Former European Parliament MP Fiamma Nirenstein believes that President Obama is planning a nasty November surprise (or maybe not such a surprise) for Israel.
But like Ariadne’s thread, a number of clues lead us to believe that,
after the November 8thvote and before the inauguration on January 20th,
Obama is planning a very strong move against Israel during a period in
which he can no longer influence the presidential election’s outcome or
damage Hillary.
In other words, facing a U.N. Security Council
resolution during the “lame duck” period, he’ll ignore the need for
negotiations between the two parties, impose borders, as well as set up
the parameters for the birth of a Palestinian State, reneging the
long-standing American veto. He would allow the resolution supported by
the French initiative for a peace conference to win.In practice, the
consequences would only be those of disrepute and, possibly, of
sanctions against Israel. In times of BDS, this discrediting,this
backing into a corner seems to drive more or less consciously America’s
policy toward Israel.
Astonishingly, the White House erased a
reference to the fact that at Peres’ funeral Obama had spoken in
“Jerusalem, in Israel” from a previously released statement on the
President’s speech. That is to say, the revered Peres would no longer be
buried in Israel, but rather, in some no man’s land. Later, using the
funeral as a bludgeon, while the world burns, the U.S. State Department
issued a violently worded statement regarding the construction of some
apartment units in Shiloh, in the West Bank (to relocate the displaced
settlers from Amona, a dismantled illegal settlement). The statement
basically says that the memory of the deceased leader had been betrayed
thus “cementing a one-state reality of perpetual occupation that is
fundamentally inconsistent with Israel’s future as a Jewish and
democratic state." Oh, really! The housing units, repeated the
government, will be built in an old settlement for refugees of another
destroyed settlement, without bringing one man more. Therefore, this
disproportionate criticism leads us to think two things: the first is
that they are creating an atmosphere for a political attack and
secondly, that Obama wants to leave his mark on the Middle East with
what he considers a boost to the peace process. But it is difficult to
think that he’s right: the real contribution that he could have given is
that of devising a new plan of territorial distribution (his
predecessors all did the same thing); to finally push the parties toward
talks; to ask Abu Mazen to renounce his support for terrorism; and to
favor Israel’s integration within the Middle East. However, he didn’t do
it.
Obama - if he insists - will be remembered as the president
whose pacifism(as has already happened in the past) has fueled conflict
throughout the Middle East and beyond. He will be perceived as the
anti-proliferation president who let the pact with Russia fall to
pieces, as the point of reference for Islamic moderation that favored
Iran and Hezbollah’s Shiite extremism, and who failed to stop Sunni
extremism while upsetting his more moderate allies. This legacy of
failures will only be worsened by sanctions upon the only pro-American
democracy in the Middle East.
I doubt anyone here would be surprised by this kind of nastiness from the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah.'
How will Obama's final days in office play out for Israel?
From an al-Monitor piece discussing why Prime Minister Netanyahu is likely to conclude a new defense package with the United States before President Obama leaves office come these disturbing thoughts.
“We are talking about a comprehensive deal,” one senior political
source in Jerusalem told Al-Monitor on the condition of anonymity.
“Netanyahu is trying to clear the table and move toward the demands made
by Obama’s people in the hope that the aid agreement will be finalized.
For the same price, Netanyahu is trying to assuage any desire for
retribution that Obama might still nurture. He is also trying to
increase his own chances of getting through the Obama era in peace,
without any new diplomatic initiative, a formative presidential address or some problematic Security Council resolution.
Right now, the chances of Netanyahu succeeding are reasonable. Within
President Obama’s circles, there is, as of yet, no decision as to what
the final chord of his administration’s Middle East policy will be. Some
are pressuring Obama to reveal the draft of the framework agreement (as
reported in previous articles
in Al-Monitor) that he reached with Netanyahu and his staff, or to
allow the French to bring their own initiative to the Security Council
and then not veto it. Obama will only decide what to do at the very last
minute.
The question now being asked in Israel is which of the two
temperaments will ultimately triumph. Will it be Obama’s desire to get
back at Netanyahu, who taunted him for the last eight years and dragged
him into ugly and unnecessary mud-slinging matches? Or will it be
Obama’s cool, collected temperament, which will keep him from
reshuffling the deck and shaking everything up just moments before he
exits the arena?
People close to Netanyahu say that Obama has no plans to disappear.
Even after he leaves office, he will remain an active and influential
figure in America. It could, therefore, be worth it for him to maintain a
reasonable relationship with the Israeli government.
I'm sorry to report that the 'thaw' has once again become a freeze. The Obama administration has issued an executive order calling for the labeling of products made in the West BankJudea and Samaria as not having been made in Israel.
The Jan. 23 directive
states that it is “not acceptable” to label goods coming from Israeli
companies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip as having been produced in
“Israel.”
The order comes amid an effort by the European Union to label
Israeli-made goods, a move the Israeli government called anti-Israel and
that prominent anti-Semitism watchdog groups have condemned as among the worst incidents of anti-Semitism in 2015.
This is a shift from the administration’s previous position. A State Department spokesman told reporters
in November that such labeling could be perceived as “a step on the way
to a boycott” and said boycotts would be opposed by the administration.
