongs to Jews” Jews. Although I do think that the Jewish people have a superior historical claim to Jerusalem and the West Bank, and I do know that the Hashemite rulers of Jordan have no more claim to that country than anyone else who was handed a kingdom in exchange for support in a war, I have always supported territorial compromise, just as all Israeli leaders of every major party from Ben-Gurion forward have accepted such compromise.

Thus, I supported the Camp David I process (can you imagine where the Palestinian nation would be today if the Palestinians had accepted that one), the Oslo process, Barak’s Camp David II offer, the Taba enhancements, the Lebanon pullout, the Gaza pullout, and the Olmert Camp David II/Taba enhancements-plus offer made to President Abbas just last year.

I just wish the Palestinians would have accepted one of these offers, or at least counter-offered rather than just walked away or, worse, resorted to violence. I also wish that your Administration and all of the pundits that seem to feel only one side should be pressured in this process would remember who keeps making the offers and the unilateral gestures and who fails to accept them or counter offer. Indeed, if Chairman Arafat or President Abbas had said “yes” or “yes, but” to any of these offers, the current nastiness over “settlements” would never have occurred.

You should also know that I am not one of the persons that believe the President and the U.S. have to agree with Israel on every point in order to be a friend of Israel and to garner my support. After all, we both know that nations aren’t really “friends.” Who is kidding who on that one? Nations have interests and support other nations when it is in their interest to do so. For a whole variety of reasons, U.S. presidents and members of Congress, reflecting the sentiments of a large bipartisan segment of the population, have always deemed it in the U.S. interest to generally support Israel. That does not mean that there have not been differences along the way, sometimes made public, but more often, as befitting “friends,” handled privately.

So, why did I drop my registration as a Democrat after all these years, a decision not without angst for me and one that would have caused my late father, a loyal supporter of Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and all that they stood for, much heartburn? Because you have shown me that you are not a “friend” of Israel and, intentionally or not, you misled me and a lot of other people when you represented yourself to be a friend. Plus, your unfriendly behavior is telling others that perhaps it is time to be less supportive of Israel, to take advantage of it, to weaken it. Here are a few of the reasons I feel this way:

1. A friend doesn’t forget all of the history demonstrating a willingness to compromise outlined above and put the entire burden on one party to make concessions without even getting the other party to sit down at the bargaining table and at least recognize the existence of his friend.

2. A friend doesn’t use one stupid gaffe of the timing of a mid-level decision, nothing close to a final decision, to cause a major blow-out, which looks much like an attempt to either cause a change in his friend’s government or to give a green light to other governments to pile on. A friend doesn’t mix up West Bank settlements with existing Jewish neighborhoods without any Arab population that are situated between two Jewish neighborhoods. Once the Vice-President resolves the situation while staying on the mission of reassuring Israelis regarding Iran (something important to the U.S.), a friend does not then make the issue into one of the biggest fights in the history of relations between the two friends.

3. A friend doesn’t direct his Secretary of State to call the Prime Minister and engage in a 43 minute conversation complete with characterizations reserved for your worst enemies, demands, timelines, and threats of a change in relationship because of one unfortunate incident handled well by the Vice-President. A friend’s Administration does not then leak the details to the media.

4. A friend does not engage in behavior such as this that, wittingly or not, signals to the other side that a new day has arrived, that the nature of a relationship has changed, that the time is right for sitting back and demanding more without offering anything, that the friend cannot rely on the friendship, that the friend is vulnerable to being isolated and alone in its defense.

5. A friend, wittingly or not, does not insinuate that Israel’s ostensible intransigence rather than those who keep rejecting offers is the reason for the lack of progress in negotiations and is thereby somehow responsible for jeopardizing the lives of American military personnel. If American personnel are indeed in jeopardy because of the lack of progress in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process, a friend doesn’t blame the democratic country that has withdrawn from territory and has made offer after offer. A friend moves quickly to get the Palestinians to come to the table and negotiate, rather than manufacturing excuses for them not to negotiate. A friend knows that this type of false innuendo and insinuation about Israel’s blame for jeopardizing American lives quickly morphs into one of the old favorites of Jew-haters everywhere: blame the Jews. A friend understands that Jews are extremely and justifiably sensitive about this.

6. Finally, a friend doesn’t, by making such a huge and unnecessary public crisis out of an ill-timed but relatively low-level decision about a Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem, signal to members of Congress, other nations, and the Democratic Party and others that the tide is changing, that it is perhaps time to re-evaluate their relationships and attitudes.


Mr. President, after doing all of this and more that demonstrates your unfriendliness toward Israel, you and members of your Administration then modified a bit and started talking about what a great friendship you feel toward Israel. Perhaps acting not like a friend one day but saying you are a friend before and after the actions has some meaning in the diplomatic world. In my world it simply means you are not a good friend, a reliable friend, a trusted friend.

Obviously, Mr. President, if you believe what you are doing is in the best interest of the American people (something I disagree with), then you will pursue it, and you should. However, you should not have, intentionally or not, misled me and many others by saying you were Israel’s friend and you should not continue to confuse the matter.

I am afraid, Mr. President, that your actions are leading the nation, the world, and my Party of 40 years toward a new, very unfriendly and dangerous attitude toward Israel. One of the few ways I have of registering my objection and my strong feeling that you misled me is to drop my registration as a Democrat. I hope that you or some future leader of the Party will demonstrate a friendship toward Israel that will allow me to feel comfortable re-registering with the party of my father and grandfather.

The author, a governmental affairs consultant and advocate for 30 years, is a resident of Sacramento and lives part of the year in Jerusalem.
ae@edelsteinstrategies.com.



Terror supporter shaping White House Message
Meet the pollster who works behind the scenes with radical Islamist groups to enhance their standing in the presidential council's activities

By Steven Emerson

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Few American Islamists receive the kind of glowing media coverage given to Dalia Mogahed, executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies, who is sometimes described as the "most influential person" shaping the Obama Administration's Middle East message.

Mogahed, who claims to have played an important role in the drafting of President Obama's historic Cairo speech to the Muslim world, was appointed to serve on the President's Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. The council released its final recommendations last month.

When European Islamist Tariq Ramadan kicked off his U.S. tour earlier this month at Cooper Union in New York City, Mogahed and two journalists joined him for a panel discussion. Her remarks emphasized polling data showing that Muslim Americans are more affluent and socially content than their European counterparts.

Muslim Americans are no more likely to support political violence than the rest of the nation, Mogahed said. The minority of Muslim Americans who do support attacks on civilians base this position on politics, not religion.

It's a message that Mogahed attempts to drive home at every opportunity.

She routinely is depicted as a scholarly analyst monitoring public opinion on subjects like anti-Muslim prejudice in the United States or global Muslim attitudes toward America. On other occasions, she is treated as a pioneering Muslim celebrity or portrayed as a victim of anti-Muslim "smears."

But the reality is much more complicated. Mogahed is not some apolitical social scientist chronicling political trends in the manner of George Gallup, founder of the parent organization for her polling center. While Gallup strived to maintain his objectivity, Mogahed has followed a very different course. As we will explain in more detail below, she works behind the scenes with radical Islamist groups to enhance their standing in the presidential council's activities.

Mogahed is a protege of John Esposito, executive director of the Prince Alwaleed Bin-Talal Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding at Georgetown University and a longstanding apologist for the Muslim Brotherhood. The pair have worked together at the Gallup Center, and co-authored the book Who Speaks for Islam? What A Billion Muslims Really Think in 2007, which was subsequently turned into a film. Read the State Department website's coverage of the film premiere here.

Mogahed has been a tenacious defender of groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) and the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), both of which are tied to the Muslim Brotherhood. During a September 2008 appearance at the Religion Newswriters Association Annual Conference in Washington, D.C., she was asked about links between the two organizations and Islamic radicals. Mogahed replied that it would be unfair to have those groups "disenfranchised" because of "misinformation." Without offering evidence, she claimed "there is a concerted effort to silence, you know, institution building among Muslims. And the way to do it is [to] malign these groups. And it's kind of a witch hunt."



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304510004575186092753338702.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

Why Israel is anxious about the Obama Administration.

Imagine that you're an Israeli perusing the past week's headlines. Senior U.S. military officials have told Congress that Iran may be a year away from producing a bomb's worth of fissile material. Efforts to sanction Iran are again bogged down at the U.N., even as the sanctions are watered down to insignificance. And senior Israeli officials now say that Syria has supplied Hezbollah with Scud-D missiles that can hit every city in Israel with a one-ton warhead to an accuracy of 50 meters.

Oh, and now the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East. In a press conference last week, President Obama said the U.S. had a "vital national security interest" in resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on the theory that "when conflict breaks out . . . that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure."

The remark, which echoes previous comments by senior Administration and Pentagon officials, is being widely interpreted as presaging a concerted Administration effort to press even harder for an Israeli-Palestinian agreement over territory. After the recent flap over Jewish settlements north of Jerusalem, concern is growing that the U.S. wants Israel to return to its pre-1967 borders. At their narrowest, those borders give Israel a nine-mile margin between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea.

Israel could conceivably withdraw to something close to that border if it had credible assurances that a future Palestinian state would be peaceful, stable and well-governed. But the Palestinian reality today is that it is riven politically and geographically between two camps, one of which (Hamas) is armed by Iran and sworn to Israel's destruction.

As for Israel's other neighbors, Syria has further entrenched its alliance with Iran, despite repeated entreaties by the Administration and its allies in Congress; Egypt is entering a period of political transition; and Turkey has gone from being an Israeli ally to an adversary under its Islamist government. None of this can inspire much confidence among Israelis that the time is ripe to withdraw from the West Bank.

Nor will Israel's fears be assuaged by paper guarantees of its security in some future settlement. In 2006, a senior Bush State Department official gave us similar assurances that the Security Council's resolution that brought the 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah to a close would seal the Lebanese border at least to "heavy weapons" from Syria and Iran. The resolution even provided for a beefed-up international security force to enforce the resolution's terms. So much for that, and so much for the results of the solicitous visits to Syria in recent years by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Foreign Relations Chairman John Kerry.

As for Iran, yesterday brought reports of a secret memo from Defense Secretary Robert Gates to the White House arguing that the Administration lacks a strategy for coping with Iran's drive to gain a nuclear weapon. We're not sure why this memo is secret, since it merely says what has been obvious to the world for months. Everyone in the Middle East has begun to assess how its interests and strategic calculations will change once Iran gets the bomb.

<b>For all the current talk about Israel costing America lives and treasure, the striking fact is that the U.S. has never had to go to war to defend the Jewish state. This is more than can be said for Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, Bosnia, Kosovo and the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. That's because for 62 years Israelis have provided for their own defense, in an alliance with the U.S. that has reflected American values and—in both the Cold War and the war on terror—advanced American interests.

The Obama Administration seems not to grasp this point, which is why these are anxious days for Israel and its American friends.b>

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303491304575187942850578732.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/us/politics/19muslim.html?pagewanted=print
for full story below


Reaching Out Quietly to Muslims in America
By ANDREA ELLIOTT

When President Obama took the stage in Cairo last June, promising a new relationship with the Islamic world, Muslims in America wondered only half-jokingly whether the overture included them. After all, Mr. Obama had kept his distance during the campaign, never visiting an American mosque and describing the false claim that he was Muslim as a “smear” on his Web site.

Nearly a year later, Mr. Obama has yet to set foot in an American mosque. And he still has not met with Muslim and Arab-American leaders. But less publicly, his administration has reached out to this politically isolated constituency in a sustained and widening effort that has left even skeptics surprised.

Muslim and Arab-American advocates have participated in policy discussions and received briefings from top White House aides and other officials on health care legislation, foreign policy, the economy, immigration and national security. They have met privately with a senior White House adviser, Valerie Jarrett, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano and Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to discuss civil liberties concerns and counterterrorism strategy.



http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/mr--president--your-animus-is-showing-15420



Mr. President, Your Animus Is Showing

John Podhoretz From issue: May 2010

The declaration this morning on the front page of the New York Times that the Obama administration has made an explicit shift in the U.S.-Israel relationship brings to mind words I published in COMMENTARY 10 months ago about the relationship between the United States and Israel in the Age of Obama: “There is no question that we have entered a new era, one that I expect will be characterized by tensions and unpleasantnesses of a kind unseen since the days when George H. W. Bush was president, James A. Baker III was secretary of state, and the hostility toward Israel oozed from both men like sweat from an intrepid colonial traveler’s brow as he journeyed across the Rub-al-Khali.”

Prophetic? Perhaps, but if you wish to credit me with visionary foresight, I have to confess that the reports of President Obama’s conduct toward Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during their deliberately unphotographed White House meeting in March still came as a cold shock to me. We still don’t know quite what happened, but it appears that the president came into the room with a list of unilateral demands, that he grew impatient with Netanyahu’s answers, and that he left unceremoniously by claiming he was going to have dinner with his wife and kids but that he would “be around” in case the prime minister “changed” his tune.

Even if the meeting was only half as confrontational and chilly as the reports indicated, it would still represent a display of rudeness and high-handedness unprecedented in the annals of American diplomacy. But since the target of Obama’s startling behavior was Israel, something especially complicated was at work. The president’s conduct was so extreme that it would be unthinkable for him to act in such a fashion toward the leader of any other nation, friend or foe. Obama knows that Israel needs the United States so much it is in no position to complain—particularly since the president was supposedly still in a snit over the ham-handed revelation in Israel, in the midst of Vice President Biden’s March visit, of the construction of 1,600 new housing units in Jerusalem.

Maybe Obama was operating, even unconsciously, in the unique spirit of informal aggression that can only be expressed between familial intimates. For who else would feel free to express such open rudeness at a special occasion? More likely, he was behaving in the manner of a liege lord demanding compensation from someone he considers his vassal. This attitude might explain as well the president’s otherwise perplexing treatment of other friendly leaders—Gordon Brown of Great Britain, Nicolas Sarkozy of France, Silvio Berlusconi of Italy—who may not seem to Obama to possess sufficient rank for him to treat them as allies of comparable stature.

Obama’s open hostility toward Netanyahu and his disproportionate reaction to the unintentional slight delivered to Biden are important, and deadly serious, because there is no doubt they were authentic expressions of real emotion. We’ve seen Obama be a little churlish and somewhat peevish, but rarely more openly negative than that. Nothing in the course of his presidency has made him angry, so far as we know, in the way that Israel and Netanyahu have made him angry. Not Iran’s defiance and game-playing. Not the supposed chicanery of Wall Street and the monstrous insurance companies that have served as his populist targets. Not even Rush Limbaugh.

This is meaningful. It suggests not merely that Obama differs with Israel on matters of policy but also that he takes these differences personally. And that, in turn, demonstrates there is an animus at work here, a predisposition to think badly of Israel—to view the Jewish state at best as an impediment to the good working order of a fairer world and at worst as a sower of discord. This is a bitter truth, but it is a truth, no matter how many Jews Obama knows or likes or employs, no matter how many Potemkin Passover seders he stages in the people’s house in which he is a temporary resident and in which he chose to treat a friend he ought to cherish instead like an enemy he cannot abide.






ADL criticizes Obama's approach


The ADL releases the following statement from Abe Foxman concerning Obama’s new approach to Israel:
The significant shift in U.S. policy toward Israel and the peace process, which has been evident in comments from various members of the Obama Administration and has now been confirmed by the president himself in his press conference at the Nuclear Security Summit, is deeply distressing. Saying that the absence of a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict undermines U.S. interests in the broader Middle East and the larger issue of resolving other conflicts is a faulty strategy. It is an incorrect approach on which to base America’s foreign policy in the Middle East and its relationship with its longtime friend and ally, Israel.
ADL has long expressed its concern from the very beginning of the Obama Administration about advisers to the president who see the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict as a major impediment to achieving the administration’s foreign policy and military goals in the wider region. The net effect of this dangerous thinking is to shift responsibility for success of American foreign policy away from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt and directly onto Israel. It is particularly disturbing in light of the blatantly disproportionate number and the nature of statements issued by this administration criticizing Israel as compared to what has been said about the Palestinians.


