Obama Makes Islamic State Finger Salute to African Leaders
Here is just a small sampling of Islamic State jihadists making the jihad gesture:
American Muslim Jakeem Nolen, who beheaded co-worker Colleen Hufford in Oklahoma, making the Islamic State finger gesture:
"Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign," By F. W. Burleigh, American Thinker, February 18, 2015
Is President Obama a Muslim? A lot has been written about this, but if photographs speak louder than words, then a photo taken at last August's U.S.-African Leaders' Summit in Washington D.C. might shed considerable light.
It shows Barack Hussein Obama flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates.
Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.
The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain's Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Thus when believers stick their index finger in the air, they demonstrate they are partisans of Muhammad's God concept. And they also affirm their belief in Muhammad's claim he was the interface between God and man. They also demonstrate they are part of the umma, the exclusive transtribal supertribe of believers that Muhammad started 1,400 years ago.
With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe
ISIS fighter displays the gang sign. To Muslims, the extended forefinger is symbolic of the fundamental belief of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/02/o...alute-to-african-leaders/#Vrll4xZcPgC8CLYJ.99
Here is just a small sampling of Islamic State jihadists making the jihad gesture:
American Muslim Jakeem Nolen, who beheaded co-worker Colleen Hufford in Oklahoma, making the Islamic State finger gesture:
"Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign," By F. W. Burleigh, American Thinker, February 18, 2015
Is President Obama a Muslim? A lot has been written about this, but if photographs speak louder than words, then a photo taken at last August's U.S.-African Leaders' Summit in Washington D.C. might shed considerable light.
It shows Barack Hussein Obama flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates.
Barack Hussein Obama flashes the Muslim shahada to delegates of the US-African Leaders Conference in Washington DC in August 2014.
The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain's Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Thus when believers stick their index finger in the air, they demonstrate they are partisans of Muhammad's God concept. And they also affirm their belief in Muhammad's claim he was the interface between God and man. They also demonstrate they are part of the umma, the exclusive transtribal supertribe of believers that Muhammad started 1,400 years ago.
With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe
ISIS fighter displays the gang sign. To Muslims, the extended forefinger is symbolic of the fundamental belief of Islam: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
Read more at http://freedomoutpost.com/2015/02/o...alute-to-african-leaders/#Vrll4xZcPgC8CLYJ.99
[h=1]Shahada Been There[/h] image: http://i.imgur.com/fPeHrrF.jpg
Claim: President Obama secretly signaled solidarity to African leaders at the White House using a Muslim hand gesture known as the 'Shahada.'
image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif
image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif
Example: [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, February 2015]
I saw a picture of President Obama flashing the Muslim shahada at a US-African Leaders' Conference in August 2014.
Is the photograph true or was it doctored??
ENEMY WITHIN. Obama flashes Muslim SHAHADA gang sign to African delegates. TREASON? NO CHARGES????
This is JAW DROPPING (& the smirk on his face): "#Obama flashes the Muslim shahada in 2014"
image: http://i.imgur.com/039UIUR.jpg
Origins: On 18 February 2015, American Thinker published an article titled "Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign." The piece was focused on a photograph of
President Obama captured during an August 2014 conference of African leaders held in Washington, D.C.
The photograph in question was one that had been published in August 2014 by Britain's Daily Mail as part of a larger set of images taken at the conference amid news coverage of the gathering. When the otherwise unremarkable photograph resurfaced in February 2015, the American Thinker article's author surmised that the Daily Mail was unaware of the true significance of the image when they had published it the previous year and had mistakenly identified the gesture as simple finger-wagging. According to the American Thinker piece, the gesture was in fact a signal referencing the shahada, a Muslim declaration of faith:
At the one-minute mark, the President Obama can be seen briefly making a quick spontaneous remark to a fellow attendee (who had since passed out of the camera frame) and making a gesture that is clearly one of "pointing" or "finger-wagging" and not a surreptitious "Muslim gang signal." No one else captured in the video can be seen expressing obvious "disapproval" or "contempt" at President Obama's gesture or remark, and if other African leaders can been smiling or reacting with amusement in the video, the most obvious reason is because President Obama said something humorous at that moment.
Last updated: 18 February 2015
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obamahandsign.asp#fQLFpjWs9wuSCRmG.99
Claim: President Obama secretly signaled solidarity to African leaders at the White House using a Muslim hand gesture known as the 'Shahada.'
image: http://www.snopes.com/images/content-divider.gif
image: http://www.snopes.com/images/red.gif
| FALSE |
Example: [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, February 2015]
I saw a picture of President Obama flashing the Muslim shahada at a US-African Leaders' Conference in August 2014.
Is the photograph true or was it doctored??
ENEMY WITHIN. Obama flashes Muslim SHAHADA gang sign to African delegates. TREASON? NO CHARGES????
This is JAW DROPPING (& the smirk on his face): "#Obama flashes the Muslim shahada in 2014"
image: http://i.imgur.com/039UIUR.jpg
Origins: On 18 February 2015, American Thinker published an article titled "Obama and the Muslim Gang Sign." The piece was focused on a photograph of
| |
The photograph in question was one that had been published in August 2014 by Britain's Daily Mail as part of a larger set of images taken at the conference amid news coverage of the gathering. When the otherwise unremarkable photograph resurfaced in February 2015, the American Thinker article's author surmised that the Daily Mail was unaware of the true significance of the image when they had published it the previous year and had mistakenly identified the gesture as simple finger-wagging. According to the American Thinker piece, the gesture was in fact a signal referencing the shahada, a Muslim declaration of faith:
The Daily Mail editors did not understand what they were looking at. They captioned it "finger wagging" by Obama. But the African dignitaries understood, and a range of reactions can be detected among the ones who observed the gesture: amusement, surprise, curiosity, disapproval, contempt. Note the reactions of Abdelilah Berkirane, the prime minister of Morroco [sic] pictured just behind Obama's left shoulder, and Ibrahim Boubacas Keita, the president of Mali in white garb and hat. They are Muslims through and through, and they are all smiles. They knew what Obama's upright forefinger meant.