But earlier this month, senior Obama administration officials defended the EU’s move and reaffirmed its position against “Israeli settlement activity.”
The new guidance references a decades-old administrative directive
that sought to promote the import of Palestinian goods produced in the
West Bank. The Obama administration is facing criticism for
reinterpreting it and enforcing it to punish Israeli businesses.
The new memo, issued by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, is meant
to “provide guidance to the trade community regarding the country of
origin marking requirements for goods that are manufactured in the West
Bank.”
Good produced in these areas are not to be labeled “with the words
‘Israel,’” according to the memo, which warns that inappropriate
labeling will subject the products to “enforcement action” by Customs
and Border Protection.
“Goods produced in the West Bank or Gaza Strip shall be marked as
originating from ‘West Bank,’ ‘Gaza,’ ‘Gaza Strip,’ ‘West Bank/Gaza,’
‘West Bank/Gaza Strip,’ ‘West Bank and Gaza,’ or ‘West Bank and Gaza
Strip,’” according to the directive.
“It is not acceptable to mark the aforementioned goods with the words
‘Israel,’’ ‘Made in Israel,’ ‘Occupied Territories-Israel,’ or any
variation thereof,” it states.
Goods that are erroneously marked as products of Israel will be
subject to an enforcement action carried out by U.S. Customs and Border
Protection,” the memo states. “Goods entering the United States must
conform to the U.S. marking statute and regulations promulgated
thereunder.”
The Obama administration has reacted by claiming that nothing has changed.
A State Department official who spoke to the Washington Free Beacon on Thursday said that the department is aware of the new memo but does not view it as a shift in longstanding policy.
“We are aware that the U.S. Customs and Border Protection re-issued
guidance on their marking requirements,” the official said. “There has
been no change in policy or in our approach to enforcement of marking
requirements.”
The latest guidance stands as a “restatement of previous
requirements,” the official added. “CBP has made clear that it in no way
supersedes prior rulings or regulations, nor does it impose additional
requirements with respect to merchandise imported from the West Bank,
Gaza Strip, or Israel.”
“Longstanding U.S. guidelines, dating to 1995, on country of origin
product marking requires that products produced in the West Bank be
marked as products of the West Bank, and products of Israel be marked as
products of Israel,” the official explained.
Except that for 20 years, no one bothered to label products that way and no one noticed.
Today the Islamic State is blowing up precious cultural monuments
in Palmyra, and half of all Syrians have been displaced — as if, on a
proportional basis, 160 million Americans had been made homeless. More
than a quarter-million have been killed. Yet the “Save Darfur” signs
have not given way to “Save Syria.”
One reason is that Obama —
who ran for president on the promise of restoring the United States’
moral stature — has constantly reassured Americans that doing nothing is
the smart and moral policy. He has argued, at times, that there was
nothing the United States could do, belittling the Syrian opposition as “former doctors, farmers, pharmacists and so forth.”
He has argued that we would only make things worse — “I am more mindful probably than most,” he told the New Republic in 2013, “of not only our incredible strengths and capabilities, but also our limitations.”
He
has implied that because we can’t solve every problem, maybe we
shouldn’t solve any. “How do I weigh tens of thousands who’ve been
killed in Syria versus the tens of thousands who are currently being
killed in the Congo?” he asked (though at the time thousands were not
being killed in Congo).
On those rare
occasions when political pressure or the horrors of Syrian suffering
threatened to overwhelm any excuse for inaction, he promised action, in
statements or White House leaks: training for the opposition, a safe
zone on the Turkish border. Once public attention moved on, the plans
were abandoned or scaled back to meaningless proportions (training 50 soldiers per year, no action on the Turkish border).
Perversely,
the worse Syria became, the more justified the president seemed for
staying aloof; steps that might have helped in 2012 seemed ineffectual
by 2013, and actions that could have saved lives in 2013 would not have
been up to the challenge presented by 2014. The fact that the woman who
wrote the book on genocide, Samantha Power, and the woman who campaigned
to bomb Sudan to save the people of Darfur, Susan Rice, could
apparently in good conscience stay on as U.N. ambassador and national
security adviser, respectively, lent further moral credibility to U.S.
abdication.
Most critically, inaction was sold not as a necessary
evil but as a notable achievement: The United States at last was
leading with the head, not the heart, and with modesty, not arrogance.
“Realists” pointed out that the United States gets into trouble when it
lets ideals or emotions rule — when it sends soldiers to feed the hungry
in Somalia, for example, only to lose them, as told in “ Black Hawk Down,” and turn tail.
...
When Obama pulled all U.S. troops out of Iraq, critics worried there
would be instability; none envisioned the emergence of a full-blown
terrorist state. When he announced in August 2011
that “the time has come for President Assad to step aside,” critics
worried the words might prove empty — but few imagined the extent of the
catastrophe: not just the savagery of chemical weapons and “barrel
bombs,” but also the Islamic State’s recruitment of thousands of foreign
fighters, its spread from Libya to Afghanistan, the danger to the U.S.
homeland that has alarmed U.S. intelligence officials, the refugees
destabilizing Europe.
