In Part I of this series I mentioned that Netanyahu made two comments at the end of his campaign for reelection that upset Obama and the left. The first was about the creation of a Palestinian state. The second was his urging Likud party voters to get out and vote because Arabs were "streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations." So let's be honest - honesty being something with which Obama and the mainstream media do not concern themselves. Arab voters tend to be left wing; Netanyahu's party is right wing. Obama and other foreigners were likely assisting in busing Arabs to the polls in order to defeat Netanyahu. (The US Senate is currently investigating whether Obama, through the State Department, improperly funneled money to groups in Israel seeking to defeat Netanyahu.)
The result of Netanyahu's statement was an assault from the Obama Administration and the mainstream media accusing Netanyahu of racism. Let us not forget that Netanyahu is a politician. The polls in Israel had predicted had a very tight race, with early polls suggesting Netanyahu would lose. So it was no surprise that he tried to use any means to get his party loyalists to vote.
Here is Harry Reid in 2011, as Senate Majority leader: "I don't know how anyone of Hispanic heritage could be a Republican. Do I need to say more?" Leader of the Democratic National Committee, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, made a similar comment by claiming that there was "nothing, and I mean nothing, in the Republicans' right wing agenda that appeals to the American Jewish Community." So there you have Reid and Wasserman-Schultz playing the race/ethnic card.
But let us not leave Obama out of this mix. During his first campaign in 2008 he said this: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." So just who does everyone think Obama had in mind when he talked about those small townspeople. Whites, that's who. It was whites who Obama accused of having antipathy to those not like them and to immigrants. He did not have to say the word "white," it was clear about whom he was speaking.
But let's get back to those Arab voters in Israel. Here is what one Israeli Arab Member of the Knesset has said: "If, as citizens, we boycott the parliament, this would mean that we also boycott the struggle because when we entered the Knesset we do not enter to promote relations with Israel, but instead to struggle against Israel." And: "...we are against the very definition of the state." Most of the Arabs in the Knesset would be very happy to speed the end of Israel's existence as the sole Jewish state in the world, and to effectuate the creation of yet another Muslim run state.
The 3/21/15 New York Times ran a front page article entitled "Israeli Leader Further Divides American Jews." The reality is that liberal American Jews are split with regards to their affinity for Israel. Most conservative Jews are highly supportive of Israel. But the liberal Jews are just as likely to be anti-Likud (Netanyahu's party) as they are to be anti-Republican. So no great surprise.
Of greater interest, perhaps, was another front page story in yesterday's Times, entitled: "At White House, A Sharper Tone With Netanyahu." After all, Obama is already plenty annoyed at Netanyahu for daring to challenge his appeasement of, er-negotiations with, Iran. Imagine the nerve of Netanyahu, the only world leader to suggest that allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability is a bad idea, especially so for the existence of Israel.
But Israel can rely upon the security guarantees of the US, right? Just like Ukraine could? Or would that be like the "red line" Obama drew with respect to Syria's use of chemical weapons? The truth is that the entire world knows that since Obama came into office nobody can rely upon the US. Notwithstanding the effort by Netanyahu to step back from his comments, the White House is not willing to meet him halfway. Rather, the Times article says that "the White House is stoking the acrimony."
I guess there is one thing the world can rely upon with the Obama Administration - if you were an enemy before you will now be treated as an ally; and if you were an ally before, you are on your own now.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Obama to Israel: Drop Dead! (Part II)
It is not that Obama and the left do not understand the mortal danger to Israel if they were to evacuate the West Bank. No, they just do not care. The liberal LA Times said this: "Israeli leaders of all parties are understandably unwilling to negotiate an agreement with a movement like Hamas that is bent on their country's destruction." (3/18/15 Editorial) The liberal USA Today said: "With Hamas in charge in Gaza and committed to Israel's destruction, it's hard to imagine an accommodation that would leave Israel secure." (3/19/15 Editorial) But Hamas is part of the Palestinian government. It does not matter. These papers still say it is Netanyahu's fault. For Obama and the left their agenda has always mattered far more than the truth. As I have said before, truth is not a value for these people.
So now, Obama is threatening to allow the passage of a UN resolution, by withholding a US veto, that would create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. Those borders are indefensible militarily. Israel would be less than 9 miles wide at one point. The Security Council has enforcement mechanisms, including economic sanctions and even the use of military force. If Israel vacated the West Bank how long would it take for Hamas to take over, and have another area from which to launch their attacks against Israel? They would be within easy striking distance of the Knesset and other government facilities, as well as Tel Aviv and most population centers.