However, the shahada is a verbal declaration of an Islamic creed, not a "Muslim gang sign" hand gesture: In Islam, the first of the five pillars is the shahada. Shahada is the Muslim profession of faith, expressing the two simple, fundamental beliefs that make one a Muslim.
Several blogs ran with the interpretation of the "shahada" image, and another expounded upon the new theory: The Associated Press took this astonishing photo as the African dignitaries joined Obama, who hosted the event, in a State Department auditorium for a group photograph. It was published in an article in Britain's Daily Mail, and it was the only use ever of the photo.
The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
The photograph of President Obama "flashing a Muslim gang sign" certainly captivated a portion of the social web when it began to circulate, and at first glance it might seem difficult to understand from a single still imahe precisely what was going on the moment the photograph was snapped. But that instant was not only photographed, it was also filmed, and footage of it (in context) was uploaded to YouTube on 7 August 2014:The one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign: The index finger points straight up while the thumb wraps underneath and presses against the digital phalange of the middle finger. The remaining fingers are squeezed against the palm in order to highlight the extended forefinger. The extended finger is symbolic of the one-God concept of Muhammad and is understood by all believers to be a symbolic shahada, the Muslim affirmation of faith: There is but one God and Muhammad is his messenger.
At the one-minute mark, the President Obama can be seen briefly making a quick spontaneous remark to a fellow attendee (who had since passed out of the camera frame) and making a gesture that is clearly one of "pointing" or "finger-wagging" and not a surreptitious "Muslim gang signal." No one else captured in the video can be seen expressing obvious "disapproval" or "contempt" at President Obama's gesture or remark, and if other African leaders can been smiling or reacting with amusement in the video, the most obvious reason is because President Obama said something humorous at that moment.
Last updated: 18 February 2015
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/obamahandsign.asp#fQLFpjWs9wuSCRmG.99
[h=1]The Unbearable Stupidity Of Obama's "Muslim Gang Sign"[/h] [h=5] Blog ››› February 18, 2015 12:40 PM EST ››› MATT GERTZ[/h]
The American Thinker - "one of my most favorite and thoughtful blogs," according to Rush Limbaugh - reports that President Obama flashed a "Muslim gang sign" at an event last year by pointing his index finger upwards.
F.W. Burleigh, "author of It's All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet," wrote for the conservative website that an "astonishing photo" of Obama during a summit with African leaders shows him "flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates." According to Burleigh, "the one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign" and "With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe." He also postulates that Muslim African leaders present at the event were "all smiles" because "They knew what Obama's upright forefinger meant." The post also includes an image in which an "ISIS fighter displays the gang sign."
Conservatives have spent much of Obama's presidency laying out ludicrous theories for how Obama is secretly Muslim.
There are two main flaws with Burleigh's argument. First, video of the event captured from two angles indicates that Obama was actually wagging his finger, not pointing it. (Burleigh criticized the editors of the paper that published the photo for captioning it "finger wagging," claiming that they "did not understand what they were looking at.)
Second -- and it's difficult to believe we need to point this out -- many, many other world leaders have previously been photographed pointing their index fingers upward, suggesting either that Burleigh's argument is nonsense, or that several other recent U.S. and foreign leaders were secret Muslims.
The values and voices of America's diverse communities are too often excluded from the news media.
This needs to change.
The American Thinker - "one of my most favorite and thoughtful blogs," according to Rush Limbaugh - reports that President Obama flashed a "Muslim gang sign" at an event last year by pointing his index finger upwards.
F.W. Burleigh, "author of It's All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet," wrote for the conservative website that an "astonishing photo" of Obama during a summit with African leaders shows him "flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates." According to Burleigh, "the one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign" and "With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe." He also postulates that Muslim African leaders present at the event were "all smiles" because "They knew what Obama's upright forefinger meant." The post also includes an image in which an "ISIS fighter displays the gang sign."
Conservatives have spent much of Obama's presidency laying out ludicrous theories for how Obama is secretly Muslim.
There are two main flaws with Burleigh's argument. First, video of the event captured from two angles indicates that Obama was actually wagging his finger, not pointing it. (Burleigh criticized the editors of the paper that published the photo for captioning it "finger wagging," claiming that they "did not understand what they were looking at.)
Second -- and it's difficult to believe we need to point this out -- many, many other world leaders have previously been photographed pointing their index fingers upward, suggesting either that Burleigh's argument is nonsense, or that several other recent U.S. and foreign leaders were secret Muslims.
The values and voices of America's diverse communities are too often excluded from the news media.
This needs to change.
[COLOR=#333333 !important] [h=1]Right-Wing Freak-Out Over Obama ‘Muslim Gang Sign’ Gesture[/h]
February 21, 2015
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333 !important] Josh Kilburn
Posted with permission from Americans Against the Tea Party [/COLOR]
Republish Reprint
[h=2]Does the Right finally have proof that Obama is a Muslim? Well, no, they don't, but that won't stop them; according to conservatives, Obama is a Muslim and they'll analyze every gesture to prove it. Every. Little. Gesture.[/h]
The conservative quest to prove Obama is a Muslim sits right in the middle of "if I don't laugh, I'll cry" territory. Even the Inquisition didn't expend as much effort finding crypto-Jews; right-wingers scrutinize every little gesture he makes, desperate to prove something that wouldn't even matter if they were correct.
