Beaky Buzzard, Zionist/Mossad Agent?

Beaky Buzzard, Zionist/Mossad Agent?

Andrew G. Bostom

Tuesday (1/4/11) the Saudi Arabian newspaper Al-Weeam, claimed a vulture, “R65” tagged with the words, “Tel Aviv University,” was detained as a Mossad spy. Donning a leg bracelet and transmitter, apparently placed by Israeli ornithologists evaluating bird migration patterns, the vulture was found in a rural area of The Kingdom. Seven vultures banded in Israel during the last few years are known to have reached Saudi Arabia. Transmissions from four of them have ceased and they are presumed dead. One vulture — in addition to R65 — apparently is still alive and “airborne” over Saudi Arabia, after wintering in The Sudan.
Notwithstanding these realities, the Al-Weeam report claimed the migratory tracking study was “a Zionist plot,” which triggered a deluge of posts on Arabic websites, insisting that “Zionists” were training such birds for espionage.
A bird ecologist (and eminently rational human being) for the Israeli Nature and Parks Authority, Ohad Hatzofe, opined,
The subject is receiving great publicity and it is important that Saudi authorities understand that it is not true. There is also an international treaty of nature protection professionals, that forbids doing things like this.
The Al-Weeam report, and those complementary posts it inspired, are pathognomonic of the delusive, conspiratorial Jew-hatred that has pervaded the Islamic Middle East since the advent of Islam — centuries before the modern Zionist movement began in the late 19th century — through the present.
The Muslim world’s obsession with Jewish conspiracies against Islam date back to Islam’s foundational texts, and history.
Koran 5:64, for example (“They [the Jews] hasten about the earth, to do corruption there”) reads like an ancient antecedent to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” and was cited in this context during a January 2007 speech by “moderate” Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.
After Muhammad’s conquest of the Jewish farming oasis at Khaybar, the hadith (words and deeds of Muhamamd as recorded by his pious Muslim companions) and sira (early pious Muslim biographies of Muhammad) refer to an event which updates with impeccable logic the Koranic curse upon the Jews (2:61 /3:112) for having wrongfully slain Allah’s earlier prophets — a Khaybar Jewess is accused of serving the Muslim prophet poisoned mutton (or goat), leading ultimately to his protracted and painful death. Ibn Sa‘d’s sira (Kitab Al-Tabaqat Al-Kabir) focuses on the Jewish conspiracy behind this alleged poisoning of Islam’s prophet.
An additional profoundly anti-Jewish motif occurring after the events recorded in the hadith and sira, put forth in early Muslim historiography (for example, by the great Muslim historian Tabari), is found in the story of Abd Allah b. Saba. An alleged renegade Yemenite Jew, and founder of the heterodox Shi’ite sect, he is held responsible — identified as a Jew – for promoting the Shi’ite heresy and fomenting the rebellion and internal strife associated with this primary breach in Islam’s “political innocence,” culminating in the assassination of the third Rightly Guided Caliph Uthman, and the bitter, lasting legacy of Sunni-Shi’ite sectarian strife.
Not surprisingly then, conspiratorial accusations against Jews  in late 13th century Baghdad included alleged plans to attack Mecca itself and convert the Kabaa (a black-gray, cube-like building located in the center of the mosque at Mecca which contains the black stone [the Hajaru 'l-Aswad], purportedly constructed in heaven itself some 2000 years before the world’s creation)  to a heathen temple! The brief 13th century rise and calamitous fall of Sa‘d ad-Daula, which mirrored the experience of his Jewish co-religionists, took place during this Mongol epoch. Sa‘d ad-Daula was a Jewish physician, who successfully reformed the Mongol revenue and taxation system for Iraq. In recognition of these services, he was appointed by the Mongol emperor Arghun (who reigned from 1284-1291) to the position of administrative Vizier (in 1289) over Arghun’s Empire. Despite being a successful and responsible administrator (which even the Muslim sources confirm), the appointment of a Jew as the Vizier of a heathen ruler over a predominantly Muslim region, aroused the wrath, predictably, of the Muslim masses.
According to modern historian Walter Fischel, this reaction was expressed through (and exacerbated by) “…all kinds of [Muslim] diatribes, satirical poems, and libels.” Ibn al-Fuwati (d. 1323), a contemporary Muslim historian from Baghdad, recorded this particularly revealing example which emphasized traditional anti-Jewish motifs from the Qur’an:
In the year 689/1291 a document was prepared which contained libels against Sa‘d ad-Daula, together with verses from the Qur’an and the history of the prophets, that stated the Jews to be a people whom Allah hath debased…
Another contemporary 13th century Muslim source, notes Fischel, the chronicler and poet Wassaf,
…empties the vials of hatred on the Jew Sa‘d ad-Daula and brings the most implausible accusations against him.
These accusations included the claims that Sa‘d had advised Arghun to cut down trees in Baghdad (dating from the days of the conquered Muslim Abbasid dynasty), and build a fleet to attack Mecca and convert the cuboidal Kabaa  to a heathen temple. Wassaf’s account also quotes satirical verses to demonstrate the extent of public dissatisfaction with what he terms “Jewish Domination.”
Fast forward over 650 years later to John Foster Dulles testimony (see I L Kenen, Israel’s Defense Line: Her Friends and Foes in Washington (Buffalo NY: Prometheus 1981), pp 127-128, cited here) before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in February 1956 discussing why (at that time) the United States was selling military aircraft to Saudi Arabia, but not Israel. Dulles also justified the US Army policy of not stationing Jewish soldiers in the US Armed Forces on bases in Saudi Arabia. Senators had criticized the fact that:
…the agreement for the US airbase at Dhahran permitted Saudi Arabia to exclude any “objectionable’” individuals. The United States was required to submit a detailed list of the names and identities of personnel and employees. Dulles. . . went on to explain why American Jews could not be assigned to an American base. There was an audible gasp when he said that Saudi Arabia practices “very rigorously certain religious doctrines, and they have felt for a long time — it goes back centuries — a very particular animosity toward the Jews because they credited the assassination of Mohammed to a Jew” [i.e.,  Muhammad's alleged poisoning by a Khyabar Jewess]. Dulles later revised his testimony to read: “a very particular animosity toward the Jews since the time of Mohammed …largely dictated by the strict tenets of the Moslem faith.”
A longstanding Bugs Bunny enthusiast, I submit that Beaky Buzzard is the most plausible Zionist vulture mastermind, and the Saudis should use the Kingdom’s vast financial resources, and unmatched wisdom, to capture Beaky, and dismantle yet another Jewish conspiracy against Islam!