Unfortunately, there are no longer any easy answers for Syria. Syrians are fleeing to Europe because they don't want to flee to Arab countries (looking at how the 'Palestinians' have been held hostage for more than six decades by their Arab brethren - including in Syria - they have no desire to follow suit) and because Europe is accessible and in some cases - notably Germany, but really all of them because of the Schengen visas - open. I don't expect this to end well. Germany is absorbing 800,000 Syrians, at least some of whom are likely to be Islamic State terrorists. But even if that were not the case, the sheer number of 'refugees' would likely change the entire character of the German population.
I'm not suggesting that the United States take them in either. I don't think that any country should take in large numbers of them. Perhaps they should be dispersed all over the world, but only after ensuring that they don't include terrorists. The sad reality is that they likely do.
Obama could have stopped Assad in his tracks four years ago. He could have supported the Nusra Front before it became radicalized. He could have left US troops in Iraq (which he dogmatically - there is no other word - insisted on withdrawing despite all indications of a resulting disaster), and thus prevented the rise of ISIS on Syria's border. Instead, he kissed up to Assad, insisting on sending an ambassador to Syria, all in the interest of the one foreign policy goal about which Obama has been consistent: Destroying the State of Israel. (God Forbid).
It's come to this: Obama siding with 'Palestinians' against US citizen terror victims
In a lawsuit brought by American terror victims, guess which side the Obama administration is taking. You guessed it... the 'Palestinian' side.
The lawsuit was filed over a series of bombings and shootings in or
around Jerusalem that killed dozens of US citizens during the second Palestinian intifada, a decade ago.
The case was delayed for years while Palestinian lawyers tried to
challenge the American court’s jurisdiction, but last February, the
families won a $218.5 million judgment after a seven-week trial in
Manhattan Federal Court. The jury found that the PLO and Palestinian
Authority were responsible for a string of attacks from 2001 to 2004
that killed 33 and injured hundreds.
Unfortunately for the cash-strapped Palestinians, a 1992 law requires
damages in cases such as these, to be tripled, with interest on the
award, pushing it to as much as $1.1 billion.
The judgment amounts to nearly a third of the Palestinian Authority’s annual operating budget.
Palestinian leadership say they are not responsible “for the actions
of individuals” who killed or wounded Americans, and are appealing the
decision.
The Obama administration has reportedly signaled that it will
intervene on behalf of the Palestinians in this case over US citizens.
Late last month, the Department of Justice, which had
previously not been involved in the 11-year-old case, informed the court
it was considering filing a “statement of interest” in the case by Aug.
10, but officials would not elaborate. A source said the Department of
Justice was working with the State Department on the matter.
“As the filing states, the United States is considering whether to
submit a Statement of Interest in the [Sokolow v. Palestine Liberation
Organization] matter,” a DOJ spokeswoman told FoxNews.com. “Any filing
would be made on behalf of the United States, not on behalf of any other
party.”
The Palestinian leadership would not have to pay the award unless it
is upheld on appeal, but U.S. District Judge George Daniels said he may
require the Palestinians to post bond while the case works its way
through the process to show “some meaningful demonstration that the
defendant is ready and willing to pay the judgment.”
“An administration which claims to be fighting terror is planning to weigh in favor of the terrorists,” Yalowitz told FoxNews.com.
“If our government actually came in favor of convicted terrorists, it
would be a really sorry statement about the way our government treats
terror.”
Yet there is little if any trust in Obama in Israel, even among those
who self-identify as center-left or left. That’s my observation after
traveling for two weeks in Israel in late May and early June.
My wife and I traveled from the Lebanese to Gaza borders,
and much of what was in between. We visited with a survivor of a school
bus bombing, the families of terror victims, Israeli Bedouins, faculty
and staff at Israeli universities, physicians treating Syrian war
wounded, the security manager in Sderot along the Gaza border, and
everyday people.
For whatever the reason, almost all of the people with whom we
interacted self-identified as center-left or left. In Israeli terms,
that means these are people who did not support Benjamin Netanyahu’s
Likud party, or any of the religious-based parties, in last March’s
election.
There was no shortage of criticism of Netanyahu from this crowd: He’s
egotistical, he doesn’t keep his tough promises, he is only interested
in his own political survival, he’s a liar, his pre-election comment
about Arab voting was shameful, and so on.
Yet with only a couple of exceptions, the negative comments always were followed with a big BUT.
But Netanyahu is the only Israeli politician who has the stature to
handle the world pressure; but I don’t envy the position he is in with
so many forces against us; but opposition leader Yitzhak “Bougie” Herzog
is weak and no one will fear him; and so on.
These big BUTS were consistent with the polling and the election
results in March. A majority of Israelis voted for a political party
other than Netanyahu’s Likud, but as a whole the electorate viewed
Netanyahu as the only Israeli politician capable of standing up for
Israel in a hostile world.
Dislike of Netanyahu, however, did not seem to translate into support for Obama on the Iran deal.
I met with Professor Jacobson (and not for the first time). I am not Center-Left. I didn't vote in the last election because I was traveling on business (no absentee ballots in Israel), but if I had, I would have voted for Likud or a religious party. His depiction of Israelis' views of Obama is accurate... to a point.
