Casper can post Obama Pot Pictures and the rantings of a sick, out of touch maniac like Ted Cruz. I'll continue to post articles of substance:
Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu backfires on them both
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a state memorial ceremony for late Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon on January 29, 2015. (Gil Cohen Magen/AFP/Getty Images)
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer January 29
The political ramifications are clear: House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a colossal mistake by conspiring behind President Obama’s back, and the move has ricocheted on both of them.
The big, scary issue underlying the contretemps — how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program — is a more complicated story. I believe strongly that Obama’s approach, which requires the patience to give negotiations a chance, is the right one. To the extent that a case can be made for a more bellicose approach, Boehner and Netanyahu have undermined it.
First, the politics. Why on earth would anyone think it was a good idea to arrange for Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress without telling Obama or anyone in his administration about the invitation?
Yes, Congress has an important role to play in international affairs. And yes, the days are long gone when disputes among officials over foreign policy ended at the water’s edge; members of Congress routinely gallivant around the globe and share their freelance views of what the United States should or should not be doing. But inviting a foreign leader to speak at the Capitol without even informing the president, let alone consulting him, is a bald-faced usurpation for which there is no recent precedent.
Pending legislation, which Obama threatens to veto, would automatically impose tough sanctions against Iran if the drawn-out, multiparty nuclear negotiations fail. If Boehner wanted to build support for sanctions, he failed spectacularly.
Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and a vocal hawk on Iran policy, announced Tuesday that he would not vote for his own bill imposing automatic sanctions — at least not until after a March 24 deadline for negotiators to produce the outlines of an agreement. Nine of his pro-sanctions Democratic colleagues in the Senate joined him, meaning the bill is unlikely to win the necessary 60 votes for passage.
If Boehner’s aim was to paint Obama as somehow soft on Iran, he failed at that, too. The speaker inadvertently turned the focus on himself and has had to spend the week explaining why he went behind the president’s back, not even giving the White House a heads-up until hours before the March 3 speech was announced.
Netanyahu, for his part, may have thought this was a way to boost his prospects in the upcoming Israeli election, scheduled for March 17. Or he may have fantasized that somehow, by openly siding with the Republican Party, he could snatch U.S. foreign policy out of Obama’s hands. Judging by the pounding he is taking from the Israeli media, he was mistaken on both counts.
Note to all foreign leaders: We have one president at a time. Americans respected this fact when George W. Bush was president, for better or worse. And we respect it now.
The speech episode borders on farce, but the larger debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions could not be more serious. The central issue is whether a negotiated deal will leave Iran with the theoretical capability to build a nuclear bomb if it were to decide to do so. No amount of diplomatic legerdemain, it seems to me, can avoid answering this question with a simple yes or no.
If you say yes, as Netanyahu does, then Iran must be stripped of all ability to enrich uranium. It is easy to understand why the Israeli government sees a *nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat — and also worries that other regional powers concerned about Iran’s growing influence, such as Saudi Arabia, might decide that they, too, need to get into the nuclear game.
Iran insists, however, that it has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. The government in Tehran is unlikely to give up that right but may be willing to limit itself to low-grade enrichment that produces material incapable of being used in a bomb. At least some infrastructure for high-grade enrichment would remain, however — and so would some risk of an eventual Iranian bomb.
During a news conference Tuesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner addressed "stumbles" Republican lawmakers have run into so far in 2015 and objections to his invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress.
Is this good enough? If the alternative is war with Iran, it may have to be.
I do not believe that war is in the interest of the United States. I also do not believe that war is in the interest of Israel, but of course Netanyahu has the right — he would say the duty, if he concludes that force is required — to disagree. Nothing that remotely resembles a perfect outcome is in sight. It must be better to keep talking than start bombing.
Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu backfires on them both
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attends a state memorial ceremony for late Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon on January 29, 2015. (Gil Cohen Magen/AFP/Getty Images)
By Eugene Robinson Opinion writer January 29 The political ramifications are clear: House Speaker John Boehner and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a colossal mistake by conspiring behind President Obama’s back, and the move has ricocheted on both of them.
The big, scary issue underlying the contretemps — how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program — is a more complicated story. I believe strongly that Obama’s approach, which requires the patience to give negotiations a chance, is the right one. To the extent that a case can be made for a more bellicose approach, Boehner and Netanyahu have undermined it.
First, the politics. Why on earth would anyone think it was a good idea to arrange for Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress without telling Obama or anyone in his administration about the invitation?
Yes, Congress has an important role to play in international affairs. And yes, the days are long gone when disputes among officials over foreign policy ended at the water’s edge; members of Congress routinely gallivant around the globe and share their freelance views of what the United States should or should not be doing. But inviting a foreign leader to speak at the Capitol without even informing the president, let alone consulting him, is a bald-faced usurpation for which there is no recent precedent.
Pending legislation, which Obama threatens to veto, would automatically impose tough sanctions against Iran if the drawn-out, multiparty nuclear negotiations fail. If Boehner wanted to build support for sanctions, he failed spectacularly.
Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, the ranking Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee and a vocal hawk on Iran policy, announced Tuesday that he would not vote for his own bill imposing automatic sanctions — at least not until after a March 24 deadline for negotiators to produce the outlines of an agreement. Nine of his pro-sanctions Democratic colleagues in the Senate joined him, meaning the bill is unlikely to win the necessary 60 votes for passage.
If Boehner’s aim was to paint Obama as somehow soft on Iran, he failed at that, too. The speaker inadvertently turned the focus on himself and has had to spend the week explaining why he went behind the president’s back, not even giving the White House a heads-up until hours before the March 3 speech was announced.
Netanyahu, for his part, may have thought this was a way to boost his prospects in the upcoming Israeli election, scheduled for March 17. Or he may have fantasized that somehow, by openly siding with the Republican Party, he could snatch U.S. foreign policy out of Obama’s hands. Judging by the pounding he is taking from the Israeli media, he was mistaken on both counts.
Note to all foreign leaders: We have one president at a time. Americans respected this fact when George W. Bush was president, for better or worse. And we respect it now.
The speech episode borders on farce, but the larger debate over Iran’s nuclear ambitions could not be more serious. The central issue is whether a negotiated deal will leave Iran with the theoretical capability to build a nuclear bomb if it were to decide to do so. No amount of diplomatic legerdemain, it seems to me, can avoid answering this question with a simple yes or no.
If you say yes, as Netanyahu does, then Iran must be stripped of all ability to enrich uranium. It is easy to understand why the Israeli government sees a *nuclear-capable Iran as an existential threat — and also worries that other regional powers concerned about Iran’s growing influence, such as Saudi Arabia, might decide that they, too, need to get into the nuclear game.
Iran insists, however, that it has the right to a peaceful nuclear program. The government in Tehran is unlikely to give up that right but may be willing to limit itself to low-grade enrichment that produces material incapable of being used in a bomb. At least some infrastructure for high-grade enrichment would remain, however — and so would some risk of an eventual Iranian bomb.
During a news conference Tuesday, Speaker of the House John Boehner addressed "stumbles" Republican lawmakers have run into so far in 2015 and objections to his invitation of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress.
Is this good enough? If the alternative is war with Iran, it may have to be.
I do not believe that war is in the interest of the United States. I also do not believe that war is in the interest of Israel, but of course Netanyahu has the right — he would say the duty, if he concludes that force is required — to disagree. Nothing that remotely resembles a perfect outcome is in sight. It must be better to keep talking than start bombing.
Israel Releases Footage Of An Iranian ICBM That Could Reach And Strike The US! [Video]
So, tell me again why our President is threatening to veto any new sanctions against Iran? Why our Marxist leaders are insisting that Iran has a right to nuclear power, which in reality is nuclear warfare capability? Are we on the wrong side, suicidal or both? Obama is knowingly releasing the worst of the worst from Gitmo to go back and actively command and assist these terrorists. This isn’t some far off battle that doesn’t affect us. Iran’s missiles can now reach the United States! And it isn’t just them – it’s Russia and China too. They are literally salivating at the thought of taking us down and Obama is helping them. Please give me one shred of evidence he is not aligned with our enemies, given that he is gutting our military at a time when the world is on fire and an Islamic Caliphate is rising, waging global war and conquest.
Two years ago the Pentagon warned that Iran was dangerously close to reaching
the ability to strike the U.S. with Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles. According to
new video footage from an Israeli satellite, it appears they may already be there.
From the Jerusalem Post:
Iran has apparently produced an intercontinental ballistic missile whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe.
On Wednesday night, Channel 2 showed satellite imagery taken by Israel’s Eros-B satellite that was launched last April. The imagery showed new missile-related sites that Iran recently constructed just outside Tehran. One facility is a missile launch site, capable of sending a rocket into space or of firing an ICBM.
On the launch pad was a new 27-meter long missile, never seen before.
The missile and the launch pad indicate that Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is an integral part of its nuclear weapons program, is moving forward at full throttle. The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States as well.
Weakness is sensed by all our enemies around us and it acts like an aphrodisiac in wartime. I might also remind everyone that there is a Russian naval warship docked in Cuba, while our diplomats are over there cuddling with dictators. You are known by who you associate with. You might ask yourself why Obama has such a fondness for Islamo-fascists and dictators. Iran is about to go nuclear and they now have a delivery system that will put it in our laps. Well done, Progressives.
So, tell me again why our President is threatening to veto any new sanctions against Iran? Why our Marxist leaders are insisting that Iran has a right to nuclear power, which in reality is nuclear warfare capability? Are we on the wrong side, suicidal or both? Obama is knowingly releasing the worst of the worst from Gitmo to go back and actively command and assist these terrorists. This isn’t some far off battle that doesn’t affect us. Iran’s missiles can now reach the United States! And it isn’t just them – it’s Russia and China too. They are literally salivating at the thought of taking us down and Obama is helping them. Please give me one shred of evidence he is not aligned with our enemies, given that he is gutting our military at a time when the world is on fire and an Islamic Caliphate is rising, waging global war and conquest.
Two years ago the Pentagon warned that Iran was dangerously close to reaching
the ability to strike the U.S. with Inter-continental Ballistic Missiles. According to
new video footage from an Israeli satellite, it appears they may already be there.
From the Jerusalem Post:
Iran has apparently produced an intercontinental ballistic missile whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe.
On Wednesday night, Channel 2 showed satellite imagery taken by Israel’s Eros-B satellite that was launched last April. The imagery showed new missile-related sites that Iran recently constructed just outside Tehran. One facility is a missile launch site, capable of sending a rocket into space or of firing an ICBM.
On the launch pad was a new 27-meter long missile, never seen before.