Update – Matthew Harrison writes:

Not only do the daft Arabs think the buzzard in question is a Mossad agent, but apparently the lefty anti-Semites right here at home do as well, which was  evidenced here by one of HuffPo’s “experts” on intel gathering and gadgets.

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/01/beaky_buzzard_zionistmossad_ag.html at January 07, 2011 – 02:21:28 PM CST

WikiLeaks’ Jew-Hating Staff

WikiLeaks’ Jew-Hating Staff
Posted By Ryan Mauro On December 17, 2010 @ 12:45 am In FrontPage | 13 Comments
If you needed any more proof of WikiLeaks’ extremist agenda, look no further than Israel Shamir [1], the Holocaust denier who is in charge of distributing the organization’s documents to the Russian media. The involvement of Shamir, who also supports Ahmadinejad and refers to Palestinian terrorists as “martyrs,” should put to rest any doubt that WikiLeaks’ rhetoric about transparency is just a cloak for its anti-American and anti-Western agenda.
As Michael C. Moynihan exposed, [2] Shamir has a long track record of anti-Semitism, including Holocaust denial. Shamir described Auschwitz as “an internment facility, attended by the Red Cross (as opposed to the US internment centre in Guantanamo.” He told another journalist and fellow Holocaust denier that “it’s every Muslim and Christian’s duty to deny the Holocaust.”
In reading Shamir’s work, it is easy to find other anti-Semitic statements and even endorsements of terrorism. His criticism of Israel is not based in politics but in bigotry. He writes, [3] “Israel’s behaviour is partly connected to the Jewish superiority complex, and its consequence, the apartheid structure.” He forecasts [3] the destruction of the Jewish state in language that any Islamic terrorist would admire, saying the “Demise of Israel is inevitable; the only question is whether it will be forcibly removed and the land destroyed, or it will be peacefully absorbed in the region.”
Shamir openly supports Palestinian terrorists carrying out attacks in Israel and outrageously, even calls a potential nuclear suicide bomber a “martyr.”
“Israeli cruelty, vengefulness and inability to respect others called hundreds of Palestinians to the horrible martyrdom. If, or rather when, a potential martyr will be equipped with a miniaturized nuclear device instead of home-made dynamite, the sad story of the Jewish state will be over,” he writes. [3]
Based on these comments, it is not surprising that Shamir would openly advocate for Iranian President Ahmadinejad, another Holocaust denier that supports terrorism and seeks nuclear weapons that could destroy Israel. “[The] people of Iran have made their choice. Democracy won….Iranians reelected their president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by landslide majority,” Shamir wrote. [4] He complimented Ahmadinejad as having “highly deserved” his so-called election victory.