What Professor Jacobson left out is that many of us feel that it's not just that Obama is a delusional optimist. Shimon Peres is a delusional optimist. But no Israeli (or very few Israelis) would accuse Shimon Peres of deliberately setting out to destroy the State of Israel. Many Israelis - yours truly included - believe that President Obama's goal is to destroy the State of Israel or to leave it so emasculated at the end of his term that it will remain for the Islamists to pick up the pieces.
Yes, I believe that President Obama would like to see the State of Israel destroyed (so does Michael Oren). I believe that he's an anti-Semite - as simple as that. And I believe that once he is out of office, his hostility to Jews and to Israel will come out into the open, just like Jimmy Carter's did nearly 40 years ago. As Victor Davis Hanson said in a Foreign Policy interview:
(2) Israel--democratic, capitalist, Western, pro-American--is emblematic
of all the things that Obama in the past has been skeptical about,
since Israel appreciates our values, history, and what we stand for.
Again, this is passé for Obama--as if one in a Columbia University
seminar on post-imperialism were to raise his hand and declare, "Isn't
it great that Israel is a beacon of democracy and Western values in the
region?"
Imagine the reaction of the professor and students to
that poor fellow, and, presto, there is what bothers Obama about Israel.
In domestic policy terms, Israel is like the present health care
system, Wall Street, the 5% who need their taxes raised, "they" who
raised the bar, the insurance companies, etc., the Palestinians more
like the victimized, poor American middle and under classes.
We Israelis got Obama's hostility to Israel in 2008, we got it as soon as he came into office in 2009, and we continue to get it. I know that I told Professor Jacobson this outright. I wonder whether others did.
It’s not that there’s lots of breaking news in “Ally” that will
startle people. Rather, it makes news on almost every page with its
incredibly detailed account of the root hostility of the Obama
administration toward the Jewish state.
What makes the details especially credible is that Oren is no
flame-breathing Israeli right-winger but very much (and at times
distressingly) an Establishment creature and one, moreover, who makes it
clear he drank the Obama hope-and-change Kool-Aid in 2008. (Indeed, he
now serves in Israel’s Knesset not as a member of Bibi Netanyahu’s Likud
but of the new centrist Kulanu party.)
On major matters, the administration seemed to hold Israel accountable for problems it had nothing to do with.
Example: The Palestinian Authority made moves toward seeking a
declaration of statehood at the United Nations in 2011, which would’ve
triggered a law shutting down their US mission and suspending all aid to
the PA and to UN agencies that recognized Palestine.
In response, Deputy Secretary of State Tom Nides called Oren into his
fancy Foggy Bottom office and screamed at him: “You don’t want the
f - - - ing UN to collapse because of your f - - - - ing conflict with
the Palestinians, and you don’t want the f - - - king Palestinian
Authority to fall apart either.”
To which Oren replied that Israel didn’t want the United Nations to
collapse “but there are plenty of Tea Party types who would, and no
shortage of Congress members who are wondering why they have to keep
paying Palestinians who spit in the president’s eye.” He reports that
Nides “slumped into his Louis XVth chair.”
Oren also writes about bizarrely petty offenses. In 2010, Obama left
Israel off a list of countries he mentioned as having helped in the wake
of the Haiti earthquake when it was the first nation in the world to
dispatch relief teams and get them to the disaster sites — because the
president was angry about something having to do with the peace process.
Even when the administration is acting friendly, Oren senses it is
doing so not out of genuine fellow feeling but to keep Israel close —
hugging it to prevent it from acting, especially when it came to Iran’s
nuclear program.
Would love to read this.... Most pro-Israel administration evah? Keep fooling yourselves American Jews.
And then there were three: McCain tells Obama 'get over your temper tantrum' over Netanyahu
For the third time since Thursday, a United States Senator has blasted President Hussein Obama for his treatment of Prime Minister Netanyahu. This time, it's John McCain (R-Az) on CNN's State of the Union.
Notice what he said at the end about re-examining United Nations funding. That's long overdue anyway.
Still waiting for the first Democratic Senator to publicly attack Obama over his tantrum. Anyone want to take bets on who will go first? I'm betting on Robert Menendez (NJ). He has nothing to lose anyway.
I guess when you're a lame duck, you can do whatever you please. President Obama, who has been doing his best to remove all sanctions against Iran is now mulling imposing them on Israel.
State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf dodged several questions on
Thursday when confronted with reports that the administration had held
secret internal meetings to discuss taking action against Israel for its
ongoing building in East Jerusalem.
The classified meetings were reportedly held several weeks ago and
included officials from both the State Department and White House,
according to the Israeli daily Ha’aretz, which first reported on the meetings.
The possibility of sanctioning Israel for its ongoing construction
sends a signal that the Obama administration is willing to go further in
its denunciations of Israel then any previous White House.
At the same time, the White House is vigorously pushing Congress against passing new sanctions on Iran.
When asked to address the reports Thursday afternoon, Harf declined to take a stance.