The missile and the launch pad indicate that Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is an integral part of its nuclear weapons program, is moving forward at full throttle. The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States as well.
Weakness is sensed by all our enemies around us and it acts like an aphrodisiac in wartime. I might also remind everyone that there is a Russian naval warship docked in Cuba, while our diplomats are over there cuddling with dictators. You are known by who you associate with. You might ask yourself why Obama has such a fondness for Islamo-fascists and dictators. Iran is about to go nuclear and they now have a delivery system that will put it in our laps. Well done, Progressives.
uke1:Absolutely revolting!
Obama has agreed to 80 percent of Iran's demands in nuclear talks, Israeli officials tell Ch. 10
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/...ear-talks-Israeli-officials-tell-Ch-10-389532
Obama has agreed to 80 percent of Iran's demands in nuclear talks, Israeli officials tell Ch. 10
http://www.jpost.com/Breaking-News/...ear-talks-Israeli-officials-tell-Ch-10-389532
Washington Times Editorial 1/26/2015
The clock is ticking on efforts to halt Iran’s quest for the bomb, and time is running out. When it does, the folly of allowing a rogue state to threaten the Middle East — and the world — with the bomb will be exposed in stark and horrifying relief. Neville Chamberlain was the face of appeasement in the 20th century; Barack Obama would be that face in the 21st.
There are many moving parts in the tug of war between Western powers and the Islamic republic, but one of those parts has not moved. Tehran is determined to transform the region, and the world, by achieving the weapon to crush the Jewish state and intimidate everyone else. A dozen years at the negotiating table has changed nothing. Ali Khamenei, the mullah who is the supreme leader of Iran, tells his Twitter followers that “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.”
Iran, by the calculations of analysts in the West, has manufactured sufficient enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon in three months. All the P5-plus-1 negotiators from the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany can hope to accomplish is to extend the regime’s breakout timetable to 12 months. The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Iran has now produced an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range that would take it beyond Europe. Such a missile armed with a nuclear warhead would threaten hundreds of millions of people. Time flies while the talkers jibber-jabber, and those three months would come and go before the talkers finish clearing their throats.
Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, has had enough. Breaking ranks with President Obama, he and Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a Republican, have introduced legislation to strengthen economic sanctions against Iran unless the mullahs quit their stalling. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, a Republican, has offered a softer bill that would require Senate approval of a nuclear deal with Iran. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken makes the usual plea for patience, offering the usual forlorn hope for an interim agreement in March that could be made final by June. After that there will more interim hopes, more extensions of talks that go nowhere. Dispensing with the usual niceties, Mr. Menendez says the White House is using talking points “straight out of Tehran.”
House Speaker John Boehner is tired of the stalling game, too. That’s why he invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress on March 3. He might stiffen a few backbones. The White House, embarrassed, wants to talk about a breach of protocol, not about the threat of the Islamic bomb. Mr. Obama warns that strengthening sanctions could trigger war. If Mr. Obama wants to take counsel with his fear, the mullahs are happy to supply the fear.
John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, characterizes the Obama strategy for reaching a binding nuclear agreement with the mullahs as “a complete illusion.” Given the sudden collapse of Yemen despite recent assurances that the Gulf nation had become a model of Foggy Bottom success, betting against an illusion is a wise bet. White House spokesman Josh Earnest conceded Friday that the chance that negotiators in Geneva would sign an agreement with Iran are “50-50 at best.” Risking so much on flimsy illusion is a fool’s game.
The clock is ticking on efforts to halt Iran’s quest for the bomb, and time is running out. When it does, the folly of allowing a rogue state to threaten the Middle East — and the world — with the bomb will be exposed in stark and horrifying relief. Neville Chamberlain was the face of appeasement in the 20th century; Barack Obama would be that face in the 21st.
There are many moving parts in the tug of war between Western powers and the Islamic republic, but one of those parts has not moved. Tehran is determined to transform the region, and the world, by achieving the weapon to crush the Jewish state and intimidate everyone else. A dozen years at the negotiating table has changed nothing. Ali Khamenei, the mullah who is the supreme leader of Iran, tells his Twitter followers that “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of #Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.”
Iran, by the calculations of analysts in the West, has manufactured sufficient enriched uranium to build a nuclear weapon in three months. All the P5-plus-1 negotiators from the United States, Britain, France, China, Russia and Germany can hope to accomplish is to extend the regime’s breakout timetable to 12 months. The Jerusalem Post reported last week that Iran has now produced an intercontinental ballistic missile with a range that would take it beyond Europe. Such a missile armed with a nuclear warhead would threaten hundreds of millions of people. Time flies while the talkers jibber-jabber, and those three months would come and go before the talkers finish clearing their throats.
Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, a Democrat, has had enough. Breaking ranks with President Obama, he and Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, a Republican, have introduced legislation to strengthen economic sanctions against Iran unless the mullahs quit their stalling. Sen. Bob Corker of Tennessee, a Republican, has offered a softer bill that would require Senate approval of a nuclear deal with Iran. Deputy Secretary of State Antony Blinken makes the usual plea for patience, offering the usual forlorn hope for an interim agreement in March that could be made final by June. After that there will more interim hopes, more extensions of talks that go nowhere. Dispensing with the usual niceties, Mr. Menendez says the White House is using talking points “straight out of Tehran.”
House Speaker John Boehner is tired of the stalling game, too. That’s why he invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress on March 3. He might stiffen a few backbones. The White House, embarrassed, wants to talk about a breach of protocol, not about the threat of the Islamic bomb. Mr. Obama warns that strengthening sanctions could trigger war. If Mr. Obama wants to take counsel with his fear, the mullahs are happy to supply the fear.
John Bolton, the former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, characterizes the Obama strategy for reaching a binding nuclear agreement with the mullahs as “a complete illusion.” Given the sudden collapse of Yemen despite recent assurances that the Gulf nation had become a model of Foggy Bottom success, betting against an illusion is a wise bet. White House spokesman Josh Earnest conceded Friday that the chance that negotiators in Geneva would sign an agreement with Iran are “50-50 at best.” Risking so much on flimsy illusion is a fool’s game.
January 30, 2015
President Obama and ‘Naked, Blind Anti-Semitism’
Lauri B. Regan, AMERICAN THINKER
Last week, pro-Palestinian protestors disrupted a New York City Council meeting yelling slogans and brandishing a Palestinian flag. The demonstration was particularly offensive given that it occurred as council members were voting on a resolution commemorating the 70[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
In an impassioned response, Councilman David Greenfield observed that every Middle East country — except Israel — is not democratic and persecutes people of other faiths, gays, women, and those with opinions inconsistent with those of their governments. He concluded, “What you saw here today was naked, blind anti-Semitism.”
Greenfield’s point is critical. Those who attack and demonize Israel for its imperfections in the face of the atrocities committed by its Arab neighbors are not just hypocrites. There is only one explanation for their irrational condemnations: hatred of Jews. And there is no difference between protests by pro-Palestinians and protests that regularly emanate from the White House.
Incomprehensibly, while Israel is unquestionably our most strategic ally in the region, the administration is taking great strides to fundamentally transform the Middle East. By aligning itself with Iran in its undeclared war against Sunni jihadists, Obama has distanced America from traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Obama is empowering Iran under the auspices of shared interests and green lighting its development of military infrastructure on Israel’s borders — through which threats and attacks have already begun.
If Obama were only injecting a bit of daylight into our relationship with Israel, perhaps the worrisome situation would not be so dire. Unfortunately, he has sought to remove the U.S. from the Mideast, resulting in a formerly stable region devolving into chaos and violence with the vacuum filled by Iran and jihadists. He has ostracized, admonished, bullied, and isolated Israel in unprecedented fashion, dangerously galvanizing her enemies. And it is difficult not to look at the administration’s policies and conclude that “good old-fashioned anti-Semitism” motivates its actions.
How else to explain why Obama consistently lambasts Netanyahu for disagreeing with him, issuing building permits for construction on Israeli land, and acting to ensure the survival of the country the prime minister was elected to protect? How else to explain the name-calling and abuse bestowed upon an ally for whom Obama only exhibits disdain? How else can one explain Obama’s passivity and disregard for the actions of the leaders of Mideast countries with abysmal records of human rights abuses, government sanctioned torture and murder, and who are leading sponsors of international terrorism?
When Biden was in Israel and housing permits were announced, the uproar from the White House was disproportionately obnoxious. Yet when Obama was in Saudi Arabia this week and three people were beheaded, he said nothing. In fact, his laissez faire attitude about Saudi human rights abuses is on full display in his recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.
How does one explain the White House’s outrage at Netanyahu every time he attempts to work with the U.S. to stop Iran from going nuclear? And yet, just as Obama agrees to another extension of the negotiations with Iran and the mullahs announce the construction of two new nuclear reactors and a law permitting an increase in uranium enrichment, a true “spat in the face” to Obama, all we hear is radio silence from the administration? (Actually, the administration admitted it was aware of Iran’s nuclear endeavors but is opting to ignore those in its quixotic pursuit of any agreement that it can label an historic achievement.)
How does one explain Obama’s description of Abbas, Rouhani, and the Muslim Brotherhood as moderates while his administration’s choice of words for Netanyahu include chickensh*t, coward, recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and aspergery?
The administration is now apoplectic over Netanyahu accepting Speaker Boehner’s invitation to speak before Congress. It is lobbing a myriad of threats including that Kerry’s interest in defending Israel will diminish and that there will be “a price to pay” because this is something “you simply don’t do.” What you actually don’t do is send a delegation to a foreign country and finance an opposition group to help oust a sitting Prime Minister. And yet this is exactly what the Obama administration is doing in Israel.
Why would Obama become so integrally involved in Israel’s elections? It is not because Obama despises Netanyahu (which he does). It is because Obama is hoping that a weak leader will replace Netanyahu and remain quiet while Obama allows Iran to go nuclear. But any Israeli Prime Minister who does not capitulate to Obama’s demands will be the subject of his vitriol and abuse.
What motivates Obama is not our national security but his own self-interest in avoiding war at all costs. He pulled our troops out of Iraq prematurely and Iran filled the vacuum. He surrendered on his red lines with Syria and now a quarter of a million are dead and ISIS is flourishing. He refused to militarily intervene in Libya (aside from briefly leading from behind) and we have four dead Americas and a county in chaos. He promised that Yemen was a success and we just evacuated our embassy as the Houthi terrorists took over.
