Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders

Obama says Palestine must be based in 1967 borders

53 mins ago

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama is endorsing the Palestinians’ demand for
their future state to be based on the borders that existed before the 1967
Middle East war, in a move that will likely infuriate Israel. Israel says the
borders of a Palestinian state have to be determined through negotiations.

In a speech outlining U.S. policy in the Middle East and North Africa, Obama
on Thursday sided with the Palestinians’ opening position a day ahead of a visit
to Washington by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu is
vehemently opposed to referring to the 1967 borders.

Until Thursday, the U.S. position had been that the Palestinian goal of a
state based on the 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, should be reconciled
with Israel’s desire for a secure Jewish state through negotiations.

President to Renew Muslim Outreach

President to Renew Muslim Outreach

By JAY SOLOMON                And CAROL E. LEE

WASHINGTON—President Barack Obama is preparing a fresh outreach to the Muslim world in coming days, senior U.S. officials say, one that will ask those in the Middle East and beyond to reject Islamic militancy in the wake of Osama bin Laden’s death and embrace a new era of relations with the U.S.

MOHAMMED HUWAIS/Agence France-Presse/Getty ImagesProtesters in Yemen Tuesday continue demonstrations demanding the resignation of President Ali Abdullah Saleh.

USMIDEASTjp

USMIDEASTjp

Mr. Obama is preparing to deliver that message in a wide-ranging speech, perhaps as early as next week, these officials say. The president intends to argue that bin Laden’s death, paired with popular uprisings sweeping North Africa and the Middle East, signal that the time has come to an end when al Qaeda could claim to speak for Muslim aspirations.

“It’s an interesting coincidence of timing—that he is killed at the same time that you have a model emerging in the region of change that is completely the opposite of bin Laden’s model,” Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser at the White House, said in an interview.

Since January, popular uprisings have overthrown the longtime dictators of Tunisia and Egypt. They have shaken rulers in Libya, Bahrain, Syria, Yemen and Jordan, marking the greatest wave of political change the world has seen since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But the push for democracy appears to have stalled in some countries. The street protests against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi have morphed into a civil war, with North Atlantic Treaty Organization backing the rebels. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and Bahrain’s ruling Khalifa family have both met demonstrations with violence.

Bin Laden’s death gives Mr. Obama a chance to underscore the belief among many administration officials that the terror leader’s relevance had already begun to diminish during the so-called Arab Spring. Mr. Obama, who has made outreach to the Muslim world a cornerstone of his presidency, plans to describe the Islamic world as at a crossroads, said U.S. officials, making the case that bin Laden represented a failed approach of the past while populist movements brewing in the Middle East and North Africa represent the future.

Mr. Rhodes said timing of the speech remains in flux but Mr. Obama could deliver it before leaving on a five-day trip to Europe on May 23. The White House is already telegraphing the message of the coming speech to the Islamic world by placing American diplomats on Arab television and radio, according to U.S. officials.

The White House is still debating, however, whether Mr. Obama should lay out a concrete plan for revitalizing the stalled Arab-Israeli peace process.

Many Arab governments have been pressing Mr. Obama to publicly outline his own parameters for the creation of an independent Palestinian state as a way to exert more pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who visits Washington next week. These diplomats said the Mideast’s democratic surge is raising expectations among their own populations for an end to the decades-old Arab-Israeli conflict.

White House officials said they are still reassessing the monumental changes in the Middle East and whether an aggressive U.S. push to resume peace talks would likely be successful.

Last week, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas forged a unity government with the militant group Hamas, which the U.S. and European Union designate a terrorist group. Israeli officials have already cited Hamas’s role in the Palestinian Authority as the reason why Mr. Netanyahu is unlikely to unveil any major new overtures to the Palestinians during his Washington trip.

“We need to sort through these issues as we consider the next steps on a peace process,” Mr. Rhodes said. The May 20 Obama-Netanyahu meeting “is a chance for the U.S. and Israel to review the full range of issues, from Iran to the regional change to the peace process.”

Arab officials and Mideast peace advocates say there are major risks for the U.S. and Israel in delaying a return to talks.

Mr. Abbas is pressing the United Nations to recognize an independent Palestinian state during the September gathering of the General Assembly. He has specifically cited his frustration with the lack of progress in negotiations with Mr. Netanyahu, as well as the rising expectations among his own people as a result of the Arab Spring.

“There’s clearly a lot going on in the region, and there’s a case to be made and some are making it, that now is not the time,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, founder of J-Street, a U.S. lobbying group that advocates Washington laying out its own peace plan, something Israel’s government opposes. “But we do believe that the only way to avoid U.N. action on a Palestinian state in a unilateral kind of way is for either the president or prime minister to put forward” a peace plan.

A number of lawmakers have cited Hamas’s new alliance with Mr. Abbas as reason for the White House to move slowly in restarting the peace process. Mr. Netanyahu is scheduled to address a joint session of Congress during his Washington visit as well the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the U.S.’s most powerful pro-Israel lobby.

Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s foreign minister, on Tuesday broke with Israel’s policy of keeping quiet on the regional turmoil, saying the international community’s response to repression of demonstrations in Syria, Lybia and Yemen has been “inconsistent” and “confusing.” In remarks delivered before Mr. Netanyahu’s scheduled White House visit, Mr. Lieberman added that the confusion sends a “damaging message to the people of the Middle East, and further erodes the path to peace, security and democracy for our region.”

Mr. Obama is also scheduled to meet Jordan’s King Abdullah II in Washington next week. The Arab monarch has been at the forefront of Mideast leaders calling for the U.S. to impose its own peace plan on the Israelis and Palestinians. Jordan’s population is 60% Palestinian, and the king has faced his own popular protests in recent months.

The Muslim Brotherhood is officially A-OK for the Obama Administration

The Muslim Brotherhood is officially A-OK for the Obama
Administration

Richard Baehr

 

Professor Barry Rubin argues in his latest article
that the Administration’s approach to the new Middle East is becoming clearer,
and that it represents the worst single strategic blunder in American foreign
policy in the Middle East in decades. In essence, the Obama team has decided
that it can live with and work with  Islamist regimes  in the Middle East, so
long as Al Qaeda is not the group in power.

In other words the Muslim Brotherhood is just fine, if it succeeds in
taking power in Egypt and other Arab countries currently in turmoil. Rubin
quotes  the new policy as described in a Washington Post article
and then offers his reaction:
“The administration is already taking steps to distinguish between various
movements in the region that promote Islamic law in government. An internal
assessment, ordered by the White House last month, identified large ideological
differences between such movements as the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and
al-Qaeda that will guide the U.S. approach to the region.”

Get it?
Al-Qaeda is bad because it wants to attack U.S. embassies, the World Trade
Center, and the Pentagon.

BUT the Muslim Brotherhood is good! Because it
merely wants to seize state power, transform Egypt into an Islamist state, rule
90 million people, back Hamas in trying to destroy Israel, overthrow the
Palestinian Authority, help Jordan’s Muslim Brotherhood overthrow the monarchy,
and sponsor terrorism against Americans in the Middle East.

I’m sure you
can see the difference. This is the nonsense that the administration has been
working toward for two years. It is the doctrine pushed by the president’s
advisor on terrorism, elements in the CIA, and White House ideologues. The State
and Defense departments are probably horrified.

Here’s the next
paragraph:

“`We shouldn’t be afraid of Islam in the politics of these
countries,'” said a senior administration official….`It’s the behavior of
political parties and governments that we will judge them on, not their
relationship with Islam.'”

That first phrase is correct. We shouldn’t be
afraid of Islam in the politics of these countries. Islam has always been
present in Egypt and Jordan, Saudi Arabia or post-Saddam Iraq, and even Iran
before its revolution and Afghanistan not under the Taliban. But we should be
very afraid of Islamism in the politics of these countries. “

.    .    .   .
For weeks, the Administrations’ favorite newspaper, the New York Times has
been paving  the way for the new policy with a series of opinion pieces and news
stories on the new “moderate” face of the Muslim Brotherhood,  their commitment
to non-violence, their discipline and social service role.
The new policy is in some ways consistent with the docile American attitude
towards Iran- where engagement was tried and failed, weak sanctions were applied
with enough loopholes to make them like swiss cheese slices, the anti-regime
demonstrations were ignored and garnered no support, and military action was
never contemplated.  The result- the Administration is now preparing for a
nuclear Iran , and all that is left is finding a way to contain Iran’s
aggressive posture once it becomes a nuclear power.

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi National, He is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass destruction

 
 
 
Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari, a Saudi National, was
arrested today in Texas.   He is charged with attempted use of a weapon of mass
destruction in a terrorist act.   Aldawsari is a student here in the United
States.    According to some reports, his preferred target for attack was former
President George W. Bush.
 
Aldawsari came here in 2008 on a student visa (didn’t
we learn anything from 9/11?).  According to diaries that he kept and were
seized by federal law enforcement, his purpose in coming here was to achieve
violent jihad and martyrdom.
 
Missing from all of the media accounts so far is the
fact that Aldawsari is a Muslim.   Fox News, using the Associated Press
describes him as a “Saudi Arabian citizen.”  A longer media report on KDAF-TV’s
website describes his desire for Jihad against the “infidel Americans.”  Why
would he want to do that?  Perhaps it is because he is a Muslim, but the
politically correct reporting dare not mention that.    The closed reference to
the “M” word is the statement he made in one of the diaries about “operations in
the land of the infidels against occupying forces in the land of the
Muslims.”  Of course, his religion is never mentioned.
 
USA Today and even the conservative Daily Caller did
not make mention of his religion.
 
Let’s start asking the basic questions.  First, why
was this guy even in the country?  Didn’t we go through this about ten years
ago? Does the name Mohammad Atta not ring any bells?  Fifteen of the nineteen
9/11 hijackers were from; you guessed it, Saudi Arabia, just like
Aldawsari.   Many of them were here on student visas, just like, you guessed it,
Aldawsari.  And do you know what else ties them all together?  They were
Muslims.
 
