Obama: Blaming Israel First

Obama: Blaming Israel First

Posted By P. David Hornik On November 11, 2010 @ 12:45 am In FrontPage | Comments Disabled

“This kind of activity is never helpful when it comes to peace negotiations,” President Obama said Tuesday at a press conference in Indonesia. He was referring to approvals issued in Israel this week to build 1300 homes in two East Jerusalem neighborhoods.

That is, 1300 homes for Jews. Obama would have had no problem if the announced homes had been designated for Arabs—or anyone other than Jews.

As the Wall Street Journal noted in an editorial, the country—Indonesia—in which Obama made his remark is one that forbids Israeli citizens to visit. Indonesia is also one of 19 UN member states that do not recognize Israel as a state, and it does not allow overflights by Israeli aircrafts.

One could say, then, that in counterposing Jewish homes in Jerusalem to peace, Obama was not encouraging the best side of the Indonesian national ethos.

He wasn’t the only one to object to the Israeli plans, of course. In a de rigueur eruption that is almost dreary to record, the State Department said it was “deeply disappointed” and that the plans were “counterproductive to our efforts to resume direct negotiations between the [Israelis and Palestinians].” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton pronounced herself “extremely concerned,” and UN secretary-general Ban Ki-moon also “expressed concern.”

The pertinacious Palestinian spokesman Saeb Erekat chimed in that the new construction plans proved that “Israel chooses settlements, not peace.”

As the Wall Street Journal also observed, it was Erekat who recently sent an admiring letter to Ahmed Sa’adat, a terrorist who masterminded the murder of an Israeli cabinet minister in 2001. Erekat warmed Sa’adat’s Israeli jail cell with “the strongest emotions of solidarity and brotherhood…. You exhibited steadfast resistance that has become the stuff of legend, during which many martyrs fell.”

The cabinet minister in question, Rehavam Zeevi, was shot twice in the head at the Hyatt Hotel in Jerusalem on October 17, 2001. The assassin was from the PFLP terror organization, then headed by Sa’adat, and was directly dispatched by him.






Think about it: no slap on the wrist—no reaction at all—for Erekat from Obama, Ashton, Ban, or anyone else for his tribute to Sa’adat, no protestations that this wasn’t in the spirit of peace; and yet another public upbraiding of Israel, a country already subject to a worldwide delegitimization campaign, for the building plans.

If there was a bright spot in this episode, it was that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu, in replying to Obama’s words, showed—at least initially—more spunk in a way that is hard not to connect with last week’s Democratic debacle at the polls. Netanyahu’s office released a statement saying that:

Jerusalem is not a settlement; Jerusalem is the capital of the State of Israel. Israel has never accepted upon itself restrictions of any kind on construction in Jerusalem, which has approximately 800,000 residents….

Israel sees no connection between the diplomatic process and planning and building policy in Jerusalem, which has not changed in 40 years.  All Israeli governments in the past 40 years have built in all parts of the city. During this period, peace agreements were signed with Egypt and Jordan, and for 17 years, diplomatic negotiations have been conducted with the Palestinians. These are historical facts. Construction in Jerusalem has never hindered the peace process.

Yet, unfortunately, in a later interview with Fox Business News, Netanyahu already softened the message, calling the issue “overblown” and saying: “you are talking about a handful of apartments that really don’t affect the map at all contrary to impressions that might be perceived from certain news reports. So it’s a minor issue that might be turned to a major issue.”

In fact, the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem is a major issue in any case. In repeatedly calling it into question, Obama strikes at the heart of Jewish being and sows fear and distrust in the large majority of Israelis—exactly contradictory to his presumed desire to advance peace talks and Israeli concessions. In that regard, paradoxically, he is doing some good, as more Israelis understand that the concessions required of them would be suicidal.

As for the other side, Obama’s words can only encourage Muslims, whether in Indonesia or Judea and Samaria, in visions of Judenfrei Jerusalem and the worst supremacist tendencies.

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com

URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2010/11/11/obama-blaming-israel-first/

In sharp reversal, U.S. agrees to rebuke Israel in Security Council

In sharp reversal, U.S. agrees to rebuke Israel in Security Council

Posted By Colum LynchWednesday, February 16, 2011 – 6:00 PM Share

The U.S. informed Arab governments Tuesday that it will supporta U.N. Security Council statement reaffirming that the 15-nation body “does notaccept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” a move aimedat avoiding the prospect of having to veto a stronger Palestinian resolutioncalling the settlements illegal.

