In their 4/8/15 op-ed, former Secretaries of State Kissinger and Shultz pointed out that "Iran's centrifuges have multiplied from about 100 at the beginning of the negotiation to almost 20,000 today." One would think this fact alone would give pause and make one question Iran's intentions.
The two former Secretaries go on: "Under the new approach, Iran permanently gives up none of its equipment, facilities or fissile product to achieve the proposed constraints." You have to hand it to the State Department though. In rebuttal, Marie Harf, State Department spokeswoman, actually said this: "I didn't hear a lot of alternatives...I heard a lot of sort of big words and big thoughts in that piece..." You have no idea how much I wish I could say that I was kidding about what Ms. Harf said.
One issue that Obama felt should not be included in these talks was Israel's right to exist. Said one Iranian commander: "The destruction of Israel is non-negotiable." In reply, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said: "The survival of Israel is non-negotiable. Israel will not accept an agreement which allows a country that vows to annihilate us to develop nuclear weapons." On this issue there is no disagreement within Israel.
The liberal Zionist Union Party (formerly the Labor Party) headed by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni issued a joint statement regarding Iran. They argue that Israel should enter into a comprehensive deal with the US that will give Israel "the unrestricted ability to act against threats and violations both of the deal and against our regional enemies that are supported by Iran." Sounds to me like they want a green light to attack Iran if necessary. Would Obama ever agree to that?
When asked if the US would agree to a deal with Iran that requires Iran to recognize Israel's right to exist, Marie Harf tersely said: "This is an agreement that is only about the nuclear issue." If that is the case, there is no meaningful deal. Not requiring any change in behavior from Iran means they will get their nuclear weapons, and continue to support terrorism and extend their reach even further throughout the Middle East.
Obama stated that requiring Iran to recognize Israel would be a "fundamental misjudgement." In an interview with Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, Obama said how hard it was for him to hear criticisms that he has not done all he could to protect Israel. "This has been as hard as anything I do because of the deep affinities that I feel for the Israeli people and for the Jewish people." Yes, Mr. President, we can certainly see your affinity for the sole Jewish state in the world by the way you have treated its leader.
In their 4/8/15 editorial, the New York Times criticizes Israel's Minister of Intelligence and Strategic Affairs for insisting that Iran end all research end development of advanced centrifuges, reduce the number of centrifuges at Natanz beyond what the "framework" allows Iran to keep, completely close its underground facility at Fordo, allow inspectors anytime and anywhere, ship its existing stockpile of enriched uranium out of the country, and disclose past nuclear related activities having potential military use. Now that sounds like the makings of a good deal.
Yet, Obama and his State Department continue to insist that no alternatives have been proposed to Obama's deal. They continue to insist that Israel says the only option to Obama's deal is war with Iran. This writer suggested years ago that Bush should have taken out Iran's existing nuclear facilities at the time. They were fewer in number and less spread out. I argued that Bush should have sought an alliance for an aerial assault with Britain, France and Germany. I further argued that, absent a willingness to do so, Bush should have given the green light to Israel. But Bush refused to allow safe passage of Israeli planes over Iraq after we had toppled Saddam Hussein.
The result of this deal will be that Iran gets nuclear weapons, setting off a Middle East arms race as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey and others will want to obtain their own nuclear weapons. All the while Obama will tell us he has made the world safer. "If you like your doctor..."
Sunday, April 12, 2015
Deal...Or No Deal?
Although the 3/31/15 deadline set for an interim agreement had to be extended by a couple of days, Iran and the US have announced an agreement on the framework of a deal concerning Iran's nuclear program. Or did they?
Almost immediately, it appeared as if there was no agreed upon framework. While the US announced that sanctions would only be lifted after Iran complies with terms of the deal, Iran stated that all sanctions would be lifted immediately upon signing any deal. If I had to pick who was lying, I would be tempted to go with Obama. He desperately wants a deal. We know that as a leftist, and as a student of Saul Alinsky, he believes that the ends justify the means. Truth is not a value, so lying - even to Congress - about the ending of sanctions or any other issue would not be a problem for Obama.
It would be akin to lying to get the bare 60 vote majority needed in the Senate in order to get the Affordable Care Act passed. Countless times Obama told us that if we liked our doctor and our health plan we could keep them. Neither one was true; and he knew those claims were not true when he made them. So, I am inclined to think that Obama would lie to the American people and to Congress to get his deal.