Lauder Takes on Obama

Jennifer Rubin - 04.15.2010 - 12:32 PM

Ronald Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, has taken out ads in the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal to lambast the president’s Israel policy. It reads, in part:

Jews around the world are concerned today. We are concerned about the nuclear ambitions of an Iranian regime that brags about its genocidal intentions against Israel. We are concerned that the Jewish state is being isolated and delegitimized.

Mr. President, we are concerned about the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.

The Israeli housing bureaucracy made a poorly timed announcement and your Administration branded it an “insult.” This diplomatic faux pas was over the fourth stage of a seven stage planning permission process – a plan to build homes years from now in a Jewish area of Jerusalem that under any peace agreement would remain an integral part of Israel.

Our concern grows to alarm as we consider some disturbing questions. Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks? After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.

Israel has made unprecedented concessions. It has enacted the most far reaching West Bank settlement moratorium in Israeli history.

Israel has publicly declared support for a two-state solution. Conversely, many Palestinians continue their refusal to even acknowledge Israel’s right to exist.

The conflict’s root cause has always been the Palestinian refusal to accept Israel as the nation state of the Jewish people. Every American President who has tried to broker a peace agreement has collided with that Palestinian intransigence, sooner or later. Recall President Clinton’s anguish when his peace proposals were bluntly rejected by the Palestinians in 2000. Settlements were not the key issue then.

They are not the key issue now.

Another important question is this: what is the Administration’s position on Israel’s borders in any final status agreement? Ambiguity on this matter has provoked a wave of rumors and anxiety. Can it be true that America is no longer committed to a final status agreement that provides defensible borders for Israel? Is a new course being charted that would leave Israel with the indefensible borders that invited invasion prior to 1967?

There are significant moves from the Palestinian side to use those indefensible borders as the basis for a future unilateral declaration of independence. How would the United States respond to such a reckless course of action?

And what are America’s strategic ambitions in the broader Middle East? The Administration’s desire to improve relations with the Muslim world is well known. But is friction with Israel part of this new strategy? Is it assumed worsening relations with Israel can improve relations with Muslims? History is clear on the matter: appeasement does not work. It can achieve the opposite of what is intended.

And what about the most dangerous player in the region? Shouldn’t the United States remain focused on the single biggest threat that confronts the world today? That threat is a nuclear armed Iran. Israel is not only America’s closest ally in the Middle East, it is the one most committed to this Administration’s declared aim of ensuring Iran does not get nuclear weapons.

He closes by asking Obama to take into “consideration the concerns expressed above.” As others have observed, Lauder revealed to the New York Times that he discussed the letter with Bibi and received support before running the ad.

There are several noteworthy points here. First, this is by far the most detailed and pointed objection from a prominent Jewish leader to the series of moves by the president to shift from the U.S.-Israel alliance, which has remained dominant in the Middle East, to something different. Unlike Democratic lawmakers who tend to skate by with generalities, Lauder makes his case with some detail. Second, I suspect this may unleash similarly candid responses. The sentiments Lauder expresses are not uncommon among Jewish activists, who may wonder why it is that their own organizations are being less forthright than Lauder’s. In other words, Lauder may well open up the floodgates for a new, frankly less genial relationship between the official Jewish community and the administration.

And finally, it remains to be seen what impact — if any — this has on the administration (which cares little for public opinion in general) and on Jewish support, be it electorally or financially, for Obama and his party. Given that Democrats are scrambling to distance themselves from Obama both on the Palestinian-Israel conflict and on Iran, it may be that there is little impact in the near-run. But 2012 is another story. Obama’s ability to maintain the facade that he is a great friend of Israel and of the American Jewish community may be coming to an end. If he is to pursue this course of action, he may well have to do it over increasing opposition from those who have been among his most loyal supporters


What is wrong with an imposed US PEACE plan?


“You have to look at both the psychology and the substance; each element is important,” said David Harris, executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “On the psychology level, the announcement of such a plan at this particular moment could easily be read as a further attempt to accentuate the gap between Israel and the U.S. That would be problematic, especially in Israel.”
Harris said the Palestinians would “see the American proposal as the starting point for escalating demands,” while Israel would “presumably view the American plan as the endpoint. We saw that played out with the settlement issue last year, when suddenly the Palestinians adopted the American position as a precondition for starting talks, which they hadn’t been before.”
The deepening distrust of Obama’s intentions among the Israeli public, Harris said, also means political support for any new U.S. plan would be minimal.
“If I were a political choreographer, my first step would be to restore the traditional sense of trust between Washington and Jerusalem,” he said.
And Hamas’ continued rule over Gaza remains an indigestible mouthful for administration policymakers, he said.



"Surely something must be terribly wrong with a man who seems to be far
more concerned with a Jew building a house in Israel than with a Muslim
building a nuclear bomb in Iran."

Burt Prelutsky, Columnist


Evidence growing that he is unwitting Jihadist
1. Background we know of: Muslim father. Middle name Hussein. Educated in Indonesian Madras. In US joins anti-American Church -Rev Wright and sits there for 26 years. Has not joined a Church yet as president in Washington.
2. As president lets in a University of Oxford professor once barred from entering the U.S. by the Bush administration for funding Hamas is back in New York, the Associated Press reports, but denys Israeli scientists. A report in one of Israel's leading newspapers, Maariv, that the Obama administration is denying visas to Israeli nuclear scientists working at the nuclear research center in Dimona. In the past, scientists and researchers from Dimona have routinely come to the United States to study chemistry, physics, and nuclear engineering at American universities and to attend professional seminars..
3. As Dov quoted-Ed Koch wrote recently “I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel. What makes these verbal assaults and distortions all the more painful is that they are being orchestrated by President Obama.”
4. Yisrael Ne'eman wrote: This past Thursday, April 8, Israel's Channel 10 reported that US Administration sources confirmed that as far as Israel is concerned, American policy towards Iran will be linked to advancements made on the Palestinian-Israeli peace front. Such a laconic statement betrays a major shift in American foreign policy, driving home the new foreign policy message of the Obama Administration. Should such a linkage now exist where it never existed before, Israel may very well be facing an existential threat not only in the short term from Iran, but in the overall long run of American foreign policy thinking.

5. Obama Ends Day Christian prayer, Muslim day of prayer is added. In 1952 President Truman established one day a year as a "National Day of Prayer." In 1988 President Reagan designated the first Thursday in May of each year as the National Day of Prayer. This year President Obama, canceled the 21st annual National Day of Prayer ceremony at the White House "not wanting to offend anyone"www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/06/obama.prayer/index.html?eref=rss_politics
On September 25, 2009 from 4 am until 7 pm, a National Day of Prayer for the Muslim religion was held on Capitol Hill, Beside the White House. There were over 50,000 Muslims that day in DC. (http://www.islamoncapitolhill.com/ )
6. Allowing Iran to get nuclear weapons, despite clear intention of bombing Israel, and despite all other Arab neighbors upset about it.
7. Maariv: Dimona Reactor employees reportedly have also complained that the Obama administration has stopped selling them reactor components that the U.S. routinely sold to them in the past.
8. US Democratic support for Israel has dropped dramatically under Obama, only 52% now favor Israel in polls.

What more evidence does anyone need of the extreme danger Obama poses to 6 million Jews?



Aipac responds to Obama's anti Israel proclivity

AIPAC hits White House

The pro-Israel group AIPAC, which had been at pains for much of President Obama's term to downplay tensions between his administration and Benjamin Netanyahu's, is criticizing Obama in the sharpest terms to date after a series of administration officials sharply reprimanded Netanyahu for the announcement of new housing units in East Jerusalem during Joe Biden's trip.

"The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State," says the unsigned statement sent out by spokesman Josh Block. "The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests."

The statement criticizes the administration's "escalated rhetoric" as "a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran's rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors."

"We strongly urge the Administration to work closely and privately with our partner Israel, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two governments," the statement says.

The statement reflects a defiant stance from the Israeli government and its American allies. They're confident on the one hand in Obama's unpopularity in Israel and in the popularity of Netanyahu's refusal to compromise on Jerusalem. It's also a gamble that, politically, Obama has nothing to gain from escalating a battle with a key ally as his domestic agenda hangs in the balance and his regional agenda appears to have stalled.

The statement also calls into question any American expectation that Netanyahu -- whose initial reaction was to blame domestic political foes for the announcement -- will move this week to calm tensions.

Full statement after the jump.

Statement from AIPAC:



The Obama Administration's recent statements regarding the U.S. relationship with Israel are a matter of serious concern. AIPAC calls on the Administration to take immediate steps to defuse the tension with the Jewish State.



Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East. The foundation of the U.S-Israel relationship is rooted in America's fundamental strategic interest, shared democratic values, and a long-time commitment to peace in the region. Those strategic interests, which we share with Israel, extend to every facet of American life and our relationship with the Jewish State, which enjoys vast bipartisan support in Congress and among the American people.



The Administration should make a conscious effort to move away from public demands and unilateral deadlines directed at Israel, with whom the United States shares basic, fundamental, and strategic interests.



The escalated rhetoric of recent days only serves as a distraction from the substantive work that needs to be done with regard to the urgent issue of Iran's rapid pursuit of nuclear weapons, and the pursuit of peace between Israel and all her Arab neighbors.



We strongly urge the Administration to work closely and privately with our partner Israel, in a manner befitting strategic allies, to address any issues between the two governments.



As Vice President Biden said last week in Israel, "Progress in the Middle East occurs when there is no daylight between the United States and Israel."
Posted by truth seeker at 8:21 AM 0 comments
our enemies get courted our friends get the squeeze

Turn against Israel? This has been going on for a long time and would have been clear to anyone back in 2008 or earlier—if they did not wear rose-colored glasses.

The Israelis are never going to trust this administration-nor should they.





http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121710380216280.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop&mg=com-wsj


Obama's Turn Against Israel
The U.S. makes a diplomatic crisis out of a blunder.


In recent weeks, the Obama Administration has endorsed "healthy relations" between Iran and Syria, mildly rebuked Syrian President Bashar Assad for accusing the U.S. of "colonialism," and publicly apologized to Moammar Gadhafi for treating him with less than appropriate deference after the Libyan called for "a jihad" against Switzerland.

When it comes to Israel, however, the Administration has no trouble rising to a high pitch of public indignation. On a visit to Israel last week, Vice President Joe Biden condemned an announcement by a mid-level Israeli official that the government had approved a planning stage—the fourth out of seven required—for the construction of 1,600 housing units in north Jerusalem. Assuming final approval, no ground will be broken on the project for at least three years.

But neither that nor repeated apologies from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu prevented Secretary of State Hillary Clinton—at what White House sources ostentatiously said was the personal direction of President Obama—from calling the announcement "an insult to the United States." White House political chief David Axelrod got in his licks on NBC's Meet the Press yesterday, lambasting Israel for what he described as "an affront."



Since nobody is defending the Israeli announcement, least of all an obviously embarrassed Israeli government, it's difficult to see why the Administration has chosen this occasion to spark a full-blown diplomatic crisis with its most reliable Middle Eastern ally. Mr. Biden's visit was intended to reassure Israelis that the Administration remained fully committed to Israeli security and legitimacy. In a speech at Tel Aviv University two days after the Israeli announcement, Mr. Biden publicly thanked Mr. Netanyahu for "putting in place a process to prevent the recurrence" of similar incidents.

The subsequent escalation by Mrs. Clinton was clearly intended as a highly public rebuke to the Israelis, but its political and strategic logic is puzzling. The U.S. needs Israel's acquiescence in the Obama Administration's increasingly drawn-out efforts to halt Iran's nuclear bid through diplomacy or sanctions. But Israel's restraint is measured in direct proportion to its sense that U.S. security guarantees are good. If Israel senses that the Administration is looking for any pretext to blow up relations, it will care much less how the U.S. might react to a military strike on Iran.

As for the West Bank settlements, it is increasingly difficult to argue that their existence is the key obstacle to a peace deal with the Palestinians. Israel withdrew all of its settlements from Gaza in 2005, only to see the Strip transform itself into a Hamas statelet and a base for continuous rocket fire against Israeli civilians.

Israeli anxieties about America's role as an honest broker in any diplomacy won't be assuaged by the Administration's neuralgia over this particular housing project, which falls within Jerusalem's municipal boundaries and can only be described as a "settlement" in the maximalist terms defined by the Palestinians. Any realistic peace deal will have to include a readjustment of the 1967 borders and an exchange of territory, a point formally recognized by the Bush Administration prior to Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. If the Obama Administration opts to transform itself, as the Europeans have, into another set of lawyers for the Palestinians, it will find Israeli concessions increasingly hard to come by.

That may be the preferred outcome for Israel's enemies, both in the Arab world and the West, since it allows them to paint Israel as the intransigent party standing in the way of "peace." Why an Administration that repeatedly avers its friendship with Israel would want that is another question.

Then again, this episode does fit Mr. Obama's foreign policy pattern to date: Our enemies get courted; our friends get the squeeze. It has happened to Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras and Colombia. Now it's Israel's turn
Posted by truth seeker at 8:17 AM 0 comments
Obama deservesd anti peace prize

To:
edlasky@att.net

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156488.html



ADL chief: Flawed U.S. policy is undermining Mideast peace

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif



Abraham Foxman has headed the Anti-Defamation League since the 1980s, serving often as an unofficial spokesman for the American Jewish community on issues of anti-Semitism and other affairs.

Who is to blame for the current crisis in the U.S.-Israeli relationship?

In the short term Israel is, but in the long term - the U.S. This is a flawed policy that we are seeing in the Middle East, that we were very much concerned about in the beginning of this administration, and that is to what extent this linkage will play in the policy and in the strategy of this administration. There are a lot of people in this administration who had advocated linkage - that all you have to do to resolve all the problems in the Arab Middle East is to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. And it's a fantasy and an illusion that has been out there for a long time. But this administration has bought into this concept - even [Vice President Joe] Biden's language, that if we don't resolve this conflict American soldiers will die - that's the worst of that fallacy. When the secretary of state then says that it harms the bilateral relationship - what happens between the Palestinians and Israelis impacts American security. The solution of the problem is in Baghdad, Kabul, Tehran, maybe in Riyadh and Cairo. Not in Jerusalem.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/images/0.gif


Advertisement


The continuation of the crisis is the fault of the U.S. Whatever happened, the prime minister apologized publicly and privately, issued a statement, the interior minister issued a statement, Israel did an al-het, [Biden] even accepted it. And then to wake up in the morning and to find [State Department spokesman P.J.] Crowley saying these terrible words - and this is not only the secretary of state, this is the president - and what's worse, - with this linkage is also a belief that you can appease the Arabs, that all you must do is to placate them by giving them settlements.

Do you believe that if Netanyahu, as Martin Indyk suggested, announces a stop to all provocative actions in East Jerusalem, it will repair the damage?

So what's the next price? The belief that you can bring peace by placating the Arab position is wrong. Whatever you give, the answer is "no, come back with more." If freezing settlements is not enough, now it's Jerusalem. And then what? I don't understand why the U.S. doesn't say to the Palestinians: "Isn't peace in your interest? Why does Israel have to pay the price for the proximity talks?" Isn't talking to Israel in [Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas'] interest so he can see what can or cannot be done?"

It's not the first time Israel's right wing government has embarrassed American officials.

But what troubles me is that the U.S. is sophisticated enough to understand political bureaucracy, the non-functional elements in Israeli democracy. How come they understand it in Pakistan, Egypt - and they don't understand it in Israel? Everybody thought the issue was resolved.

Do you believe with the current level of mistrust between the U.S. and Israel can still effectively coordinate on the Iranian nuclear program issue?

I believe that can be separated, because when we talk about American and Israeli security there are a lot of things that we share and the intelligence world and the military world understand how close that link is. I think there is more trust and understanding in this part of the bilateral relationship than the political. I am not sure that the U.S. and Israel stand on the same page in this issue, but there are some sincere and respectful differences.