The 1967 borders would even give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, including the Old City. When the Arabs controlled the Old City from 1949 until the 1967 war, others were denied access. Holy sites were destroyed. Under Israeli rule, all religions have access to their holy sites. What does Obama think would happen under Hamas (or even Abbas) rule? Answer: He does not care.
Worse even than Hamas taking over the West Bank, would be the likelihood of other Islamic terrorist groups also entering the West Bank - groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Look at all the instability and unrest throughout the Middle East: A Syrian civil war that has gone on for years and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, with over a million refugees; the overthrow of the US-allied Yemeni government by an Iranian proxy government; Egypt has gone from Mubarek to the Muslim Botherhood to military rule under al-Sisi in a few short years; Libya is a failed state; Iraq is a failed state; and Iran is about to have nukes.
It is against this background that Obama says Israel must shrink their territory to the point of committing suicide. It is against this background that the US has now removed both Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorist groups/states. It was against this background that 58 Democratic members of Congress chose to boycott the Israeli Prime Minister's speech, while Democrats who did attend were highly critical of Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, the Europeans are hell bent on imposing their own sanctions on Israel. And the International Criminal Court has agreed to investigate, at the request of the Palestinians, whether or not Israel committed war crimes in last year's war between Israel and Hamas. And the IBD reports that Obama has not renewed the US agreement to guarantee an oil supply to Israel during a time of war. Obama already let the agreement expire in November. (3/20/15 IBD Editorial) During last summer's war with Hamas, Obama slowed the provision of war materiel to Israel.
Obama has been looking for an opening to go after Israel since coming into office. From day one he took on all the Palestinian terms and positions. He used terms such as "occupied territory" and "illegitimate/illegal settlements." Obama has not only sided with the Muslims in every instance; he has often sided with the most radical Muslims. Just as he did when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. Just as he did in referring to Erdogan (the Islamist leader of Turkey) by saying he was one of Obama's closest allies. And just as he is doing now in allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability.
While Netanyahu may have difficulty in getting access to the White House, the most radical of Muslim groups do not. The Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial regarding the illegal financing of the terror group Hamas) has had access. The Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) has had access. Both are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas. No problem.
Early on Obama expressed his concern about the closeness of the US with Israel. As noted by Max Boot (in a 3/20/15 op-ed in the LA Times) Obama told American Jewish leaders in 2009: "Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."
How conveniently Obama forgets - or should I say lies? As noted in Part I, during Bush's presidency (the eight years to which Obama was referring) Israel offered a state to Abbas. The offer was rejected as there was only silence from Abbas. But in Obama's mind, it is only Israel that sits on the sidelines. It was the Palestinians who, more recently, walked away from the discussions with Kerry and Israel. That does not matter either.
I have never discussed in this blog whether Obama might be a Muslim. I have said just look at with whom he aligns himself. In every instance it is the Muslims. It is where his gut takes him. I would also point out that he has no particular affinity for Christians either, as they continue to get slaughtered and displaced from the Arab Muslim world. But he will fight for a Palestinian state at all costs.
So now, Obama is threatening to allow the passage of a UN resolution, by withholding a US veto, that would create a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders. Those borders are indefensible militarily. Israel would be less than 9 miles wide at one point. The Security Council has enforcement mechanisms, including economic sanctions and even the use of military force. If Israel vacated the West Bank how long would it take for Hamas to take over, and have another area from which to launch their attacks against Israel? They would be within easy striking distance of the Knesset and other government facilities, as well as Tel Aviv and most population centers.
The 1967 borders would even give part of Jerusalem to the Palestinians, including the Old City. When the Arabs controlled the Old City from 1949 until the 1967 war, others were denied access. Holy sites were destroyed. Under Israeli rule, all religions have access to their holy sites. What does Obama think would happen under Hamas (or even Abbas) rule? Answer: He does not care.
Worse even than Hamas taking over the West Bank, would be the likelihood of other Islamic terrorist groups also entering the West Bank - groups such as Al Qaeda and ISIS. Look at all the instability and unrest throughout the Middle East: A Syrian civil war that has gone on for years and has resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands, with over a million refugees; the overthrow of the US-allied Yemeni government by an Iranian proxy government; Egypt has gone from Mubarek to the Muslim Botherhood to military rule under al-Sisi in a few short years; Libya is a failed state; Iraq is a failed state; and Iran is about to have nukes.