“I’m obviously not going to comment one way or another on reported
internal deliberations,” she said. “We’ve made clear our position on
settlement activity publicly and that hasn’t changed.”
When pressed to address whether the White House has reached a point
at which it believes its harsh rhetoric against Israel is not enough,
Harf again demurred, stating that she would not “address hypotheticals.”
A White House National Security Council (NSC) official also would not comment on the report when contacted Thursday by the Washington Free Beacon.
And I just had to share this quip from my friend, Noah Pollak
“The Obama administration is against sanctions on Iran, but for them on
Israel,” said Noah Pollak, executive director of the pro-Israel
organization Emergency Committee for Israel. “Is [White House deputy
national security adviser] Ben Rhodes wearing a green headband to work
these days?”
If you're an Orthodox Jew like I am, you may have missed President Hussein Obama's speech to the United Nations on Wednesday, the eve of Rosh HaShanna. Here's a recap.
Obama in his remarks offered praise to controversial cleric Sheikh Abdallah Bin Bayyah
and referred to him as a moderate Muslim leader who can help combat the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s (ISIL or ISIS) radical ideology.
However, Bin Bayyah himself has long been engulfed in controversy for many of his views, including the reported backing of a 2004 fatwa that advocated violent resistance against Americans fighting in Iraq.
...
“The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if
it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of
day,” Obama said before the U.N., according to a White House transcript
of his remarks.
“Look at the new Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies—Sheikh
bin Bayyah described its purpose: ‘We must declare war on war, so the
outcome will be peace upon peace,’” Obama said, quoting the
controversial cleric.
Concern over the administration’s relationship with Bin Bayyah started as early as 2013, when outrage ensued after he was reported to have met with Obama’s National Security Council staff at the White House.
While Bin Bayyah has condemned the actions of groups such as Boko
Haram and ISIL, he also has taken controversial positions against
Israel.
He issued in 2009 a fatwa “barring ‘all forms of normalization’ with
Israel,” according to a Fox report on the White House meeting.
Additionally, the notorious 2004 fatwa permitting armed resistance
against U.S. military personnel in Iraq reportedly stated that
“resisting occupation troops” is a “duty” for all Muslims, according to reports about the edict.
And then Obama dropped the other shoe. After spending fifteen minutes
blabbering about the glories and wonders of Islam, even as he decried
extremism and sectarianism, Obama proceeded to blame Israel for conflict
in the Middle East:
Leadership
will also be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and
Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up
the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure
anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of
problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a
way to distract people from problems at home. And the violence engulfing
the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard
work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and
Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort –
not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so
many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am
President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis,
Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two
states living side by side, in peace and security.
The Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,”
but by pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas
continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with
children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his
desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The
moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely
disgusting.
Over the weekend, my children asked how much longer would be in power. One of the older ones helpfully figured out that the next election is in 2016. I told them that may not help. Hillary Clinton is as bad as Obama, and Elizabeth Warren could be worse.
USA Today admits that Jews bought 'grabbed' land in 'West Bank'
Look at Haaretz map of Israel land "grab" Fits 1969 US Rogers Plan - armistice borders w "insubstantial alterations" pic.twitter.com/l0sWxfzR3U
— Lenny Ben-David (@lennybendavid) September 1, 2014
The Gush Etzion bloc's core communities were founded before Israel's
establishment in 1948 on land purchased by Jews in the 1920s and 1930s.
Arab soldiers destroyed the communities when they fought against
Israel's founding during the 1948 war.
If the entire pretext for forcing Israel to give up all the land that was liberated in 1967 is what the UN calls 'the inadmissibility of conquest by force' then why was it okay when the Arabs forced the Jews out of Gush Etzion in 1948? Why is the UN not advocating undoing that conquest by force?
And why is it that most of you probably had no idea that Jews owned land in Judea and Samaria before 1948? (I can hear my friend Sunlight shouting 'COUNTIES' but many of these records are likely incapable of reconstruction and many of the documents held by the Arabs are fraudulent. There was never a land registry in Judea and Samaria like there is in most other parts of the West, and it's very difficult to prove anything belonged to anyone before 1967. But it is a fact that Jews owned the land on which the Gush Etzion bloc is situated before 1948).
'Most pro-Israel administration evah' threatens 'further action' against Jewish state
Barak Ravid reports that the self-proclaimed 'most pro-Israel administration evah' is threatening 'further action' unless Israel 'reconsiders' its conversion of some 1,000 acres of land into state land earlier this week.
The Obama administration is considering taking further action regarding Israel’s expropriation of 1,000 acres of West Bank land this week, on top of the condemnation Washington has already issued.
“Maybe our reaction will find expression in other ways,” a senior U.S. official told Haaretz, but declined to give details.
...
In recent days attempts have been made by the national security
adviser, Yossi Cohen, and other Netanyahu advisers to calm the Americans
down. The Israeli officials told the Americans it would take years
until any construction was carried out in the area. The move was a long
process that still required a number of stages of approval.
Netanyahu’s
advisers added that the move had taken the prime minister’s aides by
surprise; Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon had not coordinated it with
them. The aides had not been informed in advance about the Civil
Administration’s announcement, or the timing.