On the other hand, we know that Iran lies also. And, no surprise, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister said that "...if the deal doesn't meet the criteria the leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) has introduced for a good deal, we would extend the time." If you have not been following this story, you should know that Iran has used that excuse of needing to extend the time for the last 12 years. Twelve years of negotiations, first with the Europeans and then the P5+1. An inquisitive reporter might ask why it would take 12 years to reach a deal.
The answer, of course, is that it does not take 12 years. The truth is that Iran has no intention of ever making any deal; and if they do, Iran will not adhere to the terms. The truth is that Iran has used those 12 years to develop nuclear reactors, build centrifuges and enrich uranium. What has the West got to show for those 12 years? Nothing. Iran has violated UN resolutions and IAEA directives. In turn, Iran has suffered economic sanctions which has not deterred them from their nuclear ambitions at all. Now, Iran is maybe 2-3 months away from having a nuclear bomb.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times is enamored with the deal. In their 4/8/15 editorial, the paper says that "the alternative is no deal, and Iran simply moves forward on its nuclear program without any limits." So the Times believes that after getting this close Iran will now abandon its desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Said Iran's President Rouhani: "we will carry on enriching uranium on our own soil without being threatened anymore." Furthermore, Ayatollah Khamenei said that military sites would not be open for international inspection. Some deal.
Perhaps the best analysis was done by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal. In an op-ed in the 4/2/15 edition, he discussed all the agreements made - and then violated - by North Korea with regards to their nuclear program. The result, of course, was that North Korea lied and got their nuclear weapons. Is Iran more trustworthy? The New York Times is convinced that they are. And, not coincidentally, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman, was involved in the North Korea negotiations - and has led the US in the negotiations with Iran. I am sure she is quite adept at making deals. So what?
Said the Times: "While the deal does not grant international monitors the right to go anywhere, anytime, it does impose a tough inspection regime and establishes a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site." Let me understand. If there is not a right to inspect anywhere and anytime then doesn't that mean we are left having to trust the Iranians? And really - a commission to resolve disputes? Would that be a UN Commission? Iran has regularly ignored UN resolutions. Exactly what enforcement power would any commission have?
Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz said that "the threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran." But I think the 4/6/15 editorial in the Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Nothing, apparently, will stop Obama from accepting the inevitability of a nuclear Iran and absurdly claiming that it makes the world safer."
Almost immediately, it appeared as if there was no agreed upon framework. While the US announced that sanctions would only be lifted after Iran complies with terms of the deal, Iran stated that all sanctions would be lifted immediately upon signing any deal. If I had to pick who was lying, I would be tempted to go with Obama. He desperately wants a deal. We know that as a leftist, and as a student of Saul Alinsky, he believes that the ends justify the means. Truth is not a value, so lying - even to Congress - about the ending of sanctions or any other issue would not be a problem for Obama.
It would be akin to lying to get the bare 60 vote majority needed in the Senate in order to get the Affordable Care Act passed. Countless times Obama told us that if we liked our doctor and our health plan we could keep them. Neither one was true; and he knew those claims were not true when he made them. So, I am inclined to think that Obama would lie to the American people and to Congress to get his deal.
On the other hand, we know that Iran lies also. And, no surprise, Iran's Deputy Foreign Minister said that "...if the deal doesn't meet the criteria the leader (Ayatollah Khamenei) has introduced for a good deal, we would extend the time." If you have not been following this story, you should know that Iran has used that excuse of needing to extend the time for the last 12 years. Twelve years of negotiations, first with the Europeans and then the P5+1. An inquisitive reporter might ask why it would take 12 years to reach a deal.
The answer, of course, is that it does not take 12 years. The truth is that Iran has no intention of ever making any deal; and if they do, Iran will not adhere to the terms. The truth is that Iran has used those 12 years to develop nuclear reactors, build centrifuges and enrich uranium. What has the West got to show for those 12 years? Nothing. Iran has violated UN resolutions and IAEA directives. In turn, Iran has suffered economic sanctions which has not deterred them from their nuclear ambitions at all. Now, Iran is maybe 2-3 months away from having a nuclear bomb.
Not surprisingly, the New York Times is enamored with the deal. In their 4/8/15 editorial, the paper says that "the alternative is no deal, and Iran simply moves forward on its nuclear program without any limits." So the Times believes that after getting this close Iran will now abandon its desire to obtain nuclear weapons. Said Iran's President Rouhani: "we will carry on enriching uranium on our own soil without being threatened anymore." Furthermore, Ayatollah Khamenei said that military sites would not be open for international inspection. Some deal.
