NETANYAHU WARNS OF “A NEW CALIPHATE”


NETANYAHU WARNS OF “A NEW CALIPHATE”
By Joel C. Rosenberg


(Washington, D.C., February 9, 2011) — Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an important address to a policy
conference in Jerusalem on Monday of some 400 European lawmakers and
dignitaries, organized by the European Friends of Israel. During the address,
which I encourage you to read in its entirety, Netanyahu warned of several
serious threats to world peace and Western civilization:

1. The
expressed ambition of Shia and Sunni Radical Muslims to build a Islamic kingdom
or “caliphate” that will encompass the Middle East and North Africa, and then
Europe, and then North America, and then the entire world. Netanyahu did not say
the caliphate would be achieved, but he rightly warned that this is what the
Radicals want to achieve.

2. The rise of an Iranian regime with nuclear
weapons and ballistic missiles that can not only reach Israel but more and more
of Europe.

3. An Egypt that doesn’t develop into a peaceful, moderate,
secular democracy with a prominent role for the military to provide stability
and security but into one of two other scenarios: A) one in which “the Islamists
exploit the[ir] influence to gradually take the country into a reverse
direction, not towards modernity and reform but backward; or B) one in which
“Egypt would go the way of Iran, where calls for progress would be silenced by a
dark and violent repression that subjugates its own people and threatens
everyone else.”

Netanyahu did not say these threats would inevitably
come to pass. To the contrary, he stated clearly, “The good news is that nothing
is inevitable. We have the power to protect our common civilization, to roll
back the forces of radicalism and to advance a secure peace. One of the keys to
defeating this fanaticism is to be able to distinguish friends from enemies.”

Well put, Mr. Prime Minister. Let us pray more people have ears to hear,
eyes to see and hearts to understand.

>> I’ve posted key excerpts
from the speech on the blog, along with a link to the full text. We’ve also
posted links to several interviews I have done in recent days on the Egypt
Crisis, including those with Glenn Beck, CBN, Janet Parshall, and Fox News,
along with links to the latest headlines from Egypt and the epicenter. Just go
http://flashtrafficblog.wordpress.com/. Thanks.

(Photo: PM Netanyahu
addressing the European Friends of Israel conference in Jerusalem.)

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.

Congressman charges Obama with ‘increasing danger’ in the world

Congressman charges Obama with ‘increasing danger’ in the world

By Bridget Johnson – 04/25/10 02:26 PM ET

The tone against the Obama administration over its Israel policy is sharpening on both sides of the aisle, with one Republican congressman charging that the president is “increasing danger” in the world.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), a longtime supporter of Israel, said on a radio show last week that the administration’s stance on the issue — and “terrible” treatment of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — has been “counterproductive.”

The senator added on the Nachum Segal Show that there is an internal “battle” going on in the White House over the issue.

“One side agrees with us, one side doesn’t, and we’re pushing hard to make sure the right side wins – and if not, we’ll have to take it to the next step,” he said.

Republicans are notching up their tone over the issue, as well.

Rep. Tom Price (R-Ga.) told The Hill that the “embarrassing and reckless” administration stances meant that President Barack Obama is “increasing danger in the world, not decreasing it.”

Price, chairman of the Republican Study Committee, said he’s concerned with the White House’s “incredible disconnect between the U.S. and Israel.”

“The administration is incapable of believing that their actions can have marked consequences on the free world,” he said.

The Obama administration has taken heat from lawmakers since the row sparked by a lower-level Israeli official announcing new construction in East Jerusalem during Vice President Joe Biden’s visit there in March.

Though Netanyahu apologized for the timing, he made clear — including in a Washington speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference attended by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and scores of lawmakers — that Israel would proceed with building in the region that Palestinians want as their capital.

Netanyahu then had a meeting with Obama that was reported as terse, and interpreted by many as a dressing down of the prime minister. Netanyahu later pulled out of Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit, sending a deputy instead.

The State Department’s assertion that the relationship between the U.S. and Israel depended on the pace of Mideast peace negotiations appeared to be the tipping point for Schumer.

“That is the dagger because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans – Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew – would feel that,” Schumer said. “So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, ‘If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.’”

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs battled back in Friday’s press briefing.

RELATED ARTICLES

“We have an unwavering commitment to the security of Israel and the Israeli people,” Gibbs said. “We have said that from the beginning of this administration.”