An aide to Ya’alon
confirmed that the prime minister’s aides had not been told of the move;
he said this was not necessary because it was only a technical
procedure.
A senior Israeli official said the move began at a
meeting of the security cabinet after the murder of the three teens. At
the session, Ya’alon suggested that as part of the response to the
killing, Israel should turn the Gva’ot outpost in the Gush Etzion area
into a new settlement.
The establishment of a new settlement
requires a cabinet decision, but no decision on the issue was made at
that security-cabinet meeting.
Despite the absence of a decision,
Ya’alon instructed the Civil Administration to advance the
administrative procedures for expropriating the land. The Civil
Administration surveyed the area to make sure the land intended for
Gva’ot was not privately owned by Palestinians.
The Civil Administration found that no land in the area was privately owned and thus announced the expropriation.
Palestinian residents of the area will be able to submit objections to the move in the next 45 days.
How ridiculous is the Obama administration being (aside from the fact that its reaction shows that it is most definitely not pro-Israel)? Ravid's newspaper published a map of the area in question earlier this week. As you'll see below, this area has been part of Israel in every peace proposal going back to the Rogers Plan in 1969.
Look at Haaretz map of Israel land "grab" Fits 1969 US Rogers Plan - armistice borders w "insubstantial alterations" pic.twitter.com/l0sWxfzR3U
— Lenny Ben-David (@lennybendavid) September 1, 2014
And I am old enough to recall the fury that consumed American Jewry over the Rogers Plan when it was introduced (follow the link in the paragraph before the tweet). This 'land grab' is nothing but a tempest in a teapot.
'In a neighborhood featuring Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, just to name a few of the actors, President Obama was “enraged” at … Israel'
Peter Wehner picks up on this quote from the Foreign Policy interview with Martin Indyk that I blogged on Wednesday. First the quote, then Wehner.
Well, it started with Defense Minister Moshe
Ya'alon attacking [Kerry] publicly during the peace process, which I attribute
to two things. One, the defense minister had a very clear sense of what
Israel's security needs are and they do not include withdrawing the Israeli
army from the Jordan River, which would have to be addressed in the peace
negotiations if there was to be a deal. So I think there was a substantive
disagreement, but the lack of respect was truly disturbing, specifically given
the importance of American security assistance for the well-being of Israel's
defense, for which the defense minister is responsible.
But it got
completely out of control during the Gaza crisis, where the secretary was
assailed for supposedly betraying Israel because he was trying to work with the
prime minister on a cease-fire, and he engaged with Qatar and Turkey to test
whether they could influence Hamas to stop firing the rockets. And that
criticism came not just from the right but from pundits on the left as well -- Haaretz published three articles by
their journalists attacking Kerry. I think that's a product of a particular
circumstance in which Israelis felt very much isolated, on their own -- that
the world didn't understand them. In that defensive crouch, I think they were
waiting for a betrayal by the United States even though the secretary and the president
repeatedly supported their right to defend themselves. So they interpreted the secretary's
actions as being designed to undermine Israel in favor of Hamas and undermine
its burgeoning alignment with Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
In fact,
nothing could have been further from the truth but that was the perception and,
unfortunately, it was a line fed by some unnamed Israeli officials, one of whom
described Kerry as launching "a strategic terror attack." That was
just outrageous and it enraged the president.
Think about this for a moment. In a neighborhood featuring Hamas,
ISIS, Hezbollah, Syria, and Iran, just to name a few of the actors,
President Obama was “enraged” at … Israel. That’s right, Israel–our
stalwart ally, a lighthouse of liberty, lawfulness, and human rights in a
region characterized by despotism, and a nation filled with people who
long for peace and have done so much for so long to sacrifice for it
(including repeatedly returning and offering to return its land in
exchange for peace).
Yet Mr. Obama–a man renowned for his lack of strong feelings, his
emotional equanimity, his disengagement and distance from events, who New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd refers to as “Spock” for his Vulcan-like detachment–is not just upset but “enraged” at Israel.
Add to this the fact that the conflict with Hamas in Gaza–a conflict
started and escalated by Hamas, and in which Hamas used innocent
Palestinians as human shields–had a very negative impact on America’s
relationship with Israel. To show you just how absurd this has
become, other Arab nations were siding with Israel in its conflict with
Hamas. But not America under Obama. He was constantly applying pressure
on Israel. Apparently if you’re a nation defending yourself and, in
doing so, you wage a war with exquisite care in order to prevent
civilian death, it is reason to earn the fury of Mr. Obama.
It’s clear to me, and by now it should be to others, that there is
something sinister in Barack Obama’s constant anger aimed at Israel.
Most pro-Israel President evah? Don't believe it for a minute.
I have discussed Z Street and how it was denied tax exempt status by Obama's IRS many times on this blog. Now, it turns out that Z Street may yet be the key to the IRS scandal.
Obama setting Israel up to take the fall for his failed peace talks
Jennifer Rubin's analysis of President Hussein Obama is spot-on..