And I do mean every little gesture. Take this piece by the badly named "American Thinker," which claims that Obama flashed a "Muslim gang sign" while attending a summit in Africa.
Rush Limbaugh is on the record as stating that the American "Thinker" is one of his favorite blogs, saying that it was "thoughtful." The only thing more red than this flag is the red on the Costa Rican flag, which still isn't flying over Limbaugh's head like he promised. Anything that Limbaugh calls "thoughtful" is going to be an intellectual trainwreck, and the American "Thinker" delivers in spades.
So what's this "Muslim gang sign" that Obama supposedly flashed? Well, the sensitive should cover their eyes, because this is down right disturbing.
Do you see it? Do you see the "shahada?" Here, let me help:
I added the horns and tail to help emphasize how EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL this gesture is
Of course Barack Hussein Obama would flash this. He's a crypto-Muslim.
I highlighted the "shahada" for the audience. Now, I know what you're thinking: "He's just holding up his index finger. What the hell are you going on about?" Well, see, you're a liberal, that's why you missed it, and that's why I had to highlight it (and add the tail and horns). Is it finally proof that he's a Muslim? Did they finally hit pay dirt after all these years of wasted effort?
Not hardly.
The shahada is a verbal pronouncement, not a hand gesture, and it's a verbal pronouncement that you're probably familiar with, since we're all Murka-hatin' Muslims here anyway:
February 21, 2015
[/COLOR]
[COLOR=#333333 !important] Josh Kilburn
Posted with permission from Americans Against the Tea Party [/COLOR]
Republish Reprint
[h=2]Does the Right finally have proof that Obama is a Muslim? Well, no, they don't, but that won't stop them; according to conservatives, Obama is a Muslim and they'll analyze every gesture to prove it. Every. Little. Gesture.[/h]
The conservative quest to prove Obama is a Muslim sits right in the middle of "if I don't laugh, I'll cry" territory. Even the Inquisition didn't expend as much effort finding crypto-Jews; right-wingers scrutinize every little gesture he makes, desperate to prove something that wouldn't even matter if they were correct.
And I do mean every little gesture. Take this piece by the badly named "American Thinker," which claims that Obama flashed a "Muslim gang sign" while attending a summit in Africa.
Rush Limbaugh is on the record as stating that the American "Thinker" is one of his favorite blogs, saying that it was "thoughtful." The only thing more red than this flag is the red on the Costa Rican flag, which still isn't flying over Limbaugh's head like he promised. Anything that Limbaugh calls "thoughtful" is going to be an intellectual trainwreck, and the American "Thinker" delivers in spades.
So what's this "Muslim gang sign" that Obama supposedly flashed? Well, the sensitive should cover their eyes, because this is down right disturbing.
Do you see it? Do you see the "shahada?" Here, let me help:
I added the horns and tail to help emphasize how EEEEEVVVVIIIILLLL this gesture is
I highlighted the "shahada" for the audience. Now, I know what you're thinking: "He's just holding up his index finger. What the hell are you going on about?" Well, see, you're a liberal, that's why you missed it, and that's why I had to highlight it (and add the tail and horns). Is it finally proof that he's a Muslim? Did they finally hit pay dirt after all these years of wasted effort?
Not hardly.
The shahada is a verbal pronouncement, not a hand gesture, and it's a verbal pronouncement that you're probably familiar with, since we're all Murka-hatin' Muslims here anyway:
لا إله إلا الله محمد رسول الله
lā ʾilāha ʾillā-llāh, muḥammadun rasūlu-llāh
There is no god but God, Muhammad is the messenger of God
So who is the halfwit that authored this poorly veiled hit piece? Glad you asked. His name is F.W. Burleigh, and the man's a preposterously stupid and racist. He's the author of It's All About Muhammad, a Biography of the World's Most Notorious Prophet, and claims that Obama is "flashing the one-finger affirmation of Islamic faith to dozens of African delegates." Burleigh continues the cavalcade of embarrassing stupid, noting that "the one-finger display is the distinctive Muslim gang sign" and "With his forefinger in the air, Obama affirmed his membership in this tribe." The African leaders were "all smiles" because they were in on the gig, and to prove his point, he includes a photograph of an "ISIS fighter display[ing] the gang sign."
Now, Brazilians tend to be Christians just like Americans. By his logic, the "Okay" gesture should mean the same thing in Brazil that it does in the United States; it's a Christian gang sign understood by Christians worldwide.
I dare you.
So what's right with his claim? Absolutely nothing; it's fractally wrong. It doesn't matter how or where you look at it, it's wrong on every possible level and the more critically you analyze it the more wrong it becomes. If you were to pick any two random Muslim groups in Africa - say, the Fulani-Hausa and the Somali - there's a landmass at least the half the size of the contiguous United States separating them. To erase the culture between the Zaghawa and the Berbers because they're both African Muslims is so insanely racist and mind-blowingly stupid you could drop it in the slave-holding antebellum South and they'd still think you were a fool.
It goes well beyond that, though. If you watch the summit from two different angles, it's obvious Obama is wagging his finger, not holding it up. But in the finest example of "I reject your reality you reality and substitute my own," Burleigh actually chastises the editors for suggesting this. Because this man, who can't tell the cultural difference between a Fulani and a Syrian because they're both Muslim, thinks he knows all about hand gestures. He wrote a book on it once, guys, it's all good.