Perhaps the best analysis was done by Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal. In an op-ed in the 4/2/15 edition, he discussed all the agreements made - and then violated - by North Korea with regards to their nuclear program. The result, of course, was that North Korea lied and got their nuclear weapons. Is Iran more trustworthy? The New York Times is convinced that they are. And, not coincidentally, the Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, Wendy Sherman, was involved in the North Korea negotiations - and has led the US in the negotiations with Iran. I am sure she is quite adept at making deals. So what?
Said the Times: "While the deal does not grant international monitors the right to go anywhere, anytime, it does impose a tough inspection regime and establishes a commission to resolve disputes if Iran blocks access to a suspected site." Let me understand. If there is not a right to inspect anywhere and anytime then doesn't that mean we are left having to trust the Iranians? And really - a commission to resolve disputes? Would that be a UN Commission? Iran has regularly ignored UN resolutions. Exactly what enforcement power would any commission have?
Former Secretaries of State Henry Kissinger and George Shultz said that "the threat of war now constrains the West more than Iran." But I think the 4/6/15 editorial in the Investor's Business Daily said it best: "Nothing, apparently, will stop Obama from accepting the inevitability of a nuclear Iran and absurdly claiming that it makes the world safer."
Wednesday, April 1, 2015
...and Dumber
Not a group for reasoned analysis, the New York Times editorial writers are on a roll. Their 4/1/15 editorial criticizes the Saudis for interfering militarily in Yemen: "The Saudis Ominous Move Into Yemen."
It is not that the Times is unable to acknowledge that Sunni-run Saudi Arabia "...has watched with growing alarm as Shiite-majority Iran has gradually extended its influence throughout the region, from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq, and fears Iran is poised to do the same in Yemen, a Sunni-majority nation." So, Saudi concerns are legitimate then?
The Times also acknowledges that the possibility of a deal between Iran and the P5+1 "...has alarmed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states even more..." So, more legitimate concerns by the Saudis then?
But for the NY Times, legitimate concern does not give the Saudis a right to actually do anything. No. The Times says how "irresponsible" the Saudis are for openly discussing the possibility of getting nukes of their own. So Shiite Iran is making a deal that may allow them to get nukes; Shiite Iran is on the march throughout the Middle East; and now Shiite Iran-backed forces may be taking over a country on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. But don't do anything!
Now, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have agreed to form a pan-Arab force of 40,000 troops to fight who? Islamic extremists. How awful! I am sure that there would be no complaints from the Times if the force was being formed to fight those evil Israelis. But Islamic extremists?
If you thought that the Times could not get any dumber than their comment about religion not being under assault in this country (see prior post "Dumb...) then how about this: "It would be a catastrophic mistake for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to allow the Yemeni civil war to become the catalyst for a larger sectarian Shiite-Sunni war with Iran." A catalyst? Are they kidding? Just how dumb are they?
Here are a few quotes from Lt. General Michael Flynn, Retired, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "We have almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East. A new Middle East is essentially struggling to be born." To put it another way - we are way past the "catalyst" stage.
After noting how Shiite Iran is indeed on the march, Lt. Gen. Flynn said this: "We also have what I would call a real sort of push back by the Sunni governments and their lack of trust and their lack of respect for the United States. And I think that at the end of the day we have just this incredible policy confusion - never mind what our strategy is to execute that policy."
But the Times says that any action by Saudi Arabia is "likely to further increase tensions." The Middle East is aflame, but Saudi actions will "increase tensions?" Stunning! The answer for the Times: "Saudi Arabia should be using its power and influence to begin diplomatic negotiations." Well, so long as the Saudis are patient. I mean really, really patient. After all, the Iranians are now in their 12th year of negotiations with the West regarding their nuclear capabilities, all the while biding their time while inching towards having nuclear weapons - and the missiles with which to launch them. And didn't Iran just get yet another extension?
Said Lt. Gen. Flynn of the Obama Administration's policy: "It's almost a policy of willful ignorance." Willful ignorance - something with which the New York Times can agree.
It is not that the Times is unable to acknowledge that Sunni-run Saudi Arabia "...has watched with growing alarm as Shiite-majority Iran has gradually extended its influence throughout the region, from Lebanon to Syria and Iraq, and fears Iran is poised to do the same in Yemen, a Sunni-majority nation." So, Saudi concerns are legitimate then?
The Times also acknowledges that the possibility of a deal between Iran and the P5+1 "...has alarmed Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states even more..." So, more legitimate concerns by the Saudis then?