The question whether the U.S. will actually do anything in its power to prevent Iran from going nuclear - that's the issue today. That's part of the discussion, and it's not becoming a political issue in this country as well. I do believe that at the end of the day the way to repair is to go back to the bipartisan approach that worked for years. I am concerned that it might become a political football ... I hope it's a temporary crisis."

Some American analysts state that the settlements policy gradually distances the American Jewish community from Israel.

I don't think it's true. The majority of the American Jewish community is not happy with settlements. But it also isn't happy when the U.S. president tells the Israeli prime minister what to do. I think that in the beginning the president received advice that if you take the settlements issue public you don't have anything to lose, because the American Jews don't like settlements, and the Israelis as well, and this is a win-win. But the American Jews don't like the American administration dictating to Israel what it should or shouldn't do. And now it was the U.S. to raise the issue of Jerusalem, and not Israel. The U.S. raised the stakes on Jerusalem. And that's where we are now, and the Palestinians detect weakness in the hope of separating Israel.

During the previous crisis the U.S. administration finally retracted on the settlements issue, and as some described it, left Abu-Mazen out on a limb.

I hope it will happen this time as well. The irony is that if the U.S. wants Israel to make compromises, to take political risks, it needs to be closer to Israel, not to distance itself from Israel. Be careful what you ask for - Biden went [to Israel] because a lot of American Jews pressed this administration that the President must go to Israel and talk directly to the Israeli people. This administration compromised and sent the Vice President. On the one hand the speech is wonderful - but on the other hand what happened on Friday has totally undone all the good work. Because Amr Musa dictated to Abu Mazen to withdraw from the proximity talks and I don't know why the U.S. didn't tell Abu Mazen: "We are your friends and we believe that it is in the interest of the Palestinians, the Americans and the Israelis - rather than go to Israel and say, "You've got to give him something."

I am also disturbed that in this whole year there hasn't been one specific condemnation by the American administration about anything that the Palestinian Authority leadership has done or said. Not once! And how many times was Israel publicly criticized, condemned, in all kinds of places? I found this very troubling, the prime minister of the Palestinian Authority goes with the torch to burn Israeli food products, and the American administration doesn't say boo? The president of the Palestinian Authority threatens with religious war - and the states doesn't say boo. They dedicate a stage to the suicide bomber - and the U.S. doesn't say boo, because they believe placating will work - but it doesn't work. They wait for Israel to compromise, to take risks - but the U.S. continues to be the closest friend and ally. And what happened in the last 48 hours put it in a big question."

So do you think Biden is a true friend of Israel?

Yes. I think President Obama is a friend of Israel too. But I think it's a mistaken and counterproductive strategy and flawed analysis of what is in the best interest of the U.S. Support of Israel has served the U.S. interests more than supporting anyone else in the world.

Should Obama visit Israel himself in the near future?

I don't think we should count too much on that. When we made too much of it we got the vice president, and look what happened.

I've heard one analyst suggesting Israelis don't like Obama because of his color and middle name.

I think Israelis are not happy with him because of his policy. I think it has nothing to do with his name or his color.
Posted by truth seeker at 8:12 AM 0 comments
Palestinian terrorists happy with Obama

The Palestinian Authority Walks Out of Talks with a Big Smile on Its Face

By Barry Rubin*

March 15, 2010

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/03/palestinian-authority


In 1994, Israel asserted, and the PLO accepted, that construction would continue on existing Jewish settlements. For the next 15 years, negotiations were never stopped by that building.

In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority (PA) stopped negotiations because Hamas attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip and Israel defended itself. Of course, Hamas is also the PA's enemy and the PA would be delighted if Israel destroyed that group. But for public relations' purposes, the PA had to pretend inter-Palestinian solidarity.

Then came President Barack Obama who demanded a stop to all construction on settlements in 2009. Israel finally complied but announced that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. The United States accepted that arrangement and even highly praised Israel's policy as a major concession.

But the PA refused to return to negotiations. Why, because the construction offended it? No, because the PA's radical forces don't want to make a peace deal because they believe they can win total victory and destroy Israel. The more moderate forces are too weak to make a deal because of Hamas and their own radicals, though they also have some problems with mutual compromise.

In September 2009, Obama announced that within two months there would be full and final peace negotiations in Washington. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said "yes": PA leader Mahmoud Abbas said "no."

No Western media outlet said that the PA refusal to negotiate for-as of today-about 15 months shows that the PA doesn't want peace. Yet they had no hesitation about saying that Israel doesn't want peace (or at least maybe doesn't) because Israel announced the building of apartments on the basis of a policy it has followed for 16 years, without serious complaint for most of that time.

Abbas seized on the opportunity to declare that he wasn't going to negotiate. Is he indignant? Upset? Does he feel betrayed? No, he's delighted to have an excuse to do what he wants to do anyway: Not negotiate with Israel!

Just like the famous scene in the film Casablanca when the police inspector, Renault, who regularly gambles at Rick's Place decided to shut down the nightclub:

Rick: How can you close me down? On what grounds?
Renault: "I am shocked shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
The croupier comes out of the gambling room and up to Renault. He hands him a roll of bills. Croupier: "Your winnings, sir."
Renault: "Oh thank you very much. [He turns to the crowd] Everybody out at once!"

And so he gets to close down talks, keep his winnings, and blame it on Israel. While Abbas and the PA don't agree with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on much, they do agree on one point: They claim that the West is abandoning Israel so why should they not just wait for it either to be destroyed (in Ahmadinejad's case) or until the West gives the Palestinians a state on a silver platter with no concessions on their part (Abbas's case).

Just as Obama killed the chance for negotiations with his demand for a full freeze, he and Vice-President Joe Biden may have done so again for indirect talks. But isn't it Israel's fault in the latter case for a stupid bureaucratic case of bad timing? Absolutely, yes. Yet the U.S. handling of the issue turned an annoying problem into an even worse problem for itself.

[Note: U.S. officials are claiming that talks will still take place, saying that reports of Abbas walking out are untrue. I don't believe this but if so I will correct this article accordingly.]

Even those in the West who mistrust or hate Israel, or at least the current government, have created a monumental paradox for themselves. They say (wrongly, I should point out) that Israel (or Netanyahu) doesn't want to negotiate or make a deal. If so, however, why are they "punishing" Israel by letting negotiations be killed? One of the many knots one gets into if there's no understanding of Middle East politics and realities.
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.
Posted by truth seeker at 8:11 AM 0 com

Saturday, April 10, 2010
Netanyahu right to boycott sandbagging with Obama

Republicans welcome Netanyahu's US trip cancellation
American press expresses interest in prime minister's decision not to attend NPT conference in Washington; some believe PM avoiding providing President Obama with answers on peace process
Yitzhak Benhorin
Published: 04.09.10, 11:24 / Israel News
WASHINGTON - The news of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's canceled trip to Washington was warmly welcomed by some republicans in the United States on Thursday. Liz Cheney's announcement of Netanyahu's cancellation was met with a round of applause in the Southern Republican Leadership Conference in New Orleans.

Cheney, daughter of former US Vice President Richard Cheney, opened the conference with a verbal attack against the Obama administration and noted the cold reception the president gave the prime minister during his last Washington visit.
Israel right to avoid Netanyahu sandbagging
"President Obama is playing a reckless game of continuing down the path of diminishing America's ties to Israel," she said deeming the world safer when there is "no daylight" between the two countries.

Netanyahu decided to cancel his Washington trip after learning that several Muslim nations were planning to raise the fact that Israel is a not a member of the Non Proliferation Treaty during the conference.


"In the last 24 hours we received reports about the intention of various states that will be present at the Washington conference to go beyond the issue of preventing nuclear terror," a senior source in Jerusalem said.
Posted by truth seeker at 5:07 AM 0 comments
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Palestinian murderers still send missiles

Resources - Israel and the Mideast:

* Palestinian Rocket Fired from Gaza Kills Thai Worker in Israel - Shmulik Hadad
A 30-year-old Thai foreign worker was killed Thursday after a Kassam rocket fired by Palestinians in Gaza hit a greenhouse compound in Netiv Ha'asara in Israel in the third such attack in the last 24 hours.
Posted by truth seeker at 12:11 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
treating Israel terribly

Ramat Shlomo and Obama's Latest Snit?

The Jerusalem municipal planning commission announced the approval of a plan, and the American administration went ballistic.

Tom Friedman, the New York Times columnist who writes what Americans like to read, regardless of the merit of his analysis, suggested that Vice President Biden should have gone straight to the airport. Apparently Mr Friedman thinks international diplomacy should be handled the way teenagers react to being told they can't have the car.

It strikes me that, viewed a little more objectively than from the pages of the New York Times, the incident might be appraised differently.

First, Let's bear in mind that the decision to build in Ramat Shlomo is not a deviation from Israel's express policy, a policy of which the Obama administration is well aware, and that Secretary of State Clinton recently praised as an unprecedented step toward advancing the peace process. And let us not forget that Ramat Shlomo is a Jewish neighborhood in a Jewish area of Jerusalem.

So, a municipal planning commission made an announcement that it had approved a plan that is entirely in keeping with declared government policy -- a policy which the US administration has praised, but of which it does not entirely approve due to its traditional refusal to accept Israeli sovereignty over any part of Jerusalem (in defiance of Congress). This happens when the Vice President is in town.

This can be seen as a little embarrassing, since it might have put Mr Biden in a slightly awkward position, but it was clearly not an orchestrated attempt to insult. Surely it was not like, say, inviting the Dalai Lama to the White House, which President Obama clearly did with wilful premeditation, intending to smack the Chinese in the teeth, knowing full well that no previous President had extended such an invitation.

It wasn't even as embarrassing or as nasty as say a Congressional committee declaring that a NATO ally -- Turkey -- committed genocide, after Turkey made it clear to the President that such a declaration might prompt a break in diplomatic relations.

This was just a case comparable to Ehud Barak being told by the TSA to take his shoes off at Dulles International Airport, or Shaul Mofaz being told he couldn't have a visa to the US because he was born in Iran. A little embarrassing. maybe a little dumb, and to be treated accordingly.

So, how did the US react to the discovery that the Prime Minister doesn't have absolute control over municipal planning commissions?

The Vice President showed up an hour late to a state dinner with Israel's Prime Minister -- a petulant, childish act intended solely as a personal insult to the PM. The protocol in such cases is, I believe, to tell the guest: "I'm sorry, you are late. The PM is no longer available. He has a tight schedule..." That is probably how Mr Biden would have been treated by any other PM of any other country. But Mr Netanyahu decided to overlook the insult.

But rest assured, Mr Biden would never have even considered showing up two seconds late to dinner with the PM of England, Canada, France, Russia or even Fiji.

Then, Mrs Clinton called PM Netanyahu to upbraid him. Again, as a matter of proper protocol, Mr Netanyahu should probably have told Mrs Clinton that if the President wished to speak with him, he had the phone number, and then he should have hung up. The unelected advisors of the President have no business telling off the heads of foreign governments. If the President wishes to do so, he may. The Secretary of State can call in Israel's ambassador to Washington to express her displeasure. She even might go as far as calling the Foreign Minister to discuss a matter of concern with him, while showing the respect and deference due a minister of a foreign government, but she has no business calling the Prime Minister of Israel to speak her mind. Rest assured, she would not allow herself that liberty with the PM of any other country.

So, I think maybe the US administration has taken a little gaffe that should have been overlooked, and deliberately used it with a heavy hand to show that it really really isn't Israel's friend, that it holds Israel in utter contempt and does not owe its government the minimal respect it would show to any other state.

I truly hope that that was what was intended, because the alternative is that the foreign policy of the United States is currently in the hands of people who think that the best way to handle a diplomatic setback is to stomp up the stairs and slam the door.



Avinoam Sharon
Posted by truth seeker at 8:49 AM 0 comments
Chrisitans condemn Obama

Christians United for Israel is not usually in the business of issuing press releases. But these are no ordinary times. In a written statement, the group declares that it is “deeply concerned about the Obama Administration’s escalating rhetoric,” and continues:

CUFI concurs with statements made by Prime Minister Netanyahu, Defense Minister Barak and other Israeli leaders that this announcement was ill-timed. And CUFI notes repeated press reports that Prime Minister Netanyahu neither knew about this announcement in advance nor hesitated to apologize for it after the fact.

We are therefore surprised that the Administration has chosen to continue to escalate a conflict with one of our closest allies that could have been quickly resolved.

Timing aside, the fact remains that the Israeli policy behind this announcement — to continue building in existing Jewish neighborhoods throughout Jerusalem — is not new. When it comes to Israel’s bargaining position, nothing has changed. It is therefore difficult to understand why this long-standing disagreement over policy — which has never been a barrier to negotiations with the Palestinians– is now the source of such tension with the US.

We remind the Administration that Israel has been a committed partner for peace and has taken repeated risks for peace in recent years. We further note that the Netanyahu government has made important gestures to the Palestinians, including an unprecedented 10-month moratorium on West Bank settlement construction and repeated calls for the resumption of direct negotiations. The Palestinians, on the other hand, continue to refuse direct negotiations.

So the ADL and CUFI, Steve Israel and Eric Cantor, and a host of other organizations and politicians along the political spectrum are telling the Obami: bullying Israel will garner no support and quite a lot of domestic opposition. The administration may not be pro-Israel in any meaningful way, but clearly Americans are
Posted by truth seeker at 7:54 AM 0 comments
WhY Obama wants to hurt Israel

Explaining the U.S.-Israel Crisis

By Barry Rubin*
March 16, 2010
http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/03/explaining-us-israel-crisis

It is important to understand that the current controversy over construction in east Jerusalem is neither a public relations' problem nor a bilateral policy dispute. It arises because of things having nothing directly to do with this specific point.

What are the real issues involved:

1. The U.S. and most European governments are determined not to criticize the Palestinian Authority's (PA) sabotage of the peace process. The facts are clear: The PA rejects negotiations for fourteen months. No reaction. The PA makes President Barack Obama look foolish by destroying his September 2009 initiative saying there would be talks within two months. The PA broke its promise to Obama not to sponsor the Goldstone report. In the end, the PA still won't talk directly. Yet during fourteen months in office the Obama administration has not criticized the PA once. The point is clear: The U.S. government will never criticize the PA no matter what it does. (We'll talk about why this is so in a moment.)

2. Same thing regarding Syria. Dictator Bashar al-Assad supports terrorists who kill the United States in Iraq; kills Lebanese politicians; openly laughs at U.S. policy; and invites Iran's president immediately after a major U.S. concession. Yet the Obama Administration makes no criticism and in fact offers more concessions.

3. The United States will criticize Iran but will not take a tough and vigorous stand against it. Now it is mid-March and no higher sanctions. Indeed, the administration's sanctions' campaign is falling apart.

4. On whom can the Administration's failures be blamed? Answer: Israel. Since it is a friend of the United States and to some degree dependent on it, no matter what the Obama Administration does to Israel that country has no wish or way to retaliate. It is safe to beat up on Israel.

5. By doing so, the Administration gets Europeans to go alone easily and can say to Arabs and Muslims: See we are tough on Israel so you should be nice to us.

6. What does the U.S. government want? A lot of things. An easier withdrawal from Iraq; popularity; quiet; nobody attacking it verbally or materially (at least not so its constituents will hear the attacks); an ability to claim success or at least claim it would have been successful on the peace process if not for Israel; supposedly, Arab support for its doing something on Iran; hopefully, less terrorism; and so on.

7. There is also an ideological aspect given the Administration's general worldview, which need not be repeated here at length. But large elements in the government apparently have so accepted the manifestly untrue idea that everything in the region is linked to the Arab-Israeli conflict that high-level officials have reportedly remarked that the construction of apartments in east Jerusalem jeopardize the lives of American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan or that Arab states won't cooperate with the United States because of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

The argument that U.S.-Arab relations rests on U.S.-Israel relations has been repeated for a half-century and repeatedly proven wrong. American attempts to resolve the conflict have rarely received help from the Arab world, and often been bitterly opposed. At the same time, Arab states have repetedly functioned on the basis of their own interests to seek U.S. help because they recognized American power: to convoy tankers and deter Iran during the Iran-Iraq war, to reverse Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, to protect them from Iran and revolutionary Islamists today, and in dozens of other cases. They may say that everything depends on Israel but that is propaganda.