Obama accedes to every Iranian demand in a desperate attempt to thwart a confrontation despite it leading to a nuclear-armed, nihilistic terrorist regime. And the people he attacks the most are not the dictators and terrorists but the Israelis who are on the front lines facing our enemies daily and American Jews, accused of dual loyalties and self-regard.
What motivates Netanyahu is protecting the Holy Land and ensuring that Jewish people survive the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Instead of understanding why Israel might be a bit concerned as it watches its borders break down, jihadists run rampant, and Iran play Obama like a cheap violin, the lame duck administration throws out threats historically saved for a nation’s enemies.
Every time Netanyahu disagrees with Obama, someone from the administration attempts to intimidate and silence him. From Kerry’s warnings that the BDSers will find success or that Israel will become further isolated to the latest grotesque threat that there will be a price to pay for Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, there is only one explanation for this ugliness. The administration’s blatant anti-Zionist policies are a direct result of its anti-Semitic ideology. As Dr Phyllis Chesler, author of The New Anti-Semitism, recognized years ago, “anti-Zionism [is], indeed, a core part of the ‘new’ anti-Semitism.”
The hypocrisy and hollowness of Obama’s words on Holocaust Remembrance Day promising “never again” are offensive. But we have come to expect empty rhetoric from the Liar-in-Chief — Iran is no exception. While Netanyahu struggles to ensure that the mullahcracy that has consistently promised to annihilate the Jewish homeland does not obtain nuclear capability, Obama bashes and threatens him in typical Chicago-style. As Netanyahu understands the veracity of Iran’s latest promise to hit Israel with “devastating thunderbolts” to cause “the collapse of the Zionist regime,” Obama adds fuel to the fire with his own threats of Israel’s price to pay. And Iran’s threats to “the Zionist regime” were communicated to Israel through U.S officials! No word yet on Obama promising Iran there would be a price to pay for threatening an ally.
The State Department met this week with Muslim Brotherhood leaders to discuss efforts to oust the current Egyptian government, which has been friendly to Israel and the West. This is abominable. As Iran sets up shop on Israel’s Syrian and Lebanese borders, Obama throws the Shiite terrorists another bone to help them retake control of Egypt on Israel’s southern border. The optics of this, coupled with Obama ceding Syria, Iraq and Yemen to Iran, do not look good.
After Israel struck a convoy of senior Iranian and Hezb’allah commanders in the Golan Heights last week, Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Tony Badran explained:
The U.S./Israel alliance, once based on mutual respect, values, and interests, is devolving into a bitter divide. Iran and Obama, on the other hand, are now aligned through mutual threats to Israel, mutual efforts to build an Iranian hegemon in the region, and imminent mutual nuclear capabilities.
America has historically been Israel’s one reliable partner that she could turn to for international support and protection. No longer. We now have a president taking affirmative and aggressive steps that are harming her ability to survive in an ever-threatening neighborhood. In embracing the world’s largest sponsor of international terrorism, Obama has disavowed any responsibility to prevent another Holocaust.
In 1980, Iran prevented an American military incursion by releasing the hostages the day that Carter left office. Ironically, they may successfully do so again the day that Obama leaves the White House. It will not be out of fear of his successor this time but rather because Iran will announce that it has obtained nuclear arms. And the Anti-Semite in chief, who embraced Wright, Khalidi, Ayers, Sharpton, Erdogan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Mullahs, will be fully responsible for hammering the nails into Israel’s coffin.
President Obama and ‘Naked, Blind Anti-Semitism’
Lauri B. Regan, AMERICAN THINKER
Last week, pro-Palestinian protestors disrupted a New York City Council meeting yelling slogans and brandishing a Palestinian flag. The demonstration was particularly offensive given that it occurred as council members were voting on a resolution commemorating the 70[SUP]th[/SUP] anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz.
In an impassioned response, Councilman David Greenfield observed that every Middle East country — except Israel — is not democratic and persecutes people of other faiths, gays, women, and those with opinions inconsistent with those of their governments. He concluded, “What you saw here today was naked, blind anti-Semitism.”
Greenfield’s point is critical. Those who attack and demonize Israel for its imperfections in the face of the atrocities committed by its Arab neighbors are not just hypocrites. There is only one explanation for their irrational condemnations: hatred of Jews. And there is no difference between protests by pro-Palestinians and protests that regularly emanate from the White House.
Incomprehensibly, while Israel is unquestionably our most strategic ally in the region, the administration is taking great strides to fundamentally transform the Middle East. By aligning itself with Iran in its undeclared war against Sunni jihadists, Obama has distanced America from traditional allies such as Israel and Saudi Arabia. Obama is empowering Iran under the auspices of shared interests and green lighting its development of military infrastructure on Israel’s borders — through which threats and attacks have already begun.
If Obama were only injecting a bit of daylight into our relationship with Israel, perhaps the worrisome situation would not be so dire. Unfortunately, he has sought to remove the U.S. from the Mideast, resulting in a formerly stable region devolving into chaos and violence with the vacuum filled by Iran and jihadists. He has ostracized, admonished, bullied, and isolated Israel in unprecedented fashion, dangerously galvanizing her enemies. And it is difficult not to look at the administration’s policies and conclude that “good old-fashioned anti-Semitism” motivates its actions.
How else to explain why Obama consistently lambasts Netanyahu for disagreeing with him, issuing building permits for construction on Israeli land, and acting to ensure the survival of the country the prime minister was elected to protect? How else to explain the name-calling and abuse bestowed upon an ally for whom Obama only exhibits disdain? How else can one explain Obama’s passivity and disregard for the actions of the leaders of Mideast countries with abysmal records of human rights abuses, government sanctioned torture and murder, and who are leading sponsors of international terrorism?
When Biden was in Israel and housing permits were announced, the uproar from the White House was disproportionately obnoxious. Yet when Obama was in Saudi Arabia this week and three people were beheaded, he said nothing. In fact, his laissez faire attitude about Saudi human rights abuses is on full display in his recent interview with CNN’s Fareed Zakaria.
How does one explain the White House’s outrage at Netanyahu every time he attempts to work with the U.S. to stop Iran from going nuclear? And yet, just as Obama agrees to another extension of the negotiations with Iran and the mullahs announce the construction of two new nuclear reactors and a law permitting an increase in uranium enrichment, a true “spat in the face” to Obama, all we hear is radio silence from the administration? (Actually, the administration admitted it was aware of Iran’s nuclear endeavors but is opting to ignore those in its quixotic pursuit of any agreement that it can label an historic achievement.)
How does one explain Obama’s description of Abbas, Rouhani, and the Muslim Brotherhood as moderates while his administration’s choice of words for Netanyahu include chickensh*t, coward, recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and aspergery?
The administration is now apoplectic over Netanyahu accepting Speaker Boehner’s invitation to speak before Congress. It is lobbing a myriad of threats including that Kerry’s interest in defending Israel will diminish and that there will be “a price to pay” because this is something “you simply don’t do.” What you actually don’t do is send a delegation to a foreign country and finance an opposition group to help oust a sitting Prime Minister. And yet this is exactly what the Obama administration is doing in Israel.
Why would Obama become so integrally involved in Israel’s elections? It is not because Obama despises Netanyahu (which he does). It is because Obama is hoping that a weak leader will replace Netanyahu and remain quiet while Obama allows Iran to go nuclear. But any Israeli Prime Minister who does not capitulate to Obama’s demands will be the subject of his vitriol and abuse.
What motivates Obama is not our national security but his own self-interest in avoiding war at all costs. He pulled our troops out of Iraq prematurely and Iran filled the vacuum. He surrendered on his red lines with Syria and now a quarter of a million are dead and ISIS is flourishing. He refused to militarily intervene in Libya (aside from briefly leading from behind) and we have four dead Americas and a county in chaos. He promised that Yemen was a success and we just evacuated our embassy as the Houthi terrorists took over.
Obama accedes to every Iranian demand in a desperate attempt to thwart a confrontation despite it leading to a nuclear-armed, nihilistic terrorist regime. And the people he attacks the most are not the dictators and terrorists but the Israelis who are on the front lines facing our enemies daily and American Jews, accused of dual loyalties and self-regard.
What motivates Netanyahu is protecting the Holy Land and ensuring that Jewish people survive the 21[SUP]st[/SUP] century. Instead of understanding why Israel might be a bit concerned as it watches its borders break down, jihadists run rampant, and Iran play Obama like a cheap violin, the lame duck administration throws out threats historically saved for a nation’s enemies.
Every time Netanyahu disagrees with Obama, someone from the administration attempts to intimidate and silence him. From Kerry’s warnings that the BDSers will find success or that Israel will become further isolated to the latest grotesque threat that there will be a price to pay for Netanyahu’s speech before Congress, there is only one explanation for this ugliness. The administration’s blatant anti-Zionist policies are a direct result of its anti-Semitic ideology. As Dr Phyllis Chesler, author of The New Anti-Semitism, recognized years ago, “anti-Zionism [is], indeed, a core part of the ‘new’ anti-Semitism.”
The hypocrisy and hollowness of Obama’s words on Holocaust Remembrance Day promising “never again” are offensive. But we have come to expect empty rhetoric from the Liar-in-Chief — Iran is no exception. While Netanyahu struggles to ensure that the mullahcracy that has consistently promised to annihilate the Jewish homeland does not obtain nuclear capability, Obama bashes and threatens him in typical Chicago-style. As Netanyahu understands the veracity of Iran’s latest promise to hit Israel with “devastating thunderbolts” to cause “the collapse of the Zionist regime,” Obama adds fuel to the fire with his own threats of Israel’s price to pay. And Iran’s threats to “the Zionist regime” were communicated to Israel through U.S officials! No word yet on Obama promising Iran there would be a price to pay for threatening an ally.
The State Department met this week with Muslim Brotherhood leaders to discuss efforts to oust the current Egyptian government, which has been friendly to Israel and the West. This is abominable. As Iran sets up shop on Israel’s Syrian and Lebanese borders, Obama throws the Shiite terrorists another bone to help them retake control of Egypt on Israel’s southern border. The optics of this, coupled with Obama ceding Syria, Iraq and Yemen to Iran, do not look good.
After Israel struck a convoy of senior Iranian and Hezb’allah commanders in the Golan Heights last week, Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Tony Badran explained:
To understand Israeli behavior, we must take into account three key factors: Iranian influence in the Levant is expanding rapidly, it is doing so with American consent; and, moreover, no one in the Middle East actually believes that the Obama administration will stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. With the real prospect of a nuclear Iran on the horizon, no Israeli government can afford to have the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRGC) set up base in the Golan. Ultimately, this was the point Israel wanted to make — not just to Tehran, but to Washington as well.