But for the NY Times, legitimate concern does not give the Saudis a right to actually do anything. No. The Times says how "irresponsible" the Saudis are for openly discussing the possibility of getting nukes of their own. So Shiite Iran is making a deal that may allow them to get nukes; Shiite Iran is on the march throughout the Middle East; and now Shiite Iran-backed forces may be taking over a country on the southern end of the Arabian peninsula. But don't do anything!
Now, Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries have agreed to form a pan-Arab force of 40,000 troops to fight who? Islamic extremists. How awful! I am sure that there would be no complaints from the Times if the force was being formed to fight those evil Israelis. But Islamic extremists?
If you thought that the Times could not get any dumber than their comment about religion not being under assault in this country (see prior post "Dumb...) then how about this: "It would be a catastrophic mistake for Saudi Arabia and other Arab states to allow the Yemeni civil war to become the catalyst for a larger sectarian Shiite-Sunni war with Iran." A catalyst? Are they kidding? Just how dumb are they?
Here are a few quotes from Lt. General Michael Flynn, Retired, and former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency. "We have almost a complete breakdown of order in the Middle East. A new Middle East is essentially struggling to be born." To put it another way - we are way past the "catalyst" stage.
After noting how Shiite Iran is indeed on the march, Lt. Gen. Flynn said this: "We also have what I would call a real sort of push back by the Sunni governments and their lack of trust and their lack of respect for the United States. And I think that at the end of the day we have just this incredible policy confusion - never mind what our strategy is to execute that policy."
But the Times says that any action by Saudi Arabia is "likely to further increase tensions." The Middle East is aflame, but Saudi actions will "increase tensions?" Stunning! The answer for the Times: "Saudi Arabia should be using its power and influence to begin diplomatic negotiations." Well, so long as the Saudis are patient. I mean really, really patient. After all, the Iranians are now in their 12th year of negotiations with the West regarding their nuclear capabilities, all the while biding their time while inching towards having nuclear weapons - and the missiles with which to launch them. And didn't Iran just get yet another extension?
Said Lt. Gen. Flynn of the Obama Administration's policy: "It's almost a policy of willful ignorance." Willful ignorance - something with which the New York Times can agree.
Dumb...
The New York Times prides itself as being the premier newspaper in the USA. Its editorials are of the far left, and ridicule those who dare to disagree as being ignorant or biased or even idiots. In their 3/31/15 editorial, the paper blasts Indiana's version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They assert that the law was driven by "bigotry against gays and lesbians," and they quote backers of the law who stated it is intended to protect "Christian businesses and churches from those supporting homosexual marriages." Notice how the Times equates opposition to gay marriage as "bigotry" against gays and lesbians. I have a gay cousin who is married and who knows my opposition to gay marriage. Do I love him and his husband any less? No. Do I treat them any differently? No. But its all the same to the Times and those on the left.
The federal version of the law passed the Senate with a 97 to 3 vote and was signed by President Bill Clinton. President Barack Obama voted for the Illinois version. 40% of the states have such laws. But the Times claims that the law will allow businesses "to refuse service to gay couples."
A well publicized case out of Oregon had a Christian couple refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The bakery that the couple owned had provided bakery items to these people before without any problem. They simply did not want to participate in a gay wedding, which would be contrary to their Christian beliefs. What if a couple walked into a photographer's shop and said they needed a portfolio of pictures because they were trying to break into the movie business. And, oh yes, the pictures would have to be of them nude and engaging in various sexual acts, because they were trying to get into the porn movie business. What if the photographer has a religious belief opposing pornography? Nothing whatsoever to do with gays.
That bakery had no problem serving gays. However, they did not want to be affiliated with a marriage ceremony that contravened their faith. How disappointing that the government got involved - forcing the couple to face potential fines of up to $200,000. How disappointing that the left wing mob threatened not only the couple but their children as well. Did the gay couple complain to the state? I do not know. How disappointing if they did. How disappointing if they wanted to hurt a small, family-owned bakery who had served them in the past. Yet, it would be very typical of the left's desire to harm those who dare to openly disagree with their agenda.
Recall the request to publicize the names of all those who supported Proposition 8 in California. Their sole purpose was to hurt, at least financially if not worse, those who dared to disagree. Some of my friends on the left love to say that the Republican party is the party of Big Business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple CEO Tim Cook blasted Indiana, saying that Apple "will never tolerate discrimination." Ironic that the IBD (in their 3/31/15 editorial) reports that last year Apple obtained rights to set up retail and marketing operations in Saudi Arabia. You know, where just being gay is illegal.