“I don’t think that it’s a stretch to say we don’t agree with what Sen. Schumer said in those remarks,” Gibbs added.

A recent Quinnipiac poll indicated the administration could be vulnerable to calls it is not being supportive enough to Israel.

Released last week, the poll showed 42 percent of respondents saying that Obama is not a strong supporter of Israel, compared with 34 percent who disagreed. Only 16 percent of Republicans and 33 percent of independents think the president is a strong supporter of Israel, while 53 percent of Democrats do.

Respondents also said by 57 to 13 percent that their sympathies lie with Israel, and 66 to 19 percent said that the commander in chief should be a strong supporter of the Jewish state.

Price, who was supposed to speak on an AIPAC panel but had to cancel because of the concurrent healthcare bill vote that Sunday, said that while there’s always been strong bipartisan support in Congress for Israel, he’s “heartened by Sen. Schumer’s strong and accurate portrayal of what the administration’s done” and hopes the muted comments he’s heard in the House grow into a louder chorus.

Still, he said he’d be surprised if Democratic leadership attempted “to call the administration to account” on its Israel policy. “I would certainly welcome it and support it, but I’m not going to hold my breath,” he said.

Price called Obama’s worldview “very, very dangerous” and added that the president has a “naivete of the dangers of the world.”

Obama may also find the bipartisan discontent that’s growing over the speed and heft of Iran sanctions crossing over into the debate over his administration’s stance toward Israel.

As Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his nuclear program are viewed by many as a direct threat to the Jewish state, Israel may find itself deciding to take unilateral military action against the Islamic Republic. This would markedly increase pressure on the White House from Congress.

Source:
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/94199-congressman-charges-obama-with-increasing-danger-in-the-world-

Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland

Israel’s Right to Exist as a Jewish Homeland

By Salomon Benzimra

The U.S. regularly reiterates its support of Israel’s security, but it says nothing about Israel’s legal rights. These legal rights originated at the San Remo Conference, and the Resolution passed on April 25, 1920 is enshrined in international law. The commemoration of the ninetieth anniversary of this event will certainly open a new vista on the Middle East conflict.

Our calendars are strewn with special dates that link us to the past. In March we celebrated the two hundredth anniversary of Chopin’s birth. Every Fourth of July, we celebrate Independence Day. Remembrance days are important, whether they pay homage to greatness or they unite people in national pride.
But there have been momentous events in recent history that remain unnoticed, if not entirely forgotten. One such event redrew the map of one of the most politically contentious regions of the planet, it shook the preexisting world order, it proclaimed the rebirth of a nation, and it marked the end of the longest foreign occupation in history. Yet few people have ever heard of it.
That event took place ninety years ago in the wake of World War One at the Italian resort town of San Remo. On April 25, 1920, after two days of intense discussions, prime ministers and high ranking diplomats of the victorious Allied powers signed the San Remo Resolution and sealed the destiny of the former Turkish possessions in the Middle East.
The Middle East has been a locus of legal misrepresentations and a cauldron of violence ever since, in part because this landmark Resolution, which initiated further agreements enshrined in international law, has seldom been publicized. An uninformed public allowed often poorly informed politicians to concoct implausible — dare I say unlawful? — peace plans, the failure of which is too obvious to ignore.
So on April 25, 2010, we should commemorate the ninetieth anniversary of the San Remo Conference and make the public aware of the crucial decisions that were made then and the effect these decisions should now have on the lands and peoples concerned.
In San Remo — and for the first time in 1,800 years, since Roman times — the geographical region known as “Palestine” acquired a legal identity. Even though the boundaries of Palestine were not precisely defined in San Remo, the prevailing idea was to draw them as close as possible to the historical boundaries of the ancient Jewish kingdoms of Israel and Judah. In that regard, the expression “from Dan to Beersheba” was introduced by Lloyd George, the British Prime Minister at the time, and it often appeared in subsequent documents.
By referring specifically to the Balfour Declaration of November 1917 — which was essentially an expression of British foreign policy — and by reproducing its wording literally, the San Remo Resolution entrenched the provisions of the Balfour Declaration in international law. Thus, the reconstitution of the Jewish National Home in Palestine received international recognition.
The legal title to Palestine was officially transferred from the League of Nations — when Turkey was dispossessed of its rights to the region at the Paris Peace Conference a year earlier — to the Jewish people, who became the national beneficiary under a mandate awarded to Britain, thereby designated as the trustee.
The transfer of title and the sovereignty of the Jewish people in Palestine remain binding in international law to this day. Similarly, equivalent national rights were conferred to the Arabs in both Syria/Lebanon and present-day Iraq under two other transitional mandates awarded to France and Britain, respectively. It should therefore be apparent that the legitimacy of the present Arab states of Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq derives from the same international law which reconstituted the Jewish nation in Palestine.
Besides fulfilling the national aspirations of the Jewish people (Zionism), the San Remo Conference also marked the end of the longest colonization in history. Whereas European powers extended their colonization in Africa, Asia, and the Americas for a period not exceeding four hundred years, Palestine has been occupied and colonized by a succession of foreign powers for about 1,900 years (Romans, Byzantines, Sassanid Persians, Arabs, Crusaders, Mameluks, and Ottoman Turks). This early episode of liberation, which preceded the global decolonization process by more than thirty years, should be welcome by all progressive minds.
The commemoration of the San Remo Conference on its ninetieth anniversary is a different kind of remembrance in that it primarily serves an educational purpose. In fact, the European Coalition for Israel, a non-Jewish European organization based in Brussels, is planning to do exactly that in San Remo on April 24-25, in a two-day official gathering at the very place where the event took place in 1920.
By bringing the San Remo Conference to the fore, the public will be better-informed, opinions will be more solidly founded, and decision-makers might revisit their geopolitical plans.