By the same token, if the Arab world--that is the relative moderates--isn't being helpful to the United States now, this is due to the fact that such action is often against the interests of states and precisely because they do not view America as a strong and reliable power today. That is the result of Administration policies.

No matter what the Administration does to Israel, these things won't change. In short, the Administration is falling for the oldest trick, the most venerable con-game, in the Middle East book: Move away from Israel, pressure Israel, solve the conflict, and all the Arab governments will love America and do what it wants them to do.

What makes this even more ridiculous is that now the United States is focusing on Iran and Afghanistan, places where Israel-Palestinian issues clearly have zero effect on events. Sunni and Shia Iraqis aren't in conflict because of Israel; Sunni insurgents aren't attacking American troops because of Israel. Al-Qaida and the Taliban aren't fighting to seize power in Afghanistan and Pakistan because of Israel. And al-Qaida isn't seeking to overturn all Arab regimes, create an Islamist government, and destroy any Western role in the Middle East because of Israel.

And even if the Israel issue may be one factor affecting the attitudes of Arabs toward revolutionary Islamism it is only a single factor among many. The people prone to supporting revolutionary Islamism won't interpret an American conflict with Israel as showing the goodness of Obama but the weakness of Obama and the coming triumph of Iran in the region.

8. The handling of this issue is also counterproductive because it ensures Israel-Palestinian talks won't get going again. After all, if the United States is so angry at Israel why should the PA and Arab states defuse the crisis? They will raise their demands because they win either way: If the United States forces Israel to make more concessions then they get something for nothing. But if Israel doesn't make those concessions then it gets blamed for the impasse and the Arab side profits from reduced U.S. support for Israel. As for the radical forces--Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah--they aren't going to become pro-American or support a real peace process no matter what happens.

Consequently, just as with the original demand for a freeze on construction, the Administration has once gain shot itself in the foot. The chances for even indirect talks in 2010 has gone to virtually zero as a result. Israel didn't do it; the U.S. government did. Ironically, the United States will end up losing more from this than Israel because nothing much is going to be altered regarding Israel-Palestinian issues but a great deal is changing in the larger regional situation.

Why is this all not more worrisome for Israel? This is so for several reasons. First, the Administration is not going to do much or anything against Israel in material terms. It is not a tough government and doesn't want confrontations. Its goal is not to injure Israel but to make itself look good. Moreover, it knows that pushing harder won't bring any reward since Israel won't yield and the peace process is going nowhere.

Second, Israel is protected by a very strongly favorable American public opinion and by Congress. At this point, Congress is no longer cowed by Obama. Indeed, the Democrats are angry with him for endangering their survival by the unpopular actions he is pressing on them. They know that the November elections look very bad for them. Taking on Israel will make things even worse. And they also have a better understanding of the radical forces in the region and the threat they pose. In other words, they are not so far left as is the White House. After the November elections, the Administration will be on even weaker political ground, especially vis-à-vis Israel.

Third, the Obama Administration's strategy won't work. The radicals will become more aggressive; the more moderate Arabs know that the Administration won't credibly defend them. Sensing blood (albeit mistakenly) the PA will raise its demands higher. The PA could only exploit the opportunity if it demanded final status talks-something it would never do-and try to get the best possible peace agreement with U.S. support. But since they won't deliver for the Administration, they won't collect much from it.

Eventually, the extremism of Iran, Syria, the Iraqi insurgents, Hamas, Hizballah, Libya, and to a lesser degree the PA will force a shift in U.S. strategy. Either the Obama Administration will adjust accordingly-at least partly-or will not survive its own electoral test. (This is not to underrate economic factors, which remain the highest priority for Americans, but it is unlikely that these will "save" the Administration, quite the contrary. A continuing economic mess plus foreign policy disasters would make its situation worse.)

This current crisis will blow over when the Administration grows tired of it and has wrung all the benefits it can from the issue, and not before.

Optional notes: This is not to underrate the importance of the bad timing by an Israeli ministry, letting the PA pretend that Israel wrecked a negotiating opportunity. The one thing a politician can never forgive is someone else making him look bad. Unfortunately, this Administration is only concerned about friends making it look bad, letting enemies get away with it repeatedly.

But a more serious U.S. government would not have let that game happen and would have been more even-handed in attributing blame. Such a government would have seized on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's apology, asked that the building be postponed, and pushed the two sides together to talk. Instead, the Obama Administration just accepted the PA walk out as if it were powerless to do anything.

I have been informed that on a number of occasions that my criticisms of the Obama Administration have led to my being denied certain opportunities regarding projects and writing venues. I can only repeat that my criticism is a response to the government's policies. I'd be far happier if they had a better policy and more competent implementation so that it would be possible to praise the government of the United States rather than have to criticize it.
*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.
Posted by truth seeker at 6:33 AM 0 comments
Monday, March 15, 2010
J Street aids enemies of Israel


Posted by truth seeker at 10:14 AM 0 comments
How Obama endangers America as he fights with Israel

Observations:
Are America and Israel Drifting Apart? (Washington Post)
Elliott Abrams: Poll data show that Israel is as popular as ever among Americans. Strategically we face the same enemies - such as terrorism and the Iranian regime - a fact that is not lost on Americans who know we have one single reliable, democratic ally in the Middle East. On settlements, the Obama administration demanded a 100% construction freeze, including in Jerusalem, something never required before even by the Palestinians as a precondition for negotiations. This stance cornered Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, who could demand no less, and led the U.S. administration last week to "condemn" the announcement of plans for Israeli construction that is years away. The verb "condemn" is customarily reserved by U.S. officials for acts of murder and terrorism - not acts of housing.
Danielle Pletka: It might have been hoped that after Sept. 11, 2001, and the revelation that Israel is of little interest to Islamist extremists, the U.S. foreign policy establishment would understand that the bankruptcy of leadership in the Arab world is a more pressing problem for America than the transgressions of a few million Jews, but it has always been easier to blame Israel than to sell reform to tyrants. Ultimately, the more serious problem for the United States is not a distancing between us and Israel but a failure to grasp that the shared threats to both nations - the Islamist totalitarianism that has flourished in the oxygen-free environment of the Arab world and the rise of the Revolutionary Guard class in Iran - will not be mitigated with the resolution of the Palestinians' fate.

Idiocies of an Obama imposed solution on Israel

The Idea of the Obama Administration Supporting an "Imposed Solution" on the Israel-Palestinian Issue Takes a Big Step Forward
By Barry Rubin*

April 9, 2010

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/04/idea-of-obama


Is the U.S. government going to present its own comprehensive peace plan on the Israel-Palestinian issue? There is growing evidence it is thinking of doing such a thing, though that is by no means certain. If the Obama Administration does move in this direction, however, I predict that it will be a major failure and humiliation for that government.

The latest development is an apparently well-informed New York Times article about a meeting chaired by National Security Advisor James Jones, known for being hostile to Israel, and including former national security advisors, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft-also known for being anti-Israel-and Samuel Berger. All three (it should be mentioned that none of this trio covered himself with glory when in office and are not exactly foreign policy geniuses) reportedly favor the idea. Former national security advisor Colin Powell disagreed, but he's a Republican (though a pro-Obama one) and probably less influential. Oh, and President Obama dropped in to hear the discussion.

One might ask a lot of people who voted for Obama if they are happy having Brzezinski and Scowcroft as top advisors on Middle East policy. Again, though, it should be clear no decision has been made and such an initiative might never happen, assuming clearer heads triumph.
But, the reporter writes:

"Still, for all of that, a consensus appears to be growing, both within the administration and among outside advisers to the White House, that Mr. Obama will have to consider suggesting a solution to get the two sides moving." This might happen also if indirect talks fail.

Let us pause a moment to consider that this whole approach is the opposite of being brilliant. First, the administration has just signaled to the Palestinians that they want to make the indirect talks fail, since then the U.S. government will make an "imposed" offer that will adopt almost all of their demands. After all, if it doesn't, they can sabotage the proposal, knowing that the Obama administration will never punish or criticize them. Since the government desperately wants to succeed, it is giving the Palestinian Authority all the leverage.

Of course, Israel is going to reject this idea, which then lets them sit back and enjoy more U.S.-Israel conflict. Thus, the whole strategy in advance is doomed to fail.

In addition, the strategy is deeply against diplomatic norms. U.S. policy has always been to insist that the two parties will decide on the issues. For many years, Israel has been making concessions based on an understanding that there would be no attempt at an imposed solution.

This, then, would be the third commitment from past years that the Obama administration would break.

The first was that any diplomatic solution could include Israel keeping some areas-settlement blocs-across the pre-1967 borders (though a State Department note back in October 2009 hinted that would be possible). The second was agreeing that Israel could build in east Jerusalem if it stopped building in the West Bank, a promise noisily and insultingly broken recently. Why, then, should Israel trust any promise in future made by this government?

The agreement outlined in the article is that there would be no return of Palestinian refugees to Israel and the 1967 borders with possibly some modifications. There would be U.S. or NATO security guarantees for Israel, and possibly troops along the Jordan River. And finally, that Arab states would recognize Israel.

Leaving aside the problems that such a proposal would bring for Israel, on its face the idea is absurd and doomed to defeat. To start with, there is no consideration of a little problem called the Gaza Strip, which is ruled by Hamas and would never accept this plan. Then there is the fact that Arab states would not recognize Israel for a variety of reasons, including the question of Syria's interests in the Golan Heights.

The sole expert quoted by the Times, by the way, is Robert Malley who, of course favors it though he stresses it won't be easy. Malley is very close to the PA and very far away from Israel. His influence with the administration seems to be growing and he has been seen closely advising Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and leading naïve person on these issues. I could write a great deal about Mr. Malley but suffice it to say that Israel's survival is not a major concern for him.

There are many factors here but let me cite just two. First, high-ranking administration officials are not exactly deeply understanding of the issues at stake. Any plan presented by them will be full of holes and dangerous errors. Second, the notion that they can solve this issue and the whole Middle East will fall into place is absurd. See here, for example.

Yet the outcome would be the exact opposite of what they expect on the regional level. Islamists and many others in the Arab world will present any plan as treason, proof that America is against them. Obama would become less popular, attacks on the United States (both verbal and terrorist) would increase, as the radicals would do everything possible to sabotage any deal. If PA leaders accepted it-which they won't-or even appeared sympathetic, opposition to them within Fatah would increase.

It would be nice if those favoring or reporting on current policy mentioned these problems and tried to refute them in some way. Instead, they are usually just ignored. How can you write about an imposed solution and not even mention that little detail regarding Hamas! At least the Washington Post version--which as usual is superior to the Times reporting from Washington--says something about Gaza. But neither points out how this is a reversal of all previous American promises.

In reality, the United States would gain nothing and lose a great deal through such a strategy. What happens after the Obama Administration makes such an approach and it fails miserably? Where will its credibility in the region and its prestige at home be then?

After the British technical victory at the battle of Bunker Hill during the American revolution, suffering very heavy losses, a British officer wrote home: One more victory like this and there will be no one left to report it.

With the Obama Administration, having mishandled both Israel-Palestinian issues and sanctions against Iran (one could mention a few other foreign policy issues in this context), it could be said: One more initiative like this and there will be no one left in office. Even the New York Times editorial board won't be able to protect them. Can you say: One-term president?

Finally, one reason why I'd prefer that the administration did something right on foreign policy is so I could stop writing articles like this and find some good things to say about them. After all, the fact that the United States is doing so poorly in the world is bad for all freedom-loving peoples as well as the American people themselves. I beg the administration to stop being "one-sidedly" wrong so I can stop being "one-sidedly" critical. But I'm not holding my breath.


*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.
Posted by truth seeker at 2:28 PM 0 comments
\\


Now Obama let's in terrorists once barred

A University of Oxford professor once barred from entering the U.S. by the Bush administration for funding Hamas is back in New York, the Associated Press reports.

Tariq Ramadan, whose visa was revoked in 2004 as he prepared to take a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame, will speak in several major U.S. cities after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signed orders allowing his re-entry.
Posted by truth seeker at 5:41 AM 0 comments
Thursday, April 8, 2010
Obama’s Diplomatic War on Israel Is Just Getting Started

Obama’s Diplomatic War on Israel Is Just Getting Started

Jonathan Tobin - 04.07.2010 - 5:36 PM

Apparently, David Ignatius of the Washington Post isn’t the only recipient of White House leaks about an Obama peace plan. Helen Cooper of the New York Times chimed in with her own piece this afternoon about the president’s desire to jump into the negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

According to Cooper, the trigger for this latest instance of administration hubris was a recent gathering of former national-security advisers including Zbigniew Brzezinski, Brent Scowcroft, Samuel Berger, and Colin Powell, who were called in to consult with the president and his adviser General James L. Jones. The consensus (only Powell seems to have dissented) was that Obama must put forward his own scheme that would state exactly what the parameters of a peace deal would be. The idea is that peace can only be obtained by the United States imposing it on the parties. The plan is, of course, along the lines of past Israeli peace offers rejected by the Palestinians, plus extra Israeli concessions. The Palestinians give up their “right of return,” and Israel “would return to its 1967 borders,” including the one that divided Jerusalem, with only “a few negotiated settlements” as an exception. The supposed sweetener for Israel is that the United States or NATO, whose troops would be stationed along the Jordan River, would guarantee Israeli security.

Cheering from the sidelines is former Clinton staffer Robert Malley, who advised Obama on Middle East issues during the 2008 campaign until he was put aside to reassure Jewish voters worried about the Democrats having a man on staff who had served as an apologist for Yasser Arafat in the aftermath of the 2000 Camp David talks. For Malley, the logic of an American diktat is simple: “It’s not rocket science. If the U.S. wants it done, it will have to do it.”

This fits in with the messianic self-confidence of the president, and with the vision of his presidency that his staffers exude. They are not interested in the fact that such attempts have always failed because of Palestinian intransigence, or that such attempts have ultimately led to more, not less, violence. It isn’t clear whether they truly believe that weak figures like Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad can sign any peace deal that recognizes Israel’s existence within any borders. But the administration’s simmering resentment against Israel seems to be driving this development more than anything else. Even if such a plan failed, as it surely would, the mere exercise of attempting to shove it down a reluctant Israel’s throat would appear to be deeply satisfying to figures like Brzezinski and Malley and perhaps Obama, whose predilection for trumped-up bitter disputes with the Jewish state and its leaders is now an established fact.

The effort to leak this story to multiple outlets appears to be a continuation of Obama’s feud with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Having failed to make Netanyahu bend to his will on the building of homes in existing Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem, Obama is now raising the stakes by pointedly holding out the possibility that he will impose his own partition on Israel’s capital after the certain failure of the so-called “proximity talks” — so named because the Palestinians will not even sit in the same room to talk peace with Israelis.

It goes without saying that such a plan from Obama would, itself, constitute the baseline of future Arab demands on Israel because, as even Cooper points out, “once Mr. Obama puts American parameters on the table, the Palestinians will refuse to accept anything less.”

All this again raises the question of what Jewish Democrats think about all this. Some may have thought that Obama’s rage at Netanyahu and the histrionics that the president and his staff have engaged in during the last month was just a passing phase, to be forgotten as they moved on to other issues. But apparently, Obama’s anger at Israel and his desire to bring down Bibi and to force the Jewish state to surrender on Jerusalem has not diminished. Obama’s diplomatic war on Israel seems to be just beginning
Posted by truth seeker at 4:04 PM 0 comments
Palestinian terror, Obama encourages

How Do You Impose Peace?