It has also been discovered [2] that Shamir’s son, Johannes Wahlström, acts in a similar capacity as his father for WikiLeaks in Sweden. He has been accused of making up quotes and expressing anti-Semitism. One expert on neo-Nazism said [2] that one of his son’s stories that had to be redacted “[had all of the] elements that one would find in a classic anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.”


It is fitting that such extremists would serve as high-level officials in WikiLeaks, given the organization’s anti-American agenda. The organization’s recent actions are clearly designed to damage the United States, politically and operationally. The group recently released a document labeled “secret” from February 2009 that lists over 200 sites including 35 companies around the world that qualify as “critical U.S. foreign dependencies.” The document specifically says that “if [the listed sites are] destroyed, disrupted or exploited, [it] would likely have an immediate and deterious effect on the United States.”
This was a confidential list of potential top-tier targets and it is now publicly available. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies condemned the release, saying [5] it is like a “global map—a menu, if not a recipe book—to every extremist group in the world.”
This is a case where the release of a specific document undermines the national security of the U.S., but the overall disclosures have instantly negative effects. By releasing confidential diplomatic cables, WikiLeaks deters foreign officials from talking honestly to their American counterparts and makes them wary of discussing any secret arrangements. Foreign governments will not make sensitive deals with the U.S. or even share intelligence if they are significantly worried about exposures that embarrass them or reveal methods and sources.
WikiLeaks’ disclosures also serve as anti-American propaganda. [6] The leader, Julian Assange, has indicated he has material related to what he calls “the Garani massacre” that supposedly killed over 100 Afghan civilians, mostly children. As I previously discussed, [7] the facts surrounding the incident provide some explanation for the civilian casualties but that is of no concern for Assange. Prior to that, WikiLeaks released a heavily edited videotape titled “Collateral Damage” that was so biased against U.S. soldiers in Iraq that left-wing comedian Stephen Colbert confronted [8] Assange in an interview, one of the very rare moments when Colbert breaks character.
It is telling that WikiLeaks’ resources are spent against the U.S. and its allies and not against truly oppressive governments like those in Iran and China. Julian Assange has said [9] “We have been attacked by the United   States, so we are forced into a position where we must defend ourselves.” He says, [10] “I enjoy helping people who are vulnerable. And I enjoy crushing bastards.”
To Assange, Holocaust deniers and supporters of anti-Israeli terrorism are not “bastards” that should be “crushed”—but the U.S. government and its allies are.

Obama’s Israel Doctrine

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, he 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, he 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 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. Email him at stand@standamerica.us  

Elena Kagan Resume (the cartoon)

Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel

Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel 

Monday, April 26, 2010

  By Daniel Greenfield

In preparation for his attempt to impose a final solution on Israel, Obama is spreading a variety of lies through the media and his spokesmen about Israel. And by exposing those lies, we can best get at the truth.

1. Netanyahu Must Choose Between Obama and his Right Wing

What Obama’s people would like you to believe here is that all it would take to restore good relations with the Obama Administration is for Netanyahu to reject the “extremists” and do what Obama tells him to do.

But in fact the vast majority of Israelis support Netanyahu’s position that Jews have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem, and oppose Obama’s position that Jews have no right to live or build homes in parts of Jerusalem that were seized by Jordan in 1948 and ethnically cleansed of Jews.