Ultimately, though, if this makes Obama a crypto-Muslim, check out all the other crypto-Muslims who've found their way into leadership positions:
There's an easier explanation than "Obama is a crypto-Muslim," and that's "F.W. Burleigh is a uneducated dolt."
Obama’s conduct toward Israel can’t be excused
By Jennifer Rubin November 10, 2014
Having conducted two interviews, which vividly display the administration’s hostility toward Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg says President Obama is not anti-Israel. He insists:
President Obama, left, looks on as Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, speaks in the Oval Office in March. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
If you believe that the status quo in the Middle East is sustainable, which is to say, if you believe that Israel can maintain its settlements across the West Bank ad infinitum, and continue, into the indeterminate future, to subvert those Palestinians still working for a two-state solution, then Obama can plausibly be judged — rhetorically, at least — as anti-Israel.If, however, you believe that the status quo is unsustainable — that Israel, for its own sake, should move expeditiously to disentangle itself from the lives of the Palestinians in advance of an eventual divorce, or else face a future in which it becomes a bi-national state or a country that legislates the permanent disenfranchisement of Palestinians (and therefore becomes a true global pariah) — then Obama can’t plausibly be labeled anti-Israel.
Oh sure he can. One can be very much in favor of separating Palestinians and Israelis into their respective states and yet conclude Obama has been the U.S. president least friendly toward the Jewish state since its founding. (That in fact is the view of most pro-Israel groups and many of Israel’s closest friends of both parties in Congress.) Honest observers reading Goldberg’s two prior pieces could not help but notice the anti-Israel bile leaking from every pore of this administration. Even Goldberg viewed Obama’s comments about Israel as a threat. (“’I took it to be a little bit of a veiled threat, to be honest,’ Goldberg said. ‘It’s almost up there with, you know, nice little Jewish state you got there, I’d hate to see something happen to it.’”)
The president’s refusal to personally apologize or to find and fire the culprit who made the offensive remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Goldberg reported certainly is telling. The near-obsession with blaming Israel for the breakdown in peace talks, the angry and vulgar attacks on the prime minister and the lack of concern about the Palestinians’ behavior speak for themselves. This is more than a matter of ill-designed tactics or strategy.
And the worst of these recent comments Goldberg revealed had nothing to do with the peace process. The remarks that the administration snookered Israel on Iran were arguably worse: “The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. ‘It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.’”
But of course there is far more evidence of Obama’s hostility toward Israel. He “condemned” the building of houses in Jerusalem, not some distant settlement, in 2010. The administration consistently misstates the extent of settlement “expansion.” (“In the last decade the Israelis removed all the settlements in Gaza and four very small ones in the West Bank. The days of building new settlements all over the West Bank are long gone. And ‘settlement expansion’ has meant expansion of population, not territory, so their footprint in the West Bank has not changed. The so-called ‘peace map’ is the same.”) Even if you characterize some actions as pure incompetence (i.e. surprising Netanyahu on the 1967 “borders” speech), you would think that in the law of averages Obama once in a while would stumble in ways favorable to Israel.
And there is more. Obama’s administration was “appalled” and found civilian deaths in Gaza “inexcusable” when in fact our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recognized the extraordinary efforts by the IDF to avoid civilian deaths. The administration tried to undermine the Egypt-Israeli truce terms and introduced demands put forth by Hamas’s ally Qatar.
And let’s not forget in his Cairo speech he cast Palestinians in the role of African American slaves (thereby making Israel the slave masters) and refused to identify the historical roots of Jews in Israel (in essence adopting the Palestinian narrative that Israel’s existence is rooted in the Holocaust).
Whatever Obama’s intent (maybe he is anti-an ally that opposes Iran detente) the result is a president widely perceived in Israel of being un-supportive. That view transcends Israel domestic political lines. And here in the United States, few Middle East watchers would dispute that we have the worst relationship with our closest ally since the founding of the Jewish state.
Moreover, I strongly suspect that if Hillary Clinton runs for president she will characterize herself as much more sympathetic toward Israel and much better at maintaining the alliance than her ex-boss. (She better or she’ll lose some big supporters.) Granted it is a low bar to hop over but Clinton, even I would concede, is more supportive of Israel than the president. So if he is not anti-Israel, can we at least agree he is the least pro-Israel president ever?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/11/10/obamas-conduct-toward-israel-cant-be-excused/
By Jennifer Rubin November 10, 2014
Having conducted two interviews, which vividly display the administration’s hostility toward Israel, Jeffrey Goldberg says President Obama is not anti-Israel. He insists:
President Obama, left, looks on as Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, speaks in the Oval Office in March. (Andrew Harrer/Bloomberg)
If you believe that the status quo in the Middle East is sustainable, which is to say, if you believe that Israel can maintain its settlements across the West Bank ad infinitum, and continue, into the indeterminate future, to subvert those Palestinians still working for a two-state solution, then Obama can plausibly be judged — rhetorically, at least — as anti-Israel.If, however, you believe that the status quo is unsustainable — that Israel, for its own sake, should move expeditiously to disentangle itself from the lives of the Palestinians in advance of an eventual divorce, or else face a future in which it becomes a bi-national state or a country that legislates the permanent disenfranchisement of Palestinians (and therefore becomes a true global pariah) — then Obama can’t plausibly be labeled anti-Israel.