It is against this background that Obama says Israel must shrink their territory to the point of committing suicide. It is against this background that the US has now removed both Iran and Hezbollah from the list of terrorist groups/states. It was against this background that 58 Democratic members of Congress chose to boycott the Israeli Prime Minister's speech, while Democrats who did attend were highly critical of Netanyahu.
Meanwhile, the Europeans are hell bent on imposing their own sanctions on Israel. And the International Criminal Court has agreed to investigate, at the request of the Palestinians, whether or not Israel committed war crimes in last year's war between Israel and Hamas. And the IBD reports that Obama has not renewed the US agreement to guarantee an oil supply to Israel during a time of war. Obama already let the agreement expire in November. (3/20/15 IBD Editorial) During last summer's war with Hamas, Obama slowed the provision of war materiel to Israel.
Obama has been looking for an opening to go after Israel since coming into office. From day one he took on all the Palestinian terms and positions. He used terms such as "occupied territory" and "illegitimate/illegal settlements." Obama has not only sided with the Muslims in every instance; he has often sided with the most radical Muslims. Just as he did when the Muslim Brotherhood took over Egypt. Just as he did in referring to Erdogan (the Islamist leader of Turkey) by saying he was one of Obama's closest allies. And just as he is doing now in allowing the Ayatollahs to maintain nuclear weapon capability.
While Netanyahu may have difficulty in getting access to the White House, the most radical of Muslim groups do not. The Islamic Society of North America (an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation trial regarding the illegal financing of the terror group Hamas) has had access. The Council on Islamic American Relations (CAIR) has had access. Both are offshoots of the Muslim Brotherhood, as is Hamas. No problem.
Early on Obama expressed his concern about the closeness of the US with Israel. As noted by Max Boot (in a 3/20/15 op-ed in the LA Times) Obama told American Jewish leaders in 2009: "Look at the past eight years. During those eight years, there was no space between us and Israel, and what did we get from that? When there is no daylight, Israel just sits on the sidelines, and that erodes our credibility with the Arab states."
How conveniently Obama forgets - or should I say lies? As noted in Part I, during Bush's presidency (the eight years to which Obama was referring) Israel offered a state to Abbas. The offer was rejected as there was only silence from Abbas. But in Obama's mind, it is only Israel that sits on the sidelines. It was the Palestinians who, more recently, walked away from the discussions with Kerry and Israel. That does not matter either.
I have never discussed in this blog whether Obama might be a Muslim. I have said just look at with whom he aligns himself. In every instance it is the Muslims. It is where his gut takes him. I would also point out that he has no particular affinity for Christians either, as they continue to get slaughtered and displaced from the Arab Muslim world. But he will fight for a Palestinian state at all costs.
Obama to Israel: Drop Dead! (Part I)
This past week Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appears to have won reelection. I say "appears" because he still has the task of forming enough alliances under Israel's parliamentary system to form a new government, which requires having 61 of the Knesset's 120 seats. Netanyahu's party, the conservative Likud, got 30 seats. The Zionist Union (liberal, former Labor party) got 24 seats, and the Joint Arab List (made up of four smaller Arab parties) got 13 seats. Seven other parties got the remaining seats.
Towards the end of the election campaign Netanyahu made two comments that supposedly has the Obama Administration and other leftists in a tizzy. First, Netanyahu said that he would not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state during his term in office. "I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islamists against the State of Israel...Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand. The left does this time and time again."
The spokesliars at the White House and State Department both said that Netanyahu's comments called into question his commitment to peace and the two-state solution. As this writer has noted previously, there is absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - that would ever call into question the Palestinians (more accurately, the Arabs of Palestine) commitment to peace. Mahmoud Abbas is in office as President of the PA for 10 years, but was only elected to a 4 or 5 year term. He refuses to hold new elections, fearing Hamas would win. So Abbas has no electoral legitimacy. No problem.
Abbas formed a unity government with Hamas, the terrorist group which rules Gaza. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas just recently again honored one of the biggest murderers of Jews, having led a 1978 hijacking of a bus that resulted in 38 dead (including 13 children) and over 70 wounded. Abbas just named a public square for that female terrorist. The Palestinian schools teach that this murderer of innocents (for the Palestinians no Jew is an "innocent") was a freedom fighter and a martyr. No problem.
Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israel last summer - aiming at Israeli civilians and cities. Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in a new Palestinian state. No problem.