But the Palestinian’s rejected the American offer following a meeting late Wednesdy of Arab representativs and said it is planning to press for a vote on its resolution Friday, according officials familar with the issue.  The decision to reject the American offer raised the prospects that the Obama adminstration may cast its first ever veto in the U.N. Security Council.

Still, the U.S. offer signaled a renewed willingness to seek a way out of the current impasse, even if it requires  breaking with its key ally and joining others in the council in sending a strong message to Israel to stop its construction of new settlements. The Palestinian delegation, along with the council’s Arab member Lebanon, have asked the council’s president this evening to schedule a meeting on Friday. But it remained unclear whether the Palestinian move today is simply a negotiating tactic aimed at extracting a better deal from the United States.

Susan E. Rice,the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined the new U.S. offer in aclosed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a bloc of Arab countriesfrom North Africa and the Middle East. In exchange for scuttling thePalestinian resolution, the United States would support the council statement, consider supporting a U.N. Security Councilvisit to the Middle East, the first since 1979, and commit to supporting strong language criticizing Israel’s settlementpolicies in a future statement by the Middle East Quartet.

The U.S.-backed draft statement — which was first reportedby Al Hurra — was obtained by Turtle Bay. In it, the SecurityCouncil “expresses its strong opposition to any unilateral actions by anyparty, which cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations and will not berecognized by the international community, and reaffirms, that it does notaccept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is aserious obstacle to the peace process.” The statement also condemns “all formsof violence, including rocket fire from Gaza, and stresses the need for calmand security for both peoples.”

U.S. officials were not available for comment, but two SecurityCouncil diplomats confirmed the proposal. The Arab Group was scheduled to meetthis afternoon to formulate a formal response to the American offer. Councildiplomats said that the discussions were fluid and that there was still thepossibility that the U.S. draft would be subject to further negotiations. Theysaid it was also not yet certain that the U.S. offer would satisfy the Arab Group,and that the U.S. may be forced to veto the Palestinian resolution.

U.S. officials argue that the only way to resolve the MiddleEast conflict is through direct negotiations involving Israel and thePalestinians. For weeks, the Obama administration has refused to negotiate withthe Palestinians on a resolution condemning the settlements as illegal,signaling that they would likely veto it if it were put to a vote. ThePalestinians were planning to put the resolution to a vote later this week. ButSecurity Council statements of the sort currently under consideration are votedon the bases of consensus in the 15-nation council.

The United States has , however, been isolated in the15-nation council. Virtually all 14 other member states are prepared to supportthe Palestinian resolution, according to council diplomats. A U.N. Security Council resolution generally carries greater political, and legal force, than a statement from the council’s president.

The U.S. concession comes as the Middle East is facing amassive wave of popular demonstrations that have brought down the leaders ofTunisia and Egypt and are posing a challenge to governments in Algeria, Bahrain,and Iran.

Obama’s Homeland Security Dept. Promotes Al Jazeera

Obama’s Homeland Security Dept. Promotes Al

February 16th, 2011

Ben Johnson, FloydReports.com

National security has fallen so far under Barack Obama that a high-ranking
official in the Department of Homeland Security is berating American cable
companies for not carrying Osama bin Laden’s favorite television network.
Juliette Kayyem,
the assistant secretary for intergovernmental affairs at the DHS, wrote an op-ed
in the Boston Globe this week entitled, “Let
US See Al-Jazeera.”
(Capitalization in original.) In it, she rakes ign’ernt
Americans over the coals for not appreciating Al Jazeera English (AJE), the
Anglophone counterpart to Al-Jazeera. Kayyem writes that cable providers should
be “promoting engagement in the Arab world” by “bringing a major player in the
Arab world to American audiences.”
Typical of the Obama administration’s approach to all forms of conflict,
Kayyem wants America to step aside, promote Islamic interests, and hope our
enemies will reciprocate our selfless acts of goodwill. In this case, she wants
a major Islamic fundamentalist propaganda outlet beamed into 300 million infidel
homes. “AJE’s battle with the cable carriers is major news in the Middle East,”
she writes. Not carrying the network “sends a message to the Arab world.”
Although she reassures her readers, “Cable companies have no obligation to run
programming,” she warns that shunning AJE is “understood by the Arab world as a
value-laden decision about America’s lack of desire to hear from the Arab world
about the Arab world.”
There is the little matter of the Al-Jazeera’s famously close relationship
with terrorists and long history of….