Jennifer Rubin - 04.08.2010 - 8:45 AM

This report explains the latest Palestinian celebration of terrorism:

The future Palestinian Authority presidential compound will be built along a street named for an infamous Hamas arch-terrorist, Channel 10 reported on Wednesday.

The Ramallah street was named for notorious Hamas suicide bomb mastermind Yihyeh Ayyash, also known as the “engineer,” who was the architect of multiple attacks, including a 1994 bombing of a Tel Aviv bus, which killed 20 people, and injured dozens.

Ayyash was killed in 1996 in what was most likely an Israeli assassination, after his cell phone exploded in his Beit Lahia home, in the Gaza Strip.

Last time, the Palestinians pulled this – naming a square in Ramallah for terrorist Dalal al-Mughrabi, who killed 38 Israelis — Hillary Clinton tried to pass it off as the doing of Hamas, despite ample evidence that the PA joined in the festivities. It’s going to be even harder for the Obami to make excuses for the PA this time:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu released a statement in response to the naming, saying it was an “outrageous glorification of terrorism by the Palestinian Authority.”

“Right next to a Presidential compound in Ramallah, the Palestinian Authority has named a street after a terrorist who murdered hundreds of innocent Israeli men, women and children,” the statement said, adding that “the world must forcefully condemn this official Palestinian incitement for terrorism and against peace.”

So does the Obama team manage to get out a simple declaratory sentence this time — “We condemn this behavior,” for example? But more important, given this is the behavior and mentality of the PA — the supposedly reasonable Palestinian party to negotiations — how do the Obami intend to impose a peace deal? If one party is still caught in the grip of the cult of death, what reason is there to suppose that it is prepared to sign and then live up to an agreement by which they disarm and renounce terrorism?

At the AIPAC conference, Tony Blair laid out the challenge:

Until the year 2000, and with the heroic attempts of President Clinton, we attempted to achieve an agreement first and then shape reality around it. But it was not to be. After that came the Intifada. Thousands died. Then came the withdrawal from Gaza. Israel got out. It took 7000 settlers with it. In Israeli eyes, it received violence and terror in return.

The occupation deepened. Gaza was isolated. Faith in peace collapsed.

Ten years on, that faith has to be restored.

It can’t be done in a summit.

It has to be done patiently, and over time on the ground.

It can’t only be negotiated top-down.

It has also to be built bottom up.

Peace now will not come simply through an agreement negotiated; it must come through a reality created and sustained.

It means building institutions of Palestinian Government: not just well equipped, loyal security forces, but civil police, courts, prisons, prosecutors, the whole infrastructure of the rule of law.

It means treating those who commit acts of terror not only as enemies of Israel but enemies of Palestine.

Obviously, we are not remotely at that juncture – a point utterly lost or ignored by the Obami. So they imagine a pristine paper agreement will create peace — a notion so divorced from experience and so blind to the realities occurring daily that one is tempted to conclude, “They can’t be serious!” Blair got it when he declared: “The mentality has to move from resistance to governance. There can be no ambiguity, no wavering, no half heart towards terrorism. It is totally and completely without justification and we will never compromise in our opposition to it or those that practice it.” The Obami don’t.

It therefore follows that the Obami’s indifference to that fundamental requirement for peace disqualifies them as competent interlocutors. They are neither “honest” nor “brokering” — they have become henchmen for the Palestinians who await deliverance of the Jewish state — or what remains of it — without need to root out and renounce violence, without cultivation of the Palestinian institutions that can sustain peace. Israel and its supporters should be clear: there is no role for this administration in any peace process — they are, in fact merely, establishing incentives for violence and Palestinian rejectionism
Posted by truth seeker at 4:03 PM 0 comments
How Obama ignores past agreements and encourages Palestinian negativity

Peace Plan No. 6

Rick Richman - 04.08.2010 - 11:09 AM

Asked about the Washington Post story in which it was reported that the administration is considering its own Middle East peace plan, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley issued a non-denial/denial yesterday, in which the operative words were “at this point”:

I would steer you away from the idea that we are — we’re going to try to, at this point, impose a particular view on the parties … our focus right now is getting them into the proximity talks, into negotiations, and then we’ll see what happens after that. [Emphasis added]

The “peace process” has not suffered from an insufficient number of plans. In the past decade, we have had five of them: (1) the Israeli two-state plan presented at Camp David in July 2000 — rejected by the Palestinians; (2) the Clinton Parameters presented in December 2000 — rejected by the Palestinians; (3) the 2003 Roadmap, calling for the dismantlement of Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist groups as Phase I — ignored by the Palestinians; (4) the 2005 Gaza disengagement, giving the Palestinians a Judenrein Gaza to start their state — which produced a rocket war on Israeli civilians; and (5) the 2007-08 Annapolis Process, a plan for year-long final-status negotiations resulting in still another Israeli offer of a state — rejected by the Palestinians.

Even a casual observer can spot the problem here, and it is not the absence of a plan.

The Gaza disengagement was the result of a deal in which Israel withdrew every soldier and settler from Gaza (and dismantled four settlements in the West Bank to demonstrate it would be Gaza first, not Gaza last) in exchange for explicit American promises about the future of the peace process. The first of those promises was that the U.S. would neither impose its own plan nor allow others to do so.

The U.S. letter memorializing the deal assured Israel that the U.S. would do its utmost to “prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other plan” than the Roadmap (emphasis added). Sharon was concerned that Israel might eventually be pressured to accept something like the Geneva Accord (then being touted by Jimmy Carter), pushing Israel back to the indefensible 1967 borders. The second promise was a reiteration of the “steadfast commitment” by the U.S. to “defensible borders” for Israel.

The coming U.S. plan will violate both of those promises, and the prospect of such a plan will eliminate any incentive for the Palestinians to do anything other than wait for it — secure in the knowledge that the current U.S. administration does not feel bound by any prior commitments to Israel
Posted by truth seeker at 4:01 PM 0 comments
Obama plan will undermine Israel

Pres. Obama Trial balloon of Obama's Mideast plan rejected by Israel, criticized by experts

Prime Minister Netanyahu spoke out:
Israel will not accept a Middle East peace agreement that is forced on it by external forces.

The idea of a U.S.-imposed peace plan to solve the Israel-Palestinian conflict raised an immediate outcry from pro-Israel commentators.

Elliott Abrams, writing at the Weekly Standard, lays the problems out clearly:
The inability of Israelis and Palestinians to get to the negotiating table is, in this administration, an iatrogenic disease: Our diplomatic doctors have caused it. The astonishing incompetence of Obama and special envoy George Mitchell has now twice blown up talks-direct talks last year, and proximity talks more recently-by making Israeli construction plans a major world crisis, thereby forcing Palestinian leaders to back away from engagement with the Israelis. So the administration will, in the fall, just do it the simpler way. Why bother with Israelis and Palestinians, in whom the president apparently does not have "growing confidence," when you can just have your own brilliant team draw up the terms? As Ignatius's sources, "two top administration officials," tell him, "everyone knows the basic outlines of a peace deal."

This is false and dangerous. First, if indeed everyone has known the terms for nearly 20 years (since Oslo) yet agreement has never been reached, is it not obvious that neither Israelis nor Palestinians are willing and able to accept those terms? Does their embrace by an ambitious American president make them any more palatable to the people who will have to live with them? Second, the conclusion that all the terms are known is quite wrong. Is the fate of Jerusalem's Old City agreed? Do Palestinians accept that Israel will keep every major settlement bloc? Do Israelis and Palestinians agree on the terms needed to guarantee Israel's security once the IDF must leave the West Bank? (Examples: Is it agreed that Israel will control the air space and electromagnetic spectrum? Is it agreed that Israel can keep troops in the West Bank for some years? Do Palestinians accept that Israel can control the Jordan Valley and patrol the border with Jordan?) This is nonsense. One of Ignatius's sources says the Obama plan will "take on the absolute requirements of Israeli security." After 14 months of harassment by Obama and his team, will any Israeli risk his nation's safety on that assurance?

A tell-tale: One of the demands that Obama is said to have made of Prime Minister Netanyahu is withdrawal to the pre-intifada (September 2000) IDF lines in the West Bank. This is striking, for the demand apparently is not to promise a future withdrawal, or a staged withdrawal as and when conditions permit, but simply to pull back now. This means ignoring security conditions on the ground and the current capabilities of Palestinian forces to keep order and stop terrorism, or it means assuming that the Palestinian forces are adequate. If they are not, well, so what, there will be a few acts of terror, and then we'll see that maybe they pulled back too far too fast. Everyone makes mistakes. These are the kinds of calculations that persuade Israelis the administration is cavalier about their security, despite the occasional repetition of campaign pledges to the contrary.
READ MORE

MORE RESPONSES:

Jen Rubin at Commentary:
This is poppycock, of course. The Obami can't come up with an effective Iran approach. And now they want to add to their overwhelmed and underperforming foreign-policy apparatus by imposing a Middle East plan? It is apparent that the latter is an excuse and diversion from doing anything about the former. It is also very dangerous.

Barry Rubin:
First, high-ranking administration officials are not exactly deeply understanding of the issues at stake. Any plan presented by them will be full of holes and dangerous errors. Second, the notion that they can solve this issue and the whole Middle East will fall into place is absurd.

Dennis Glick and Daniel Mariaschin:
The harsh language, unfair demands, and collateral damage the administration has engaged in over these last few weeks sends the wrong message to the wrong people: That the ties that bind the U.S.-Israel friendship are fraying. In the rush to achieve a solution within 24 months, as some administration leaders have proposed, we must avoid inviting further instability in the region. The administration's impatience, in the form of its harsh criticism and unilateral demands, is misdirected. An incomplete and ill-conceived peace plan will whet the appetites of those whose interests are inimical to peace.

The Orthodox Union writes a letter of solidarity to Prime Minister Netanyahu

AND YET, OBAMA'S JEWISH APOLOGISTS AT J STREET EGG HIM ON:
If there is any lesson from the last 20 years of Middle East peacemaking (or the last year of the Israelis and Palestinians talking about possibly talking about talks, for that matter), it is that the parties themselves are incapable of resolving this decades-long conflict on their own. They will need a strong American presence at the table, suggesting bridging proposals to resolve impasses and providing the political support for the hard choices that will be necessary. And as the window for achieving a two-state solution grows ever smaller, there is no time to lose.
Posted by truth seeker at 3:56 PM 0 comments
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
ok with nuclear iran

Obama: A nuclear Iran inevitable

By HERB KEINON AND JPOST.COM STAFF
06/04/2010


US President said "current course would provide them with nuclear capabilities."

It is inevitable that Iran will produce nuclear weapons, as things stand, US President Barack Obama said on Monday, in an interview with The New York Times. Seeming to indicate his administration was now resigned to a future including a nuclear-armed Iran.

President Obama stated he was now convinced that “the current course they’re on would provide them with nuclear weapons capabilities,” though he gave no timeline.

He dodged when asked whether he shared Israel’s view that a “nuclear capable” Iran was as dangerous as one that actually possessed weapons.

Thursday, April 1, 2010
Obma and NYT team up by Barry Rubin

But again what has happened to make the question Netanyahu's ability or willingness to make a peace deal. Here are the total charges against him: The announcement of building a set of apartments, for which he apologized, and another regarding 20 additional apartments.

It's not as if he and his colleagues daily broadcast incitement to murder people on the other side through schools, sermons, and speeches. It's not as if they refused to negotiate at all month after month. It's not as if they released or did not incarcerate extremists who murdered civilians on the other side. (Actually they did release prisoners who murdered civilians but they were Palestinian prisoners who murdered Israelis.) It's not as if they don't even control half the territory for which they purport to bargain.

Those are all characteristics of the PA, things the Times does not even mention. And if the administration or the Times wanted to take offense at anti-peace actions they could mention that at the time of Biden's visit the PA dedicated a major square to a terrorist who murdered a score of Israeli civilians and Gail Rubin, a U.S. citizen and niece of then Senator Abraham Ribicoff. Not only did the Administration not protest this action but Clinton mistakenly attributed it to Hamas in her AIPAC speech.

Consequently, this editorial is not merely slanted; it is so profoundly dishonest, distorting both the Palestinian and the Obama Administration role, as to be suitable to that published in a state-controlled newspaper in a dictatorship.

Once--and perhaps again in the not-distant future--the U.S.-Israel link was called a "special relationship" because it was so close. Now it is still distinctive in a special way: Israel is the only country in the world--a list that includes none of those countries sponsoring anti-American terror or trying to destroy U.S. interests--that this administration, perhaps only temporarily, wants to intimidate and defeat.

But is this all about Israel or is it about the desperation to defend an administration which has failed so badly and acted so erratically in foreign policy?

By so misrepresenting the facts and situation, some media can go on defending Obama's policies and actions. But that's no way to defend America and its interests, quite the contrary.

*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal.
Posted by truth seeker at 12:08 PM 0 comments
Monday, March 29, 2010
Obama is causing a third intifafda

Where did the “education” take place?

http://danielgordis.org/2010/03/26/obama-intifada/


Will Barack Obama Ignite the Third Intifada?

Posted by Daniel Gordis in Featured Articles on March 26, 2010 | 37 responses

As I was departing the United States following a brief visit last week, the news being broadcast in the airport was preoccupied with Prime Minister Binyamin’s Netanyahu’s recent and apparently inadvertent snub of Vice President Joe Biden. Some 11 hours later, when I’d landed in Tel Aviv and was listening to the radio in the taxi on the way to Jerusalem, the news was of rioting in Jerusalem, the numbers of police officers injured, and the number of protesters detained during Hamas’s “Day of Rage.” On the American news, Hillary Clinton was calling for more than an apology, demanding “concrete steps” towards peace on Israel’s part. And in Israel, the fluent-Hebrew-speaking Arab protester interviewed on the radio was calling for armed resistance to Israel’s “assault on Jerusalem,” insisting that the time for a third intifada had now arrived.

The radical difference between the broadcasts is an apt metaphor for the wholly different ways in which the current crisis in Israeli-American relations is perceived on the two sides of the ocean. The Americans are quite right to be incensed at the way Biden was treated. Whether Netanyahu was sandbagged by Interior Minister Eli Yishai, or whether this was simply another example of Israeli bureaucratic incompetence is not yet entirely clear. But it should never have happened.

Having said that, however, it is also clear that in the context of a generally positive relationship, Israel’s insult to Biden would have been unfortunate, but it would have blown over almost immediately. The snub has had such massive repercussions because the relationship between the American and Israeli administrations is frayed, and wholly devoid of trust. The important question is why that is the case.

WHILE ISRAEL has obviously made some serious gaffes since Obama entered office, the real cause for this nadir in Washington-Jerusalem relations is the fact that Barack Obama seems to have little comprehension of the region on which he seeks to impose peace. The president’s ignorance of the world in which he is operating is apparent on at least three levels. He seems unaware of how profoundly troubled Israelis are by his indiscriminate use of the word “settlement,” he appears to have little comprehension of the history of Palestinian recalcitrance, and he has apparently learned little from decades of American involvement in the Middle East peace process.

First, there is the issue of the word “settlements.” To the Israeli ear, anyone who would use the same noun for both a small city with tens of thousands of inhabitants and for a tiny hilltop outpost consisting of a trailer and a portable generator simply does not understand the terrain. Gilo, to Israelis, is not a settlement. It is a huge neighborhood of Jerusalem, a part of the capital city. When Obama called Gilo a settlement after Israel announced new housing units there in November, Israelis drew the conclusion that the president of the United States is wholly out of his element.

Similarly, Obama’s demands for an absolute freeze on settlement construction strike Israelis as either foolish or unfair. Why, they ask, did all construction have to cease? Israelis who had planned to add a bedroom to their home for recently married children, who had already poured a foundation and ripped out the back wall of their home, were now told that nothing could proceed. When the president, who does not seem to know a city from an outpost, insists that houses remain open to the elements during the cold Israeli winter because of his desire to appease the very Palestinians who have never been serious about peace efforts, he does not win friends.

