US-Israeli Relations Suffer “Tectonic Rift”

US-Israeli Relations Suffer “Tectonic Rift”

June 28th, 2010 Posted By Pat Dollard.

Was2345642

The Telegraph:

A senior Israeli diplomat has warned that the Jewish state’s relationship with the United States has suffered a “tectonic rift”.

The sobering assessment comes a week before Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, meets President Barack Obama at the White House.

There had been hope the two could lay to rest a row that erupted between the two allies in March but the new comments have raised fears of long-term damage.

Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, told foreign ministry colleagues at a private briefing in Jerusalem that they were facing a long and potentially irrevocable estrangement.

Sources said Mr Oren told the meeting: “There is no crisis in Israel-US relations because in a crisis there are ups and downs. [Instead] relations are in a state of tectonic rift in which continents are drifting apart.”

Mr Oren’s privately-voiced pessimism stands in stark contrast to public declarations in both Jerusalem and Washington that differences between the two states amount to nothing more than “disagreements” between allies.

The ambassador told the Jerusalem Post newspaper last week that US-Israel ties were stronger than many observers believed.

Unlike his previous encounter with Mr Obama in March, when he was given a stern dressing-down and denied permission to hold a joint press conference, Mr Netanyahu’s visit to the White House next Tuesday is likely to be cloaked in civility.

The Israeli prime minister is being promised photo opportunities with his host in the White House Rose Garden and perhaps even an invitation to Camp David, the presidential retreat in Maryland.

But the show of unity is being seen as a sop to members of Mr Obama’s party who afraid of angering Jewish American voters ahead of November’s midterm elections than as a sign of genuine rapprochement.

Israeli officials have been quoted as saying that they expect a sterner private reception for their prime minister, who is yet to be fully forgiven for the perceived humiliation of Joe Biden, the US vice president, during a visit to Israel in March.

Mr Biden had come to Holy Land to launch indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian leadership. But negotiations collapsed before they started after Mr Netanyahu’s government announced plans to expand a Jewish settlement in predominantly Arab East Jerusalem.

According to Mr Oren, attempts to gain leverage over President Obama through some of his “pro-Israel” aides – believed to be a reference to Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief-of-staff, and Dennis Ross, a senior State Department official – had failed.

Instead Mr Obama had shown determination to take personal charge of the faltering Israeli-Palestinian peace process and is understood to hold Mr Netanyahu at least partly responsible for the lack of progress.

“It’s a one man show,” Mr Oren reportedly told his colleagues.

During the briefing, Mr Oren insisted that Mr Emanuel, despite some doubts in Israel, remained a friend of the Jewish state.

On a recent visit to Israel for his son’s bar mitzvah, Mr Emanuel, who is Jewish, telephoned him in tears because of the warm reception he had received from ordinary Israelis during a jog in Tel Aviv, Mr Oren said.

Mr Oren denied the comments attributed to him during the briefing. It is the second time pessimistic comments made by the ambassador during private briefings have been made in the past four months.

“If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down”

“If Israel Goes Down, We All Go Down”

June 18th, 2010 Posted By Erik Wong.

CB015977

World Jewish Congress:
by José María Aznar

For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.

José María Aznar was prime minister of Spain between 1996 and 2004.

Obama and the Rising Mob Against Israel

Obama and the Rising Mob Against Israel

By James Lewis

The Middle East is now teetering on the brink of war because a vast international mob has been loosed, with the tacit approval of Barack Hussein Obama. That is the real meaning of the Gaza martyrdom stunt of May 31, 2010. That purposeful provocation is not past. The Gaza suicide operation is still being used all over the Middle East and Europe to whip up hatred and violence.
As Mark Steyn just reported from a dingy cafe in Algeria,
I can just about make out the plasma TV up in the corner on which Jimmy Carter, dubbed into Arabic, is denouncing Israel. Al Jazeera doesn’t so much cover the Zionist Entity as feast on it, hour after hour, without end. So here, at the western frontier of the Muslim world … the only news that matters is from a tiny strip of land barely wider at its narrowest point than a rural Canadian township way down the other end of the Mediterranean. … (there is) saturation coverage of the “Massacre In The Med” (as the front page headline in Britain’s Daily Mirror put it).”
Iran, Lebanon, and Islamist Turkey have just announced new flotillas to break the Gaza blockade. If they succeed, it will not stop with Gaza. The conquest of Jerusalem and rest of Israel is the target. That is why Ahmadinejad has trained all his life in the “Al-Quds” (Jerusalem) Brigade of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, the shock suicide brigade for reconquering Jerusalem. That is why the Hamas flag shows a green Islamic Jerusalem. It is why Kofi Annan at the U.N. proudly posed in front of a map of the Middle East with Israel erased.

Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again — in the European media, the U.N., and the Middle East, all of them against the common scapegoat of Israel.

                                                   cartoon by Ronny Gordon
Lynch mobs have a psychology. They need agitators to whip up popular rage against their victims — like the “community organizers” in Chicago, who once upon a time used to proudly call themselves communist “agitators.” But agitators need followers, who do the actual work of running riot, killing, raping, and burning their helpless scapegoats in their homes and businesses. Think ACORN and the Black Panthers.
Finally, mobs need enablers, the authority figures — the cops, military, and politicos who give the signal that it’s now okay to run riot and kill the helpless victims of the moment. Political authorities usually try to control incipient mobs, because their power depends on keeping order. But in Russia and the Dixiecrat South, politicians and cops commonly withdrew their protection at critical moments and signaled the mobs when it was okay to run riot against victim groups like the Jews or the blacks. It happens all over the world, and the race, ethnicity, religion, or wealth of the victims makes no difference. A group label is enough.
Barack Hussein Obama is now playing the biggest role in the mob psychology of the Middle East. Why? Because he is the authority figure who has given the signal that it’s okay to attack Israel. That is why Islamist Turkey, Lebanon, and Iran just announced that they are sending new flotillas to challenge Israel’s small coastal navy. Intentionally or not, Obama has given the green light for Israel-haters to attack. In fact, this appears to be his strategy to put pressure on Israel to appease the Arabs, Iranians, Hamas, Hezbollah, and Fatah, the unappeasable mobs that want only to kill Israel.
That is how Obama’s Cairo speech was interpreted by the agitators and mobs of the Middle East. It is how his middle name was interpreted, and how his reported remark to the Egyptian Foreign Minister that “I am a Muslim” is perceived. If Obama really is a Muslim, then he must follow the Quran. Turkish PM Erdogan has openly said that “a Muslim cannot commit genocide” — because the Quran explicitly demands genocide against infidels who do not surrender to Islam. That is why the Turkish suiciders on the cruise ship Mavi Marmara screamed “Khaibar! Khaibar!” while attacking Jewish commandos rappelling down one by one with paintball guns. Khaibar is the name of a Quranic genocide committed by Mohammed against the Jews. It’s like Neo-Nazis screaming “Auschwitz! Auschwitz!”
For almost a century, the United States has been the cop on the world beat, as the British Empire declined and crumbled. The U.S. was the great, civilized power that supported freedom of trade; resistance against the Kaiser, Hitler, and Stalin; relative peace in the third world; and the protection of post-World War Two stability, ranging from Japan and South Korea to Israel and Berlin. Europe today would not exist were it not for American protection; it would be a Soviet colony. India and Pakistan might be in a hot war. China might be attacking Japan to retaliate against the horrors of World War Two, which are constantly repeated in the Chinese media. Ancient hatreds exist all over the world, ready to explode when the cop on the beat gets drunk or just resigns.
The United States has preserved the balance of power and kept it on the side of civilization against the mob. All the feeble regimes in the third world depend upon us to come to their aid against their own mobs and agitators. In fact, those regimes are just the mob agitators who won the last round.
We are the cop on the beat that keeps the world from bloody anarchy. When the president of the United States signals that it’s okay to run riot against the scapegoat of the moment, all the tottering regimes know they have to give in to their domestic mob agitators. That’s what Mark Steyn was watching on Al Jazeera TV in Algiers.
This is what William Butler Yeats saw during the rise of the Nazis, when he wrote his poem “The Second Coming”:
TURNING and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
Mob psychology has now been loosed upon the world again. Only an assertive superpower can stop them, and that is the United States. If Obama fails to understand that, the Gulf, Israel, and perhaps the Indian subcontinent will explode.

Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.

Egyptian minister: Obama told me he is a Muslim

Obama told me he is still a Muslim, who supports the Muslim agenda.

  Very few media has picked up what Egypt Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit said on Nile-TV in regards to Obama confirming he is a Muslim. 