Netanyahu’s real choice is between Obama and the vast majority of his country’s voters. By demanding that he turn his back on them and do what Obama says, the real demand here is for Netanyahu to completely disregard Israel’s democracy, and betray his own electorate, and enact Apartheid in Jerusalem. This will supposedly appease Obama. And all Netanyahu has to do is disregard the Israeli people’s wishes in favor of DC’s wishes.

So Netanyahu must choose between Obama and democracy. And the media is blasting him because he chose democracy over Obama.

2. Obama Wants Netanyahu’s Right Wing Coalition to be More Centrist

More centrist. Really? Netanyahu’s current coalition includes the left wing Labor party, an immigrant’s rights party and the party of Sefardi Jews. It even has an Arab Muslim Deputy Minister.

So what is Obama’s idea of a centrist Israeli government? One that jettisons Shas, the party of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, and Yisrael Beitenu, the party of Jewish refugees from the USSR– in favor of Kadima, an illegitimately created party headed by Tzipi Livni, a former member of Netanyahu’s own Likud party. How is a coalition with Kadima more “centrist” than a coalition with the Labor party and parties that represent Israel’s different minorities? The answer is it isn’t. The only thing “centrist” about Kadima, is that Tzipi Livni airheadedly endorses every Obama proposal, which hasn’t exactly made her popular in the country. But it has made her popular with Obama, who wants to force her into a coalition with Netanyahu.

If you believe the Washington talking heads, Livni will make Netanyahu’s coalition more centrist than former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barack. This despite the fact that Kadima officials have repeatedly stated they will not enter any coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Let me emphasize this again. Obama’s people are trying to force Netanyahu to drop two parties, one of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries and another of Jewish refugees from Communist countries– (it’s not too hard to figure out why Obama would dislike both) in order to form a more “centrist” coalition with a former member of his own party.

3. Tensions Between Obama and Israel Were Caused by Netanyahu’s “Insult” Toward Biden

The truth is that the relationship between Obama and Israel has always been bad. And that’s not surprising. Obama was a longtime member of a church whose pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright portrayed Israel in terms reminiscent of Nazi newspapers. He was friends with Rashid Khalidi who was a spokesman for the PLO terrorist organization. His own background as a child was in the Muslim world, where Israel is viewed as nothing short of the devil.

Once elected, Obama made his first phone call to current PLO head and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas. And it didn’t take long for the administration to begin making demands of Israel, and then refusing to accept any compromises. All this was long before Biden paid a brief visit to Israel, and pretended to be outraged because potential housing on an empty plot of land in Jerusalem went through one part of a multi-stage approvals process.

Was Biden offended by this as a demonstration of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem? Not likely since Biden himself had co-sponsored no less than three Senate resolutions in support of a United Jerusalem under Israeli rule. If we are to believe that Biden was offended, then he was offended by policies he himself supported.

The truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration was looking to pick a fight and waited for an incident that they could claim was an Israeli provocation. Israel didn’t insult America, Biden or Obama by approving possible housing to be built in Jerusalem. Rather Obama who had always disliked Israel, took the chance to pick a fight, while pretending to be the victim.

4. Netanyahu Must Come Back to the Negotiating Table

What negotiating table? Israel has spent almost two decades at the negotiating table. It has given up land and put even its own capital on the table under Prime Minister Barak (currently a member of Netanyahu’s “Right Wing” coalition. The Palestinian Arabs have never put anything on the table. They have taken and taken.

Netanyahu has already agreed to freeze home building in Judea and Samaria. Checkpoints have been dismantled, despite the fact that this allows terrorists to slip through and murder Israelis. Israel has repeatedly offered to go back to the negotiating table. It is Abbas, the first foreign leader that Obama spoke to, who refuses to negotiate. Not only that Abbas has asked Obama to impose a solution.

If Abbas wants Obama to impose a solution. And Obama wants to impose a solution. Then what is there left to negotiate? The exact place where Obama will impose his solution. This argument is a cynical ploy to blame Israel for not wanting to negotiate, when in fact Israel is the only party in this conflict that wants to negotiate and that has consistently tried to negotiate.