Truman Was Right; Netanyahu Would Be Right===Barack Obama is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history

Truman Was Right; Netanyahu Would Be Right

By Ken Blackwell

President Obama’s new Nuclear Posture Review has succeeded mightily in muddying the clear waters. He says that we will not use nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear power. Except Iran. Except North Korea. If we are attacked with biological or chemical weapons, we will not retaliate with nuclear weapons. Is this a green light for another attack on the homeland? And what are the former captive nations of Europe supposed to think? Does any NATO member — like Poland, like Estonia — sleep more soundly with this ringing declaration of confusion, this uncertain trumpet?

When he was in Japan last fall, Mr. Obama pointedly avoided saying that the U.S. use of nuclear weapons to end the carnage of World War II was justified. The American left — Barack Obama’s base — has been indicting Harry Truman for decades for dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945.
Truman faced the horrible prospect of losing 600,000 American lives in an invasion of the Japanese home islands. He also had to consider the real danger of millions Japanese civilian deaths in the combat and from mass suicides. The leftist Truman-haters also never consider the 10,000 allied POWs dying weekly in Japanese captivity.
When Mr. Obama bowed low before Emperor Akihito, it was a tacit apology for all of that. Japan in 1945 was a non-nuclear power. The new Nuclear Posture Review is Obama’s elliptical way of saying that Harry Truman was wrong.
Now we come to the mortal peril of Israel. Barack Obama is the most anti-Israel president in U.S. history. He has been willing to excoriate Benjamin Netanyahu’s shaky coalition government over Jews building apartments in East Jerusalem while cooing to despots in Riyadh and Cairo. Nobel Peace Prize Winner Elie Wiesel, a liberal supporter of Barack Obama, is in anguish. “Jerusalem is Jewish history,” he said in a full-page ad, an open letter to the president. “Jerusalem,” this Holocaust survivor said, “is the heart of our heart.”
Martin Peretz of the New Republic, another liberal Obama-backer, noted that Obama’s stiff-arming of Israel has served only to stiffen Palestinian intransigence. The PLO “quickly surmised that Obama was in their corner and would not push them much. Their surmise turned out to be correct.” Former New York Mayor Ed Koch is distraught. He endorsed Barack Obama for president, but now cries: “I weep as I witness outrageous verbal attacks on Israel … that are being orchestrated by President Obama.”
Add to this dangerous mix Mr. Obama’s cool and detached analysis of sanctions against an Iranian regime hell-bent on acquiring nuclear weapons. “Sometimes they work, sometimes they don’t.” Actually, most of the time, they don’t work. And they are especially doomed to fail when those who are supposed to be “crippled” and “bitten” by the “tough and smart” sanctions know that there is no muscle behind the bluster. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff — Mr. Obama’s top military man — knows that his administration has no clue what to do about Iran.
Mahmoud Admadinejad, the mouthpiece for the Iranian mullahs, repeatedly says he envisions a world without Israel, a world without the U.S. And he responds to Obama’s neutering Nuclear Policy Review with withering scorn. He celebrates Iran’s unimpeded advance toward nuclear weaponry with open taunting of the toothless U.S. policy.
I believe Truman was justified in that hardest of all presidential decisions. Tens of millions of Americans and Japanese are alive today because Truman had the determination and grit to make that awful decision.
As justified as we were then, Israel would be even more justified in using tactical nuclear weapons now to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat to the world. Japan in 1945 presented no existential threat to the U.S. Iran is just such a threat — to Israel, to NATO, and to us.
When the Israelis struck Saddam Hussein’s nuclear Osirak plant in 1981, the world howled. Even our U.S. State Department — under Alexander Haig — condemned the raid. The anti-Israel majority at the U.N. threatened sanctions against the Jewish state. President Reagan effectively sidetracked sanctions then.
But if Israel had not acted swiftly and effectively against Saddam Hussein then, the United States would not have been able to eject him from Kuwait a decade later with so little loss of American life. Saddam would have become the dominant power in the Mideast. That he did not rain nuclear missiles on Israel in 1991 is wholly attributable to the Israelis’ brave and skillful raid of 1981.
Mr. Obama’s feckless policies are giving the Israelis no choice. He wasted fifteen months in fruitless overtures to the Iranian terror leaders. He advanced toward them with an open hand; they spit in his open hand. Bullying democratic Israel and coddling terror states is no policy.
April is the month when millions of Jews and their righteous Gentile friends around the world reflect on what it means to be a stateless, powerless, hunted people. Jews remember the Holocaust and say “Never Again.” Whether the United States under Barack Obama is with them or not, Israel has a right to act to make sure: Never Again.