This is complicated military gamesmanship and Obama knows exactly what he is doing. Destroying Israel in the process is a price he is willing to pay in order to achieve his goals. The U.S. is now working with Iran — either passively or actively, directly or through its proxies, but certainly behind Israel’s (and the American peoples’) back. And Iran’s influence is expanding.
The U.S./Israel alliance, once based on mutual respect, values, and interests, is devolving into a bitter divide. Iran and Obama, on the other hand, are now aligned through mutual threats to Israel, mutual efforts to build an Iranian hegemon in the region, and imminent mutual nuclear capabilities.
America has historically been Israel’s one reliable partner that she could turn to for international support and protection. No longer. We now have a president taking affirmative and aggressive steps that are harming her ability to survive in an ever-threatening neighborhood. In embracing the world’s largest sponsor of international terrorism, Obama has disavowed any responsibility to prevent another Holocaust.
In 1980, Iran prevented an American military incursion by releasing the hostages the day that Carter left office. Ironically, they may successfully do so again the day that Obama leaves the White House. It will not be out of fear of his successor this time but rather because Iran will announce that it has obtained nuclear arms. And the Anti-Semite in chief, who embraced Wright, Khalidi, Ayers, Sharpton, Erdogan, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Mullahs, will be fully responsible for hammering the nails into Israel’s coffin.
Iran's History of Nuclear Deceit Is Why There Hasn't Been a Deal Yet - Emanuele Ottolenghi
The Iranian nuclear file remains unresolved because of Iran's consistent refusal to transparently and fully account for its illicit nuclear program. The current international standoff may be traced to 2002, when Iranian dissidents exposed extensive clandestine nuclear activities at the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water reactor.
Tehran's subsequent maneuvers eventually led the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in September 2005, to declare it in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The following year, the IAEA referred the Iran file to the UN Security Council, whose six subsequent resolutions have underscored the country's unwavering defiance of the international community.
A third clandestine enrichment facility, Fordow, built deep underground, was revealed after Western intelligence services detected it in 2009. Only permanent limitations on the scope and size of Iran's nuclear program - and a lengthy period of verifiable compliance - can restore the international confidence that Iran has so assiduously betrayed. The writer is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (Business Insider)
The Iranian nuclear file remains unresolved because of Iran's consistent refusal to transparently and fully account for its illicit nuclear program. The current international standoff may be traced to 2002, when Iranian dissidents exposed extensive clandestine nuclear activities at the Natanz uranium-enrichment facility and the Arak heavy water reactor.
Tehran's subsequent maneuvers eventually led the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in September 2005, to declare it in non-compliance with the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The following year, the IAEA referred the Iran file to the UN Security Council, whose six subsequent resolutions have underscored the country's unwavering defiance of the international community.
A third clandestine enrichment facility, Fordow, built deep underground, was revealed after Western intelligence services detected it in 2009. Only permanent limitations on the scope and size of Iran's nuclear program - and a lengthy period of verifiable compliance - can restore the international confidence that Iran has so assiduously betrayed. The writer is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. (Business Insider)
January 31, 2015
[h=1]Story that Boehner blindsided Obama on Netanyahu invitation was manufactured agitprop[/h] By Ed Lasky
A correction appearing in the New York Times quietly unravels what has become a major story as phony agitprop, intended to discredit the leaders of Israel and the House of Representatives. Of course, the story is still believed by many, and has well served those in the White House and media who created and disseminated it. Omri Ceren spotted the correction and explained on Twitter:
But that was then and this is now. And as Barack Obama has reminded us, he will never be on a ballot again so he can do whatever he wants now and go “full Bulworth,” as he told close aides he wanted to do in his second term.
Boehner clearly assumed the same series of events was occurring when the White House failed to respond this time to the notice given to the White House before he sent an invite to Netanyahu. (Hat Tip: CJL and LR).
The White House deliberately created this “crisis” to impugn Netanyahu and undercut support for him and Israel. No less than Senator Harry Reid blamed this diplomatic faux paus entirely on Boehner and Netanyahu for undercutting support for Israel among Democrats . The media, or much of it, has been relentlessly attacking Israel over a lie promoted by people in the administration.
By the way, this is the White House again employing what they call the theory of “stray voltage.” The politicos at the White House used the same underhanded tactic when they created controversy over the purported wage gap between men and women.
From the Weekly Standard:
Barack Obama once said before a pro-Israel crowd before the election that he had “Israel’s back.” Yes. He does. He has it alright, just where he wants it: up against a wall.
Hat tip: Lauri Regan
[h=1]Story that Boehner blindsided Obama on Netanyahu invitation was manufactured agitprop[/h] By Ed Lasky
A correction appearing in the New York Times quietly unravels what has become a major story as phony agitprop, intended to discredit the leaders of Israel and the House of Representatives. Of course, the story is still believed by many, and has well served those in the White House and media who created and disseminated it. Omri Ceren spotted the correction and explained on Twitter:
NYT tries to promote anti-Netanyahu talking point that #Israel blindsided Obama. They got just 1 tiny detail wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/u...e-effect-so-far.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2
Correction: January 30, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.
In 2011, Boehner sent a notice to the WH stating his intention to invite Netanyahu to speak before a joint session of Congress. The White House never responded (spite? incompetence?) and Boehner proceeded to extend the invitation to Netanyahu. Netanyahu accepted the invitation and spoke. The White House did not express any outrage in 2011. That was before the 2012 reelection, of course, so Obama did not want to run the risk of losing any support.http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/30/u...e-effect-so-far.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=2
Correction: January 30, 2015
An earlier version of this article misstated when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel accepted Speaker John A. Boehner’s invitation to address Congress. He accepted after the administration had been informed of the invitation, not before.
But that was then and this is now. And as Barack Obama has reminded us, he will never be on a ballot again so he can do whatever he wants now and go “full Bulworth,” as he told close aides he wanted to do in his second term.
Boehner clearly assumed the same series of events was occurring when the White House failed to respond this time to the notice given to the White House before he sent an invite to Netanyahu. (Hat Tip: CJL and LR).
The White House deliberately created this “crisis” to impugn Netanyahu and undercut support for him and Israel. No less than Senator Harry Reid blamed this diplomatic faux paus entirely on Boehner and Netanyahu for undercutting support for Israel among Democrats . The media, or much of it, has been relentlessly attacking Israel over a lie promoted by people in the administration.
By the way, this is the White House again employing what they call the theory of “stray voltage.” The politicos at the White House used the same underhanded tactic when they created controversy over the purported wage gap between men and women.
From the Weekly Standard:
This is the White House theory of “Stray Voltage.” It is the brainchild of former White House Senior Adviser David Plouffe, whose methods loom large long after his departure. The theory goes like this: Controversy sparks attention, attention provokes conversation, and conversation embeds previously unknown or marginalized ideas in the public consciousness. This happens, Plouffe theorizes, even when—and sometimes especially when—the White House appears defensive, besieged, or off-guard.
While the moniker “stray voltage” may make the concept sound exciting to political reporters, let’s call this what it is: agitprop to advance an agenda. If the “pay gap” was a previously unknown or marginalized idea, that’s because it deserves to be marginalized. In this regard, we’re sure that “if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan” was just another example of “stray voltage.” Can you blame the president? How else was he supposed to convince people a federal takeover of health care shouldn’t remain a marginalized idea?
The practice is abhorrent (ask Mitt Romney) especially when used against a beleaguered ally of America that faces promises that it will be destroyed once Iran has nuclear weapons.While the moniker “stray voltage” may make the concept sound exciting to political reporters, let’s call this what it is: agitprop to advance an agenda. If the “pay gap” was a previously unknown or marginalized idea, that’s because it deserves to be marginalized. In this regard, we’re sure that “if you like your health insurance plan, you can keep your health insurance plan” was just another example of “stray voltage.” Can you blame the president? How else was he supposed to convince people a federal takeover of health care shouldn’t remain a marginalized idea?
Barack Obama once said before a pro-Israel crowd before the election that he had “Israel’s back.” Yes. He does. He has it alright, just where he wants it: up against a wall.
Hat tip: Lauri Regan
[h=5]Caroline Glick
[/h]
The most despicable aspect of the Left's pile-on against Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו's speech to the Congress is that everyone from LivniHerzog to the last of their media cheerleaders insist that it is Bibi who is responsible for the crisis in our relations with the US when the simple fact is that Obama has picked fight after fight with Israel. And we're not alone.
As my colleague and friend Khaled Abu Toameh writes in the linked report, the Egyptians view the US as siding with the jihadists. America is behaving as Egypt's enemy in its war against the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, just as it is acting as Israel's enemy in abetting and enabling Iran's rise to nuclear power and its ascent to regional hegemony from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Yemen.
This is most disturbing. It is frightening and it is infuriating.
[/h]
The most despicable aspect of the Left's pile-on against Benjamin Netanyahu - בנימין נתניהו's speech to the Congress is that everyone from LivniHerzog to the last of their media cheerleaders insist that it is Bibi who is responsible for the crisis in our relations with the US when the simple fact is that Obama has picked fight after fight with Israel. And we're not alone.
As my colleague and friend Khaled Abu Toameh writes in the linked report, the Egyptians view the US as siding with the jihadists. America is behaving as Egypt's enemy in its war against the jihadist Muslim Brotherhood, just as it is acting as Israel's enemy in abetting and enabling Iran's rise to nuclear power and its ascent to regional hegemony from Lebanon to Syria to Iraq to Yemen.
This is most disturbing. It is frightening and it is infuriating.
U.S. Seen in Middle East as Ally of Terrorists
by Khaled Abu Toameh
February 4, 2015 at 5:00 am
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5179/us-terrorists-ally
Many Egyptians and moderate Arabs and Muslims were shocked to hear that the U.S. State Department recently hosted a Muslim Brotherhood delegation. They were equally shocked when an EU court decided to remove Hamas from the bloc's list of terror groups.
The State Department's hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders has outraged Egypt's President Abdel Fattah Sisi, who has been waging a relentless war against the organization over the past year.
One member of the delegation, Muslim Brotherhood judge Waleed Sharaby, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom, as he held up the organization's four-finger "Rabia" sign. (The gesture is named for Cairo's Rabia Square, where counter-demonstrations backing ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi -- who is from the Muslim Brotherhood -- took place in August 2013.)
"If the White House is out to offend some of its closest Arab allies and is intent on heightening their suspicions, it's succeeded," wrote Middle East expert Linda S. Heard. "If there's a plot, then it's unfolding," she added. "Just two days after the controversial visit, the Brotherhood called for a war against their fellow Egyptians."