Not all Muslims are jihadists.   Every once in a
while, a few Muslims even speak out against the terrorists.  But those who speak
out against the Muslims are a small minority.
 
First, we need to cut off Visas for anyone from
Islamic countries such as Saudi Arabia.  Is it unfair to Abdul, Ahmed and
Mohammad?  Sure.  Unless of course, Mohammad happens to be Mohammad Atta who
wants to commit mass murder against Americans.  The problem we have is we do not
know if Mohammad who comes over here from Saudi Arabia is simply some guy who
wants to learn at an American University or if he is Mohammad who wants to go
out in a blaze of jihadist glory, taking a few thousand Americans with
him.
 
In the terrorist war, all Muslims may not be our
enemy but all of our terrorist enemies are Muslim.  There is no way to
distinguish between those who are and those who aren’t, and American lives are
too valuable to gamble with.
 
Unfortunately for us, we have a regime that will not
even associate Islam with terror, even though that has been a fifteen hundred
year pattern with Islam.   Since 9/11, we have been lucky.  Either the
terrorists have misfired, like the Christmas day underwear bomber, or we have
caught them, as with Aldawsari.   We cannot keep counting on getting
lucky.  They only have to get lucky once and we have another 9/11.
 
We need to be vigilant.  We need to be able to
identify those who are against us, instead of hiding behind political
correctness and we need leadership in this country that believes in protecting
America, not apologizing for it.

Mr. President, do you think we’re stupid?

Mr. President, do you think we’re stupid?

Robert
Santoski

 

The length to which this administration will go to stretch the truth is
mind-boggling.  Here we have the President of the United States standing before
the world and claiming that his latest budget balances in 2015.  He didn’t even
flinch when he said it.

Yet his own budget document shows clearly on
page 160 that the deficit in that year is $669 billion with a ‘b’.  When
questioned on this obvious inconsistency, Obama said, in effect, that his
calculus does not include interest payments.  This was later confirmed by his
budget director who used the term ‘Primary Budget’ to describe this cool new way
of viewing the world.

Who knew that we didn’t have to count interest in
our budgets?  This is good news for all of us who carry balances on our credit
cards or have mortgages.  Interest payments don’t count.  Sweet!  I don’t think
the banks will be too happy about this, or the Chinese in the case of our
national debt, but if it’s good enough for the President, it’s good enough for
me.  It would be helpful if Mr. Obama would just provide us with a note we can
give to our bankers stating that interest doesn’t matter, so there’s no
confusion when we refuse to make our monthly payments.

Really, Mr. President, do you think we’re stupid?

Obama administration official urges cable companies to carry Al-Jazeera

Obama administration official urges cable companies to carry
Al-Jazeera

Ed Lasky

 

AL Jazeera is
filled with anti-American propaganda. It is also awash in anti-Semitism. The
material broadcast stokes terror and violence.
Why would the person who Barack Obama appointed to be the Assistant Secretary
at the Department of Homeland Security, Juliette Kayyem, advocate American cable
companies carry the channel-a channel that cannot help but inflame tensions and
anger and one that is not known for unbiased accuracy.
From an op-ed by Kayyem in the Boston
Globe:

FOR THE past few weeks, a parallel plot line to the revolutions in the Arab
world has been playing out in the media. With rare exceptions, the largest
American cable and satellite providers simply do not provide viewers access to
Al Jazeera English, the cousin to the powerful Qatar-based world news network.
AJE has launched a full-fledged campaign – including advertisements quoting, of
all people, major US news figures – to convince cable carriers to open their
programming. But most have declined: Burlington, Vt., is the closest city to
Boston where viewers can see the network on television.
AJE’s battle with the cable carriers is major news in the Middle East. Not
carrying the network sends a message to the Arab world about America’s
willingness to accept information, unfiltered, from the very region we spend so
much time talking about. These television wars began not in Tunisia or Egypt,
but in Iraq.

We have enough terror apologists in the media already without an entire
station devoted to obscuring the truth being beamed into America’s
homes.

 

Pew poll offers insights into Egyptians

Pew poll offers insights into Egyptians

K.E.
Campbell

 

The population of Egypt is approximately 80.5 million,
90% of which is Muslim (mostly Sunni). A poll released by Pew
Research Center
in December 2010 provides some interesting insights into
Egyptians. The poll of Muslims only was taken in Spring 2010.

30% have a favorable view of Hezb’allah
49% have a positive view of Hamas
20% have a positive view of al Qaeda (72% have a negative view)
19% have a positive view of Osama bin Laden
48% say Islam plays a large role in their country’s political
life
85% consider Islamic influence over political life to be a positive thing
for their country
61% see no struggle between those who want to modernize their country and
Islamic fundamentalists
54% support making gender segregation in the workplace the law in their
country
82% endorse the stoning of people who commit adultery
77% support whippings and cutting off of hands for crimes like theft and
robbery
84% support the death penalty for those who leave the Muslim
religion
59% say democracy is preferable to any other kind of government
20% support suicide bombing in defense of Islam
46% say suicide bombings are never justified
61% express concern about Islamic extremism in their
country