Nor, Israelis have noted, did Obama demand any similarly concrete concessions from the Palestinians or their puppet-president. That, too, has served Obama poorly in this country. And despite all this, Israelis believe the world has forgotten, Netanyahu acceded to Obama’s demands for a freeze, at no small political cost.

Thus, when the Americans decided to make the undeniably ill-timed announcement of the Ramat Shlomo housing plans into a cause célèbre, Israelis were hard-pressed to feel contrite about anything beyond the personal hurt caused to Biden. Ramat Shlomo is an enormous neighborhood that is already home to some 20,000 people, and which is situated between the even larger neighborhoods of Ramot and Sanhedria. Ramat Shlomo is Jerusalem, period. Building there may be wise or unwise for a whole array of reasons, but for the Americans to seize on this as a “settlement construction” issue only further confirmed Israeli suspicions that Obama couldn’t locate the neighborhood on a map.

THE SECOND major element that Obama appears not to understand is that the Palestinians’ current refusal to conduct face-to-face negotiations has a long history; their recalcitrance has nothing at all to do with the settlements. The settlements, like the refugee problem (on which Israel will never compromise), and the division of Jerusalem (where some accommodation will almost certainly be forced on Israel), will be addressed when the Israelis and Palestinians sit down for face-to-face negotiations.

But Abbas has agreed only to mediated talks because he is unwilling to countenance the concessions that direct talks might ultimately require of him. The Palestinians have balked at every attempt to sign a substantive agreement with Israel. There remains virtually no Israeli political Left, not because of the Israeli Right, but because Yasser Arafat unleashed the Second Intifada when Ehud Barak called his bluff and offered him just about everything he could have expected, proving beyond any doubt that the Palestinian leadership had no interest in “land for peace.”

For the Obama administration to suggest that the Palestinians cannot negotiate now because of settlement construction strikes Israelis as either hopelessly naïve, or worse, fundamentally hostile to the Jewish state.

And finally, despite his appreciable intellectual capacities, Barack Obama seems to have no appreciation of what America can and cannot do in the Middle East. He believes so deeply in the power of his own rhetoric that he imagines that he can evoke the passions of Grant Park on Election Day, or the Washington Mall on Inauguration Day, in a Muslim world that has disdain for the very democratic values that brought him to power. This is hubris at its most dangerous. Obama’s Cairo speech was rhetorically brilliant, but the president has been snubbed. Iran has yet to grasp Obama’s outstretched hand, and instead, proceeds apace in its quest for a nuclear weapon. The Palestinians have not budged. Yet Obama continues to believe that his eloquence will win the day.

Does Obama really not understand that this conflict has a long and consistent history? The Arabs rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947, and refused a treaty at the end of Israel’s War of Independence in 1949. After their defeat in June 1967, they gathered in Khartoum and declared “no peace, no recognition and no negotiations.” Arafat said “no” at Camp David in 2000, and Abbas continues in that tradition. Why the American administration cannot or will not acknowledge that is one of the great wonders of this most recent train wreck.

WITH HIS laser focus on the settlements, Obama is ignoring the fact that Abbas wouldn’t negotiate even if not a single settlement existed. In so doing, Obama has not only not moved the process forward, but he has afforded Abbas a refuge from responsibility, and he has given those who would like to ignite a third intifada an empty but symbolically powerful excuse for doing just that. A third intifada remains unlikely at present (though, it’s worth noting, the IAF attacked Gaza targets this week and the IDF killed a Palestinian teenager during a scuffle – precisely the sort of innocuous events that could one day be seen as the first events of the third intifada), but should it happen, it will be, first and foremost, the product of Washington’s naïveté.

Obama would be well-served to recognize that the history of this region is clear. Peace emerges when the two primary sides do the work themselves, with the United States entering late in the process to iron out stubborn details. Sadat went to Jerusalem without American urging, and though Jimmy Carter ultimately brought the two sides together to conclude the deal, the bulk of the work had been done by Sadat and Begin long before Carter entered the picture. The Nobel Committee, which once exercised much more subtle judgment, essentially acknowledged that fact by having Sadat and Begin split the 1978 Nobel Peace Prize, without including Carter.

The same was true with Rabin and Hussein, who worked on the Israeli-Jordanian peace deal. Clinton orchestrated the ceremony; but the principals had done most of the work without him.

And history suggests that only Israeli right-wingers can forge a deal. Israelis do not trust the Left to be security-conscious, and a left-wing government always has a right-wing flank blocking it. Obama may bristle at Netanyahu’s hawkish rhetoric, but the more Obama weakens this prime minister, the less likely a deal will become. The US cannot wish democracy on Iraq, or peace on the Middle East. There will be a settlement of this conflict when the Palestinians are ready, not when Barack Obama decides to impose one.

SO, WHERE do we go from here? To begin to pull out of the present nose-dive, each of the parties will need to shift gears.

The Palestinians have to decide if they will take risks for peace, and if they can elect a president who is more than a figurehead. Last week’s “Day of Rage,” it should be noted, was called by Hamas – yet it unfolded not in Hamas’ Gaza, but in Fatah’s Jerusalem. Fatah needs a genuine leader, perhaps someone like Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who is now saying that the Palestinians should first build the trappings of statehood, and only then declare independence down the road. It is no surprise that Shimon Peres recently compared Fayyad to David Ben-Gurion, the creator of the modern State of Israel.

The Israelis need to learn to play in the major leagues. When the American vice president visits, you need to have your act together. If Israeli leaders continue to act as if they run a banana republic, they will deservedly be so treated. But much more significantly, Netanyahu needs to apprise Israelis of his vision. Does he favor a two-state solution? What are his plans for Jerusalem? For the settlements? Let him tell us, and then we can decide. If we approve, he’ll stay in office. And if we don’t, he’ll be gone. But we deserve to know what our prime minister has in mind.

In some respects, though, Barack Obama has the hardest job, at least in the short term. When he took office, there was no love lost between the Israelis and the Palestinians, and Gaza was still smoldering from the recently concluded Operation Cast Lead. But there was reasonable quiet on the West Bank and in Jerusalem, and a renewed Intifada was nowhere on our radar screen. Obama’s blunderings have now restored the region’s previous tinderbox qualities.

The president needs to back down from his relentless and fruitless focus on settlements, and concentrate more on what he doesn’t yet know than on the power of his rhetoric. Should another intifada erupt, it will have had its seeds in a Washington more interested in the magic of its words than in the painful lessons of a century of history.
Posted by truth seeker at 7:45 AM 0 comments
Obama declared diplomatic war on Israel

Has the Obama Administration, Against U.S. Interests, Declared Diplomatic War on Israel?

By Barry Rubin*

March 29, 2010

http://www.gloria-center.org/gloria/2010/03/has-the-obama-administration

Has the Obama Administration, against U.S. interests, declared diplomatic war on Israel?

Up to now my view has been that the U.S. government didn't want a crisis but merely sought to get indirect negotiations going between Israel and Palestinians in order to look good.

Even assuming this limited goal, the technique was to keep getting concessions from Israel without asking the PA to do or give anything has been foolish, but at least it was a generally rational strategy.

But now it has become reasonable to ask whether the Obama White House is running amuck on Israel, whether it is pushing friction so far out of proportion that it is starting to seem a vendetta based on hostility and ideology. And if that's true, there is little Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu or any Israeli leader can do to fix the problem.

A partial explanation of such behavior can be called, to borrow a phrase from the health law debate, a "single-payer option" as its Middle East strategy. That is, the administration seems to envision Israel paying for everything: supposedly to get the Palestinian Authority (PA) to talks, do away with any Islamist desire to carry out terrorism or revolution, keep Iraq quiet, make Afghanistan stable, and solve just about any other global problem.

What makes this U.S. tactic even more absurd is doing so at the very moment when it is coddling Syria and losing the battle for anything but the most minimal sanctions on Iran.

During his visit to Washington, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to defuse the tension. His partners in government, we should never forget, are Defense Minister Ehud Barak, leader of the Labour Party, and President Shimon Peres, who has done more to promote Middle East peace than any other living Israeli leader.

But according to reliable sources, Obama went out of his way to be personally hostile, treating Netanyahu like some colonial minion who could be ordered around.

It is not entirely clear what demands the White House has made on Israel. Those most often mentioned are the release of more Palestinian prisoners, the permanent end of construction in the West Bank, and the permanent end to construction in parts of Jerusalem over the pre-1967 border.

Palestinian prisoners: It is ironic, given U.S. statements that Israel must "prove" its commitment to peace, that there have been so many prisoner releases in the past. Thus, Washington is not giving Israel credit for these. Moreover, many of those arrested have committed terrorism against Israeli civilians in the past and may well do so in future. Finally, releasing prisoners will not bring any gratitude from the PA or increased willingness to negotiate. If such a release is forced, the PA will merely assume that it doesn't matter if Palestinians attrack or kill Israelis because Washington will secure the release of those captured in future without the PA having to do anything.

West Bank and Jerusalem Construction: Only five months ago, the U.S. government agreed to a temporary halt to construction and Israel's government agreed. If this did not prove Israel's commitment to peace--and the White House broke the deal--why should Israel assume that it will get any credit for this step either? What is its incentive for such a big concession? Such construction should give the PA an incentive to make a deal faster. But, again, if this goal is achieved by U.S. pressure, why shouldn't the PA presume that all settlements will be removed in future by a similar mechanism without its having to make full peace and any concessions?

I won't take space here to restate all the arguments regarding Israel's claims to areas of Jerusalem under Jordanian rule before 1967. Note that President Clinton, in the Camp David and Clinton plan proposals in 2000, supported Israeli rule over much--though definitely not all--of east Jerusalem.
Why should the administration believe that it can press Israel to make big concessions, a: with no PA concessions; b. with its U.S. ally showing itself so unreliable that it is unlikely to credit Israel with concessions it does make or to keep agreements based on Israeli concessions; and c. at a time when the U.S. government is not workin very hard to stop Iran's nuclear weapons campaign?

The one answer the administration gives is so factually inaccurate as to call into question--if I may coin a phrase--its analytical sanity.

Judging from the evidence, such as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's AIPAC speech, the administration thinks it can force Israel's government to give in because it knows better what Israelis want than do Netanyahu, Barak, and Peres.

Actually, a poll by the highly respected Smith Research company for the Jerusalem Post, found that only 9 percent of Israeli Jews considered the administration pro-Israel, while 48 percent said it was more pro-Palestinian. To understand these figures, you have to know that most Israelis are very reluctant to say anything critical of the United States, out of genuine respect, concern not to damage relations, and speaking on the basis of their hopes.

So does the administration want to resolve this issue or to break Israel's willpower? Is it going to keep piling on demands in hope of giving the PA so much that it will agree to talk about getting itself even more unilateral Israeli concessions? Is the goal to overthrow Netanyahu-which isn't going to happen-or turn him into a servant who will follow orders in future-which also isn't going to happen?

Doesn't this U.S. government understand that if it proves itself hostile that will destroy any incentive Israel has to enter negotiations with Obama as the mediator? If he's this much acting solely based on PA interests now, does any Israeli government want to make him the arbitor of the country's future, deciding on its borders, security guarantees, and other existential issues? Of course not.

By the same token, can't he comprehend that he is giving the PA every incentive to keep raising the price, especially since it doesn't want to talk any way?

Is there no real sense--probably not--that if this administration undermines Israel's trust in Washington it will push the whole country further to the right. If the U.S. government politely asks to stop building in east Jerusalem in exchange for some tangible benefit and for a limited time, lots of Israelis would be willing to agree. But if this happens in a framework of enmity and threat, with the "reward" being no benefit and even more concessions to follow, even doves will grow sharp beaks.

It seems as if the Obama Administration has chosen just one country in the world to try to pressure and intimidate. And it has picked the worst possible target in this respect, both because of how Israelis think and also given very strong domestic U.S. support for Israel (especially strong in Congress).

Won't it see that if it bashes Israel while ignoring the PA's commemoration of a major square in honor of a terrorist who murdered a score of Israeli civilians, with Clinton even claiming this was done by Hamas and not the PA? And as the administration betrays Israel's main priority-failing to put serious pressure on Iran to stop building nuclear weapons-why should Israel want to do big favors and take big risks for this president?

Finally, since this administration has already unilaterally abrogated two major U.S. promises-the previous president's recognition that settlement blocs could be absorbed by Israel as part of a peace agreement, and the Obama administration's own pledge to let Israel build in east Jerusalem if it stopped on the West Bank-why should it put its faith in some new set of promises?

So the Obama Administration will have to decide, and do so in the coming days.

Does it want to try to get some limited concessions from Israel to use as capital in trying to get talks started, using these to brag--futilely, of course--to Arabs and Muslims how they should be nicer to the administration in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Or does it want to live up to the negative stereotypes held by its worst enemies while simultaneously committing political suicide and destroying U.S. credibility in the Middle East. We will know the answer pretty soon.

*Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), with Walter Laqueur (Viking-Penguin); the paperback edition of The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan); A Chronological History of Terrorism, with Judy Colp Rubin, (Sharpe); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley). To read and subscribe to MERIA, GLORIA articles, or to order books, go to http://www.gloria-center.org.
Posted by truth seeker at 7:43 AM 0 comments
Sunday, March 28, 2010
Obama's war against Israel

Barack Hussein Obama II?s War Against Israel
Posted By Pamela Geller On March 25, 2010 @ 4:43 pm In Featured Story, Hol=
ocaust, Israel, Obama | 225 Comments

Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was in the U.S. and met with Bar=
ack Obama in the White House, but you won?t find any photos of Netanyahu=
with Obama on the wire services. There aren?t any. Obama wouldn?t allow=
it. Politico reported:

But the meetings were shrouded in unusual secrecy, in part because U.S. of=
ficials, who just ten days earlier called the surprise announcement of new=
housing in East Jerusalem an ?insult? and an ?affront,? made sure to rewa=
rd Netanyahu with a series of small snubs: There were no photographs relea=
sed from the meeting, and no briefing for the press.

He bows to the Saudi king, he shakes hands warmly with his ?amigo? Chavez,=
but he won?t be seen with the leader of the only democracy in the Middle=
East, and our only reliable ally there.

And this comes after he has put unprecedented strain on the U.S./Israel al=
liance by pressuring Israel for allowing Jews to build homes on Jewish lan=
d, and blaming Israel for the conflict with the Palestinians Muslims.

Obama is not a passive, weak or naive player in the Muslim/Jewish conflict=
. He was wet-nursed on Jew-hatred. He grew up in a Muslim country and stud=
ied the Koran. He knows what is prescribed for the Jews in Islam. He knows=
that the Koran says that the Jews are the Muslims? worst enemies (5:82)=
and that ?ignominy shall be their portion wheresoever they are found? (3:=
112).
He knows that Islamic tradition records Muhammad saying:

The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jew=
s and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves beh=
ind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the serv=
ant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gh=
arqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.

He must know all this, and yet has never renounced it. On the contrary, he=
embraces it, calling upon us to ?respect? Islam.

I am staggered by the speed with which Obama has sought to undermine the=
Jewish people. But knowing what I know of him after my three years of inv=
estigation for the book I wrote with Robert Spencer, The Post-American Pre=
sidency: The Obama Administration?s War on America [1], I expected nothing=
different. In the summer of 2008, I trekked to Florida to warn the alter=
cockers who were seduced by the idea of Obama, but to no avail: my voice=
and the voices of those like me are kept neatly tucked away in the blog=
box.

But now here we are. Jews may then have tried to avoid Obama?s anti-Semiti=
sm, but they cannot now avoid the consequences of avoiding Obama?s anti-Se=
mitism. He has unleashed an evil in this world the extent of which we are=
only now beginning to see. He has made the world safe for haters and kill=
ers. The post-World War II peace was no accident; it was a direct result=
of American hegemony. But now he is following the European lead and unrav=
eling it. Europe learned the wrong lessons from the war and the Holocaust.=
The lesson that Europe decided to take from Auschwitz was that everything=
was caused by nationalism. European leaders decided that therefore what=
they really needed was a European Union that would obviate their need for=
nationalism and prevent another Auschwitz.