A statement issued by the Muslim Brotherhood said, "It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in a process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising fight, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom."
The Egyptian government condemned the hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood officials by the State Department. Egyptian Foreign Minister Same Shoukry denounced the State Department's move, saying, "The Muslim Brotherhood is not a political party, but according to the Egyptian law, which must be respected, it is designated as a terrorist organization."
The timing of the meeting between State Department officials and Muslim Brotherhood leaders could not have been worse for many Egyptians -- it took place shortly after Islamist terrorists killed 31 soldiers and wounded 45 others in a series of attacks on Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.
Although the Islamic State terror group took credit for the attacks, Sisi held the Muslim Brotherhood responsible. "Egypt is waging a war against the strongest clandestine group over the past two decades," he said. "This organization has secretive arms, secretive thoughts and secretive forums."
Egyptian columnists and newspaper editors have also attacked the U.S. Administration for its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.
"The U.S. Administration is continuing to jeopardize its relations with Egypt by appeasing Muslim Brotherhood," remarked columnist Ezzat Ibrahim. "The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks. The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable."
Another Egyptian columnist, Mohamed Salmawi, launched a scathing attack on the U.S. Administration; he accused it of deception and double standards. He said that the meeting between U.S. officials and Muslim Brotherhood leaders exposes the U.S. Administration's deceptive policy toward Islamic terror groups.
"The U.S. Administration says it is combating these groups at home while it is supporting them abroad," Salmawi wrote. "This meeting has grave indications because it shows that Washington has not abandoned its policy of double standards toward Islamic terrorism.
Salmawi also took issue with the U.S. Administration for turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy and double talk of the Muslim Brotherhood. "One of the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood, for example, told the world that he welcomes the Jews of Israel," he added. "But this same leader announced in front of the Egyptian people that they should march in the millions to liberate Jerusalem from the occupation of the Jews. [Ousted President] Mohamed Morsi, before his election, described these Jews as descendants of apes and pigs. In English, the Muslim Brotherhood says one thing and in Arabic something completely different."
Said Lindawi, a prominent Egyptian international affairs expert, said that the meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders with State Department officials means that the Obama Administration has given the organization a green light to carry out terrorist attacks against Egypt.
"The U.S. Administration has refused to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group," he said. "The Americans continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is not responsible for the terrorist attacks in Egypt."
By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. Administration has sent the wrong message to moderate Arabs and Muslims. This is a message that says that Washington believes that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists.
Judging from the angry reactions of Egyptians, it has become obvious that most moderate Arabs and Muslims no longer see the U.S. as an ally in the war against Islamic terror groups. What is even more disturbing is that they view the U.S. as an ally and friend of the terrorists.
by Khaled Abu Toameh
February 4, 2015 at 5:00 am
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5179/us-terrorists-ally
Many Egyptians and moderate Arabs and Muslims were shocked to hear that the U.S. State Department recently hosted a Muslim Brotherhood delegation. They were equally shocked when an EU court decided to remove Hamas from the bloc's list of terror groups.
"Just two days after the controversial visit, the Brotherhood called for a war against their fellow Egyptians." — Linda S. Heard, Middle East Expert, Gulf News.
"The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks. The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable." — Ezzat Ibrahim, columnist, Al Ahram.
While the Egyptian government has been waging war on the Muslim Brotherhood and other Islamic radical groups, the U.S. Administration and some Europeans are continuing to hamper efforts to combat terrorism."Just two days after the controversial visit, the Brotherhood called for a war against their fellow Egyptians." — Linda S. Heard, Middle East Expert, Gulf News.
"The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks. The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable." — Ezzat Ibrahim, columnist, Al Ahram.
Many Egyptians and moderate Arabs and Muslims were shocked to hear that the U.S. State Department recently hosted a Muslim Brotherhood delegation. They were equally shocked when an EU court decided to remove Hamas from the bloc's list of terror groups.
The State Department's hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders has outraged Egypt's President Abdel Fattah Sisi, who has been waging a relentless war against the organization over the past year.
One member of the delegation, Muslim Brotherhood judge Waleed Sharaby, posed for a picture while at Foggy Bottom, as he held up the organization's four-finger "Rabia" sign. (The gesture is named for Cairo's Rabia Square, where counter-demonstrations backing ousted Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi -- who is from the Muslim Brotherhood -- took place in August 2013.)
"If the White House is out to offend some of its closest Arab allies and is intent on heightening their suspicions, it's succeeded," wrote Middle East expert Linda S. Heard. "If there's a plot, then it's unfolding," she added. "Just two days after the controversial visit, the Brotherhood called for a war against their fellow Egyptians."
A statement issued by the Muslim Brotherhood said, "It is incumbent upon everyone to be aware that we are in a process of a new phase, where we summon what is latent our strength, where we recall the meanings of jihad and prepare ourselves, our wives, our sons, our daughters, and whoever marched on our path to a long, uncompromising fight, and during this stage we ask for martyrdom."
The Egyptian government condemned the hosting of the Muslim Brotherhood officials by the State Department. Egyptian Foreign Minister Same Shoukry denounced the State Department's move, saying, "The Muslim Brotherhood is not a political party, but according to the Egyptian law, which must be respected, it is designated as a terrorist organization."
The timing of the meeting between State Department officials and Muslim Brotherhood leaders could not have been worse for many Egyptians -- it took place shortly after Islamist terrorists killed 31 soldiers and wounded 45 others in a series of attacks on Egypt's Sinai Peninsula.
Although the Islamic State terror group took credit for the attacks, Sisi held the Muslim Brotherhood responsible. "Egypt is waging a war against the strongest clandestine group over the past two decades," he said. "This organization has secretive arms, secretive thoughts and secretive forums."
Egyptian columnists and newspaper editors have also attacked the U.S. Administration for its ties with the Muslim Brotherhood.
"The U.S. Administration is continuing to jeopardize its relations with Egypt by appeasing Muslim Brotherhood," remarked columnist Ezzat Ibrahim. "The Muslim Brotherhood is seeking to return to the political arena through the American door and terrorist attacks. The U.S. policy appears to be devious and unreliable."
Another Egyptian columnist, Mohamed Salmawi, launched a scathing attack on the U.S. Administration; he accused it of deception and double standards. He said that the meeting between U.S. officials and Muslim Brotherhood leaders exposes the U.S. Administration's deceptive policy toward Islamic terror groups.
"The U.S. Administration says it is combating these groups at home while it is supporting them abroad," Salmawi wrote. "This meeting has grave indications because it shows that Washington has not abandoned its policy of double standards toward Islamic terrorism.
Salmawi also took issue with the U.S. Administration for turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy and double talk of the Muslim Brotherhood. "One of the leaders of Muslim Brotherhood, for example, told the world that he welcomes the Jews of Israel," he added. "But this same leader announced in front of the Egyptian people that they should march in the millions to liberate Jerusalem from the occupation of the Jews. [Ousted President] Mohamed Morsi, before his election, described these Jews as descendants of apes and pigs. In English, the Muslim Brotherhood says one thing and in Arabic something completely different."
Said Lindawi, a prominent Egyptian international affairs expert, said that the meeting of the Muslim Brotherhood leaders with State Department officials means that the Obama Administration has given the organization a green light to carry out terrorist attacks against Egypt.
"The U.S. Administration has refused to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood as a terror group," he said. "The Americans continue to insist that the Muslim Brotherhood is not responsible for the terrorist attacks in Egypt."
By embracing the Muslim Brotherhood, the U.S. Administration has sent the wrong message to moderate Arabs and Muslims. This is a message that says that Washington believes that there are good terrorists and bad terrorists.
Judging from the angry reactions of Egyptians, it has become obvious that most moderate Arabs and Muslims no longer see the U.S. as an ally in the war against Islamic terror groups. What is even more disturbing is that they view the U.S. as an ally and friend of the terrorists.
[h=1]Netanyahu must call off his speech to Congress[/h] [h=2]He is endangering Israel’s most important relationship and trampling the remnants of Israeli diplomacy.[/h] Haaretz Editorial 06:00 09.02.15
0
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sure that one speech to the U.S. Congress will stop the trend and torpedo the emerging nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran. Netanyahu thinks his mellifluous tones will make the minority such a great majority that even a presidential veto will crumble before it. Actually, Netanyahu wants to unleash the American legislators on their president, and that’s improper interference.
We can argue over the emerging deal with Iran and the bargaining points, but the American people are sovereign to decide who will govern them and in what direction their leader will lead. Iran froze its military nuclear program due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq under Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, but the Americans have had enough of that. They voted for Obama to get their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not enmesh them in another war.
From the outset Netanyahu had no chance to influence American politics in the direction he wants — whether Iran is the issue that really bothers him and not his chances at another term on the eve of an election. But then it became clear that the address to Congress was a dispute between the two big parties, that one of his two hosts — Vice President Joe Biden — was “busy with other obligations,” and that friends in the Democratic Party were being forced to choose between Netanyahu and Obama.
Right then Netanyahu should have understood that other important matters prevented him from fulfilling his desire to speak on Capitol Hill. All this came amid Obama’s refusal to meet with him during his visit.
If Netanyahu had trouble taking the hint, he got the message loud and clear at the end of the week via Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry’s warm meetings with opposition leader Isaac Herzog in Munich. They know that Netanyahu isn’t Israel, and amid his blunt challenge to the administration in insisting on addressing Congress, they don’t hesitate to show it.
Instead of acting responsibly as a prime minister should, Netanyahu insists on deepening the rift he has created with the Americans. He is thus endangering Israel’s most important relationship, behaving rashly as far as strategy is concerned and trampling the remnants of Israeli diplomacy.
Despite the embarrassing situation in which Netanyahu finds himself, he must prove that the country’s good is more important than his personal good. He must call off his speech to Congress.
| |
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is sure that one speech to the U.S. Congress will stop the trend and torpedo the emerging nuclear deal between Washington and Tehran. Netanyahu thinks his mellifluous tones will make the minority such a great majority that even a presidential veto will crumble before it. Actually, Netanyahu wants to unleash the American legislators on their president, and that’s improper interference.
We can argue over the emerging deal with Iran and the bargaining points, but the American people are sovereign to decide who will govern them and in what direction their leader will lead. Iran froze its military nuclear program due to the U.S. invasion of Iraq under Barack Obama’s predecessor, George W. Bush, but the Americans have had enough of that. They voted for Obama to get their forces out of Iraq and Afghanistan and not enmesh them in another war.