This past week, Abbas came to visit Obama at the White House. In
advance of his trip, Obama made no statements expressing displeasure
with the Palestinian Authority’s intransigence and its continued
demonization of Israel. Just before the meeting Obama told the assembled press corps:
I have to commend President Abbas. He has been somebody
who has consistently renounced violence, has consistently sought a
diplomatic and peaceful solution that allows for two states, side by
side, in peace and security; a state that allows for the dignity and
sovereignty of the Palestinian people and a state that allows for
Israelis to feel secure and at peace with their neighbors. . . . I also
want to point out that the Palestinian Authority has continued to try
to build strong institutions in preparation for a day in which the
Palestinians have their own state, and I will continue to emphasize the
importance of rule of law, transparency, and effective reform so that
not only do the Palestinians ultimately have a state on paper, but, more
importantly, they have one that actually delivers on behalf of their
people.
In fact, Abbas last year forced out the only true Palestinian reformer Salam Fayyad,
has refused to hold elections and occupies the presidency beyond the
legally allotted term.
Moreover, as former deputy national security
adviser Elliott Abrams explains:
“By making the ‘right of return’ a personal right for each Palestinian,
Abbas is saying the PLO has no right to negotiate over it and no right
to sign an agreement that defeats or even limits that ‘right.’ If that’s
really the PLO position, there will never be an agreement.”
On his trip to Washington this week, Palestinian
Authority President Mahmoud Abbas rejected US Secretary of State John
Kerry’s framework document for continued peace talks with Israel, and
issued “three no’s” on core issues, leaving the negotiations heading for
an explosive collapse, an Israeli TV report said Friday. . . .
Specifically, the report said, Abbas rejected Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu’s demand that he recognize Israel as a Jewish state. He also
refused to abandon the Palestinian demand for a “right of return” for
millions of Palestinians and their descendants — a demand that, if
implemented, would drastically alter Israel’s demographic balance and
which no conceivable Israeli government would accept. And finally, he
refused to commit to an “end of conflict,” under which a peace deal
would represent the termination of any further Palestinian demands of
Israel.
We can therefore see that Obama’s words are entirely at odds with the
conduct of the parties in the region. He either chooses to misrepresent
the facts or he is blinded by unremitting hostility to Israel. In any
event, he indulges the PA’s intransigence despite replete evidence that
this only worsens the divide between the parties. The inescapable
takeaway is that Obama lacks real affection for the Jewish state and
when things fail intends to blame Israel.
But then, did anyone really expect otherwise? Why?
Jeffrey Goldberg: Obama interview remarks tantamount to a threat
Here's an interview that Charlie Rose did with Jeffrey Goldberg earlier this week in which Goldberg discusses his interview with President Obama on the 'peace process' last week. Goldberg says that Obama's remarks in the interview are tantamount to a threat.
Let's go to the videotape. Unfortunately, I could only embed the entire show, but the interview with Goldberg starts at the 35:00 mark.
Pretty harsh stuff. Anyone think Goldberg is wrong?
It hasn't been so long since the picture above happened. Now, a bipartisan group of 80 legislators and foreign policy wonks is urging President Hussein Obama to confront Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan about the lack of democracy in his country. Can Obama do it?
“Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan is increasingly undermining a
central pillar of the decades-long, strategic U.S.-Turkish partnership:
Turkey’s growing democracy,” reads the letter,
organized by the right-leaning Foreign Policy Initiative, the
left-leaning Center for American Progress, the Bipartisan Policy Center,
and Freedom House. “We are writing because of our deep dismay at this
development and to urge you to make clear to the Turkish public
America’s concern about Turkey’s current path. Silence will only
encourage Prime Minister Erdoğan to diminish the rule of law in the
country even further.”
The letter was signed by several former Obama administration
officials including White House senior director Dennis Ross, State
Department policy planning director Anne-Marie Slaughter, and Julianne Smith, an advisor to the Vice President. Republican signatories include Ambassador John Bolton, Sen. Norm Coleman, Gov. Tim Pawlenty, and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.
According to the experts and former officials, Obama has been turning
a blind eye to Erdogan’s descent into autocracy. In their opinion,
this alarming trend in Turkey has accelerated since last summer, when
Turkish authorities used a heavy hand to disperse street protests and
Erdogan denounced the protestors as “looters” while blaming foreign
conspirators for the unrest.
Erdogan is also actively trying to
cover up a huge corruption scandal which has engulfed his government
since December, according to the letter. The Turkish Prime Minister has
dismissed or reassigned thousands of prosecutors and police officers
involved in the scandal, which ties Turkish government officials and
even Erdogan’s son through shady business deals with Iran and al Qaeda.
The Erdogan govenrment has also imposed restrictions on internet
freedom and freedom of the press. A new law would allow the government
to block any website that has “insulting” content and Turkey still holds more journalists in prison than any other nation in the world.
“These
developments have already roiled Turkey’s economy, polarized its
society, and endangered its political stability,” the letter
reads. “Some might argue that because the United States has many
interests with Turkey—not least of which is ending the violence in Syria
and easing the suffering of its people—it should not risk alienating
its ally. Should Turkey succumb to the authoritarian impulses currently
on display, however, it would have profound implications for our ability
to work together and, therefore, for our deepest interests.”