Oh sure he can. One can be very much in favor of separating Palestinians and Israelis into their respective states and yet conclude Obama has been the U.S. president least friendly toward the Jewish state since its founding. (That in fact is the view of most pro-Israel groups and many of Israel’s closest friends of both parties in Congress.) Honest observers reading Goldberg’s two prior pieces could not help but notice the anti-Israel bile leaking from every pore of this administration. Even Goldberg viewed Obama’s comments about Israel as a threat. (“’I took it to be a little bit of a veiled threat, to be honest,’ Goldberg said. ‘It’s almost up there with, you know, nice little Jewish state you got there, I’d hate to see something happen to it.’”)
The president’s refusal to personally apologize or to find and fire the culprit who made the offensive remarks about Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Goldberg reported certainly is telling. The near-obsession with blaming Israel for the breakdown in peace talks, the angry and vulgar attacks on the prime minister and the lack of concern about the Palestinians’ behavior speak for themselves. This is more than a matter of ill-designed tactics or strategy.
And the worst of these recent comments Goldberg revealed had nothing to do with the peace process. The remarks that the administration snookered Israel on Iran were arguably worse: “The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. ‘It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late.’”
But of course there is far more evidence of Obama’s hostility toward Israel. He “condemned” the building of houses in Jerusalem, not some distant settlement, in 2010. The administration consistently misstates the extent of settlement “expansion.” (“In the last decade the Israelis removed all the settlements in Gaza and four very small ones in the West Bank. The days of building new settlements all over the West Bank are long gone. And ‘settlement expansion’ has meant expansion of population, not territory, so their footprint in the West Bank has not changed. The so-called ‘peace map’ is the same.”) Even if you characterize some actions as pure incompetence (i.e. surprising Netanyahu on the 1967 “borders” speech), you would think that in the law of averages Obama once in a while would stumble in ways favorable to Israel.
And there is more. Obama’s administration was “appalled” and found civilian deaths in Gaza “inexcusable” when in fact our chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has recognized the extraordinary efforts by the IDF to avoid civilian deaths. The administration tried to undermine the Egypt-Israeli truce terms and introduced demands put forth by Hamas’s ally Qatar.
And let’s not forget in his Cairo speech he cast Palestinians in the role of African American slaves (thereby making Israel the slave masters) and refused to identify the historical roots of Jews in Israel (in essence adopting the Palestinian narrative that Israel’s existence is rooted in the Holocaust).
Whatever Obama’s intent (maybe he is anti-an ally that opposes Iran detente) the result is a president widely perceived in Israel of being un-supportive. That view transcends Israel domestic political lines. And here in the United States, few Middle East watchers would dispute that we have the worst relationship with our closest ally since the founding of the Jewish state.
Moreover, I strongly suspect that if Hillary Clinton runs for president she will characterize herself as much more sympathetic toward Israel and much better at maintaining the alliance than her ex-boss. (She better or she’ll lose some big supporters.) Granted it is a low bar to hop over but Clinton, even I would concede, is more supportive of Israel than the president. So if he is not anti-Israel, can we at least agree he is the least pro-Israel president ever?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/right-turn/wp/2014/11/10/obamas-conduct-toward-israel-cant-be-excused/
Obama advisor calls for the invasion of Israel
Samantha Power was chosen as the senior foreign policy advisor to Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim candidate currently running for the presidency of the United States on the Democrat ticket. As evidenced in this eye-opening video clip, Ms. Power expresses support for B. Hussein Obama's orthodox Muslim "drive the Jews into the sea" mentality by calling for a "mammoth protection force" that will prevent Israeli Jews from having the "audacity of hope" to defend themselves from Hamas/PLO qassam rockets fired at Israeli villages, schools, and hospitals on a regular basis. Only the Jewish Task Force has been right about Barack Hussein Osama since 2004. Join the Jewish Task force to help wake people up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the types of anti-Israeli nutjobs the Kenyan listens to. :neenee:
Samantha Power was chosen as the senior foreign policy advisor to Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim candidate currently running for the presidency of the United States on the Democrat ticket. As evidenced in this eye-opening video clip, Ms. Power expresses support for B. Hussein Obama's orthodox Muslim "drive the Jews into the sea" mentality by calling for a "mammoth protection force" that will prevent Israeli Jews from having the "audacity of hope" to defend themselves from Hamas/PLO qassam rockets fired at Israeli villages, schools, and hospitals on a regular basis. Only the Jewish Task Force has been right about Barack Hussein Osama since 2004. Join the Jewish Task force to help wake people up.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are the types of anti-Israeli nutjobs the Kenyan listens to. :neenee:
Netanyahu arrives in US for contested Congress Iran speech
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in the US to argue against a possible nuclear deal with Iran.
Mr Netanyahu says the deal would be inadequate to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
He is due to give a speech in Congress on Tuesday which was not agreed in advance with the Obama administration, angering the White House.
The speech comes two weeks before Israeli elections, with his Likud party under pressure in domestic polls.
The US and other powers - the so-called P5+1 - are negotiating with Iran on its nuclear programme.
They want a framework agreement by the end of the month which addresses concerns that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons technology, something Tehran denies.
'Political football'Before getting on the plane for Washington, Mr Netanyahu described his trip as a "fateful and even historic mission".
"I feel deep and genuine concern for the security of all the people of Israel," he said. "I will do everything in my ability to secure our future."
Mr Netanyahu was invited to speak in Congress by Republican leaders.
But the BBC's Barbara Plett-Usher in Washington says the move has angered Democrats, some of whom feel forced to choose between Mr Obama and their desire not to upset Israel.
Several Democratic members of Congress including Vice-President Joe Biden have said they will not attend the speech.