Ken Blackwell is a senior fellow at the Family Research Council. He serves on the board of directors of the Club for Growth, National Taxpayers Union, and National Rifle Association.

Netanyahu to Obama: Pound sand

Netanyahu to Obama: Pound sand

posted at 10:55 am on April 22, 2010 by Ed Morrissey
regular view

Benjamin Netanyahu delivered an unequivocal message to the Obama administration this morning, rejecting completely a call from Barack Obama to stop building settlements in Jerusalem. The rejection creates a standoff between the two traditional allies in the region and all but halts Obama’s efforts to force Israel back to the bargaining table (via JWF):

Aides to Israel’s prime minister said Thursday that he has officially rejected President Barack Obama’s demand to suspend all construction in contested east Jerusalem, a move that threatens to entrench a year-old deadlock in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking.

The aides said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered his government’s position to Obama over the weekend, ahead of the scheduled arrival later Thursday of the U.S. president’s special Mideast envoy, George Mitchell. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the contact between the two leaders was private.

Washington had put Mitchell’s shuttle diplomacy on hold for more than a month as it awaited a reply from Israel. Aides to Netanyahu provided no information on whether the Israeli leader had offered any other concessions to the Palestinians in an effort to restart the long-stalled talks.

The AP sounds almost disbelieving in reporting this, adding in this odd paragraph:

But with Israel eager to ease tensions with its closest and most important ally, it appeared likely the Jewish state tempered its rejection with other confidence building gestures toward the Palestinians.

Really? “It appeared likely” isn’t even rumor-mongering. It’s complete fantasy by the writer. Nothing in the article reports on “gestures,” confidence-building or otherwise, and AP reporter Amy Teibel doesn’t provide even an anonymous source for the reporting. It’s nonsensical spin aimed at somehow keeping this from becoming an abject diplomatic failure by Barack Obama.

Netanyahu just taught Obama a lesson, which is that a nation that has been surrounded by terrorists and other enemies for decades isn’t going to be intimidated by an Ivory Tower academic, even if he sits in the Oval Office.  After Obama’s shameful treatment of Netanyahu on his visit to Washington DC, he could hardly have expected any better response.  Instead of cowing Netanyahu into submission, Obama has alienated him — and as a side effect, made Netanyahu more popular at home because of it.

That’s what makes Teibel’s reporting so disingenuous.  If Netanyahu was so eager to “ease tensions” with Obama, he would have found some sort of face-saving compromise for his ally.  Instead, Netanyahu just told Obama to pound sand.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 56 other followers