From the outset Netanyahu had no chance to influence American politics in the direction he wants — whether Iran is the issue that really bothers him and not his chances at another term on the eve of an election. But then it became clear that the address to Congress was a dispute between the two big parties, that one of his two hosts — Vice President Joe Biden — was “busy with other obligations,” and that friends in the Democratic Party were being forced to choose between Netanyahu and Obama.
Right then Netanyahu should have understood that other important matters prevented him from fulfilling his desire to speak on Capitol Hill. All this came amid Obama’s refusal to meet with him during his visit.
If Netanyahu had trouble taking the hint, he got the message loud and clear at the end of the week via Biden and Secretary of State John Kerry’s warm meetings with opposition leader Isaac Herzog in Munich. They know that Netanyahu isn’t Israel, and amid his blunt challenge to the administration in insisting on addressing Congress, they don’t hesitate to show it.
Instead of acting responsibly as a prime minister should, Netanyahu insists on deepening the rift he has created with the Americans. He is thus endangering Israel’s most important relationship, behaving rashly as far as strategy is concerned and trampling the remnants of Israeli diplomacy.
Despite the embarrassing situation in which Netanyahu finds himself, he must prove that the country’s good is more important than his personal good. He must call off his speech to Congress.
[h=1]Abe Foxman Calls on Benjamin Netanyahu To Scrap Speech to GOP Congress[/h] [h=3]ADL Chief Wants Israel Premier To End 'Circus'[/h]
getty images
[h=4]By Nathan Guttman[/h] Published February 06, 2015.
Related
Washington D.C. — As the controversy surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu speech to Congress reaches new heights, one of the Jewish community’s top leaders is calling on the Israeli prime minister to stay home.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti Defamation League said that the political uproar ignited by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to a joint meeting of Congress makes such a move unhelpful and therefore it should be scrapped.
“It’s a tragedy of unintended consequences,” Foxman told the Forward, describing how the idea of presenting Israel’s view on Iran spiraled out of control, reaching even the Jon Stewart show, a step, Foxman said, that “turned the whole thing into a circus.”
“One needs to restart, and it needs a mature adult statement that this was not what we intended,” Foxman told the Forward. He said that going ahead as planned with the speech would be counter-productive, with all attention given to the political controversy rather than to the issue at stake. “It has been hijacked by politics,” Foxman said. “Now is a time to recalibrate, restart and find a new platform and new timing to take away the distractions.”
Foxman noted that he does not dispute the seriousness of the Iranian nuclear issue and that he agrees with Netanyahu on the need to strengthen sanctions against Tehran, but he argued that recent events have derailed the initial intention of Netanyahu’s address to Congress.
Among the potential alternatives mentioned by Foxman for Netanyahu’s congressional speech were coming to Washington only for the AIPAC conference, postponing his address until after the March 17 elections in Israel, or expressing his concerns over the emerging Iran deal in direct conversations.
Earlier on Friday, the White House announced Vice President Joe Biden will not attend the speech, because he will be travelling out of the country. The statement did not specify Biden’s destination.
Even before Foxman’s dramatic staetment, Netanyahu and his allies appeared to be looking for excuses about how the speech turned into a political disaster.
The strategy he settled on appears to be to shift the blame to Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
According to this explanation, Netanyahu, through his ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer, had understood that Boehner would make sure that Democrats were on board with the idea of inviting the Israeli leader to address a joint meeting of Congress on the problem of Iran’s nuclear development activities. Maybe not all Democratic leadership, but at least enough to allow all sides to say with a straight face that it was a bipartisan invitation.
Furthermore, Netanyahu and Dermer did not know — at least according to people who have been in touch with Israeli officials dealing with the mess created by the invitation — that Boehner would announce the visit the morning after President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech. The timing appeared designed to rebut the president’s stand on Iran, thus infuriating the president and his fellow Democrats.
These claims came out in the open on Friday, when Netyanyahu confidante Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s deputy foreign minister and a member of the Likud’s top leadership circle, stated in a radio interview that Boehner had left Netanyahu in the dark as he moved ahead with the invitation.
“It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides,” Hanegbi said in the interview.
Speaking out in this manner against Boehner could be viewed as a calculated move that could provide the prime minister with a way out of the March 3 speech. Netanyahu, so it would seem, could use this alleged misunderstanding with Boehner as an excuse to cancel the visit.
But all signs indicate this is not the case — at least not yet.
Netanyahu and Dermer have given no indication that retreat is an option, and blaming Boehner for the partisan flare-up is seen mainly as a way of appeasing Democrats and deflecting some of the criticism, not as a way out. One Democratic staffer briefed on talks with Dermer noted that even though the Israeli ambassador reached out to lawmakers and sought to explain the situation, he never offered an apology nor did he express regret over the way Netanyahu’s invitation was handled.
By now it is clear that Netanyahu and Dermer’s efforts to assuage Democrats’ anger have not gone well, despite endless hours spent by the ambassador on Capitol Hill and a series of phone calls by Netanyahu to leading lawmakers. Democrats are still furious at the Israeli prime minister and some are considering an unofficial boycott of his speech.
And to make things worse, here is Hanegbi again, who in what can only be viewed as a moment of unintended candor, openly confirmed in his radio interview what many critics have been claiming all along: that Netanyahu’s visit is an attempt to influence the American legislative process by convincing members to support an Iran sanctions bill opposed by President Obama.
“The Republicans know, as the president has already made clear, that he will veto this legislation,” Hanegbi said. “So in order to pass legislation that overcomes the veto, two-thirds are required in the Senate. So if the prime minister can persuade another one or two or another three or four, this could have weight.”
[h=4]By Nathan Guttman[/h] Published February 06, 2015.
-
Share
Related
- Reform's Rick Jacobs Presses Benjamin Netanyahu To Call Off Speech to Congress
- Let the Bibi-Gate Blame Game Begin
Washington D.C. — As the controversy surrounding Benjamin Netanyahu speech to Congress reaches new heights, one of the Jewish community’s top leaders is calling on the Israeli prime minister to stay home.
Abraham Foxman, national director of the Anti Defamation League said that the political uproar ignited by Netanyahu’s invitation to speak to a joint meeting of Congress makes such a move unhelpful and therefore it should be scrapped.
“It’s a tragedy of unintended consequences,” Foxman told the Forward, describing how the idea of presenting Israel’s view on Iran spiraled out of control, reaching even the Jon Stewart show, a step, Foxman said, that “turned the whole thing into a circus.”
“One needs to restart, and it needs a mature adult statement that this was not what we intended,” Foxman told the Forward. He said that going ahead as planned with the speech would be counter-productive, with all attention given to the political controversy rather than to the issue at stake. “It has been hijacked by politics,” Foxman said. “Now is a time to recalibrate, restart and find a new platform and new timing to take away the distractions.”
Foxman noted that he does not dispute the seriousness of the Iranian nuclear issue and that he agrees with Netanyahu on the need to strengthen sanctions against Tehran, but he argued that recent events have derailed the initial intention of Netanyahu’s address to Congress.
Among the potential alternatives mentioned by Foxman for Netanyahu’s congressional speech were coming to Washington only for the AIPAC conference, postponing his address until after the March 17 elections in Israel, or expressing his concerns over the emerging Iran deal in direct conversations.
Earlier on Friday, the White House announced Vice President Joe Biden will not attend the speech, because he will be travelling out of the country. The statement did not specify Biden’s destination.
Even before Foxman’s dramatic staetment, Netanyahu and his allies appeared to be looking for excuses about how the speech turned into a political disaster.
The strategy he settled on appears to be to shift the blame to Republican House Speaker John Boehner.
According to this explanation, Netanyahu, through his ambassador to Washington Ron Dermer, had understood that Boehner would make sure that Democrats were on board with the idea of inviting the Israeli leader to address a joint meeting of Congress on the problem of Iran’s nuclear development activities. Maybe not all Democratic leadership, but at least enough to allow all sides to say with a straight face that it was a bipartisan invitation.
Furthermore, Netanyahu and Dermer did not know — at least according to people who have been in touch with Israeli officials dealing with the mess created by the invitation — that Boehner would announce the visit the morning after President Obama delivered his State of the Union speech. The timing appeared designed to rebut the president’s stand on Iran, thus infuriating the president and his fellow Democrats.
These claims came out in the open on Friday, when Netyanyahu confidante Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s deputy foreign minister and a member of the Likud’s top leadership circle, stated in a radio interview that Boehner had left Netanyahu in the dark as he moved ahead with the invitation.
“It appears that the speaker of Congress made a move, in which we trusted, but which it ultimately became clear was a one sided move and not a move by both sides,” Hanegbi said in the interview.
Speaking out in this manner against Boehner could be viewed as a calculated move that could provide the prime minister with a way out of the March 3 speech. Netanyahu, so it would seem, could use this alleged misunderstanding with Boehner as an excuse to cancel the visit.
But all signs indicate this is not the case — at least not yet.
Netanyahu and Dermer have given no indication that retreat is an option, and blaming Boehner for the partisan flare-up is seen mainly as a way of appeasing Democrats and deflecting some of the criticism, not as a way out. One Democratic staffer briefed on talks with Dermer noted that even though the Israeli ambassador reached out to lawmakers and sought to explain the situation, he never offered an apology nor did he express regret over the way Netanyahu’s invitation was handled.
By now it is clear that Netanyahu and Dermer’s efforts to assuage Democrats’ anger have not gone well, despite endless hours spent by the ambassador on Capitol Hill and a series of phone calls by Netanyahu to leading lawmakers. Democrats are still furious at the Israeli prime minister and some are considering an unofficial boycott of his speech.
And to make things worse, here is Hanegbi again, who in what can only be viewed as a moment of unintended candor, openly confirmed in his radio interview what many critics have been claiming all along: that Netanyahu’s visit is an attempt to influence the American legislative process by convincing members to support an Iran sanctions bill opposed by President Obama.
“The Republicans know, as the president has already made clear, that he will veto this legislation,” Hanegbi said. “So in order to pass legislation that overcomes the veto, two-thirds are required in the Senate. So if the prime minister can persuade another one or two or another three or four, this could have weight.”
[h=1]Reform's Rick Jacobs Presses Benjamin Netanyahu To Call Off Speech to Congress[/h] [h=3]Rabbi Joins Growing Chorus of Jewish Leaders[/h]
getty images
Better Days: Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle when he addressed Congress in 2011.
[h=4]By Nathan Guttman[/h] Published February 07, 2015.
Related
Washington — Pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel his planned speech to a joint meeting of Congress is building among mainstream pro-Israel leaders, leading to an increasingly divisive split in the Jewish community.