Mr Kerry said the Israeli prime minister was "welcome, obviously" to speak in the US
The Israeli leader is expected to talk about Iran and Islamist militant groups.
But US Secretary of State John Kerry - who is due to meet Iran's foreign minister in Geneva this week - said he hoped the speech would not turn into "some great political football".
However, he told ABC's This Week programme that Mr Netanyahu was "welcome to speak in the United States, obviously".
Mr Netanyahu's visit will start with an address on Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - the largest Jewish interest group in the US.
Also speaking will be Susan Rice - President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser. On Wednesday, she said Mr Netanyahu's visit was "destructive to the fabric" of the US-Israel relationship.
Iranian presidential spokesman Hamid Abutalebi said Tuesday's speech would further distance Israel from its allies and "finally will benefit Iran".
Quoted by Iran's Fars news agency, he said world opinion wanted to hear a message of peace and security.
"This message comes from Iran's peace-seeking negotiations... and not from Netanyahu's words at the Congress," he added.
President Obama does not plan to meet Mr Netanyahu next week.
The White House cited the "long-standing practice" of not meeting government leaders close to elections, which Israel will hold in mid-March.
Mr Netanyahu is fighting a tough election against the Labour Party's Yitzhak Herzog, who has focused on the prime minister's cooler relations with Mr Obama.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu has arrived in the US to argue against a possible nuclear deal with Iran.
Mr Netanyahu says the deal would be inadequate to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear bomb.
He is due to give a speech in Congress on Tuesday which was not agreed in advance with the Obama administration, angering the White House.
The speech comes two weeks before Israeli elections, with his Likud party under pressure in domestic polls.
The US and other powers - the so-called P5+1 - are negotiating with Iran on its nuclear programme.
They want a framework agreement by the end of the month which addresses concerns that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons technology, something Tehran denies.
'Political football'Before getting on the plane for Washington, Mr Netanyahu described his trip as a "fateful and even historic mission".
"I feel deep and genuine concern for the security of all the people of Israel," he said. "I will do everything in my ability to secure our future."
Mr Netanyahu was invited to speak in Congress by Republican leaders.
But the BBC's Barbara Plett-Usher in Washington says the move has angered Democrats, some of whom feel forced to choose between Mr Obama and their desire not to upset Israel.
Several Democratic members of Congress including Vice-President Joe Biden have said they will not attend the speech.
The Israeli leader is expected to talk about Iran and Islamist militant groups.
But US Secretary of State John Kerry - who is due to meet Iran's foreign minister in Geneva this week - said he hoped the speech would not turn into "some great political football".
However, he told ABC's This Week programme that Mr Netanyahu was "welcome to speak in the United States, obviously".
Mr Netanyahu's visit will start with an address on Monday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee - the largest Jewish interest group in the US.
Also speaking will be Susan Rice - President Barack Obama's National Security Adviser. On Wednesday, she said Mr Netanyahu's visit was "destructive to the fabric" of the US-Israel relationship.
Iranian presidential spokesman Hamid Abutalebi said Tuesday's speech would further distance Israel from its allies and "finally will benefit Iran".
Quoted by Iran's Fars news agency, he said world opinion wanted to hear a message of peace and security.
"This message comes from Iran's peace-seeking negotiations... and not from Netanyahu's words at the Congress," he added.
President Obama does not plan to meet Mr Netanyahu next week.
The White House cited the "long-standing practice" of not meeting government leaders close to elections, which Israel will hold in mid-March.
Mr Netanyahu is fighting a tough election against the Labour Party's Yitzhak Herzog, who has focused on the prime minister's cooler relations with Mr Obama.
And Now, The TRUTH, as one always needs after Casper's dives Dick First into the sick, Right Wing Blogosphere.
Notice the "left wing, anti Israel Nuts" who are defending Ms Powers, Boteach and Dershowitz.
[h=2]Samantha Power clarifies her comments on Israel[/h] by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
April 11, 2011 | 10:04 am
In a column last week I shared my disappointment in discovering that one of the people whose thought and books has been a formative influence on my life had been associated with anti-Israel remarks. Samantha Power is arguably the world’s foremost voice against genocide. Her 2002 Pulitzer-prize winning book A Problem from Hell is one that I have quoted on countless occasions in print and in lectures. As a member of a people who just 60 years faced total annihilation in the holocaust, I consider Power’s plea – that ‘Never Again’ be a motto that civilized nations deliver on, using the diplomatic, economic and, if necessary, military tools at their disposal to prevent genocide – to be one of the world’s most important. She currently serves as President Obama’s senior adviser on human rights and is widely acknowledged to have the President’s ear. She was also credited by many publications with being one of the most influential voices in President Obama’s decision to prevent Muammar Kaddafi from slaughtering his people (although in my meeting with her she adamantly denied this and said the decision was the President’s alone). In short, Power is and has been one of my heroes.
So it was with profound sadness that in praising her in recent lectures to the Jewish communities of Australia, South Africa, and New York that audience members approached me with alleged negative comments she had made against Israel. I responded with a column last week quoting the comments and calling on Ms. Power to clarify them lest she be seen as insensitive to a nation who has an army solely for self defense without which it would likely be subject to yet another genocide.
To her credit Ms. Power got in touch with me and invited me to meet her in her White House office this past Thursday. The meeting was substantive and directly addressed the comments I quoted. She was personable, accessible, and exhibited a humility uncommon to those in positions of high authority and power. She seemed genuinely and deeply pained by the perception that she was not a friend of Israel.