The Arabs initial rejection of a state and peace came in 1947 when the UN voted partition of the area known as the British Mandate, into a Jewish state and an Arab state. But the Arabs had said before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So in 1948 the Arabs attacked Israel, their first attempt to wipe Israel off the map. No problem.
The Palestinians began their first intifada in 1987, lasting until 1993. In 2000, under the auspices of Bill Clinton, Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak offered a state to Yasser Arafat. He rejected the offer by walking out on Clinton and Barak. He returned to the West Bank and started the second intifada. Arab suicide/homicide bombers then blew up Jews in cafes, in malls, on buses and even at a Passover Seder. No problem.
In 2008, during the George Bush Administration, then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert offered a state to current P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas ignored the offer, much like Arafat did in 2000. No problem.
Then what is the problem? The fact that Netanyahu told the truth. The truth is that Israel gave up the Sinai to Egypt, after conquering that land in the 1967 war, and then losing some of it in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The peace agreement with Egypt, while shaky, has held for four decades. But when Israel left Gaza in 2005, forcibly evicting their own citizens from the area, they did not get peace. Rather, they ended up with the election of the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has built Gaza into a weapons factory, launching thousands of rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Hamas has built tunnels into Israel for the sole purpose of capturing and killing Israelis. The foreign aid that flowed into Gaza has been used for one purpose: the destruction of Israel. As the Hamas charter says: "Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it."
It is with this background that Obama believes Israel should now also give up Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).
Towards the end of the election campaign Netanyahu made two comments that supposedly has the Obama Administration and other leftists in a tizzy. First, Netanyahu said that he would not allow the establishment of a Palestinian state during his term in office. "I think that anyone who is going to establish a Palestinian state today and evacuate lands is giving attack grounds to the radical Islamists against the State of Israel...Anyone who ignores this is sticking his head in the sand. The left does this time and time again."
The spokesliars at the White House and State Department both said that Netanyahu's comments called into question his commitment to peace and the two-state solution. As this writer has noted previously, there is absolutely nothing - and I mean nothing - that would ever call into question the Palestinians (more accurately, the Arabs of Palestine) commitment to peace. Mahmoud Abbas is in office as President of the PA for 10 years, but was only elected to a 4 or 5 year term. He refuses to hold new elections, fearing Hamas would win. So Abbas has no electoral legitimacy. No problem.
Abbas formed a unity government with Hamas, the terrorist group which rules Gaza. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Abbas just recently again honored one of the biggest murderers of Jews, having led a 1978 hijacking of a bus that resulted in 38 dead (including 13 children) and over 70 wounded. Abbas just named a public square for that female terrorist. The Palestinian schools teach that this murderer of innocents (for the Palestinians no Jew is an "innocent") was a freedom fighter and a martyr. No problem.
Hamas launched thousands of rockets into Israel last summer - aiming at Israeli civilians and cities. Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in a new Palestinian state. No problem.
The Arabs initial rejection of a state and peace came in 1947 when the UN voted partition of the area known as the British Mandate, into a Jewish state and an Arab state. But the Arabs had said before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So in 1948 the Arabs attacked Israel, their first attempt to wipe Israel off the map. No problem.
The Palestinians began their first intifada in 1987, lasting until 1993. In 2000, under the auspices of Bill Clinton, Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak offered a state to Yasser Arafat. He rejected the offer by walking out on Clinton and Barak. He returned to the West Bank and started the second intifada. Arab suicide/homicide bombers then blew up Jews in cafes, in malls, on buses and even at a Passover Seder. No problem.
In 2008, during the George Bush Administration, then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert offered a state to current P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas ignored the offer, much like Arafat did in 2000. No problem.
Then what is the problem? The fact that Netanyahu told the truth. The truth is that Israel gave up the Sinai to Egypt, after conquering that land in the 1967 war, and then losing some of it in the 1973 Yom Kippur war. The peace agreement with Egypt, while shaky, has held for four decades. But when Israel left Gaza in 2005, forcibly evicting their own citizens from the area, they did not get peace. Rather, they ended up with the election of the terrorist group Hamas in Gaza. Hamas has built Gaza into a weapons factory, launching thousands of rockets into civilian areas of Israel. Hamas has built tunnels into Israel for the sole purpose of capturing and killing Israelis. The foreign aid that flowed into Gaza has been used for one purpose: the destruction of Israel. As the Hamas charter says: "Israel will exist, and will continue to exist, until Islam abolishes it."
It is with this background that Obama believes Israel should now also give up Judea and Samaria (the West Bank).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)