But Obama has no intention of confronting Erdogan. He's too busy trying to browbeat Netanyahu into further endangering Israel's security through the creation of a 'Palestinian' reichlet.
Indyk orchestrating campaign of former generals to 'convince' Israel it can give up Jordan Valley
It's no coincidence that we've been seeing stories all week that one former IDF general after another is suddenly claiming that we can give up the Jordan Valley. Former US ambassador to Israel and 'peace process' babysitter Martin Indyk is orchestrating an organized campaign using former IDF generals to pressure Prime Minister Netanyahu to give the Jordan Valley to the 'Palestinians.'
A report in Maariv Thursday said the the State
Department had drafted many military officials who have worked with IDF
officers, at various levels, in an orchestrated campaign to pressure the
Israelis that there is no danger in surrendering the region in order to
sign a deal with the Palestinian Authority.
The report said that the effort was being orchestrated by
former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Martin Indyk. The plan is to build a
lobby among Israeli security officials to support a major American push
for Israel to agree to surrender the Jordan Valley. Between external
pressure from the U.S. and internal pressure from the Israeli lobby and
the media, Kerry hopes to be able to push Israel into making the
decision, without which the Palestinian Authority will not agree to the
peace framework he is pushing.
That pressure campaign was allegedly behind Defense Minister Moshe 'Boogie' Yaalon calling US Secretary of State John FN Kerry an 'obsessive messianic' on Tuesday. Yaalon made his comments in a private setting and apparently did not expect them to be quoted in the media. Yedioth Aharonoth, which broke the story, is the second most Leftist newspaper in Israel after the Hebrew 'Palestinian' daily Haaretz.
“A storm of Arab unrest is raging to the east,” said Yitzchaki,
as just one look at the situation in Iraq shows. Muslim radicals have
made great advances there, and the country is on the verge of being
turned into a terrorist state. In the past, Israel was concerned that a
strong Iraqi army could join with Jordan and Syria in attacking Israel.
That danger still exists – as does the danger that Iraq could export its
radical revolution to those countries as well, he added.
Rebels in Syria are working with their comrades in Iraq, with
the aim to build a united Arab nation, called “A-Sham.” If they succeed,
there is little chance Jordan could survive in its current form, and
Israel will be facing on its eastern border a huge, and very hostile,
Arab terror state, he said.
“We are headed for a very 'hot summer' on our eastern border,”
Yitzchaki said. “Those in charge of our defense must look at the
situation from all angles, and understand that without a presence in the
gateway to the Land of Israel, the Jordan Valley, Israel's security
will be compromised. Immediately to the east things look calm, but 100
kilometers beyond a monster is being built.”
And perhaps this is the place to deal with the substance of Yaalon's comments on Tuesday. After a detailed explanation of how the media work in Israel, why Yedioth published the story and how it got out of hand, JPost's Herb Keinon writes that there are an awful lot of Israelis who agree with Yaalon (including yours truly).
Through it all, what was lost was what Ya’alon said: that Kerry is
obsessed with the Israeli-Palestinian issue; that he approaches it like
someone on a messianic mission; that the negotiations are being
conducted not between Israel and the Palestinians, but by each side
with the Americans, not a healthy way to negotiate; and that the
security arrangements the US is recommending are simply not acceptable.
Save
the characterization of Kerry as being motivated by a messianic
sentiment, and that he should just “take his Nobel Prize and leave us
alone,” Ya’alon’s sentiments are neither illegitimate nor crazy. Nor are
they his alone.
Many have asked why Kerry seems to be focusing
like a laser beam on the Israel-Palestinian situation, when there are
so many other, even more pressing issues, in the region. As Fouad Ajami
wrote last week in The Wall Street Journal: “The ground burns in Iraq,
Syria and Lebanon. Borders are being contested, and militant Islamists
have all but overwhelmed secular authorities.
Yet America’s
chief diplomat, Secretary of State John Kerry, was in the neighborhood
this week, for the 10th time, on an expedition to Israel and the
Palestinian territories.”
Ya’alon’s comment that it was unwise to
run the negotiations through the Americans, rather than directly
between the sides, is not outlandish, nor is his claim that Israel
seems to have made all the concessions up until this point. Is a pledge
not to wage diplomatic war with Israel in diplomatic forums around the
world – what the Palestinians “gave” to enter the talks – equal to
Israel’s release of 104 convicted terrorists? And as to Ya’alon’s
remark about the unacceptability of a US security plan for the day
after an agreement is signed, is it not his job, as defense minister, to
voice his reservations? His problem is that he voiced them in the
wrong way, and in the wrong forum.
But no one should be mistaken:
What Ya’alon said rather inelegantly, many other Israelis – both
inside and outside the corridors of power – are thinking.
Read the whole thing. We all know why this is happening (which Keinon does not discuss): The Obama administration needs an 'achievement,' Israel is the Middle Eastern country most susceptible to American pressure, and if the parties negotiated directly they would never reach an agreement. And you thought an international conference was a bad idea?
Over the last few weeks, my daily Talmud class has been learning about the scapegoat, the goat that was pushed off a cliff each year on Yom Kippur to atone for the Jewish people's sins. I'm identifying more and more with the scapegoat these days.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