Some leaders are speaking out publically against the speech, scheduled for March 3, arguing the controversy is becoming a major distraction from their shared goal of stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs, leader of the Reform movement, has joined Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League in urging Netanyahu to reconsider his visit to Washington; so did Seymour Reich, a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, the community’s umbrella organization on policy.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs
Jacobs, who is president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the nation’s largest Jewish denomination, called the idea of speaking to Congress only two weeks before the elections in Israel and without consulting with the president and with Democrats, a “bad idea,” saying it would be “ill advised” for Netanyahu to carry out his planned speech.
“I would want him to re-think it,” Jacobs told the Forward on Friday. “He should find another way to express his voice.” Jacobs argued that Netanyahu could still back out of House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation without losing face. “It will not be an embarrassment,” he said. “It will be something people will respect him for.”
Reich, too, called on Netanyahu to “bite the bullet and postpone his address.”
Jacobs explained that his call for Netanyahu to cancel the planned visit stems from his concern that it would not serve the broader goal of making sure a deal signed with Iran does not endanger Israel. It also reflects his fear that the controversy surrounding Netanyahu’s speech could turn Israel into a partisan issue in American politics.
“This is something we in the Jewish community cannot afford,” Jacobs said. “That’s what’s in stake.”
Earlier, Foxman, the ADL’s national director, urged Netanyahu to cancel his visit. Foxman said the controversy surrounding the trip has overshadowed the initial goal of Netanyahu’s speech and turned the entire debate into “a circus.”
Jewish organizations aligned with the left have expressed their opposition to Netanyahu’s speech from the start, with the dovish lobby J Street supporters sending more than 15,000 emails to Congressional offices and making 1,000 calls to Israeli consulates across the country, calling for cancellation of the speech.
Better Days: Benjamin Netanyahu received a standing ovation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle when he addressed Congress in 2011.
[h=4]By Nathan Guttman[/h] Published February 07, 2015.
-
Share
- Single Page
Related
Washington — Pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to cancel his planned speech to a joint meeting of Congress is building among mainstream pro-Israel leaders, leading to an increasingly divisive split in the Jewish community.
Some leaders are speaking out publically against the speech, scheduled for March 3, arguing the controversy is becoming a major distraction from their shared goal of stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power.
Rabbi Rick Jacobs, leader of the Reform movement, has joined Abraham Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League in urging Netanyahu to reconsider his visit to Washington; so did Seymour Reich, a former chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish American Organizations, the community’s umbrella organization on policy.
Jacobs, who is president of the Union for Reform Judaism, the nation’s largest Jewish denomination, called the idea of speaking to Congress only two weeks before the elections in Israel and without consulting with the president and with Democrats, a “bad idea,” saying it would be “ill advised” for Netanyahu to carry out his planned speech.
“I would want him to re-think it,” Jacobs told the Forward on Friday. “He should find another way to express his voice.” Jacobs argued that Netanyahu could still back out of House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation without losing face. “It will not be an embarrassment,” he said. “It will be something people will respect him for.”
Reich, too, called on Netanyahu to “bite the bullet and postpone his address.”
Jacobs explained that his call for Netanyahu to cancel the planned visit stems from his concern that it would not serve the broader goal of making sure a deal signed with Iran does not endanger Israel. It also reflects his fear that the controversy surrounding Netanyahu’s speech could turn Israel into a partisan issue in American politics.
“This is something we in the Jewish community cannot afford,” Jacobs said. “That’s what’s in stake.”
Earlier, Foxman, the ADL’s national director, urged Netanyahu to cancel his visit. Foxman said the controversy surrounding the trip has overshadowed the initial goal of Netanyahu’s speech and turned the entire debate into “a circus.”
Jewish organizations aligned with the left have expressed their opposition to Netanyahu’s speech from the start, with the dovish lobby J Street supporters sending more than 15,000 emails to Congressional offices and making 1,000 calls to Israeli consulates across the country, calling for cancellation of the speech.
[h=1]A Bad Mistake[/h] FEB. 4, 2015
Thomas L. Friedman
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
The decision by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner to cook up an address to Congress by Netanyahu on why the U.S. should get tougher on Iran is churlish, reckless and, for the future of Israeli-American relations, quite dangerous.
If Netanyahu wants some intelligent advice, he should listen to the counsel of his previous ambassador in Washington, the widely respected Michael Oren, who was quoted as saying that the whole gambit was creating the impression of “a cynical political move, and it could hurt our attempts to act against Iran.” He urged Netanyahu to cancel the speech.
[h=2]Thomas L. Friedman[/h]
And if Netanyahu and his current ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, who organized the gambit with Boehner, want to know how offensive the whole thing is to average Americans they should listen to conservative Fox News Sunday talk-show host Chris Wallace, not a usual critic of Israel, who gutsily said of the Bibi invite on Friday, Jan. 23: “To make you get a sense of really how, forgive me, wicked, this whole thing is, the Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Israeli ambassador to the United States for two hours on Tuesday, and Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, according to the State Department, never mentioned the fact that Netanyahu was in negotiations and finally agreed to come to Washington, not to see the president, but to go to Capitol Hill, speak to a joint session of Congress and criticize the president’s policy. I have to say I’m shocked.”
Imagine that Israel’s Labor Party invited President Obama to address its Parliament about why Israel should give negotiations on Iran more time, and it was all worked out with the U.S. ambassador in Tel Aviv behind the back of the Likud Party prime minister. A lot of Israelis would see it as an insult to their democratically elected leader. I’ve polled many of my non-Jewish friends, who follow world politics and are sympathetic to Israel, and they really don’t like this. It doesn’t only disrespect our president, it disrespects our system and certain diplomatic boundaries that every foreign leader should respect and usually has.
You know how this happened: Netanyahu; his ambassador; the pro-Israel lobby Aipac; Sheldon Adelson, the huge donor to Bibi and the G.O.P.; and Boehner all live in their own self-contained bubble. You can tell that nobody was inside there telling them: “Bibi, this speech to Congress two weeks before your election may give you a sugar high for a day with Israeli voters, but it’s in really poor taste for you to use America’s Congress as a backdrop for your campaign. Many of Israel’s friends will be uncomfortable, and the anti-Semites, who claim Israel controls Washington, will have a field day.”
Already, in reaction to this maneuver, 10 Senate Democrats — who had advocated putting more sanctions on Iran now — have instead parted company with the Republicans and granted the White House the two-month reprieve it was seeking to see if negotiations can still work. It was exactly the opposite of what Netanyahu wanted, and it shows how upset are many Democrats.
But this isn’t just churlish. For Israel’s leader to so obviously throw his lot in with the Republicans against a Democratic president is reckless. Israel and its defenders are already under siege on college campuses across America, where many university boards are under pressure to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Making support for Israel more of a Republican cause is not at all in Israel’s interest — or America’s. Israel needs the support of more than just Congress or one party.
Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran are not without merit. But his aggressiveness is also not without critics in Israel. If Congress wants to get Israel’s perspective on how to deal with Iran, then it should also invite the top Israeli intelligence and military officers, current and retired, who have been arguing publicly against Netanyahu’s threatened use of force against Iran. Why are we getting only one Israeli view? How is that in America’s interest?
Personally, I’m still dubious that the U.S. and Iran will reach a deal that will really defuse Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Such a failure would be very serious and could end up, one day, with the U.S. deciding it has to use military force to set back Iran’s program. We surely don’t want Iran to get a bomb that sets off a nuclear arms race in an already unstable Middle East.
But, even if we do use force, success is hardly assured and the blowback unpredictable. That is why it is absolutely not in Israel’s interest to give even the slightest appearance of nudging America toward such a military decision. Israel should stay a million miles away from that decision, making clear that it is entirely a U.S. matter. Because, if we do have to strike Iran, plenty of Americans will not be happy. And if it fails, or has costly consequences for us and our military, you can be sure a lot more Americans will not be happy — and some will ask, “How did we get into this mess?” One of the first things they’ll dig out will be Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.
Why in the world would Israel risk putting itself in that situation? Just lie low, Mr. Netanyahu. Don’t play in our politics. Let America draw its own conclusions.
Thomas L. Friedman
Continue reading the main story Share This Page
The decision by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner to cook up an address to Congress by Netanyahu on why the U.S. should get tougher on Iran is churlish, reckless and, for the future of Israeli-American relations, quite dangerous.
If Netanyahu wants some intelligent advice, he should listen to the counsel of his previous ambassador in Washington, the widely respected Michael Oren, who was quoted as saying that the whole gambit was creating the impression of “a cynical political move, and it could hurt our attempts to act against Iran.” He urged Netanyahu to cancel the speech.
[h=2]Thomas L. Friedman[/h]
And if Netanyahu and his current ambassador in Washington, Ron Dermer, who organized the gambit with Boehner, want to know how offensive the whole thing is to average Americans they should listen to conservative Fox News Sunday talk-show host Chris Wallace, not a usual critic of Israel, who gutsily said of the Bibi invite on Friday, Jan. 23: “To make you get a sense of really how, forgive me, wicked, this whole thing is, the Secretary of State John Kerry met with the Israeli ambassador to the United States for two hours on Tuesday, and Ron Dermer, the Israeli ambassador, according to the State Department, never mentioned the fact that Netanyahu was in negotiations and finally agreed to come to Washington, not to see the president, but to go to Capitol Hill, speak to a joint session of Congress and criticize the president’s policy. I have to say I’m shocked.”
Imagine that Israel’s Labor Party invited President Obama to address its Parliament about why Israel should give negotiations on Iran more time, and it was all worked out with the U.S. ambassador in Tel Aviv behind the back of the Likud Party prime minister. A lot of Israelis would see it as an insult to their democratically elected leader. I’ve polled many of my non-Jewish friends, who follow world politics and are sympathetic to Israel, and they really don’t like this. It doesn’t only disrespect our president, it disrespects our system and certain diplomatic boundaries that every foreign leader should respect and usually has.
You know how this happened: Netanyahu; his ambassador; the pro-Israel lobby Aipac; Sheldon Adelson, the huge donor to Bibi and the G.O.P.; and Boehner all live in their own self-contained bubble. You can tell that nobody was inside there telling them: “Bibi, this speech to Congress two weeks before your election may give you a sugar high for a day with Israeli voters, but it’s in really poor taste for you to use America’s Congress as a backdrop for your campaign. Many of Israel’s friends will be uncomfortable, and the anti-Semites, who claim Israel controls Washington, will have a field day.”
Already, in reaction to this maneuver, 10 Senate Democrats — who had advocated putting more sanctions on Iran now — have instead parted company with the Republicans and granted the White House the two-month reprieve it was seeking to see if negotiations can still work. It was exactly the opposite of what Netanyahu wanted, and it shows how upset are many Democrats.
But this isn’t just churlish. For Israel’s leader to so obviously throw his lot in with the Republicans against a Democratic president is reckless. Israel and its defenders are already under siege on college campuses across America, where many university boards are under pressure to divest from companies doing business with Israel. Making support for Israel more of a Republican cause is not at all in Israel’s interest — or America’s. Israel needs the support of more than just Congress or one party.
Netanyahu’s concerns about Iran are not without merit. But his aggressiveness is also not without critics in Israel. If Congress wants to get Israel’s perspective on how to deal with Iran, then it should also invite the top Israeli intelligence and military officers, current and retired, who have been arguing publicly against Netanyahu’s threatened use of force against Iran. Why are we getting only one Israeli view? How is that in America’s interest?
Personally, I’m still dubious that the U.S. and Iran will reach a deal that will really defuse Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Such a failure would be very serious and could end up, one day, with the U.S. deciding it has to use military force to set back Iran’s program. We surely don’t want Iran to get a bomb that sets off a nuclear arms race in an already unstable Middle East.
But, even if we do use force, success is hardly assured and the blowback unpredictable. That is why it is absolutely not in Israel’s interest to give even the slightest appearance of nudging America toward such a military decision. Israel should stay a million miles away from that decision, making clear that it is entirely a U.S. matter. Because, if we do have to strike Iran, plenty of Americans will not be happy. And if it fails, or has costly consequences for us and our military, you can be sure a lot more Americans will not be happy — and some will ask, “How did we get into this mess?” One of the first things they’ll dig out will be Netanyahu’s speech to Congress.
Why in the world would Israel risk putting itself in that situation? Just lie low, Mr. Netanyahu. Don’t play in our politics. Let America draw its own conclusions.
[h=2]Abbas claims Hitler and Ben-Gurion were "good friends" in his 1984 work which has, to this day, received little exposure outside of the Arabic-speaking world[/h]
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (photo credit:REUTERS)
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's 1984 book linking Nazism to Zionism, as part of his pursuit of a doctorate degree at a Moscow institution, is set to be translated into Hebrew, Walla! news reported Monday.
The work, titled The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism was first released in Jordan and has, since then, seen light in academic libraries across the globe - particularly in Arab-speaking nations - and is accessible on the PA's official website.
Spanning 252 pages and 16-chapters, Abbas's published work claims that Nazi and Zionist ideologies aligned. He outlined their cooperative relationship and went as far as to say that David Ben-Gurion and Adolf Hitler were "good friends."
Abbas's text accuses the Zionist movement of participating in the Holocaust, cooperating with the Third Reich, and actively foiling plots to rescue Jews, their guiding motive being the formation of a national state in "Palestine."
He also argued that the Mossad staged to take out any dissident threatening to reveal the Zionist plot; Adolf Eichmann is described as having had no connection to the Holocaust, and as having been "kidnapped" by the Mossad to keep him from exposing the Nazi-Zionist "collaboration."
Abbas also repudiated what he called “the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed.” Instead, he claimed only some 890,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis - victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot.
He quotes from Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson, who has claimed that gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps were not used to kill Jews but only to disinfect them to prevent the spread of disease.
This news comes months after Abbas's historic statement condemning the Holocaust, referring to it as "the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era," and the “single greatest tragedy in modern-day history.”
To this day, Abbas' work has been accessible solely to Arabic readers. It's sole translation has been an internal one into Russian to accommodate the Moscow based Doctoral-granting institution Abbas attended. Yet this is set to change soon, according to Walla!.
Walla! reported that the work is set to be translated into Hebrew by Bar Ilan's Dr. Eddie Cohen, with a set release date as early as April's Holocaust Memorial Day.
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. (photo credit:REUTERS)
Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's 1984 book linking Nazism to Zionism, as part of his pursuit of a doctorate degree at a Moscow institution, is set to be translated into Hebrew, Walla! news reported Monday.
The work, titled The Other Side: The Secret Relationship Between Nazism and Zionism was first released in Jordan and has, since then, seen light in academic libraries across the globe - particularly in Arab-speaking nations - and is accessible on the PA's official website.
Spanning 252 pages and 16-chapters, Abbas's published work claims that Nazi and Zionist ideologies aligned. He outlined their cooperative relationship and went as far as to say that David Ben-Gurion and Adolf Hitler were "good friends."
Abbas's text accuses the Zionist movement of participating in the Holocaust, cooperating with the Third Reich, and actively foiling plots to rescue Jews, their guiding motive being the formation of a national state in "Palestine."
He also argued that the Mossad staged to take out any dissident threatening to reveal the Zionist plot; Adolf Eichmann is described as having had no connection to the Holocaust, and as having been "kidnapped" by the Mossad to keep him from exposing the Nazi-Zionist "collaboration."
Abbas also repudiated what he called “the Zionist fantasy, the fantastic lie that six million Jews were killed.” Instead, he claimed only some 890,000 Jews were killed by the Nazis - victims of a Zionist-Nazi plot.
He quotes from Holocaust deniers such as Robert Faurisson, who has claimed that gas chambers in Nazi concentration camps were not used to kill Jews but only to disinfect them to prevent the spread of disease.
This news comes months after Abbas's historic statement condemning the Holocaust, referring to it as "the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era," and the “single greatest tragedy in modern-day history.”
To this day, Abbas' work has been accessible solely to Arabic readers. It's sole translation has been an internal one into Russian to accommodate the Moscow based Doctoral-granting institution Abbas attended. Yet this is set to change soon, according to Walla!.
Walla! reported that the work is set to be translated into Hebrew by Bar Ilan's Dr. Eddie Cohen, with a set release date as early as April's Holocaust Memorial Day.
More Shocking US-Funded Efforts to Undermine Netanyahu
http://www.israellycool.com/
As we noted last week, the US State Department-funded group OneVoice is working with former Obama-campaign strategist Jeremy Bird to oust Prime Minister Netanyahu. Alana Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon has now revealed evidence that American funded efforts to influence the outcome of the Israeli election are even more widespread than originally known:
Ameinu’s proposal even includes a provision for driving people to voting booths:
Like OneVoice, Ameinu is a tax-exempt group under Chapter 501(c)(3). This means that functionally, contributions to Ameinu are subsidized by US taxpayers.
The combination of these efforts is all the more shocking when compared with President Obama’s attitude towards the election of Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi in Egypt. There was no appearance of interference at the time of Morsi’s election. Indeed, President Obama congratulated him on his victory and subsequently continued to treat his government respectfully, even as that government looked the other way while the country’s Christians were violently attacked and tried to lower the legal age of marriage for girls to 13. In that case, President Obama continued to respect the outcome of the elections that had brought Morsi to power, flawed as those elections may have been.
Meanwhile, flunkies of the Obama administration continue the operation to discredit Netanyahu in the US, with the New York Times’s Tom Friedman determined to keep the artificially manufactured speech-gate saga in the headlines two weeks after the spat first broke out, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi guessering that some Democratic members of Congress might be “too busy” to attend Netanyahu’s speech in March.
Pelosi should note that any Democrat who chooses not to attend will give the impression of simply being closed to arguments with which they are predisposed to disagree, and of not giving an opposing point of view a fair hearing.
http://www.israellycool.com/
As we noted last week, the US State Department-funded group OneVoice is working with former Obama-campaign strategist Jeremy Bird to oust Prime Minister Netanyahu. Alana Goodman at the Washington Free Beacon has now revealed evidence that American funded efforts to influence the outcome of the Israeli election are even more widespread than originally known:
A coalition of US-funded progressive groups has planned a massive get-out-the-vote effort to influence the Israeli elections, targeting communities that are most likely to vote against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his right-leaning Likud Party, according to a confidential strategy memo obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
The US-based 501(c)(3) group Ameinu sent out the fundraising proposal for the campaign to American donors on Dec. 17, 2014.
The $3 million initiative is described in the document as “a massive, non-partisan Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign targeting selected demographic and geographic segments of Israeli society.”
The targeted groups listed in the memo—young secular Israelis, low-income secular Jews, and Arab Israelis—are communities that traditionally oppose right-leaning parties such as Likud.
There is nothing wrong with an effort to increase voter turnout, as long as such an effort does not discriminate. An effort to increase voter turnout only in specific demographics that have a tendency to vote in a certain direction, however, is plainly partisan. And once again, former Obama campaign operatives are involved. Ameinu’s proposal reads:The US-based 501(c)(3) group Ameinu sent out the fundraising proposal for the campaign to American donors on Dec. 17, 2014.
The $3 million initiative is described in the document as “a massive, non-partisan Get Out The Vote (GOTV) campaign targeting selected demographic and geographic segments of Israeli society.”
The targeted groups listed in the memo—young secular Israelis, low-income secular Jews, and Arab Israelis—are communities that traditionally oppose right-leaning parties such as Likud.
We are already in touch with a highly talented combination of knowledgeable Israeli professionals and American experts with experience in similar recent operations, including the Obama presidential campaign.
As I wrote earlier, the notion that such widespread efforts are being undertaken without President Obama’s knowledge and blessing is just not plausible.
Ameinu’s proposal even includes a provision for driving people to voting booths:
Plan and conduct an operational plan for elections day logistics “Leave No Voter Behind” including: 1. Transportation to voting centers 2. Information Center 3. Data transmission 4. Activating Influencers
And what, exactly, does “Activating Influencers” mean?
Like OneVoice, Ameinu is a tax-exempt group under Chapter 501(c)(3). This means that functionally, contributions to Ameinu are subsidized by US taxpayers.
The combination of these efforts is all the more shocking when compared with President Obama’s attitude towards the election of Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi in Egypt. There was no appearance of interference at the time of Morsi’s election. Indeed, President Obama congratulated him on his victory and subsequently continued to treat his government respectfully, even as that government looked the other way while the country’s Christians were violently attacked and tried to lower the legal age of marriage for girls to 13. In that case, President Obama continued to respect the outcome of the elections that had brought Morsi to power, flawed as those elections may have been.
Meanwhile, flunkies of the Obama administration continue the operation to discredit Netanyahu in the US, with the New York Times’s Tom Friedman determined to keep the artificially manufactured speech-gate saga in the headlines two weeks after the spat first broke out, and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi guessering that some Democratic members of Congress might be “too busy” to attend Netanyahu’s speech in March.
Pelosi should note that any Democrat who chooses not to attend will give the impression of simply being closed to arguments with which they are predisposed to disagree, and of not giving an opposing point of view a fair hearing.