The principal comments attributed to her come from an interview she granted in 2002 in Berkeley, California while she was on her book tour. She was asked by an interviewer to respond to a “thought experiment” as to what she would advise an American president if it seemed that either party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were moving toward genocide. Any seasoned media professional would have known that rule number one – as Michael Dukakis famously discovered in 1988 after being asked by Bernard Shaw of CNN how he would respond if his wife Kitty were raped – is never to respond to a hypothetical. But Power, fresh on the national media scene, was baited by the question and answered that preventing such a genocide would entail America being prepared to alienate a powerful constituency – by which she meant the American-Jewish community - and sending in a protective force to prevent another situation like Rwanda. From these comments – putting Israel and the possibility of genocide against the Palestinians in a single sentence – Power has been lobbed together with other enemies of Israel.
In our conversation she rejected utterly the notion she had any animus toward Israel. She acknowledged that she had erred significantly in offering hypothetical comments that did not reflect how she felt. She said that opponents of President Obama had unfairly taken her disorganized comments further and characterized them as ‘invade Israel’ talk. She said that if she really believed that Israel could even be remotely accused of practicing genocide against the Palestinians then the correct forum for her to express that view would have been somewhere in the 664 pages of her book wherein she details all the genocides of the twentieth century. She never even hints at Israel being guilty of any such atrocity. She explained that the only time she has written about Israel was in a later book on slain UN Diplomat Sérgio Vieira de Mello. There she described his time in UNIFIL and included a discussion of the Government of Israel’s own findings on Sabra and Shatila.
To bolster her argument she mentioned that her former Professor at Harvard Alan Dershowitz – whom I consider to be Israel’s most eloquent global champion – called her after A Problem from Hell was published to applaud her for not remotely associating Israel with genocide, the way so many academic enemies had. I checked with my old friend Professor Dershowitz and he confirmed that he has warm feelings toward his former student and considers her a moderate on Israel.
Listening to Power face-to-face and hearing her clarification set amidst the visible hurt of being grouped together with Israel’s detractors, I found her argument convincing. Power, the world’s leading chronicler of genocide, is being dismissed as an enemy of the Jewish state based almost entirely on a fragment of a single interview lasting about two-and-a-half minutes. Most significantly, however we understand the meaning of her words in the unfortunate interview, they are utterly belied by her actions. She would later indeed become a senior adviser to a President of the United States and not only would she never even remotely identify Israel as a genocidal power that needed to be stopped but, to the contrary, she would utilize her influence to advocate for military action against a genocidal Arab dictator who is not only killing innocent Arab protestors but is, along with Iran, one of Israel’s most outspoken enemies.
In addition, some leading members of the American Jewish establishment shared with me that Power was instrumental in having America decline attendance at Durban II in April 2009, otherwise known as the United Nations World Conference Against Racism, which promised to be, like Durban I in 2001, a UN-sponsored Israel hate-fest.
There have been other, more minor comments by Power that have been interpreted as hostile to Israel but the interpretations rely on the assumption, generated in 2002, that she is an Israel-hater. But based on Ms. Power’s clarification, and much more importantly her actions, I believe this perception to be without merit and justice demands that we now move on from her comments and judge her instead by her actions.
I would be remiss if I did not mention my personal stake in the rehabilitation of Samantha Power’s reputation in the Jewish community. Firstly, it seems incongruous that a woman that has done more in modern times to highlight the atrocity of genocide than anyone else should be ostracized from a community that has most experienced its tragic effects. Indeed, in our meeting Power told me that the Jewish community is by far the most vocal against genocide and that at the Save Darfur rally of 1 May, 2006 there was an endless sea of yarmulkes. Likewise, in A Problem from Hell she writes of the Jewish community’s role in mobilizing military intervention in Bosnia.
Second, Muammar Kaddafi owns the home right next door to me in Englewood, New Jersey. I have been sickened over the past two years to awaken every morning to the site of the Libyan flag flying fifty feet from my home. I have done everything in my power to fight and oppose this brutal dictator ever since he announced plans to personally occupy the home and pitch a tent next-door to me. I have lobbied mayors, Governors, Congressmen, and Senators. Amid my deep respect for President Bush and his efforts to spread democracy in the Middle East, I was disappointed that his administration chose to normalize relations with Kaddafi. But one of the few American officials with a President’s ear who advocated punishing Kaddafi for his wickedness was Samantha Power.
Third – and for me most importantly – I have spent a large part of my life fighting Israel’s enemies in public forums. Whether it was the eleven years at the University of Oxford where I brought five Israeli Prime Ministers and endless cabinet ministers to respond to false accusations against the Jewish state or the past eleven years where I have been a defender of Israel on the American airwaves, championing the truth about Israel as a benevolent and liberal democracy has been one of my life’s highest callings. But as important as it is to expose those who are our enemies, it is equally important to exonerate those who are not. A person’s reputation is all they have and I know what it is like to feel unjustly maligned. Samantha Power has done the Jewish people a service by highlighting the crime of genocide and we welcome her repudiation of earlier comments on Israel. They were some time ago, she has expressed her regret for comments that lent themselves to misinterpretation and Judaism teaches that a person is judged primarily by their actions.
Power has lectured all over the world about the holocaust. She has used her influence to prevent a dictator from killing more of G-d’s children. She has highlighted the central role of world Jewry in preventing genocide. These are heroic actions that should be applauded rather than criticized.
[h=1]Still Not True: Conservatives Revive Falsehood That Samantha Power Called For Invading Israel[/h] [h=5] Blog ››› April 24, 2012 1:00 PM EDT ››› REMINGTON SHEPARD[/h]
Right-wing media are responding to Obama adviser Samantha Power's appointment as chair of the newly created Atrocities Prevention Board by reviving the long-debunked smear that Power once advocated for an invasion of Israel.