They took all the wrong lessons from World War II and continue to apply th=
em, while ignoring the only lesson that?s really relevant from World War=
II, which is that you have to choose good and defend good, and fight with=
the intention of defeating evil. We have to be able and willing to make=
moral distinctions and stand up for the good and fight evil ? and that is=
something that both the Europeans and Obama refuse to do.

Nationalism isn?t evil. British nationalism hasn?t been evil. French natio=
nalism isn?t evil. Polish nationalism isn?t evil. American nationalism was=
n?t evil and has never been evil. Contrary to Obama?s actions, American ex=
ceptionalism [2] isn?t evil.

But what did the Jews learn from the Holocaust? What does ?never again? me=
an? Why does the Holocaust Museum in Washington, D.C., cover up the crimes=
of the Muslim world and the Mufti of Jerusalem [3] in the execution of th=
e Holocaust? Why does the State of Israel not fight global anti-Semitism?=
Why is Islamic anti-Semitism not decried from the pulpits and the bimas=
of the shuls and Hebrew schools across the Jewish world? Why aren?t Rober=
t Spencer, Bat Ye?or, and Ibn Warraq mandatory reading in Jewish day schoo=
ls? How can we fight a mortal enemy that promises our annihilation when we=
dare not speak its name?

The Jewish people, both in Israel and the diaspora, seem to be suffering=
from the Stockholm Syndrome. There can be no logical reason why an Americ=
an Jew could intellectually excuse Obama?s twenty-year friendship and clos=
eness with the anti-Semitic Farrakhan acolyte Jeremiah Wright. There is no=
way an American Jew could explain away or rationalize Obama?s connections=
to Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, and know=
about those connections without knowing what was coming. These Jews (and=
our history is plagued with them) love ideas, not people. They are so mar=
ried to their dogma, their ideology, that they cannot, will not, see what=
is right in front of them. They worship at the church of human secularism=
. That is their religion. They have no G-d. They are merely wearing a Jewi=
sh coat, but do not speak for Jews.

It is the curse of the Jewish people historically to be betrayed by our ow=
n. This is the deepest cut of all. The kinderlach, the mamas, the tatas,=
the bubbies and zadies, shvestas and bruders who were tortured and died=
unspeakable deaths are crying out to you. Are we so broken a people that=
they shall have died in vain, for nothing?

The six million looked like you, laughed like you, denied like you. The si=
x million loved their country ? some were war heroes for Germany in World=
War I. They too thought the fringe would stay relegated to the margins of=
society.

The six million are cold in their graves, weeping for what awaits you.

The only difference between American Jews of the 2000s and the European Je=
ws of the 1930s is Israel. This is what separates you from the dehumanizat=
ion, the oven, the end. A Jewish homeland is the thin blue and white line=
between civilized men and bloodthirsty savages.

And look what Barack Obama is doing to the Jewish homeland. This is the sa=
me ?Stephen Wise [4]? Jewish mentality that sold us out and delivered us=
into the hands of the Third Reich during WWII. It was Wise who prevailed,=
not Peter Bergson [5].

Will the American diaspora repeat the same ghastly mistake again, while Sh=
oah victims still walk the earth?

Article printed from Big Journalism: http://bigjournalism.com
Posted by truth seeker at 5:48 AM 0 comments
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Dangers of Obama's failed Middle East policy

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/267326


The Error-Ridden Obama Middle East Policy

Jennifer Rubin - 03.27.2010 - 8:00 AM

In a must-read analysis of the Obami assault on Israel, Elliott Abrams writes:

Since the Oslo Accords of 1993, 17 years of efforts under three American presidents and six Israeli prime ministers have taught five clear lessons. Each of them is being ignored by President Obama, which is why his own particular “peace process” has so greatly harmed real efforts at peace. Today the only factor uniting Palestinian, Israeli, and Arab leaders is distrust of the quality, sagacity, and reliability of American leadership in the region.

The lessons Abrams enumerates suggest that we are in for a dangerous and destabilizing period in which the U.S.-Israeli alliance is torn asunder. First in the list of grievous errors: rather than provide Israel with security and reassurance, the Obami are out to bludgeon the Jewish state to cough up concessions:

During the George W. Bush years, the leader of the Israeli right, Ariel Sharon, decided to abandon the idea of a “Greater Israel,” impose constraints on settlement construction in the West Bank (no new settlements, no outward expansion of settlement territory), and remove every settlement in Gaza and four small ones in the West Bank. His closest advisers say all of this was possible for him only in the context of unwavering American support for Israel’s security steps—including the targeting and killing of Hamas terrorists and the refusal to deal with a terrorist leader like Arafat. What was the turning point for Sharon? Bush’s June 24, 2002, speech, where he abandoned Arafat, denounced Palestinian terrorism, and said thorough reforms were the only possible basis for Palestinian statehood. Reassured, Sharon began to act.

Contrast this with the Obama administration, where Israel has been “condemned”—the toughest word in the diplomatic dictionary—for a housing project.

Second, the Obami have failed to hold the Palestinians accountable for their own behavior or make any demands that one would ordinarily place on a party to a negotiation:

Had there been early and regular insistence that incitement end, the Mughrabi incident would never have taken place. The price for such negligence is being paid in both Israeli and Palestinian society: Every such action and every vicious broadcast helps persuade Israelis that Palestinians do not truly seek peace and helps raise a new generation of Palestinians who see Jews as enemies to hate, not neighbors with whom to reach an accommodation. This infantilization of Palestinian society, moreover, moves it further from the responsibilities of statehood, for it holds harmless the most destructive elements of West Bank life and suggests that standards of decency are not necessarily part of progress toward “peace.”

Coupled with these errors is the inordinate fixation on the Palestinian conflict, as the Iran menace goes unchecked. (”Arab leaders want to know what we will do to stop Iran; they want to know if their ally in Washington is going to be the top power in the region. Israelis wonder where the “uh oh, this will make Islamic extremists angry” argument stops. Does anyone think al-Qaeda or the Taliban would be mollified by a settlement freeze?”) And then we see the obsession with what has surely become a counterproductive peace process: “First, it means we care more about getting Syria, Egypt, or others to endorse some negotiating plan than we do about their own internal situations. . . . Second, we use all our chips for the negotiating sessions, instead of applying them to the hard work of nation building. We ask Arab states to reach out to Israel (which they will not do) when we should be demanding that they reach out to the Palestinians (which they might).”

In assessing all of this, one can’t but conclude that the errors are too fundamental and too serious to be easily reversed. It is not as if the problem were a stray comment or a clumsy encounter or one misguided adviser. It is rather the confluence of all of the bad judgments and ill-conceived ideas, which Abrams sets forth, surely held near and dear by the president himself, that have brought about the current crisis in U.S.-Israeli relations. The fixation on fruitless peace processing is not unique to the Obama administration, but has become a far more dangerous endeavor in combination with the Obami’s infatuation with the Palestinian bargaining stance and their determination to muscle Israel into concessions. It’s one thing to have fruitless talks in which the Israelis need not fear the American interlocutors; it’s quite another to be dragged to the table fearing that the Obami have in a very real sense bought into the Palestinian victimology and have become their agent rather than the proverbial “honest broker.”

The results of the Obami’s error-ridden approach are becoming apparent with each passing day: more international attacks on the legitimacy of the Jewish state and its right to self defense (Obama does it, why shouldn’t they?), the reinforcement of the Palestinian rejectionist mentality, and the looming danger of a nuclear-armed Iran, to which the U.S. has no serious response. The Obami are not simply placing Israel at risk; they are marginalizing the U.S. as a bulwark against the terror-sponsoring states of Iran and Syria and against despotic regimes far from the Middle East (they too are watching the Obami’s conduct and drawing lessons). And along the way, we have forfeited that credibility which Clinton told AIPAC the U.S. was so concerned about.

What must friends and foes think, after all, when we abandon our ally, when we ignore violent provocations, when we water down to thin gruel any response to the mullahs, and when we ignore the human-rights atrocities throughout the Muslim World? They see, sadly, the reality of the Obama White House — an administration that is frittering away America’s standing in the world and fast losing its reputation as a defender of democracy, human rights, and freedom. Israel is the immediate victim, but the entire world will become more dangerous and less free as a result.
Posted by truth seeker at 12:46 PM 0 comments
Mitchell ok'd building in Jerusalem

It was only two months ago that George Mitchell had the following colloquy with Charlie Rose about the demand for a settlement freeze in Jerusalem:

GEORGE MITCHELL: … So what we got was a moratorium, ten months, far less than what was requested, but more significant than any action taken by any previous government of Israel for the 40 years that settlement enterprise has existed. …

CHARLIE ROSE: And you and Secretary Clinton praised Prime Minister Netanyahu for agreeing to that.

MITCHELL: Yes.

ROSE: It does not include East Jerusalem. There’ve been announcement in the last 48 hours of new settlement construction in East Jerusalem where the Palestinians want to make their capital.

MITCHELL: Yes.

ROSE: And it’s in the midst of Palestinians.

MITCHELL: … But for the Israelis, what they’re building in is in part of Israel.

Now, the others don’t see it that way. So you have these widely divergent perspectives on the subject. Our view is let’s get into negotiations. Let’s deal with the issues and come up with the solution to all of them including Jerusalem which will be exceedingly difficult but, in my judgment, possible.

The Israelis are not going to stop settlements in, or construction in East Jerusalem. They don’t regard that as a settlement because they think it’s part of Israel. …

ROSE: So you’re going to let them go ahead even though no one recognizes the annexation?

MITCHELL: You say “Let them go ahead.” It’s what they regard as their country. They don’t say they’re letting us go ahead when we build in Manhattan.
Posted by truth seeker at 5:32 AM 0 comments
Friday, March 26, 2010
Jewish Dems jumping ship on him

fer Rubin - 03.25.2010 - 4:56 PM

Here is evidence that Obama has gone a bit too far for some prominent Jewish activists. Writing in the Daily Beast, Lloyd Grove interviews a major political donor, James S. Tisch, chief executive of Loews Corp.: (My Comment: Tisch gives to both democrats and Republicans)

“I don’t think he’s pro-Israel,” Tisch says, voicing the suspicions of many. “I think the president comes to this from Jeremiah Wright’s church, and there’s no doubt in my mind that in Jeremiah Wright’s church, the Palestinians were portrayed as freedom fighters and not as terrorists.”

Tisch adds the flap is bound to influence the traditionally Democratic Jewish electorate, nearly 80 percent of which voted for Obama in 2008. “Now for the first time, there are a significant number of people in the organized Jewish community that feel that the president has gone too far,” Tisch says. It will be interesting to watch “what happens to the president’s approval rating among Jewish voters. I think this could really be an important point of demarcation for Jewish public opinion of the president.”

Grove says Tisch is not alone:

“Obama has done zero favors for the Democratic candidates in 2010,” says a prominent Democratic fundraiser who, like most of Jewish activists who spoke for this story, was unwilling to go on the record. “I know a lot of historical Democrats who are big check-writers and even bundlers, who have told me that until things settle down they have no interest in helping any Democrats.”

Grove, not surprisingly, finds a number of prominent Jewish Democrats unwilling to criticize Obama, let alone stop funding him. So the question remains, do most liberal Jews continue to suppress or ignore whatever misgivings they have about Obama and keep on enabling the most aggressive anti-Israel president? Or do they consider Abe Foxman’s counsel: “The issue here, for 78 percent of the Jews who voted for Obama, is you condemn your ally and your friend. … But when Syria spits in the president’s face by continuing to back Hezbollah, we don’t say anything? I think it’s nuts.”

Well, nuts would be expressing shock and disdain for the president’s Israel policies but nevertheless writing a check “with shaking fingers.” After all, the check still cashes

Friday, March 26, 2010
>
Posted by truth seeker at 6:39 AM 0 comments
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Obama vindictive

One of the very sharp Wash Post columnist: Jackson Riehl



http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/03/obama_and_netanyahu_pointless.html?hpid=opinionsbox1



Obama and Netanyahu: pointless poison



So it’s now been two weeks since President Obama chose to seize on a poorly-timed Israeli announcement about new Jewish housing in Jerusalem to launch another public confrontation with the government of Binyamin Netanyahu. The results, so far, are these:

Obama’s demand, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, that Israel reverse its decision on the new neighborhood and freeze all other new construction in Jerusalem has been publicly rejected by Netanyahu. And the administration, for the second time in a year, has backed down. “Ultimately,” said State spokesman P.J. Crowley at his briefing Tuesday, “the future of Jerusalem can only be resolved through the direct negotiations [between Israel and the Palestinians] that we hope will get started as quickly as possible.” That, word for word, has been the Israeli position all along.



Meanwhile, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has adopted Obama’s original demand as his own: He’s saying he won’t begin even the indirect, “proximity” talks he previously agreed to until Israel accepts the Clinton terms on Jerusalem. How could he do otherwise? The Palestinian leader cannot be less pro-Palestinian than the White House. But Abbas cannot climb down from his position so easily -- which means that, for the second time in a year, the Middle East peace process has been stalled by a U.S.-engineered deadlock. U.S. and Israeli negotiators worked until 3 a.m. Wednesday in an attempt to come up with a formula that would allow the talks to go forward. They met again Wednesday morning. So far, no luck.



Finally, Obama has added more poison to a U.S.-Israeli relationship that already was at its lowest point in two decades. Tuesday night the White House refused to allow non-official photographers record the president’s meeting with Netanyahu; no statement was issued afterward. Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arms length. That is something the rest of the world will be quick to notice and respond to. Just like the Palestinians, European governments cannot be more friendly to an Israeli leader than the United States. Would Britain have expelled a senior Israeli diplomat Tuesday because of a flap over forged passports if there were no daylight between Obama and Netanyahu? Maybe not.



The White House’s explanations for Obama’s behavior keep shifting. At first spokesmen insisted that the president had to respond to the “insult” of the settlement announcement during a visit to Jerusalem by Vice President Biden -- even though the administration knew that, far from being a calculated snub, the decision by a local council had taken Netanyahu himself by surprise.



Next the administration argued that the scrap was a needed wake-up call for Netanyahu’s right-wing government, which, it was said, had been put on notice that its failure to move toward a settlement with Palestinians was endangering U.S. interests in the region. But -- assuming for the moment that the administration’s premise is correct -- Obama chose to challenge Netanyahu on a point that is not material to the creation of a Palestinian state. As the Israeli leader has pointed out, previous U.S. administrations and the Palestinians themselves have already accepted that Jewish neighborhoods in and around Jerusalem will be annexed to Israel in exchange for territory elsewhere.



U.S. pressure on Netanyahu will be needed if the peace process ever reaches the point where the genuinely contentious issues, like Palestinian refugees or the exact territorial tradeoffs, are on the table. But instead of waiting for that moment and pushing Netanyahu on a point where he might be vulnerable to domestic challenge, Obama picked a fight over something that virtually all Israelis agree on, and before serious discussions have even begun. As the veteran Middle East analyst Robert Malley put it to The Post’s Glenn Kessler, “U.S. pressure can work, but it needs to be at the right time, on the right issue and in the right political context. The administration is ready for a fight, but it realized the issue, timing and context were wrong.”



A new administration can be excused for making such a mistake in the treacherous and complex theater of Middle East diplomacy. That’s why Obama was given a pass by many when he made exactly the same mistake last year. The second time around, the president doesn’t look naive. He appears ideological -- and vindictive.
Posted by truth seeker at 3:07 PM 0 comments
Obama continues to fight Israel

After meeting, deafening silence
By: Laura Rozen and Ben Smith
March 23, 2010 11:51 PM EDT

The Obama administration shifted this week from red hot anger at Benjamin Netanyahu to an icier suspicion toward the Israeli Prime Minister, who made clear in a marathon of meetings with U.S. officials that he would give ground only grudgingly on their goal of stopping the continued construction of new Israeli housing units on disputed territory.

Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office Tuesday evening for an unexpectedly-long 89-minutes until about 7:00, then stayed to consult with his own staff in the Roosevelt Room, according to a source briefed on the meeting. The two then met again for 35 minutes at 8:20 at Netanyahu's request, the source said. But the meetings were shrouded in unusual secrecy, in part because U.S. officials, who just ten days earlier called the surprise announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem an “insult” and an “affront,” made sure to reward Netanyahu with a series of small snubs: There were no photographs released from the meeting, and no briefing for the press.

And as of late Tuesday evening, neither side had released the usual “readout” of the meetings’ content – a likely indicator of the distance between the sides.

But any impression that Netanyahu’s trip would mark a renewal of the troubled relationship between U.S. and Israeli leaders had faded by the time the men met. Netanyahu had spent the previous 24 hours of a U.S. visit lobbying allies in Congress to push back against public American criticism and to turn the focus to Iran, congressional sources said, and delivered a defiant speech to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, insisting on Israel’s right to build in Jerusalem.

He also complained to U.S. officials of his limited power over the housing construction, though he promised in meetings with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden to do his best to avoid future unpleasant surprises, officials said.

The limits of Netanyahu’s promise became clear minutes before his scheduled meeting with Obama, when the Jerusalem municipality gave final approval to a settler group to proceed on a controversial development in the city, an announcement which prompted a lawmaker from one of Israeli’s liberal opposition parties to call the prime minister a “pyromaniac.”

“This is exactly what we expect Prime Minister Netanyahu to get control of,” a senior U.S. official told POLITICO Tuesday evening. “The current drip-drip-drip of projects in East Jerusalem impedes progress.”

The clearest sign of Netanyahu’s rift with the White House, however, may have been his intense focus on Congress, which has blunted the attempts of many of Obama’s predecessors to pressure the Jewish state.

“We in Congress stand by Israel,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said, standing beside Netanyahu Tuesday. “In Congress, we speak with one voice on the subject of Israel.”

But while Congress was speaking publicly with one voice, behind the scenes Netanyahu seemed to be trying to drive a wedge between it and the White House.

The Israeli leader met separately with groups of congressmen and senators, finding support on both sides of the aisle, but particular warmth from Republicans.

In an interview with POLITICO after his meeting with Netanyahu, House Minority Whip Eric Cantor, the only Jewish Republican member of Congress, made it clear that he supports the Israeli government’s plans for new housing in East Jerusalem rather than what he described as the Obama administration’s overreaction in criticizing the move.

“None of us believe we ought to go back to the ’67 lines,” Cantor said. “That brings into question why in the world would some construction in Jerusalem that no one thinks would be part of a Palestinian state ... be an issue.”

House Republican Conference Chairman Mike Pence of Indiana was more critical. He called the White House stance on the Jewish state “absurd,” saying President Barack Obama needs to stop trying to “micromanage” Israel on settlement issues.

“I never thought I’d live to see the day that an American administration would denounce the Jewish state of Israel for rebuilding Jerusalem,” Pence told reporters.

While Republicans presented themselves as the more steadfast champions of Israel, Democrats were circumspect.

Asked about the Republican criticism, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) sounded as though he had not been talking to the same person as Cantor and Pence. “Well, that’s certainly not what [Prime Minister] Netanyahu’s message was to us today,” he said, adding, “it was a very positive, upbeat meeting.”

“I think that the Republicans are spending an enormous amount of time being critical and disparaging without offering any sort of alternatives to anything,” said Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry.

In a meeting with Jewish members of Congress, Netanyahu did most of the talking and determinedly turned the subject from settlements to Iran, according to a Democratic Hill staffer who did not want to be quoted by name.

“He knows that this is something that is going to move members of Congress, even if they are angry about the expansion of Jewish housing, that they are going to respond to Iran as a threat,” the staffer said. “He connected Iran to just about every subject that was raised.”

Netanyahu, according to this account, pushed members to get a reconciled Iran sanctions bill to the president’s desk soon, even if there is collateral damage and that ordinary Iranian people would be hurt by the sanctions, not just the regime.

Netanyahu also complained that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is “not a partner; [he] won’t come to the table,” another Democratic Hill staffer said, summarizing. Netanyahu “made excuses for the complicated [housing] approval process ... the point being he had no idea what happened when Vice President Joe Biden was there.”

But with the special relationship between the two countries in a state of unusual ferment, Netanyahu’s tortured meetings with the series of Americans appeared anything but decisive.

Netanyahu “is too smart not to understand that Washington has changed,” veteran Middle East peace negotiator Aaron David Miller told POLITICO on Tuesday. “And that a potentially transformative president who is now king of the world for a day is facing off against Benjamin Netanyahu, king of Israel. And the fight between the two is not today. What we see now is positioning."
Posted by truth seeker at 9:35 AM 0 comments
Democrats blame Obama for hurting Israel

Monday, March 22, 2010 INTELLIGENCE BRIEFING

Koch on Obama and Israel: Why the trust is gone
By Ed Koch

I consider the Obama administration’s recent actions against the Israeli government to be outrageous and a breach of trust. I refer to the denunciations by Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and other administration officials The world knows what happened; nevertheless, I will try to put it into context. ShareThis

Vice President Joe Biden was in Jerusalem to convey to the Israelis and the world that the United States government is committed to protecting and assuring the security of Israel from attack. While he was there, an Israeli government minister announced that the Israeli government had authorized the construction of 1,600 apartments in East Jerusalem to be occupied by Jews. Currently, 280,000 Jews live in East Jerusalem, and these apartments were to be added to an existing complex, built on land owned by Jews; about 250,000 Jews live on the West Bank outside of Jerusalem.

The timing of the Israeli government’s announcement was unfortunate and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized for it, but it did not mark any change in the Israeli government’s policy. That policy is and has long been to allow construction of homes for Jews in East Jerusalem.
Posted by truth seeker at 9:06 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Obama's Israel bashing is screwing up peace chances

Was Obama's confrontation with Israel premeditated?
By Yossi Klein Halevi

Obama is directly responsible for one of the most absurd turns in the
history of Middle East negotiations. Though Palestinian leaders
negotiated with Israeli governments that built extensively
Posted by truth seeker at 8:47 PM 0 comments
Obama's war on Israel

March 21, 2010
Obama's War on Israel
By Caroline Glick

Why has President Barak Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel?

Some commentators have claimed that it is Israel's fault. As they tell it, the news that Israel has not banned Jewish construction in Jerusalem - after repeatedly refusing to ban such construction - drove Obama into a fit of uncontrolled rage from which he has yet to recover.

Receive news alerts

Sign Up

Caroline Glick RealClearPolitics
President Prime Minister

Israeli government Washington
Ramat Shlomo Jerusalem
United States Islamic Republic of Iran
Israel Binyamin Netanyahu
Barak Obama

[+] More

While popular, this claim makes no sense. Obama didn't come to be called "No drama Obama" for nothing. It is not credible to argue that Jerusalem's local planning board's decision to approve the construction of 1,600 housing units in Ramat Shlomo drove cool Obama into a fit of wild rage at Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Obama himself claims that he has launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But this claim, too, does not stand up to scrutiny.

On Friday, Obama ordered Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four-part ultimatum.

First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.

Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. The US suggests releasing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.

Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues, including the partition of Jerusalem (including the Jewish neighborhoods constructed since 1967 that are now home to more than a half million Israelis) and the immigration of millions of hostile foreign Arabs to Israel under the rubric of the so-called "right of return," in the course of indirect, Obama administration-mediated negotiations with the Palestinians. To date, Israel has maintained that substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.

If Israel does not accept all four US demands, then the Obama administration will boycott Netanyahu and his senior ministers. In the first instance, this means that if Netanyahu comes to Washington next week for the AIPAC conference, no senior administration official will meet with him.

Obama's ultimatum makes clear that mediating peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a goal he is interested in achieving.

Obama's new demands follow the months of American pressure that eventually coerced Netanyahu into announcing both his support for a Palestinian state and a 10-month ban on Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria. No previous Israeli government had ever been asked to make the latter concession.

Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has, in the model of Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, pocketed Netanyahu's concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary.

With the US president treating Israel like an enemy, the Palestinians have no reason to agree to sit down and negotiate. Indeed, they have no choice but to declare war.

And so, in the wake of Obama's onslaught on Israel's right to Jerusalem, Palestinian incitement against Israel and Jews has risen to levels not seen since the outbreak of the last terror war in September 2000. And just as night follows day, that incitement has led to violence. This week's Arab riots from Jerusalem to Jaffa, and the renewed rocket offensive from Gaza are directly related to Obama's malicious attacks on Israel.

But if his campaign against Israel wasn't driven by a presidential temper tantrum, and it isn't aimed at promoting peace, what explains it? What is Obama trying to accomplish?

There are five explanations for Obama's behavior. And they are not mutually exclusive.

First, Obama's assault on Israel is likely related to the failure of his Iran policy. Over the past week, senior administration officials including Gen. David Petraeus have made viciously defamatory attacks on Israel, insinuating that the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem is a primary cause for bad behavior on the part of Iran and its proxies in Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Syria and Gaza. By this line of thinking, if Israel simply returned to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Iran's centrifuges would stop spinning, and Syria, al-Qaida, the Taliban, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Iranian Revolutionary Guards would all beat their swords into plowshares.

Second, even more important than its usefulness as a tool to divert the public's attention away from the failure of his Iran policy, Obama's assault against Israel may well be aimed at maintaining that failed policy. Specifically, he may be attacking Israel in a bid to coerce Netanyahu into agreeing to give Obama veto power over any Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear installations. That is, the anti-Israel campaign may be a means to force Israel to stand by as Obama allows Iran to build a nuclear arsenal.

For the past several months, an endless line of senior administration officials have descended on Jerusalem with the expressed aim of convincing Netanyahu to relinquish Israel's right to independently strike Iran's nuclear installations. All of these officials have returned to Washington empty-handed. Perhaps Obama has decided that since quiet pressure has failed to cow Netanyahu, it is time to launch a frontal attack against him.

This brings us to the third explanation for why Obama has decided to go to war with the democratically elected Israeli government. Obama's advisers told friendly reporters that Obama wants to bring down Netanyahu's government. By making demands Netanyahu and his coalition partners cannot accept, Obama hopes to either bring down the government and replace Netanyahu and Likud with the far-leftist Tzipi Livni and Kadima, or force Israel Beiteinu and Shas to bolt the coalition and compel Netanyahu to accept Livni as a co-prime minister. Livni, of course, won Obama's heart when in 2008 she opted for an election rather than accept Shas's demand that she protect the unity of Jerusalem.

The fourth explanation for Obama's behavior is that he seeks to realign US foreign policy away from Israel. Obama's constant attempts to cultivate relations with Iran's unelected president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ahmadinejad's Arab lackey Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, and Turkey's Islamist Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan make clear that he views developing US relations with these anti-American regimes as a primary foreign policy goal.

Given that all of these leaders have demanded that in exchange for better relations Obama abandon Israel as a US ally, and in light of the professed anti-Israel positions of several of his senior foreign policy advisers, it is possible that Obama is seeking to downgrade US relations with Israel. His consistent castigation of Israel as obstructionist and defiant has led some surveys to claim that over the past year US popular support for Israel has dropped from 77 to 58 percent.

The more Obama fills newspaper headlines with allegations that Israel is responsible for everything from US combat deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan to Iran's nuclear program, the lower those numbers can be expected to fall. And the more popular American support for Israel falls, the easier it will be for Obama to engineer an open breach with the Jewish state.

The final explanation for Obama's behavior is that he is using his manufactured crisis to justify adopting an overtly anti-Israel position vis-à-vis the Palestinians. On Thursday, The New York Times reported that administration officials are considering having Obama present his own "peace plan." Given the administration's denial of Israel's right to Jerusalem, an "Obama plan," would doubtless require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel some 700,000 Jews from their homes.

Likewise, the crisis Obama has manufactured with Israel could pave the way for him to recognize a Palestinian state if the Palestinians follow through on their threat to unilaterally declare statehood next year regardless of the status of negotiations with Israel. Such a US move could in turn lead to the deployment of US forces in Judea and Samaria to "protect" the unilaterally declared Palestinian state from Israel.

Both Obama's behavior and the policy goals it indicates make it clear that Netanyahu's current policy of trying to appease Obama by making concrete concessions is no longer justified. Obama is not interested in being won over. The question is, what should Netanyahu do?

One front in the war Obama has started is at home. Netanyahu must ensure that he maintains popular domestic support for his government to scuttle Obama's plan to overthrow his government. So far, in large part due to Obama's unprecedented nastiness, Netanyahu's domestic support has held steady. A poll conducted for IMRA news service this week by Maagar Mohot shows that fully 75% of Israeli Jews believe Obama's behavior toward Israel is unjustified. As for Netanyahu, 71% of Israeli Jews believe his refusal to accept Obama's demand to ban Jewish building in Jerusalem proves he is a strong leader. Similarly, a Shvakim Panorama poll for Israel Radio shows public support for Kadima has dropped by more than 30% since last year's election.

The other front in Obama's war is the American public. By blaming Israel for the state of the Middle East and launching personal barbs against Netanyahu, Obama seeks to drive down popular American support for Israel. In building a strategy to counter Obama's moves, Netanyahu has to keep two issues in mind.

First, no foreign leader can win a popularity contest against a sitting US president. Therefore, Netanyahu must continue to avoid any personal attacks on Obama. He must limit his counter-offensive to a defense of Israel's interests and his government's policies.

Second, Netanyahu must remember that Obama's hostility toward Israel is not shared by the majority of Americans. Netanyahu's goal must be to strengthen and increase the majority of Americans who support Israel. To this end, Netanyahu must go to Washington next week and speak at the annual AIPAC conference as planned, despite the administration's threat to boycott him.

While in Washington, Netanyahu should meet with every Congressman and Senator who wishes to meet with him as well as every administration member who seeks him out. Moreover, he should give interviews to as many television networks, newspapers and major radio programs as possible in order to bring his message directly to the American people.

Obama has made clear that he is not Israel's ally. And for the remainder of his term, he will do everything he can to downgrade US relations with Israel while maintaining his constant genuflection to the likes of Iran, Syria, the Palestinians and Turkey.

But like Israel, the US is a free country. And as long as popular support for Israel holds steady, Obama's options will be limited. Netanyahu's task is to maintain that support in the face of administration hostility as he implements policies toward Iran and the Arabs alike that are necessary to ensure Israel's long-term survival and prosperity.




caroline@carolineglick.com
Posted by truth seeker at 8:32 PM 0 comments
Obama picking on Israel as an excuse for failing in Iran

Jennifer Rubin - 03.23.2010 - 12:58 PM

Jonathan, the administration really needs to keep its excuses straight. Hillary at AIPAC said the Obami had to go nuts because Israel was showing “daylight” between the U.S. and Israel and because the housing announcement ”undermines America’s unique ability to play a role – an essential role, I might add — in the peace process. Our credibility in this process depends in part on our willingness to praise both sides when they are courageous, and when we don’t agree, to say so, and say so unequivocally.” Now from Hirsh we hear it’s because it makes Obama look less effective on Iran. (But kicking its allies in the shins will restore that effectiveness and credibility?)

Whatever the question, the answer for this crew is: it’s Israel’s fault.

And who sounds most determined in denying Iran a nuclear weapon? Compare this. Tony Blair:

Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear-weapons capability. They must know that we will do whatever it takes to stop them getting it. The danger is if they suspect for a moment we might allow such a thing. We cannot and will not.

Hillary Clinton:

We are working with our partners in the United Nations on new Security Council sanctions that will show Iran’s leaders that there are real consequences for their intransigence, that the only choice is to live up to their international obligations. Our aim is not incremental sanctions, but sanctions that will bite. It is taking time to produce these sanctions, and we believe that time is a worthwhile investment for winning the broadest possible support for our efforts. But we will not compromise our commitment to preventing Iran from acquiring these weapons.

It probably Israel’s fault Hillary gave such a weak speech.