But neither Obama nor Abbas are interested in negotiations. They only want Israel to obey their demands.

5. Israel is Costing the US Blood and Treasure

The US has fought three wars since Vietnam. Each of those wars were fought on behalf of, or against Muslims. In the Gulf War, the US responded to Saddam’s invasion of its Kuwaiti allies with armed force. In Yugoslavia, the US intervened on behalf of Kosovar Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US overthrew Muslim dictatorships and tried to stabilize the two countries.

It is Islam that has cost the US an untold fortune in blood and treasure. It is Muslims that have dragged the US into three wars. In the Gulf War, the US was responding to an invasion of Muslim Kuwait. In Yugoslavia, the US was responding to the supposed ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US was fighting back against an Al Queda attack, motivated by the presence of a US base in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq, against Saddam Hussein’s continuing defiance of sanctions.

Thousands of Americans dead and hundreds of billions of dollars. Now that’s real blood and treasure. And the toll keeps on climbing. But in truth the first “Blood and Treasure” extracted by Muslims from America predated the modern State of Israel. Instead it took place on the “Shores of Tripoli” as President Thomas Jefferson chose to go to war with the Muslim pirates who were raiding American ships and enslaving American sailors, because they viewed them as subhuman infidels.

Of course the Obama Administration which has banned any mention of Islamic terrorism, can’t possibly address any of that. All it can do is direct false smears at Israel.

Daniel Greenfield is a columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City. He is a contributing editor at Family Security Matters and writes a daily blog column on Islamic Terrorism, Israeli and American politics and Europe’s own clash of civilizations which can be found at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

Obama and the Anti-Semites

Obama and the Anti-Semites

Ed Lasky

The most politically correct President (I still recall his using the term ‘First Americans” instead of Native Americans) in history has one big blind spot:  insults towards Jews. The latest example is an anti-Semitic joke told by his National Security Advisor, Jim Jones, in a speech. The joke was summarized by Nathan Guttman of The Forward:

A Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban, the jokes goes on, begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant; they can sell you water. The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he’s back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: “Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”
You can watch the actual telling of the joke below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmUb_cXI5aI&feature=player_embedded

Mark Hemingway in the Washington Examiner notes that someone at the White House evidently found the joke dangerous:
However, the White House felt it was inappropriate and left it out of their transcript of the event. And obviously some of the people at the event felt that a joke about greedy Jewish merchants was not okay and told The Forward as much.
Somehow I can’t envision a scenario where the White House would make a similar joke about Islam. This is doubly true since Jones has a reputation has prominent Israel critic.
Of course, this takes place in the context of a concerted effort to sooth pro-Israel Americans regarding the shabby and geopolitically stupid way Barack Obama and his team have treated our only true ally in the Middle East. I have written about Jim Jones and his checkered relationship with Israel. 
Often one’s true feelings towards a group come about as such gaffes (a gaffe in DC-speak is when a politician tells the truth about how he feels). Recall, this is an administration that has banned the term Islam or Muslim when it is paired with violence or extremism. This is an administration that has stonewalled Senators when they have asked to see documents related to the Ft. Hood massacre. If Jones had said such a joke about any other minority group he would have been fired or been forced to step down.
Jones’s joke is part of a disturbing pattern in the Obama Administration:
An administration official accused Dennis Ross of dual loyalty;
Barack Obama linked American lives lost and money spent to  conflicts that involve Israel;
Of course, there is also his railing against Goldman  Sachs and Wall Street-traditional targets of anti-Semitic screeds;
Obama puts the onus of blame on Israel for the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, and has not held the Palestinians to  any standards regarding their efforts to make peace
Obama is preparing the groundwork for scapegoating Israel as the problem that led to Iran having a nuclear bomb since he kept repeating the fallacy that Israel’s problems with the Palestinians has made it difficult to gather an alliance to deal with Iran (an absurd and illogical position, skewered by foreign policy expert Richard Haas in today’s WSJ)
At the same time, Obama has elevated Al Sharpton (who provoked an anti-Semitic pogram Harlem a few years back; a man who used “diamond merchants” as a code word to slur Jews) to being a partner of his in urban affairs.

Ed Lasky is news editor of American Thinker.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers