GOP candidates Perry and Romney assail Obama on Israel

GOP candidates Perry and Romney assail Obama on Israel

NEW YORK (AP) — Republican presidential candidates Rick Perry and Mitt Romney waded into a tense foreign policy dispute Tuesday by criticizing the Palestinian Authority’s effort to seek a formal recognition of statehood by the U.N. General Assembly.

The Republican rivals also used the jockeying at the U.N. to assail President Barack Obama’s policy toward Israel.

Perry, the Texas governor and Republican front-runner, is pledging in a speech in New York strong support for Israel and criticizing Obama for demanding concessions from the Jewish state that Perry says emboldened the Palestinians to seek recognition by the U.N.

“We are indignant that certain Middle Eastern leaders have discarded the principle of direct negotiations between the sovereign nation of Israel and the Palestinian leadership,” Perry said in excerpts provided by one of his aides to The Associated Press. “And we are equally indignant that the Obama administration’s Middle East policy of appeasement has encouraged such an ominous act of bad faith.”

In a written statement before Perry spoke, Romney called the diplomatic maneuvering at the United Nations this week an “unmitigated diplomatic disaster.” The former Massachusetts governor also accused Obama’s administration of “repeated efforts over three years to throw Israel under the bus and undermine its negotiating position.”

“That policy must stop now,” Romney said.

The two Republicans who lead in early polls for the Republican nomination, as well as their lesser-known opponents, are intent on showing they stand strongly behind Israel, an effort to appeal to Jewish voters and donors who play a pivotal role in presidential elections. So they’re trying to grab a share of the spotlight as the Palestinians push for statehood this week at the U.N.

Perry and Romney weighed in as Obama was in New York for meetings on the sidelines of the General Assembly. He planned to meet later in the week with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The U.S. has promised a veto in the Security Council, but the Palestinians can press for a more limited recognition of statehood before the full — and much more supportive — General Assembly. The Obama administration has pushed hard for countries around the world to block the Palestinian bid, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday there was still time to avert a divisive showdown.

Obama has been criticized by Republicans and many pro-Israel activists for seeming to push the Jewish state harder than the Palestinians to make compromises to achieve peace. Among other things, Obama has called on Israel to cease building housing settlements in the West Bank and to negotiate the scope of the Palestinian state using 1967 borders as a starting point — a diplomatic position the U.S. has long maintained but one that has never before been explicitly embraced by a U.S. president.

Complaints about Obama’s Israel policy helped a Republican, Bob Turner, win a special election in a heavily Jewish and Democratic New York congressional district last week.

“It’s vitally important for America to preserve alliances with leaders who seek to preserve peace and stability in the region,” Perry said in the speech. “But today, neither adversaries nor allies know where America stands. Our muddle of a foreign policy has created great uncertainty in the midst of the Arab Spring.”

Romney called on Obama to unequivocally reaffirm the U.S. commitment to Israel’s security and promise to cut foreign assistance to the Palestinians if they succeed in getting U.N. recognition. He also called for the United States to re-evaluate its funding of U.N. programs and its relationship with any nation voting in favor of recognition.

Advertisements

Standing With Israel

Standing With Israel

Peggy Shapiro

“Where you go I will go, and where you lodge I will lodge. Your people shall
be my people, and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be
buried.”  This famous pledge by Ruth, a young Moabite widow, to her Israelite
mother-in-law Naomi is such a moving declaration of loyalty that it is
frequently cited in marriage ceremonies.

It was also frequently repeated at the three-day (July 18-20) Christians
United for Israel (CUFI) Summit in Washington D.C. When Glenn Beck, the keynote
speaker at the culminating Summit banquet, quoted that biblical pledge of
friendship, five thousand Christians leapt to their feet in praise and
affirmation, and I, a Jew, a child of Holocaust survivors, was moved to tears by
this army of unshakeable friends.

It was my third CUFI Summit and there were many changes in an organization
which has grown to over 700,000 in its short six years of existence. In addition
to the larger halls, greater number of students (over 500), and more lobbying
appointments with Congress, there was a deepened message of commitment to
Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people. The other Summits also had biblical
themes including “And I will bless those that bless you [Israel] and curse the
one who curses you. “Book of Genesis, Chapter 12, Verse 1-3. The passage
challenges individual Christians and the nation as a whole to be a blessing to
Israel if the United States is to continue as the most blessed country for
another 200 years and warns that the day America abandons Israel, America will
begin its descent. There are clear rewards for supporting Israel.

There is no reward, in this life or the next, expected in Ruth’s pledge to
her mother-in-law. In fact, Ruth knew full well that what she was doing posed
risks, yet she was firm in her determination to follow her mother-in-law and
cling to the faith she had adopted.  The Christians who assembled at the Summit
and made their heartfelt pledge to protect and stand with Israel did so out of
unconditional love and with no expectations of rewards.

They acknowledge what so many refuse to see: Jews and Christians face the
same enemies and their destinies are bound today as never before.  What begins
with the Jews doesn’t end with the Jews. Today I read
about Yousef Nadarkhani, a 32 year-old Iranian evangelical pastor, who had been
commanded by the Iranian regime to renounce his Christian faith or face
execution. Nadarkhani’s dooming sentencing is only the latest occurrence in the
Islamic Republic’s aggressive and heightened attack on the Christian
population.  It is not just Iran.  USA
Today
reports that “The single most dangerous thing in the world to be,
right now, is a Christian in a Muslim country.”

Those who are attempting to erase Jewish history from the land of Israel are
also bent on eliminating the Christian presence.  In1995. Bethlehem, the most
identifiably Christian town, had a Christian population of 80 percent.  Today
with a population of under 30 percent Christians, Bethlehem has, for the first
time in over two thousand years, lost its Christian majority. The same changes
have taken place in two other famously Christian towns, Nazareth and
Jerusalem.

The story’s the same in Egypt, Iraq and elsewhere in the Mideast. The only
place in the region where the Christian population is growing is in
Israel
.

Just as Ruth, Christians United for Israel pledge their loyalty clear-eyed
about the realities of the hostilities they can encounter and expecti no rewards
for their act of love. However, the story of Ruth and Naomi does not end with a
declaration of loyalty. With Naomi’s guidance, Ruth remarries and has a son.
Naomi goes from feeling isolated to the joy of holding a grandchild in her arms.
And Ruth’s son Oved becomes the father of Jesse, whose youngest son is David,
the beloved king of all the Jewish people. Years later Jesus, a descendant of
David, is born in Bethlehem.

Without Ruth, Jewish history could not continue. And Christian history could
not begin.  CUFI stands with Israel in an ultimate pledge of loyalty, and
without that pledge, Jewish and Christian destinies would be more
vulnerable.

Peggy Shapiro is Chicago Community Coordinator for
StandWithUs

Betraying Israel

 

Posted By Joseph  Klein On February 22, 2011 @ 12:30 am In Daily Mailer, FrontPage | 12 Comments

On February 18, 2011, the Obama administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution sought by the Palestinian Authority and introduced by Lebanon, declaring Israeli settlements to be “illegal.” In fact, the U.S. was the only Security Council member to vote against the measure. Countries supporting the resolution in a 14-1 vote, rather than at least abstaining, included the United Kingdom, France, and Germany.

However, the Obama administration wasted no time in trying to have it both ways. It piled on Israel with denunciations of its settlement policies in as strident a manner as the Palestinians and the terrorist-ruled state of Lebanon.

In her formal statement to the Security Council explaining the United States’ decision to veto this particular Security Council resolution, Ambassador Susan Rice told the council that it “risks hardening the positions of both sides. It could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations and, if and when they did resume, to return to the Security Council whenever they reach an impasse.”

But Rice also told the council not to interpret America’s opposition to the resolution as support for Israel’s settlement activities. America rejects “in the strongest terms the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity,” she said. “Continued settlement activity violates Israel’s international commitments, devastates trust between the parties, and threatens the prospects for peace…[W]e agree with our fellow Council members – and indeed, with the wider world – about the folly and illegitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity.”

In other words, Rice is signaling to Israel’s enemies: don’t worry about the fate of this particular piece of paper in the Security Council. The United States still backs Israel’s enemies in blaming the impasse in peace negotiations on Israeli settlements. Rice was merely continuing along the lines of President Obama’s decision early in his term to come down hard on Israel by demanding a complete freeze on settlements – including on any growth in existing settlements – without requiring any meaningful concessions in return from the Palestinian side.

Rice also referred in her statement to the idea of a “contiguous” state of Palestine, essentially repeating what President Obama had said in 2009 to the United Nations General Assembly in support of “a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation.” Neither President Obama nor Ambassador Rice bothered to explain how this would be possible without cutting Israel in half. Moreover, there is still that pesky problem of the rift within the Palestinian community itself between the terrorist Hamas organization that controls Gaza and the more “moderate” Palestinian Authority that controls the West Bank.

For days before the Security Council vote on the anti-Israel resolution, the Obama administration had tried to find ways to lend its support to a censure of Israel, short of a one-sided resolution that explicitly declared the settlements “illegal” and which the council’s members would have been legally obligated to enforce. For example, the U.S. negotiators had informed Arab governments that it would support a Security Council Presidential Statement stating that the Security Council “does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.” The statement would also have included a condemnation of “all forms of violence, including rocket fire from Gaza.”

How such a statement would not have hardened the positions of both sides as much as Rice had claimed the resolution would do is anyone’s guess. But it became moot after Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rebuffed President Obama’s personal efforts to reach a compromise during a lengthy telephone call between Obama and Abbas the day before the Security Council vote.

Despite the U.S. veto, the Palestinian Permanent Observer Riyad Mansour boasted to reporters at the press stakeout outside the UN Security Council chamber about all of the support shown by the resolution’s sponsors. Israel was alone in the world in supporting its own settlements, he said.

Lebanon’s ambassador, Nawaf Salam, told reporters that his country’s main reason, as a current member of the Security Council, for introducing the resolution was because the “main objective of this institution is to uphold international law. That is why we came to the Security Council, and that is why we will continue to come back to the Security Council.”

 


//

//


 

 

Rather than appear in person at the UN press stakeout to answer questions about the U.S. veto, Ambassador Rice scheduled a conference call with some reporters. Responding to a question why the Obama administration was willing to support a Security Council Presidential Statement condemning Israel’s settlements but not a Security Council resolution saying much the same thing, Rice said that the United States had supported what it thought was a more constructive 3-part alternative. She described the 3-part alternative as including a Russian proposal for a trip by the Security Council representatives to the region, “a very strong Presidential Statement from the Security Council which would have gone further than we have gone of late on the issue of settlements and other important issues,” and using the “upcoming Quartet [on the Middle East] statement for making some new and important statements on core issues including territory, as well as settlements.”

Now that the Security Council resolution failed to pass because of the U.S. veto, will the Palestinians and Arab countries call Rice’s bluff and press to go ahead with the 3-part alternative proposal? It looks like the answer could well be yes. When Inner City Press asked Palestinian Permanent Observer Mansour at the press stakeout if the Security Council trip to the Middle East proposed by Russia and initially endorsed by the United States was still a good idea, he answered yes. But it seems that the U.S. may now be backing away from the trip idea. As transcribed by Inner City Press, Rice said during her conference call with reporters after the veto that “the proposal of the trip to the region seems even more complicated today than it was yesterday and I think its viability is quite questionable at this point.”

One such complication may be the realization that the trip would most likely entail awkward meetings with representatives of two terrorist organizations in the region that control Gaza and Lebanon – Hamas and Hezbollah respectively.

When Lebanon’s UN Ambassador was asked by reporters, after the vote on the anti-Israel Security Council resolution his country had introduced, to comment on the increasing tensions between Hezbollah and Israel, he refused to answer. He said that the question had nothing to do with why the Security Council was meeting to condemn Israel on this particular day.

In other words, although Lebanon took the lead at the Security Council in accusing Israel of building settlements in violation of international law, it was ducking accountability for enabling the terrorist group Hezbollah to unlawfully rearm itself with rockets aimed at Israel’s civilian population in violation of the UN Security Council Resolution 1701 that had ended the 2006 conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. What’s more, speaking in the Lebanese capital Beirut, Hezbollah’s leader Hassan Nasrallah just recently threatened to take over northern Israel in case of war with the Jewish state.

The Obama administration did the right thing in vetoing the latest one-sided Security Council resolution against Israel. But it quickly muddled this decision by lending full rhetorical support to the intentions of the resolution’s sponsors – to isolate Israel further in the international community by declaring all of its settlements to be illegitimate and the cause of the breakdown in negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel. The truth is that Israeli settlements are but one of a number of issues that must be resolved before there can be a truly lasting, peaceful settlement.  Israel’s 30 year peace treaty with Egypt (now itself in jeopardy) proves the risks that  Israel is willing to take to secure real peace.

Moreover, there were no Israeli settlements or security fences in the West Bank for twenty years after the Palestinians and the surrounding Arab nations rejected the original two-state solution under the United Nations’ partition plan. An independent Palestinian state could have been created in those twenty years, but it was the Palestinians themselves and their patrons in the Arab world who failed to seize the opportunity. Since Israel took over the West Bank following its victory in the 1967 Six-Day War when Jordan decided to join the attack on Israel despite being warned that it would lose the West Bank territory if it did so, Israel has continued to take risks for peace.

The Obama administration refuses to acknowledge the fact that Israel has already made painful sacrifices for peace with the Palestinians, including unilaterally withdrawing from Gaza, even though it has led to greater violence from Islamic terrorists north and south of its borders and within Israel itself.

Even more fundamentally, this administration turns a blind eye to the reality that Israelis face every day of their lives – powerful forces surrounding them that do not accept Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. It is time to stop engaging in the dangerous game of blaming Israel for not reaching a peaceful resolution of its conflict with the Palestinians and come down firmly on the side of the one country in the Middle East that truly shares our Western democratic values.


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

Israel: White House not reliable

FROM
WND’S JERUSALEM BUREAU

Israel: White House not reliable

Politician slams Obama’s ‘lack of leadership’


Posted: February 20, 2011
6:58 pm Eastern

© 2011 WorldNetDaily

 


 


Israeli lawmaker Danny
Danon

 
Israel can no longer rely on the White House and must trust only itself due
to a lack of leadership on the part of President Obama, declared a Knesset
member from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s ruling Likud party.
“We have to understand that if, God forbid, we will be in the case of
trouble, we can trust only ourselves because we see a lack of leadership coming
from the U.S. today,” said Likud Knesset Member Danny Danon.
“And we should be worried about it, because we always think, well, we have a
friend in the White House, we can call them when we are in need, and we see that
is not the case,” said Danon, the deputy speaker of Israel’s parliament.
Danon was speaking in an interview with reporter Aaron Klein in the latter’s
investigative program
on New York’s WABC Radio
.
The Israeli politician took the occasion to slam Obama’s treatment of
Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
 

Hear WND’s Aaron Klein
interview Israeli lawmaker Danny Danon

/images2/wndAudio.swf?url=/files/dannydanon.mp3

 
Following weeks of unrest targeting Mubarak’s regime, Obama called for the
U.S. ally to allow for the immediate transition to democracy, leading to
Mubarak’s resignation.
“We don’t see a leadership role of the American president and actually they
(the Obama administration) are following what is happening in the Middle East.
On the one hand, they support Mubarak; the next day they are against him.”
Danon added, “Frankly speaking, unfortunately we see a lack of leadership

coming from Washington. They don’t actually take decisions. They follow, and
they look at the news and then they deliver statements to the media.”
(Story continues below)
 

 
Danon said the Israeli government believes Obama’s policies on Israel do not
reflect the will of the U.S. public.
“I know that we have a lot of supporters in the U.S.,” he said. “And I know
that what I am hearing in the U.N. and also in the White House, it does not
represent the American people and all the amount of support that we get from the
people in the U.S. who love and support us.”
Danon was referring specifically to Obama’s longstanding call on a complete
halt to all Jewish settlement activity as a precondition for Israeli-Palestinian
talks.
The Knesset member also commented on an Egyptian decision to allow the
passage of two Iranian naval vessels through the Suez Canal for the first time
since 1979.
“We are not worried about the warships,” said Danon. They are not dangerous
to us. The capabilities of those wars they are not a threat to Israel.”
Continued Danon: “But it show us that the Iranians are looking to get
involved in the Middle East and they are sending a signal. So those boats are a
signal to us and to the larger society that we need to wake up because if we
will not deal with the threats of Iran, Iran will deal with us.”
Danon said that in the decision of one minute Israel “can take care of those
boats.”
“But they are sending us a signal and we must listen to that signal,” he said
of the Iranian ships.

Read more: Israel: White House not
reliable
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=266249#ixzz1EcBM2ZXb

At UN, US sides with Israel’s enemies on settlement issue

At UN, US sides with Israel’s enemies on settlement issue

Rick Moran

 

It’s being billed by the administration as a
“compromise” – a move to forestall a Palestinian motion that would almost
certainly force the US to use a veto to block it.

In reality, it is just
another demonstration of the Obama administration’s hostility to
Israel.

Foreign
Policy:

Susan E. Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, outlined
the new U.S. offer in a closed door meeting on Tuesday with the Arab Group, a
bloc of Arab countries from North Africa and the Middle East. In exchange for
scuttling the Palestinian resolution, the United States would support the
council statement, consider supporting a U.N. Security Council visit to the
Middle East, the first since 1979, and commit to supporting strong language
criticizing Israel’s settlement policies in a future statement by the Middle
East Quartet.
The U.S.-backed draft statement — which was first reported by Al Hurra —
was obtained by Turtle Bay. In it, the Security Council “expresses its strong
opposition to any unilateral actions by any party, which cannot prejudge the
outcome of negotiations and will not be recognized by the international
community, and reaffirms, that it does not accept the legitimacy of continued
Israeli settlement activity, which is a serious obstacle to the peace process.”
The statement also condemns “all forms of violence, including rocket fire from
Gaza, and stresses the need for calm and security for both peoples.”
U.S. officials argue that the only way to resolve the Middle East conflict is
through direct negotiations involving Israel and the Palestinians. For weeks,
the Obama administration has refused to negotiate with the Palestinians on a
resolution condemning the settlements as illegal, signaling that they would
likely veto it if it were put to a vote. The Palestinians were planning to put
the resolution to a vote later this week. But Security Council statements of the
sort currently under consideration are voted on the bases of consensus in the
15-nation council.

Why seek a compromise in the first place? Either Israel is within its rights
to build settlements in some areas of their territory or we oppose them. This
“middle ground” baloney is being considered only to appease the Arabs who know
full well that Israel’s settlement policy is legal, but choose to make an issue
of it because the Palestinians are.
If the compromise fails, will the Obama administration use a veto at the UN?
Given their attitude toward our ally to date, anything is possible but it would
be political suicide not to stand by Israel on such a sensitive issue.
That may be the only thing that Obama considers more important than
supporting the Palestinians in their efforts to stop Israel from building
legitimate settlements.

Radical Islam will be result of U.S. push for democracy, Mubarak told Israel’s Ben-Eliezer during a phone call on Thursday.

Mubarak slammed U.S. in phone call with Israeli MK before resignation

Radical Islam will be result of U.S. push for democracy, Mubarak told Israel’s Ben-Eliezer during a phone call on Thursday.

By Reuters

Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for the United States and what he described as its misguided quest for democracy in the Middle East in a telephone call with an Israeli lawmaker a day before he quit as Egypt’s president.

The legislator, former cabinet minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, said on TV Friday that he came away from the 20-minute conversation on Thursday with the feeling the 82-year-old leader realized “it was the end of the Mubarak era”.

“He had very tough things to say about the United States,” said Ben-Eliezer, a member of the Labor Party who has held talks with Mubarak on numerous occasions while serving in various Israeli coalition governments.

“He gave me a lesson in democracy and said: ‘We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that’s the fate of the Middle East,'” Ben-Eliezer said.

“‘They may be talking about democracy but they don’t know what they’re talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam,'” he quoted Mubarak as saying.

U.S. support for pro-democracy elements in Iran has not led to regime change in the Islamic Republic, and Hamas, a group Washington considers to be a terrorist organization, won a 2006 Palestinian election promoted by the United States.

Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007 after a coalition government it formed with Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas collapsed in a power struggle.

Ben-Eliezer said Mubarak expanded in the telephone call on “what he expects will happen in the Middle East after his fall”.

“He contended the snowball (of civil unrest) won’t stop in Egypt and it wouldn’t skip any Arab country in the Middle East and in the Gulf.

“He said ‘I won’t be surprised if in the future you see more extremism and radical Islam and more disturbances — dramatic changes and upheavals,” Ben-Eliezer added.

Egypt in 1979 became the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel and has backed U.S.-led efforts to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Last week, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned of an Iran-style Islamist revolution in Egypt should Mubarak’s Muslim Brotherhood rivals eventually take over.

“He repeated the sentence, ‘I have been serving my country, Egypt, for 61 years. Do they want me to run away? I won’t run away. Do they want to throw me out? I won’t leave. If need be, I will be killed here,'” Ben-Eliezer said.

Milestone: Rocket 200 of the year hits Israel

Milestone: Rocket 200 of the year hits Israel

Ethel C. Fenig

 

While the American, European and American peace
processors huff and puff about the absolute need for Israel–and Israel only–to
freeze construction on homes and infrastructure in the disputed areas for its
growing population they are absolutely silent, implying consent, of Arab
construction not only in these areas but illegal Arab construction in Israel
itself; complaining when Israel tears down buildings thrown up without permits,
without permission.

The deafening silence continues as deadly rockets
from Gaza rain on civilian areas in Israel. Just the other day the 200th rocket
hit Israel; happily there were no physical injuries this time.

An interactive
map
from The Israel Project provides vivid information on the real threats
on Israel’s southern border.

The silence speaks volumes.

Page Printed from:
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2010/12/milestone_rocket_200_of_the_ye.html

at December 20, 2010 – 11:21:50 AM CST

// <![CDATA[//