It is not clear why the Times and others on the left say that this is all about anti-gay discrimination. Then again, they claimed that was the case against Chick-Fil-A when that company's owner said he was personally opposed to gay marriage, with no proof that the company discriminated against gays in hiring or in service. After all, the Hobby Lobby case, decided by SCOTUS last June, protected a closely held company from having to participate in providing insurance that would cover contraceptives, which would have been contrary to their religious beliefs. Again, nothing to do with being gay.
The Times' editorial makes this incredible assertion: "The freedom to exercise one's religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country." Except that in the Times' view religious people must do whatever the government dictates - or face fines, bankruptcy and maybe even imprisonment. But, people are still free to state their religious beliefs, aren't they? Not if those beliefs run counter to the left wing agenda - unless, again, you wish to risk your livelihood, financial well-being and possible freedom. (See my 8/2/12 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" for what the left thinks of your religious beliefs if you dare to disagree with them.)
It is bad enough that the left in this country will not tolerate dissent from their viewpoint; and that one faces a mob mentality if one dares to deviate from the left wing ideology. The idea of respecting differing views does not exist for the left. The idea of respecting Christian beliefs? Let's be honest - the left mocks Christian beliefs. But how sad when the "paper of record" acts as part of the mob, instead of acting as a voice of reason.
Dumb? You bet. And dangerous for the well-being of society.
The federal version of the law passed the Senate with a 97 to 3 vote and was signed by President Bill Clinton. President Barack Obama voted for the Illinois version. 40% of the states have such laws. But the Times claims that the law will allow businesses "to refuse service to gay couples."
A well publicized case out of Oregon had a Christian couple refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The bakery that the couple owned had provided bakery items to these people before without any problem. They simply did not want to participate in a gay wedding, which would be contrary to their Christian beliefs. What if a couple walked into a photographer's shop and said they needed a portfolio of pictures because they were trying to break into the movie business. And, oh yes, the pictures would have to be of them nude and engaging in various sexual acts, because they were trying to get into the porn movie business. What if the photographer has a religious belief opposing pornography? Nothing whatsoever to do with gays.
That bakery had no problem serving gays. However, they did not want to be affiliated with a marriage ceremony that contravened their faith. How disappointing that the government got involved - forcing the couple to face potential fines of up to $200,000. How disappointing that the left wing mob threatened not only the couple but their children as well. Did the gay couple complain to the state? I do not know. How disappointing if they did. How disappointing if they wanted to hurt a small, family-owned bakery who had served them in the past. Yet, it would be very typical of the left's desire to harm those who dare to openly disagree with their agenda.
Recall the request to publicize the names of all those who supported Proposition 8 in California. Their sole purpose was to hurt, at least financially if not worse, those who dared to disagree. Some of my friends on the left love to say that the Republican party is the party of Big Business. Nothing could be further from the truth. Apple CEO Tim Cook blasted Indiana, saying that Apple "will never tolerate discrimination." Ironic that the IBD (in their 3/31/15 editorial) reports that last year Apple obtained rights to set up retail and marketing operations in Saudi Arabia. You know, where just being gay is illegal.
It is not clear why the Times and others on the left say that this is all about anti-gay discrimination. Then again, they claimed that was the case against Chick-Fil-A when that company's owner said he was personally opposed to gay marriage, with no proof that the company discriminated against gays in hiring or in service. After all, the Hobby Lobby case, decided by SCOTUS last June, protected a closely held company from having to participate in providing insurance that would cover contraceptives, which would have been contrary to their religious beliefs. Again, nothing to do with being gay.
The Times' editorial makes this incredible assertion: "The freedom to exercise one's religion is not under assault in Indiana, or anywhere else in the country." Except that in the Times' view religious people must do whatever the government dictates - or face fines, bankruptcy and maybe even imprisonment. But, people are still free to state their religious beliefs, aren't they? Not if those beliefs run counter to the left wing agenda - unless, again, you wish to risk your livelihood, financial well-being and possible freedom. (See my 8/2/12 post entitled "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat" for what the left thinks of your religious beliefs if you dare to disagree with them.)
It is bad enough that the left in this country will not tolerate dissent from their viewpoint; and that one faces a mob mentality if one dares to deviate from the left wing ideology. The idea of respecting differing views does not exist for the left. The idea of respecting Christian beliefs? Let's be honest - the left mocks Christian beliefs. But how sad when the "paper of record" acts as part of the mob, instead of acting as a voice of reason.
Dumb? You bet. And dangerous for the well-being of society.
Sunday, March 22, 2015
Obama to Israel: Drop Dead! (Part III)
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.
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.
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)