This was a statement by Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul Gheit on Nile-TV. It was made on the «Round table show».

This is the statement recorded:

Adul Gheit said he had a one-on-one meeting with Obama, where the US President told him that He was still a Muslim, the son of a Muslim father, the step son of Muslim stepfather, that his half brothers in Kenya are Muslims, and that he was sympatetic towards the Muslim agenda.

Adul Gheit claimed Obama told the Arabs to show patience. Obama promised that once he overcame some domestic issues, like the Health care reform, he would show the Muslim World how to deal with Israel.

 Read the full article

Obama, a ‘Strategic Catastrophe’
Israeli officials say it’s not Iran that is Israel’s greatest threat | Aviel Schneider



Netanyahu to Obama: Let my people…STAY!

Although Israeli officials publicly play down the crisis in relations between Jerusalem and Washington, privately the language is much different. Sources close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu describe Obama as a “strategic catastrophe” for Israel.

Officials in the Prime Minister’s Office, speaking on condition of anonymity to the nation’s top newspapers, see the Obama administration as a serious threat to the future of the State of Israel. On the record, Israel and the US have a “strategic partnership that is unbreakable”; off the record, the terminology is blunt to say the least.

“President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have drawn a clear line, supporting the Palestinian position at the expense of Israel,” said one Netanyahu confidant. “It is insane, it is sick. Relations between Jerusalem and Washington are simply disastrous; the situation has never been so dangerous. This US President wants to establish a Palestinian state at any price and hand them Jerusalem on a silver platter.”

Netanyahu has repeatedly distanced himself from such statements, but commentators say the government speaks with a forked tongue. “Israel’s relations with the US are at a low point, and Obama poses a danger to Israel,” wrote Nahum Barnea in the nation’s biggest newspaper Yediot Ahronot.

The feeling among the Israeli public is that Obama is appeasing the Muslim world at the expense of Israel.

“The American President told me in confidence that he is a Muslim,” said Egyptian Foreign Minister Ahmed Aboul Gheit on Nile TV. That could explain why Obama has instructed that the term “Islamic extremism” no longer be used in official government documents and statements.

Furthermore, the US is now accusing Israel of harming American interests in the Middle East. General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, said Israel’s intransigence on resolving the conflict with the Palestinians is endangering US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Even the US Congress considers Obama’s behavior toward Netanyahu humiliating. Three-quarters of the House of Representatives, 337 of 435 members, signed a bipartisan letter to Clinton expressing “deep concern over recent tension” between the two countries, and demanding that it be smoothed over quickly and in private.

“Obama is a real problem for Israel,” a senior official told told Yediot. “He is Israel’s biggest strategic catastrophe.”

The newspaper also quoted another official who believes that for the first time Washington has switched sides. “The Obama White House is putting pressure only on Israel but does not expect anything from the Palestinians,” he said. “These American demands are unacceptable.”

“The Americans know very well that Israeli construction has always been happening in East Jerusalem and building in Jewish neighborhoods has never been frozen,” said another official. “The Americans use excuses like [the Jewish neighborhood of] Ramat Shlomo and the Shepherd Hotel [another Jewish building project in East Jerusalem] to confront Netanyahu.”

So during Passover, Netanyahu invited Nobel Prize-winning author and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel to his private residence in Caesaria. He urged Wiesel, who is an American citizen, to make it clear to his good friend Obama how important Jerusalem is to the Jewish people.

“Jerusalem was, is and always will be the united capital of Israel,” said Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat. “Construction in all parts of Jerusalem will continue.”

According to a poll by the Independent Media Review & Analysis, 70 percent of Israeli Jews oppose a construction freeze in East Jerusalem, compared to only 19 percent who support it. The survey also found that 69 percent believe the division of Jerusalem with international control of the Old City would lead to ongoing conflict rather than peace.

Officials in Netanyahu’s inner circle believe Obama’s strategy is to force a change of government in Israel. By forcing Israeli concessions on the “settlement” issue, hawks could bolt the coalition, pushing Netanyahu into an alliance with the dovish Kadima party. Kadima is led by former Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who, under the previous Olmert government, offered the Palestinians an independent state in 97 percent of the disputed territories with a capital in East Jerusalem.

Obama has been buoyed by his domestic success in passing the historic health care reform bill. And he may believe that he can extend that victory to the international arena by resolving the Middle East conflict. But if Obama continues to underestimate Israeli resolve on Jerusalem, his peace efforts are doomed to failure.

My comment:

Few American and International media seems to be covering this news event in Egypt.

I wounder why?

Are they embarrassed that the American voters have been fooled to vote a Muslim into the seat of the Commander in Chief of United States of America?

Or have the Obama Administration been able to convince the press, that this media story from Egypt is false?

Under any circumstances, the Obama Hussein Administration has shown us that they favor the Islamic World. The word «Islamic Terrorism» is now deleted form the vocabulary in the US. Islam shall from now on only be presented to the American public as a religion of peace.

LIz Cheney Calls Out Obama’s Anti-Semitism

LIz Cheney Calls Out Obama’s Anti-Semitism

Obama;s anti-semitism is meticulously researched in the book: The Post-American Presidency: The Obama Administration’s War on America

It will only get uglier ……………..

Keep America Safe’s Liz Cheney released the following statement on President Obama’s response to the flotilla incident:

“Yesterday, President Obama said the Israeli action to stop the flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip was “tragic.” What is truly tragic is that President Obama is perpetuating Israel’s enemies’ version of events. The Israeli government has imposed a blockade around Gaza because Hamas remains committed to Israel’s destruction, refusing to recognize Israel’s right to exist and using territory under their control to launch attacks against Israeli civilians. The Israeli blockade of Gaza, in order to prevent the re-arming of Hamas, is in full compliance with international law. Had the Turkish flotilla truly been interested in providing humanitarian aid to Gaza, they would have accepted the Israeli offer to off-load their supplies peacefully at the Israeli port of Haifa for transport into Gaza. President Obama is contributing to the isolation of Israel, and sending a clear signal to the Turkish-Syrian-Iranian axis that their methods for ostracizing Israel will succeed, and will be met by no resistance from America. There is no middle ground here. Either the United States stands with the people of Israel in the war against radical Islamic terrorism or we are providing encouragement to Israel’s enemies—and our own. Keep America Safe calls on President Obama to reverse his present course and support the state of Israel immediately and unequivocally.”

Netanyahu to International Community: Stop the Hypocrisy

Netanyahu to International Community: Stop the Hypocrisy

 

Posted By P. David Hornik On June 3, 2010 @ 12:38 am In FrontPage | 106 Comments

 

The IDF has released two more videos from the incident Monday morning on the Mavi Marmara, the largest in the Turkish-organized six-ship flotilla that challenged Israel’s blockade of Gaza, and the only one to prepare a violent ambush. One of these two videos is even more dramatic than the one released on Monday [1], now viewed by over a million on YouTube, that shows Mavi Marmara “peace activists” among other things beating the soldiers with iron bars.

The relatively less dramatic [2] of the two newly released videos shows the “activists”—actually jihadists seeking “martyrdom” [3]—attacking the soldiers with a stun grenade, a box of plates, and water hoses as they try to board the ship. The other newly released video is actually almost purely audial footage [4] of a frenetic exchange between soldiers on the Mavi Marmara and the nearby IDF ship. The former, in a state of acute panic, shout that they need reinforcements, are being fired at from all directions, and have to be evacuated immediately. For a while the jihadists can be heard chanting something in the background.

The iron-bars video was released only late Monday afternoon after the “Israel kills peace activists” media-storm had already swept through the world for eight or nine hours, and some in Israel have bitterly charged that releasing it a good deal earlier, if not immediately, could have saved Israel much of the media and diplomatic damage. The reason for the delay was a concern for military morale: seeing soldiers of the Naval Commandos—one of the most legendary of all IDF units—being abjectly beaten, and in one case thrown over the side of the boat, is not the sort of imagery the IDF and Israel itself want to project of these fighters.

But if the iron-bars video is problematic in that regard, the new one in which the soldiers shout, in panic, for their lives is even more so. Why, then, was it released now, when the UN Security Council, with President Obama’s acquiescence [5], has already condemned Israel over the incident, the UN Human Rights Council is preparing another Goldstone-type “investigation,” [6] and Israel has generally been dragged through another worldwide round of condemnation? This new video proves beyond a doubt to any reasonable human being that the soldiers finally opened fired, killing nine of their attackers, solely to save their own lives. But what good could it do at this point?

The answer is that Israel realizes its troubles from this incident are not over and indeed are just beginning. Another ship, the Rachel Corrie (named after the young anti-Israeli activist accidentally killed by an IDF bulldozer in 2003), is already on its way [7] to Gaza from Malta; while carrying only fifteen activists, Irish prime minister Brian Cowen has described it as Irish-owned and is calling on Israel to let it through. A group called the European Campaign to End the Siege on Gaza claims to be planning a new, much larger flotilla than the one intercepted by Israel this week. Newly elected British prime minister David Cameron is calling on Israel [8] to lift the Gaza blockade altogether.

In other words, the democratic world is now getting into the act too—with a vengeance. It was one thing for increasingly-Islamist, Iran- and Syria-friendly, Hamas-supporting Turkey to send the first flotilla. It is quite another thing—and well beyond the usual, de rigueur, but shameful cooperation with Arab-, Islamic-, and “nonaligned”-bloc calumny against Israel in the UN—for Western governments to start getting on this bandwagon as well.

It was in response to the increasingly alarming situation that Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave a brief, terse statement [9] to the nation Wednesday night in which he said: “The state of Israel faces an attack of international hypocrisy. This is not the first time we have faced this; two years ago we faced a massive attack of missiles fired by Hamas who hid behind civilians. Israel went to great lengths to avoid civilian casualties; but whom did the UN condemn? It condemned Israel.”

Noting that “It is our right according to international law to prevent arms smuggling to Gaza and that is why the naval blockade was put in place,” Netanyahu pointed out that two ships intercepted by the Israeli navy in recent years—the Francop [10] in 2009 and the Karine-A [11] in 2002—were carrying hundreds of tons of Iranian-supplied weapons, and that while the smuggling of Iranian weapons into Gaza through tunnels continues, what can be delivered by sea is incomparably vaster and would result in an Iranian port in Gaza threatening not only Tel Aviv but also “other countries in the region.”

Turning finally to the uproar over the Mavi Marmara, Netanyahu, noting that he had talked personally with the wounded soldiers and heard firsthand accounts of how their lives were endangered, stated:

The soldiers defended their lives with incomparable restraint. What would any other country do?… I ask the international community, what would you do instead? We’ll continue to defend our citizens and assert our right to self-defense, which is my first duty as prime minister.

It is important that we stay united on this issue, which is a matter of life and death.

The questions Netanyahu raised are indeed very much open. It is no longer clear whether the international community, including its democratic component, is prepared to tolerate the soldiers of the Jewish state shooting back when shot at by a mob, and no longer clear whether it is prepared to countenance the Jewish state defending itself, or existing, at all. Israel, meanwhile, is still trying to make its case, hardly confident that it makes a difference.

Dear Barack: Is the US Still an Ally of Israel?

Dear Barack: Is the US Still an Ally of Israel?

by Thomas Del Beccaro

If you will, imagine Slobodan Milosevic, during the early part of his reign, threatening to wipe Great Britain off the map. Imagine further, that after he made that statement, he announced that he was in the process of obtaining nuclear missiles.  Undeterred by such comments, the UN, appoints Milosevic’s country to its Commission on Human Rights.  Great Britain, understandably angered by such comments and a lack of World action, calls for renewed diplomatic action and increased sanctions.  Shortly thereafter, The Prime Minister of Great Britain visits the United States.

obama-netanyahu

The President of the United States, however, agrees to only meet in private and refuses to take a picture with the Prime Minister.  Thereafter, the President calls for a loosening of the sanctions against Milosevic and says not a word about the appointment to the Commission on Human Rights.

I suggest to you that if that had come to pass, not only would Great Britain be beyond outraged, but US allies around the globe would sink back in their chairs and wonder if the US could be trusted as an ally at all.

As difficult as that scenario was to imagine is not near as difficult as it is for Israel today.

Iran’s leader has point blank called for Israel to “vanish” if not worse.  According to the BBC, Ahmadinejad attends “rallies” where his supporters carry “placards sporting the slogan ‘Israel should be wiped off the map.’” Combined with the lies of Iran’s leaders about their nuclear acquisition program and missiles capable of firing nuclear weapons, those statements are beyond ominous.

After years of failed diplomacy, stunningly, the White House is seeking to loosen sanctions on Iran in the form of exempting “cooperation” nations from the sanctions program, i.e. potentially letting Russia and China off the hook.

Last week, according Fox News, the “United Nations  . . . elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged immodest” – without a word of protest from this President.

Of course, let’s not forget that this President refused a public picture with the Israel Prime Minister after he traveled half way around the globe to visit this Country.

Yes it is true that the US still gives direct aid to Israel and this President has claimed that Israeli is an important ally of the United States.  But just how important given the above? Even Senate Schumer says that Obama’s “counter productive” Israeli policy has to stop.”

If from the comfort of the US Senate, a liberal New York Senator is speaking out on that question – how must Israeli feel?  What do the rest of our allies think? And yes, while it may be an exaggeration to ask whether Israel is still an ally of the US, the true test of any alliance is whether its ally will come to its defense, not just in name, but in battle.  Amidst the continuing terrorist actions within the US – which have garnered remarkably little action from the Obama administration – these questions are all the more worrisome.

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.

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Israel

 

By Nile Gardiner World Last updated: April 26th, 2010

97 Comments Comment on this article

Last week Israel celebrated its 62nd year as a nation, but there was major cause for concern amid the festivities as the Israeli people faced the looming menace of a nuclear-armed Iran, as well as the prospect of a rapidly deteriorating relationship with Washington. The Israel-bashing of the Obama administration has become so bad that even leading Democrats are now speaking out against the White House. New York Senator Chuck Schumer blasted Barack Obama’s stance towards Israel in a radio interview last week, stating his “counter-productive” Israel policy “has to stop”.

At the same time a poll was released by Quinnipiac University which showed that US voters disapproved of the president’s Israel policy by a margin of 44 to 35 percent. According to the poll, “American voters say 57 – 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel and say 66 – 19 percent that the president of the United States should be a strong supporter of Israel.”

I recently compiled a list of Barack Obama’s top ten insults against Britain, America’s closest ally in the world. This is a sequel of sorts, a list of major insults by the Obama administration against America’s closest ally in the Middle East, Israel. As I wrote previously on Obama’s treatment of both Britain and Israel:

In the space of just over a year, Barack Obama has managed to significantly damage relations with America’s two closest friends, while currying favour with practically every monstrous dictatorship on the face of the earth. The doctrine of “smart power” has evolved into the shameless appeasement of America’s enemies at the expense of existing alliances. There is nothing clever about this approach – it will ultimately weaken US global power and strengthen the hand of America’s enemies, who have become significantly emboldened and empowered by Barack Obama’s naïve approach since he took office.

The Obama presidency is causing immense damage to America’s standing in the free world, while projecting an image of weakness in front of hostile regimes. Its treatment of both Israel and Britain is an insult and a disgrace, and a grim reflection of an unbelievably crass and insensitive foreign policy that significantly undermines the US national interest.

So here’s my top 10 list of Obama administration insults against Israel after just 15 months in power:

1. Obama’s humiliation of Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House

In March, the Israeli Prime Minister was humiliated by Barack Obama when he visited Washington. As The Telegraph reported, “Benjamin Netanyahu was left to stew in a White House meeting room for over an hour after President Barack Obama abruptly walked out of tense talks to have supper with his family”, after being presented with a list of 13 demands. As I wrote at the time:

This is no way to treat America’s closest ally in the Middle East, and a true friend of the United States. I very much doubt that even third world tyrants would be received in such a rude fashion by the president. In fact, they would probably be warmly welcomed by the Obama White House as part of its “engagement” strategy, while the leaders of Britain and Israel are frequently met with arrogant disdain.

2. Engaging Iran when Tehran threatens a nuclear Holocaust against Israel

In contrast to its very public humiliation of close ally Israel, the Obama administration has gone out of its way to establish a better relationship with the genocidal regime of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, which continues to threaten Israel’s very existence. It has taken almost every opportunity to appease Tehran since it came to office, and has been extremely slow to respond to massive human rights violations by the Iranian regime, including the beating, rape and murder of pro-democracy protesters.

3. Drawing a parallel between Jewish suffering in the Holocaust with the current plight of the Palestinians

In his Cairo speech to the Muslim world, President Obama condemned Holocaust denial in the Middle East, but compared the murder of six million Jews during World War Two to the “occupation” of the Palestinian territories, in a disturbing example of moral equivalence:

“On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.”

4. Obama’s attack on Israeli “occupation” in his speech to the United Nations

In his appalling speech to the UN General Assembly last September, President Obama dedicated five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, without once referring directly to Palestinian terrorism by name, but declaring to loud applause “America does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.” He also lambasted the Israeli “occupation”, and drew a connection between rocket attacks on Israeli civilians with living conditions in Gaza. The speech served as a ghastly PR exercise aimed at appeasing anti-Israel sentiment in the Middle East, while bashing the Israelis over the head.

5. Obama’s accusation that Israel is the cause of instability in the Middle East

As The Wall Street Journal noted, “the Obama Administration seems increasingly of the view that Israel is the primary cause of instability in the Middle East”, citing a recent press conference where he stated:

“It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them. And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure.”

6. The Obama administration’s establishment of diplomatic relations with Syria

While actively appeasing Iran, the Obama administration has also sought to develop closer ties with the other main state sponsor of terrorism in the Middle East, Syria, establishing diplomatic relations with Damascus in February. Syria remains a major backer of Hamas and Hizbollah, both responsible for a large number of terrorist attacks against Israel.

7. Hillary Clinton’s 43-minute phone call berating Netanyahu

As The Telegraph reported, Hillary Clinton sought to dictate terms to Israel in the wake of Vice President Joe Biden’s visit to Jerusalem:

“In a telephone call, Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, ordered Mr. Netanyahu to reverse a decision to build 1,600 homes for Israeli settlers in occupied East Jerusalem that sparked the diplomatic row. She also instructed him to issue a formal pledge that peace talks would focus on core issues such as the future of Jerusalem and the borders of a Palestinian state. In addition, the Israeli prime minister was urged to make a substantial confidence-building gesture to the Palestinians. Mrs. Clinton suggested this could take the form of prisoner releases, an easing of the blockade of Gaza and the transfer of greater territory in the West Bank to Palestinian control.

Last time I checked, Israel was still an independent country, and not a colonial dependency of the Obama White House. Yet that still hasn’t stopped the Secretary of State from acting like an imperial Viceroy.

8. David Axelrod’s attack on Israeli settlements on “Meet the Press”

It is extremely unusual for a White House official to launch an attack on a close US ally on live television, but this is exactly what the President’s Senior Adviser David Axelrod did in an interview in March with NBC’s Meet the Press, designed to cause maximum humiliation to Israel, where he stated in reference to new settlement construction in East Jerusalem:

“This was an affront, it was an insult but most importantly it undermined this very fragile effort to bring peace to that region. For this announcement to come at that time was very destructive.”

9. Hillary Clinton’s call on Israel to show “respect”

As The Telegraph revealed, the Secretary of State lectured the Israelis at a dinner attended by the Israeli ambassador and the ambassadors of several Arab states in mid-April, urging Israel to “refrain from unilateral statements” that could “undermine trust or risk prejudicing the outcome of talks”. In Clinton’s words:

“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu has embraced the vision of the two-state solution. But easing up on access and movement in the West Bank, in response to credible Palestinian security performance, is not sufficient to prove to the Palestinians that this embrace is sincere. We encourage Israel to continue building momentum toward a comprehensive peace by demonstrating respect for the legitimate aspirations of the Palestinians, stopping settlement activity and addressing the humanitarian needs in Gaza.”

10. Robert Gibbs’ disparaging remarks about Israel

Not one to shy away from criticizing America’s friends when the opportunity arises, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs entered the fray in an interview on Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace in March where he attacked the Israeli government for weakening “the trust that’s needed for both sides to come together and have honest discussions about peace in the Middle East.” In condescending terms he stated that Benjamin Netanyahu should start “coming to the table with constructive ideas for constructive and trustful dialogue about moving the peace process forward.”

The Anti-Israel Lobby

The Anti-Israel Lobby

Posted By Alan M. Dershowitz On April 23, 2010 @ 12:08 am In FrontPage | 68 Comments

J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be “a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.” It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.

This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.

It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that’s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm’s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.

It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel’s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan–which they are not–then the only logical solution would be Israel’s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.

Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel’s “good” actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “bad” actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel’s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.

Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:

“An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.”

Although Ben-Ami doesn’t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase “critical to…American strategic interests,” is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.

In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered “pro-Israel.” The argument is also anything but “pro peace,” since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.

Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel’s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don’t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.