Echoing a post by conservative blogger and Breitbart contributor Jeff Dunetz, Jim Hoft and Weasel Zippers both ran with the false claim that Power "called for [a] military invasion of Israel." Hoft further called Power a "Jew-basher," while Weasel Zippers stated that Power's appointment to the Atrocities Prevention Board was "nreal even by Obama's woeful standards."
All three posts take comments made by Power out of context in order to claim that she pushed for an invasion of Israel.
In 2002, during an undated edition of Conversations With History, a program produced by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of International Studies, Power was asked the following question:
Right-wing media are responding to Obama adviser Samantha Power's appointment as chair of the newly created Atrocities Prevention Board by reviving the long-debunked smear that Power once advocated for an invasion of Israel.
Echoing a post by conservative blogger and Breitbart contributor Jeff Dunetz, Jim Hoft and Weasel Zippers both ran with the false claim that Power "called for [a] military invasion of Israel." Hoft further called Power a "Jew-basher," while Weasel Zippers stated that Power's appointment to the Atrocities Prevention Board was "nreal even by Obama's woeful standards."
All three posts take comments made by Power out of context in order to claim that she pushed for an invasion of Israel.
In 2002, during an undated edition of Conversations With History, a program produced by the University of California-Berkeley Institute of International Studies, Power was asked the following question:
HARRY KREISLER (host): Let me give you a thought experiment here, without asking you to address the Palestine-Israel problem: Let's say you were an adviser to the president of the United States. How would, in response to current events, would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least one party or another be looking like they might be moving toward genocide?
Right-wing media have twisted her response, claiming that she advocated for a military invasion of Israel and that subsequently she is a "decided enemy" of Israel. In fact, Power, asked about what would be necessary to stop a move toward genocide by "one party or another" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, said it may require more investment in a future Palestinian state and a "meaningful military presence."
POWER: Well, I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem, and I actually think in the Palestine-Israeli situation, there's an abundance of information, and what we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there. What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in sort of helping the situation. And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import. It may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- literally billions of dollars not in servicing Israelis', you know, military, but actually in investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support, I think, what will have to be a mammoth protection force. Not of the old, you know, Srebrenica kind or the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence, because it seems to me at this stage -- and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just, you know, major human rights abuses, which we're seeing there. But -- is that you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
And unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean, it's a terrible thing to do; it's fundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, you know -- we don't just have a democracy here either. We have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide, you know, our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. And there, it's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people, and by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called "Sharafat." I mean, I do think in that sense, there's -- that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately, it does require external intervention which, very much like the Rwanda scenario -- that thought experiment, of "if we had intervened early" -- any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are just becoming ever more pronounced.
And unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. I mean, it's a terrible thing to do; it's fundamentally undemocratic. But sadly, you know -- we don't just have a democracy here either. We have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide, you know, our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. And there, it's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people, and by that I mean what Tom Friedman has called "Sharafat." I mean, I do think in that sense, there's -- that both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible, and unfortunately, it does require external intervention which, very much like the Rwanda scenario -- that thought experiment, of "if we had intervened early" -- any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism, but we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are just becoming ever more pronounced.
“A few days before the Fast of Esther, I am leaving for Washington on a fateful, even historic, mission. I feel that I am the emissary of all Israelis, even those who disagree with me, of the entire Jewish People. I am deeply and genuinely concerned for the security of all Israelis, for the fate of the nation, and for the fate of our people and I will do my utmost to ensure our future.” -- PM Benjamin Netanyahu
:aktion033
An exclusive sneak preview of Bibi's speech:
"Members of Congress and my American friends,
The Islamo-Nazis in Tehran haven't stopped developing nukes, and your phony-ass 'president' threatened to shoot down my f----- planes!"
kth)(&^
:aktion033
An exclusive sneak preview of Bibi's speech:
"Members of Congress and my American friends,
The Islamo-Nazis in Tehran haven't stopped developing nukes, and your phony-ass 'president' threatened to shoot down my f----- planes!"
kth)(&^
Senate Unanimously Welcomes Netanyahu to America
No Senate Democrats block measure backing Bibi’s speech
February 27, 2015 3:15 pm
The Senate on Thursday unanimously passed a resolution welcoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to America and endorsing his speech before a joint session of Congress.
Critics of the Obama administration view the unanimous approval as a rebuke to the White House and Democrats, who have vowed to boycott Netanyahu’s address and work to counter his warnings about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/senate-unanimously-welcomes-netanyahu-to-america/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for your laughable 'boycott', Guesstard.
The Muslim Kenyan and that Iranian c-u-n-t just pissed themselves!
k:
No Senate Democrats block measure backing Bibi’s speech
Sen. John Cornyn (R., Texas) was the chief sponsor of the resolution welcoming Netanyahu. / AP
BY: Adam Kredo February 27, 2015 3:15 pm
The Senate on Thursday unanimously passed a resolution welcoming Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to America and endorsing his speech before a joint session of Congress.
Critics of the Obama administration view the unanimous approval as a rebuke to the White House and Democrats, who have vowed to boycott Netanyahu’s address and work to counter his warnings about the dangers of a nuclear Iran.
http://freebeacon.com/national-security/senate-unanimously-welcomes-netanyahu-to-america/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So much for your laughable 'boycott', Guesstard.
The Muslim Kenyan and that Iranian c-u-n-t just pissed themselves!
k:
