Dog Brothers Public Forum
Return To Homepage
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
April 01, 2015, 04:34:46 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
85530 Posts in 2267 Topics by 1068 Members
Latest Member: cdenny
* Home Help Search Login Register
+  Dog Brothers Public Forum
|-+  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities
| |-+  Politics & Religion
| | |-+  Israel, and its neighbors
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] Print
Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 270300 times)
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2050 on: January 30, 2015, 10:34:36 AM »

Good find Obj.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2051 on: January 31, 2015, 09:31:01 AM »

I am biased in favor of Israel while this site is the opposite.   Still keeping an open mind I read with interest some of these articles:

http://irmep.org/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2052 on: February 01, 2015, 10:23:19 PM »


http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/syrian-rebel-video-shows-devastating-use-of-attack-tunnel/?omhide=true&utm_source=MadMimi&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel&utm_campaign=20150201_m124226744_2%2F1+Breaking+News+Video%3A+Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel&utm_term=Syrian+Rebel+Video+Shows+Devastating+Use+of+Attack+Tunnel

Alternate URL  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ma_DI_UfaBE&x-yt-ts=1422579428&x-yt-cl=85114404

Dramatic new video footage shows the Free Syrian Army (FSA) battling Assad's forces in the critically strategic city of Idlib in North-western Syria. Idlib is the connector route between Aleppo and the Assad-dominated port of Latakia on the Mediterranean coastal area. The originally rebel-published video highlights the rebels blowing up a massive Assad regime building that they had tunneled under. A rebel “sniper” then uses an M-40 recoilless rifle to fire into the building that had just been leveled. The rebel snipes at his target for about 5 minutes before the Assad forces are able to locate his nest and return counter-fire to his position. The Syrian rebels survive the Assad forces' counter-fire, fire one more M-40 round, and appear to start to move to a new M-40 sniper nest. “Alluhu Akbar” or “G-d is great” can be heard repeatedly throughout the video, signaling success. The M-40 sports a 105mm (4.1”) diameter cartridge that can be armed with either a regular high-explosive warhead or an anti-tank HEAT warhead. The M-40 is “recoilless” in that there is virtually no recoil from the firing of the M-40 round – like there is in the firing of a mortar or a Katyusha rocket. “HEAT” stands for High Explosive Anti-Tank, where there are usually two different components, one that pre-explodes or disarms the tank’s explosive-reactive armor, and a high-speed projectile that then passes through the remaining tank armor into the core of the tank. The M-40 has an effective firing range from about 1 kilometer to a maximum range of about 6.8 kilometers (about 3 miles). It is widely available throughout the world and is very widely used by the rebels against the Assad-Iranian-Hezbollah forces in Syria. The M-40 can be mounted on a jeep, but in the Syrian theater has been mostly used on a tripod as is shown in the video.

Watch Here

Lessons for Israel - There are important lessons to be learned from the video regarding what could happen if Israel ever withdraws from Judea and Samaria. For instance, an M-40 is small enough to be easily transported into and concealed in a high-rise Palestinian residential apartment building, from where a Palestinian terrorist could destroy with pinpoint accuracy anything with 6.8 kilometers of his nest. The M-40 could then be quickly moved out of the apartment, making Israeli return fire on that specific apartment entirely ineffective. And, the IDF would be blamed for firing into a Palestinian civilian building. Route 1 from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem is highly exposed and in easy TOW anti-tank or M-40 range of Palestinian villages. Jerusalem would be unreachable, since the Palestinian state would include the mountains surrounding Route 1 from the north and the south.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2015, 10:25:44 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2053 on: February 02, 2015, 09:52:44 PM »

 By
Bret Stephens
Feb. 2, 2015 7:41 p.m. ET
103 COMMENTS

Even friends of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are second-guessing his decision to accept House Speaker John Boehner ’s invitation to address Congress next month on the subject of Iran, over loud objections from the Obama administration. The prospect of the speech, those friends say, has sparked a needless crisis between Jerusalem and Washington. And it has put Democrats to an invidious choice between their loyalty to the president and their support for the Jewish state, jeopardizing the bipartisan basis of the U.S.-Israel relationship.

Sensible concerns—except for a few things. Relations between Israel and the U.S. have been in crisis nearly from the moment President Obama stepped into office. Democratic support for Israel has been eroding for decades. It was the U.S. president, not the Israeli prime minister, who picked this fight.

Oh, and if there’s going to be a blowout in U.S.-Israel relations, is now really a worse time than later this year, when the Obama administration will have further cornered Israel with its Iran diplomacy?

Because memories are short, let’s remind ourselves of the Ur-moment in the Bibi-Barack drama. It happened on May 18, 2009, when Mr. Netanyahu, in office for just a few weeks, arrived to a White House that was demanding that he endorse Palestinian statehood and freeze settlements, even as the administration was rebuffing Israeli requests to set a deadline for the nascent nuclear diplomacy with Iran.

The result: Within a month of that meeting, Mr. Netanyahu duly endorsed Palestinian statehood in a speech at Israel’s right-wing Bar-Ilan University—roughly the equivalent of Mr. Obama going to a meeting of the Sierra Club and urging its members to get over their opposition to fracking. By the end of the year, Mr. Netanyahu further infuriated his right-wing base by agreeing to a 10-month settlement freeze, which even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton acknowledged was “unprecedented.”

What did Mr. Netanyahu get in return from Mr. Obama? While the president stuck to his refusal to set “an artificial deadline,” he did concede in a joint press conference that “we’re not going to have talks forever. We’re not going to create a situation in which talks become an excuse for inaction while Iran proceeds with developing a nuclear—and deploying a nuclear weapon.”

The promise not to “have talks forever” was made six years ago. Since then, diplomatic efforts have included the 2009 “fuel swap” proposal; the 2010 Brazil-Turkey-Iran declaration; the 2011 Russian “step-by-step proposal”; the 2012 diplomatic rounds in Istanbul, Baghdad and Moscow; and finally the 2013 “Joint Plan of Action,” a six-month interim deal that is now in its 13th month.

Now Mr. Obama is vowing to veto the bipartisan Kirk-Menendez bill that would end the charade by imposing sanctions on Iran in the event Tehran doesn’t sign an acceptable nuclear deal by the summer—that is, after the third deadline for the interim agreement has expired. The president is also demanding that Democrats rally around him in his histrionic fit over the Netanyahu speech. This is from the same administration that, as Politico’s David Rogers reminds us, never bothered to consult Mr. Boehner on its invitation to South Korean President Lee Myung-bak to address Congress in 2011.

This history is worth recalling because it underscores the unpleasant truth about America in the age of Obama. The president collects hard favors from allies and repays them with neglect and derision. He is eager to accommodate the political needs of authoritarian leaders like Iran’s Hasan Rouhani but has no use for the political needs of elected leaders like Mr. Netanyahu. He believes that it is for other statesmen to stake their political lives and risk their national future for the sake of a moral principle—at least as Mr. Obama defines that principle. As for him, the only thing sacred is his own political convenience.

This is the mentality of a peevish and callow potentate. Not the least of the reasons Mr. Netanyahu must not give in to pressure to cancel his speech is that he could expect to get nothing out of it from the administration, while humiliating Mr. Boehner in the bargain.

Mr. Netanyahu also needs to speak because Congress deserves an unvarnished account of the choice to which Mr. Obama proposes to put Israel: either accede to continued diplomacy with Iran, and therefore its de facto nuclearization; or strike Iran militarily in defiance of the U.S. and Mr. Obama’s concordat with Tehran. A congressional vote in favor of Kirk-Menendez would at least make good on Mr. Obama’s unmet promise not to use talks as “an excuse for inaction.”

Above all, Mr. Netanyahu needs to speak because Israel cannot expect indefinite support from the U.S. if it acts like a fretful and obedient client to a cavalier American patron. The margin of Israel’s security is measured not by anyone’s love but by the respect of friends and enemies alike. By giving this speech, Mr. Netanyahu is demanding that respect. Irritating the president is a small price to pay for doing so.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2054 on: February 08, 2015, 12:23:00 PM »

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/breaking-nyt-admits-obama-deliberately-manufactured-netanyahu-spat/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2055 on: February 15, 2015, 04:50:54 PM »

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu called on Sunday morning for the "massive immigration" of European Jews to Israel following the shooting attack outside a Copenhagen synagogue that killed a Danish Jew. Netanyahu says the government on Sunday will discuss a $46 million plan to encourage Jewish immigration from France, Belgium and Ukraine. "This wave of attacks is expected to continue," Netanyahu said at the start of a Cabinet meeting. "Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home." In an interview with Ynet on Sunday morning, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said European Jews should view Israel as their home. "Israel is always waiting for them. This will never change. Jews can and should have the right to live anywhere, but if there are Jews who are concerned about their future, we are certainly waiting for them," Bennett said.

Some European countries are becoming dangerous for Jews, he said, and his party, Bayit Yehudi, was "profoundly concerned" about a rise of radical Islamic terror and anti-Semitism in the continent. "I spoke today with the leader of the community in Denmark, and they are very worried about what's going on," he added. He argued that the fight aganist Islamic terror in Europe is not a lost cause, "but first and foremost, they have to wake up. They have to identify the threat. They have to realize that these aren't sporadic attacks. There's a very clear and intentional attack on the free world from radical Islam. "We've got to fight it in Iran, fight it in Iraq, fight it in Gaza, Lebanon, and in Europe and America. The world should help Israel fight radical Islam instead of twisting our arm to give in to radical Islam." Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman the two shootings at a synagogue and another at a free speech event, "prove what we have said over the years – that Israel and the Jews are affected by this terrorism before anyone else because they are on the frontline in the war terror is waging against the West and the entire free world." Lieberman called on the international community "to ask for more than declarations and demonstrations against this terrorism, but also shake off the rules of political correctness and fight a real all-out war against Islamic terror and its roots." Minister Lieberman said the Foreign Ministry is in close contact with the Israeli Embassy in Denmark and was following events as they unfolded. President of the Conference of European Rabbis, Chief Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, condemned the attacks, dubbing it “both sickening and a sign of the worsening extremism spreading across Europe." "The Jewish community in Denmark is a microcosm of what is happening to Jewish communities across the continent. On the one hand they are under attack from extremist Muslims who see every Jew as a legitimate target, on the other hand, freedom of religion is curtailed by the government, religious slaughter has been forbidden and the parliament is in discussions about the future of religious circumcision," he said. "I truly hope that this latest attack will lead the people of Denmark to rally behind the Jewish community just as they did in 1943, securing the future of the community.”
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2056 on: February 15, 2015, 06:41:18 PM »

Unfortunately Israel is not exactly safe for Jews.  Just a few Iranian nukes could wipe out 50% of the World's Jews.  I hate to be a fatalist but.....
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2057 on: February 16, 2015, 05:57:33 PM »



https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152377793368717
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 679


« Reply #2058 on: February 18, 2015, 11:17:06 AM »

And further - I would argue - and I think it's been amply demonstrated beyond all reasonable doubt by his actions - that Obama hates Jews.

Is Israel the Problem, or is it Jews?

Ben Shapiro - February 18, 2015 - www.truthrevolt.org

In the aftermath of the killing of a man at a Copenhagen synagogue by a member of the Religion of Peace, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, "This wave of attacks is expected to continue. Jews deserve security in every country, but we say to our Jewish brothers and sisters, Israel is your home." Russian emigre Natan Sharansky echoed Netanyahu's call, stating, "There is no future for Jews in western Europe."

In response, European leaders shouted down Netanyahu. "We know there are doubts, questions across the community," said French President Francois Hollande, who was elected with in excess of 93 percent of the Muslim vote. "I will not just let what was said in Israel pass, leading people to believe that Jews no longer have a place in Europe and France, in particular." The same week, Jewish tombstones were spray-painted by the hundreds in eastern France.

But undoubtedly, European anti-Semites will now claim that Netanyahu's comments simply demonstrate why Europe must force out its Jews: because Israel is just so awful. That, at least, is what a German court in the city of Wuppertal concluded after convicting two German Palestinians of setting fire to a synagogue. The Wuppertal court stated that the men were simply attempting to bring "attention to the Gaza conflict." In other words, Jews are fair game because of Israel.

But it's precisely the reverse that is true: Israel is fair game because it is Jewish. This is the dirty little secret of anti-Israel policy: It is almost entirely anti-Semitic policy. That is why Muslims attack Jewish synagogues in Paris during the Gaza war: because Israel is a stand-in for the Jews, not the other way around. Were Israel a Muslim country, the rest of the world would see it as a beacon of light and hope for the future of an entire religion. Because it is Jewish, Muslims target it for destruction, and the rest of the world tut-tuts Israel's nasty habit of attempting to survive. The extra-American world hates Israel because it is Jewish. It does not hate Jews because of Israel. Israel is merely a convenient excuse.

Ironically, radical Muslims, in targeting Jews throughout the world, reinforce the necessity of a state of Israel. Their argument seems to be that Israel is an unnecessary Jewish nationalist cancer; to prove that argument, they suggest killing Jews all over the planet, leaving no place safe for Jews except for Israel.

And so Jews go to Israel by the droves. European governments can rip Netanyahu all they want for his supposedly brusque dismissal of European tolerance, but that supposed tolerance means less and less when Swedish Jews abandon entire cities as the authorities make way for radical Muslims. European governments can condemn the Gaza war, but Jews see that war for what it was: an exercise in Jewish self-preservation, with the Europeans once again attempting to prevent such self-preservation.

Unlike the Europeans, Americans continue to side with Israel because America is founded on Judeo-Christian principles. America embraces Judaism, and so it embraces Israel, not the other way around. The formula is simple: Love Jews; love Israel. Hate Jews; hate Israel. Opposing Israeli action may not be anti-Semitism, but it sure does have a funny habit of backing the agenda of anti-Semites.


Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2059 on: February 18, 2015, 04:52:47 PM »

Netanyahu’s Capitol Hill Debacle
The Israeli leader and House speaker are risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations.
By
William A. Galston
Feb. 17, 2015 7:20 p.m. ET
WSJ

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu ’s speech to Congress on March 3 will be both a nakedly partisan event and a momentous policy clash.

Speaking on “Fox News Sunday” this weekend, House Speaker John Boehner was frank about his motives for leaving the White House in the dark about the invitation. “I wanted to make sure that there was no interference,” he said, citing White House “animosity” toward the Israeli leader: “I frankly didn’t want that getting in the way, quashing what I thought was a real opportunity.” Asked whether he had turned what has been a rare bipartisan issue into a political dispute, Mr. Boehner replied, “We had every right to do what we did”—a debatable response to a different question.

If inviting the prime minister of a major American ally to address a joint session of Congress two weeks before his country’s general election without notifying the president and congressional Democratic leaders isn’t rank partisanship, I don’t know what is. Mr. Netanyahu, who is hardly inexperienced in the ways of Washington, had to know how this would be received. The inescapable inference is that he did not care, and it isn’t hard to see why.

Begin with the obvious. While accepting Mr. Boehner’s invitation in principle, the prime minister could have told the House speaker that he was unable to leave Israel until after the election. There is no part of Mr. Netanyahu’s message to Congress that would be less relevant or influential for U.S. audiences if it were delivered on April 3 rather than March 3. There is only one audience for whom the timing might make a difference—the Israeli electorate.

But this is about much more than electoral politics. For Prime Minister Netanyahu, it is an existential question, as he made clear in a statement last week that Israel has “a profound disagreement with the United States administration and the rest of the P5+1 over the offer that has been made to Iran. This offer would enable Iran to threaten Israel’s survival.”

Mr. Netanyahu is determined to prevent this offer, or anything like it, from becoming U.S. policy. To that end, he is prepared to mobilize a Republican-led Congress against the president, to force longtime Democratic supporters of Israel to choose between him and President Obama—and, if necessary, to turn U.S.-Israel relations into the partisan issue it has rarely been.

And why not? The prime minister views himself as this generation’s Winston Churchill, with Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei cast as Adolf Hitler. To bring the U.S. into the looming conflict, Churchill worked with Franklin Roosevelt to overcome a reluctant Congress. Now Mr. Netanyahu must work with Congress to overcome a reluctant president. And like Churchill, Mr. Netanyahu believes that words are his best weapons—words delivered by one man standing alone on a rostrum representing an embattled ally, invoking common interests, shared principles and the bonds of friendship.

The prime minister is confident that he can do this without weakening, let alone rupturing, the relationship between Israel and the U.S. His statement last week featured a long list of past security disagreements between the two countries despite which, he insists, the relationship grew stronger over time.

But this time could be different. In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg in the Atlantic magazine, Ron Dermer, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S. and one of Mr. Netanyahu’s closest advisers, detailed Israel’s concerns:

“Israel’s policy is not merely to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon today; it is also to prevent Iran from having a nuclear weapon in the future. And Israel is very concerned that a deal will be forged that will not dismantle Iran’s nuclear-weapons capability. . . . That is an outcome that is unacceptable to Israel.” Specifically, Israel lacks confidence that international inspections would prevent the diversion of materials produced by the many thousands of centrifuges that reportedly would remain under the terms of the emerging agreement. And once the sanctions are lifted, the Iranian nuclear program could accelerate.

Mr. Netanyahu must know that even with much tougher sanctions, the chances of overcoming these concerns through diplomacy are low. The most the Iranians will offer falls far short of the least that Israel will accept. The real choices reduce to two: an Iran with some negotiated level of nuclear infrastructure supervised with a rigorous inspection regime, or war.

The prime minister must also know that although Israel’s military could inflict significant damage on Iran’s nuclear program, his country could at best delay Iran’s march to the bomb.

So when Mr. Netanyahu addresses Congress, a question will be lurking in the shadows: If negotiations leave Israel facing what it regards as an existential threat, should the U.S. accept the deal? And if we do not, is there an alternative that would be more effective, at a price that the war-weary American people would accept?
Popular on WSJ
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 679


« Reply #2060 on: February 18, 2015, 05:04:12 PM »

Exactly what planet is Mr. Galston living on???  "Risking a rupture in U.S.-Israel relations?"  News flash, Mr. Galston - that happened LONG ago - and was initiated by Barack Obama and his administration.  Morality is not relative.  It's frightening to watch the abject denial of reality being exhibited by most of the media and by a small but significant minority of liberal Israelis.  Sometimes there is no alternative to war - one might think the world would have learned that after WWII.  Clearly that isn't the case for legions of ignorant and/or deluded fools.

Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 679


« Reply #2061 on: February 18, 2015, 07:23:10 PM »

Obama’s Anti-Netanyahu Boycott Is Collapsing

Posted By Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn

The final numbers are not yet in, but it seems clear that the White House-orchestrated campaign to boycott Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress is collapsing.

Despite two weeks of intense anti-Netanyahu leaks, insults, and pressure, the White House has so far succeeded in persuading only a handful of Democratic members of Congress to stay away from the speech.

A grand total of two Senators and twelve Representatives have publicly announced that they are boycotting Israel’s prime minister. Assuming that those figures change only marginally in the days ahead, it will mean that 98% of the Senate and 95% of the House of Representatives will be in attendance.

Even the most vocal critics of Prime Minister Netanyahu, the members of the Congressional Black Caucus, are not united against the Israeli leader. Emerging from a meeting with President Obama last week, Caucus chairman Rep. G.K. Butterfield told reporters, that the subject of Netanyahu’s speech “didn’t come up” during their 90-minute meeting with the president. But he then proceeded to chastise Israel’s prime minister for supposedly being “disrespectful” to the president, and Congressman Hank Johnson said it was “about President Barack Obama being a black man disrespected by a foreign leader.”

But not all the African-American congress members joined the anti-Netanyahu chorus. U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-New Jersey), who is the only senator in the Congressional Black Caucus, refused to toe the line. The Politico reports that when his colleagues began lambasting Prime Minister Netanyahu, reporters asked Booker where he stood, and he pointedly dissented, saying “I’ve been asked that a number of times–I’m not commenting.”

Knowing of Senator Booker’s longtime support for Israel and close relationship with many American Jewish leaders, we find it difficult that he will go along with an insulting and disrespectful boycott of Israel’s prime minister.

Another major crack in the anti-Netanyahu boycott effort appeared this weekend in the form of a message from Elie Wiesel in a full page advertisement in the New York Times and Washington Post, sponsored by “This World: The Values Network.”

The Nobel Peace Prize Laureate has always been something of a moral compass for the Jewish people–certainly far more than the two or three Jewish organizational leaders who have been quoted as opposing Netanyahu’s visit. We all remember Wiesel bravely confronting President Reagan over his visit to the Bitburg cemetery, not to mention his speaking out on so many other important issues over the years. So Wiesel’s words in the Times and Post ads carry particular weight.

Wiesel announced that he will personally attend Netanyahu’s speech. He appealed to President Obama and Vice President Biden to “put aside the politics” and hear what Israel’s prime minister has to say. He pointed out that Netanyahu will speak to Congress the day before Purim–the day when, in ancient times, “a wicked man in Persia named Haman” sought to destroy the Jews…”Now Iran, modern Persia, has produced a new enemy,” Wiesel wrote. “The Ayatollah Khomeini has been as clear as his predecessor in declaring his goal: ‘the annihilation and destruction’ of Israel. He is bent on acquiring the weapons needed to make good on the deadly promise.”

Finally, it’s worth mentioning another crack that appeared in the boycott effort this week. The pro-Palestinian lobbying group J Street, which has been the engine driving the boycott movement, has been circulating a poll claiming that 84% of American Jews support President Obama’s position on Iran.

But now the fraudulent methods used to elicit that 84% number have been exposed. It turns out that the respondents were not asked about the actual terms that Obama is negotiating with Iran. They were asked whether they would support an imaginary agreement under which Iran would completely and permanently give up its capability to produce nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, that is not at all what President Obama is insisting upon, according to numerous news reports.

A genuinely objective poll, which asked American Jews whether they want the U.S. to insist that Iran be permanently prevented from having the ability to manufacture nuclear weapons, would surely find the vast majority of Jews in favor.

When Prime Minister Netanyahu appears next month before Congress, with the overwhelming majority of Congress members from both parties in attendance, he will explain the truth about the Iranian threat and the danger of the U.S. agreeing to weak and unenforceable terms.

And that, of course, is what the Obama Administration, J Street, and the other Netanyahu-bashers most wish to prevent.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2062 on: March 01, 2015, 08:03:03 PM »

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4631634,00.html
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2063 on: March 02, 2015, 10:33:31 AM »

June 30, 2010
Why Islam Will Never Accept the State of Israel
By Steven Simpson
It is a common belief that the "Arab-Israeli conflict" is a conflict of two peoples fighting over the same piece of land and is therefore one of nationalism. Rarely, if ever, do we hear or read of the religious component to this conflict.

However, if anything, the conflict is more of a "Muslim-Jewish" one than an "Arab-Israeli" one. In other words, the conflict is based on religion -- Islam vs. Judaism -- cloaked in Arab nationalism vs. Zionism. The fact of the matter is that in every Arab-Israeli war, from 1948 to the present, cries of "jihad," "Allahu Akbar," and the bloodcurdling scream of "Idbah al- Yahud" (slaughter the Jews) have resonated amongst even the most secular of Arab leaders, be it Nasser in the 1950s and 1960s or the supposedly "secular" PLO of the 1960s to the present. Indeed, the question must be asked: If this is really a conflict of different nationalisms and not Islamic supremacism, then why is it that virtually no non-Arab Muslim states have full (if any) relations with Israel?

There is a common Arabic slogan that is chanted in the Middle East: "Khaybar, Khaybar! Oh Jews, remember. The armies of Muhammad are returning!" It would be most interesting to know how many people have ever heard what -- or more precisely, where -- Khaybar is, and what the Arabs mean by such a slogan. A short history of the Jews of Arabia is needed in order to explain this, and why Islam remains so inflexible in its hostile attitude towards Jews and Israel.

Until the founder of Islam, Muhammad ibn Abdallah, proclaimed himself "Messenger of Allah" in the 7th century, Jews and Arabs lived together peacefully in the Arabian Peninsula. Indeed, the Jews -- and Judaism -- were respected to such an extent that an Arab king converted to Judaism in the 5th century. His name was Dhu Nuwas, and he ruled over the Himyar (present day Yemen) area of the Arabian Peninsula. In fact, it is most likely that the city of Medina (the second-holiest city in Islam) -- then called Yathrib -- was originally founded by Jews. In any event, at the time of Muhammad's "calling," three important Jewish tribes existed in Arabia: Banu Qurayza, Banu Nadir, and Banu Qaynuqa. 

Muhammad was very keen on having the Jews accept him as a prophet to the extent that he charged his followers not to eat pig and to pray in the direction of Jerusalem. However, the Jews apparently were not very keen on Muhammad, his proclamation of himself as a prophet, or his poor knowledge of the Torah (Hebrew Bible). Numerous verbal altercations are recorded in the Qur'an and various Hadiths about these conflicts between the Jewish tribes and Muhammad.

Eventually, the verbal conflicts turned into physical conflicts, and when the Jews outwardly rejected Muhammad as the "final seal of the prophets," he turned on them with a vengeance. The atrocities that were committed against these tribes are too numerous to cite in a single article, but two tribes, the Qaynuqa and Nadir, were expelled from their villages by Muhammad. It appears that the Qaynuqa left Arabia around 624 A.D. The refugees of the Nadir settled in the village of Khaybar.

In 628 A.D., Muhammad turned on the last Jewish tribe, the Qurayza, claiming that they were in league with Muhammad's Arab pagan enemies and had "betrayed" him. Muhammad and his army besieged the Qurayza, and after a siege of over three weeks, the Qurayza surrendered. While many Arabs pleaded with Muhammad to let the Qurayza leave unmolested, Muhammad had other plans. Unlike expelling the Qaynuqa and Nadir, Muhammad exterminated the Qurayza, with an estimated 600 to 900 Jewish men being beheaded in one day. The women and children were sold into slavery, and Muhammad took one of the widows, Rayhana, as a "concubine."

In 629 A.D., Muhammad led a campaign against the surviving Jews of Nadir, now living in Khaybar. The battle was again bloody and barbaric, and the survivors of the massacre were either expelled or allowed to remain as "second-class citizens." Eventually, upon the ascension of Omar as caliph, most Jews were expelled from Arabia around the year 640 A.D.

This brings us, then, to the question of why modern-day Muslims still boast of the slaughter of the Jewish tribes and the Battle of Khaybar. The answer lies in what the Qur'an -- and later on, the various Hadiths -- says about the Jews. The Qur'an is replete with verses that can be described only as virulently anti-Semitic. The amount of Surahs is too numerous to cite, but a few will suffice: Surah 2:75 (Jews distorted the Torah); 2:91 (Jews are prophet-killers), 4:47 (Jews have distorted the Bible and have incurred condemnation from Allah for breaking the Sabbath), 5:60 (Jews are cursed, and turned into monkeys and pigs), and 5:82 (Jews and pagans are the strongest in enmity to the Muslims and Allah). And of course, there is the genocidal Hadith from Sahih Bukhari, 4:52:177, which would make Adolph Hitler proud. "The Day of Judgment will not have come until you fight with the Jews, and the stones and the trees behind which a Jew will be hiding will say: 'O Muslim! There is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him!"' Thus, the Arab Muslims had their own "final solution" in store for the Jews already in the 7th century.

The fact that Muslims still point to these (and many other) hateful verses in the Qur'an and Hadith should give Jews -- not just Israelis -- pause to consider if there can ever be true peace between Muslims and Jews, let alone between Muslims and Israel. When the armies of Islam occupied the area of Byzantine "Palestine" in the 7th century, the land became part of "Dar al-Islam" (House of Islam). Until that area is returned to Islam, (i.e., Israel's extermination), she remains part of "Dar al harb" (House of War). It now becomes clear that this is a conflict of religious ideology and not a conflict over a piece of "real estate."

Finally, one must ask the question: Aside from non-Arab Turkey, whose relations with Israel are presently teetering on the verge of collapse, why is it that no other non-Arab Muslim country in the Middle East has ever had full relations (if any at all) with Israel, such as faraway countries like Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan? Indeed, why would Persian Iran -- conquered by the Arabs -- have such a deep hatred for Jews and Israel, whereas a non-Muslim country such as India does not feel such enmity? The answer is painfully clear: The contempt in which the Qur'an and other Islamic writings hold Jews does not exist in the scriptures of the Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, and other Eastern religions. Therefore, people that come from non-Muslim states do not have this inherent hatred towards Jews, and by extension, towards Israel. But when a people -- or peoples -- is raised with a scripture that regards another people and religion as immoral and less than human, then it is axiomatic why such hatred and disdain exists on the part of Muslims for Jews and Israel.

Islam -- as currently interpreted and practiced -- cannot accept a Jewish state of any size in its midst. Unless Muslims come to terms with their holy writings vis-ŕ-vis Jews, Judaism, and Israel and go through some sort of "reformation," it will be unlikely that true peace will ever come to the Middle East. In the meantime, unless Islam reforms, Israel should accept the fact that the Muslims will never accept Israel as a permanent fact in the Middle East.

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2010/06/why_islam_will_never_accept_th.html#.VPMp_x1DLf8.facebook#ixzz3TFMWqdwP
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2064 on: March 02, 2015, 07:41:59 PM »

Very sobering.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2065 on: March 04, 2015, 12:48:48 PM »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wYwe0XRWPc
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2066 on: March 04, 2015, 08:00:11 PM »

I wonder if Dershowitz is becoming a conservative?   He even showed up on Fox's REDEYE one evening:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsmax-Tv/Alan-Dershowitz-Benjamin-Netanyahu-Obama-Iran/2015/03/04/id/628190/?ns_mail_uid=95994711&ns_mail_job=1611692_03042015&s=al&dkt_nbr=zs7ii81q
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2067 on: March 04, 2015, 09:26:22 PM »

His articulation of what Bibi said is good-- about expiration of sanctions upon behavior modification-- this is something most people missed.

Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2068 on: March 06, 2015, 07:44:17 AM »

Netanyahu Receives Modest Boost From U.S. Speech

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is still running neck-and-neck with his rivals in the upcoming parliamentary election, which is scheduled for March 17. Israeli polls show Netanyahu’s Likud Party received a slight boost from the prime minister’s speech this week in front of Congress, increasing its likely support by one or two seats. However, it is still in a virtual tie with the center-left Zionist Union. While public opinion surveys showed that many Israelis received Netanyahu’s address to Congress positively, a large percentage also said that the speech would not affect their vote.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2069 on: March 09, 2015, 11:34:32 AM »

http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/obama-appoints-another-vicious-antisemite-to-critical-nsc-mideast-post.html/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2070 on: March 11, 2015, 10:40:58 AM »


The center-left Zionist Union has opened up a slim lead against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud Party in the parliamentary elections scheduled for March 17, according to new polls. The two parties had been virtually tied for weeks, but a new survey by Israel’s army radio found the Zionist Union winning 24 seats, to Likud’s 21. A poll by Channel 2 television, meanwhile, had the Zionist Union winning 25 seats, and Likud winning 21.

There are 120 seats in the Israeli Knesset, and either faction will need to form a coalition with other parties in order to govern. Netanyahu still might have an advantage over his rivals in doing so: Several far-right parties, which would be his natural allies, are expected to capture a significant number of seats. The "swing vote" in the election could be the center-right Kulanu Party headed by Moshe Kahlon, who has not yet indicated which bloc he would support.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2071 on: March 11, 2015, 06:26:28 PM »

Any confirmation on this?

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/03/02/obama-leaks-info-on-israels-nuke-program-to-iran/

Officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran claim they have documents that prove the United States assisted Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which they claim is a crime according to international laws, according to the Iranian news media. And there is suspicion that President Barack Obama declassified the documents and released them to a left-wing think-tank to hurt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

The Iranians published a copy of a 129-page memorandum they claim is one of about 100 copies distributed by the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) while under contract with the Pentagon in 1987. The Iranian press reported that Israeli nuclear facilities that were built independently were similar in structure to U.S. nuclear facilities such as Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories which are key facilities for creating and testing nuclear weaponry, Iranian-controlled news agencies reported.

But according to Veterans Today, there are rumors in the Pentagon that President Barack Obama was the person who ordered his minions to release the documents claiming the United States had allowed Israel to conduct not only nuclear espionage and openly sell nuclear weapons technology, but they received illegal American financial aid to build the nuclear weapon. VT claims that Obama’s release of the documents was in reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. Congress in March. Not surprising is the fact that few, if any, American news media outlets covered the story.

“What we see here is a possibility that Obama and the Iranians conspired to hurt Netanyahu and Israel since they oppose a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement. It’s a possible conspiracy and the right hand, the U.S., doesn’t have to know what the left hand, Iran, is doing and vice versa for there to be a conspiracy,” Lyle Kaplan a former counterterrorism unit operative and a prosecutor. “It’s a mysterious paradox that most American Jews hold Ronald Reagan in low-regard after he, right or wrong, helped to make Israel a safer nation in a sea of enemies, while they appear to love Barack Obama who has disrespected Israel and favors the Jewish State’s enemies,” Kaplan noted.

The report titled, “Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations,” claims that Israel’s nuclear facilities were advanced enough for them to formulate, design and build nuclear weapons. The Israelis were “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” the report states.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2015, 06:28:01 PM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2072 on: March 12, 2015, 11:39:22 AM »

The Arab Joint List Is Reshaping Israeli Politics

How Ayman Odeh could end up leading the opposition after next week’s legislative elections in Israel
By David B. Green|March 12, 2015 12:00 AM|Comments


Until a month ago, it looked as if Israel’s Arab parties might be denied a place in the 20th Knesset. In March 2014, the Knesset had passed the “Governance Bill,” which raises the threshold a party needs to meet in order to enter the legislature. While in past elections, a party needed to attract 2 percent of the vote (equivalent to three Knesset seats), the new bill pushed that up to 3.25 percent (equal to four seats).

The outgoing Knesset has three Arab, or mostly Arab, parties, two of which—Hadash, the former Communist party, and Balad, a secular Arab-nationalist list—would not meet the requirements under the new law. The third list, Ra’am-Ta’al, would make the cut only because it is really two parties—the Islamic Ra’am, and Ta’al, a moderate, secular party represented in parliament by Ahmed Tibi—who have hooked up in past elections for the purpose of not falling below the required percentage.

There is no doubt that the Governance Bill was intended to keep tiny parties, the kind that often form around a single issue or a narrow population group, out of the Knesset, a change that would increase the stability of government coalitions, since it reduces the possibility of small parties—including religious parties—holding the government hostage to attain its support for their limited goals. At the same time, however, it was widely understood that the bill—which was co-sponsored by Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu party, whose Moldavian-born leader appears to take pleasure in denigrating Israel’s Arab citizens—was an indirect attempt to push the Arab parties, none of which have ever been invited to join a coalition, out of Israel’s legislature altogether. For them, the new threshold seemed to pose an outright threat of extinction, especially given the shrinking rate of participation among eligible Arab voters.

Now, however, less than a week before the March 17 snap election, a very different scenario looks to be emerging. If the polls suggesting that the Arab voting rate could surge back above the 70 percent level are correct, the so-called Arab sector could find itself in a position of political influence it has never before enjoyed. Recent polls suggest that the number of representatives it will have in the new Knesset could reach 13 or more—and not in spite of the Governance Bill, but in large part thanks to it.

“They didn’t have much choice,” says sociologist Sammy Smooha about the decision to unite. Smooha, a professor at Haifa University, has been surveying the Arab public about its political attitudes since 2003. He notes that another possibility would have been for the four parties to split off into two joint lists—and negotiations to that effect did go on—but he says that “all the surveys around, for the last 15 years, showed that a joint list is the first choice of the Arab public.”

Yet no matter how much they may all “look alike” to some Israeli Jews, the country’s Arab citizens are no less fractious than the Jews are: Their political parties range, as noted, from being internationalist, Communist-lite (Hadash) to moderate Islamists (Ra’am; the more extreme Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement won’t participate in national elections) to Balad, probably the Middle East’s only remaining pan-Arab party.

The announcement that an alliance had been formed came only on Jan. 22, less than a week before the final deadline for parties to submit their lists of candidates for the March 17 election. Obviously, a candidate’s place on the list determines his or her chances of being elected, but no less tricky than determining the order of the list was the drafting of an eight-point platform that the Joint List’s four constituent parties—with their widely differing voter bases and philosophies—could all sign on to. Among those points are a demand for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on the basis of two states, including full Israeli withdrawal to the pre-Six Day War borders and realization of a Palestinian right of return; recognition of Israel’s Arab population as a national minority, which is to be afforded cultural, religious, and educational autonomy; and the establishment of a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East. Other elements in what admittedly sounds more like a wish list than a practical program include a commitment to fight poverty and to raise the minimum wage and full equality for women in all areas of life.

Considering that two of the Joint List’s candidates are polygamists—not uncommon among Israel’s Bedouin population even though state law forbids it—and that its members from the Balad party advocate a state “of all its citizens,” by which they mean a binational state without any special Jewish identity or Law of Return, the agreement on a common platform is also quite an accomplishment. In particular, the insistence on equality for women is not to be taken for granted in the more traditional parts of Muslim Arab society.

A lot of credit for the creation of the list must go to the very visible man at its head, Ayman Odeh. A 40-year-old lawyer from Haifa, Odeh has been the secretary of Hadash since 2006, but this will be the first time he is (presumably) elected to Knesset. For more than a decade, Odeh has led a campaign among Arab youth to discourage them from volunteering for civilian national service in its current form, which is to say, as an alternative to military service, a program that is supervised by the Defense Ministry.

When I interviewed him on the subject three years ago he told me, “I have no problem with a young person volunteering in a hospital in Tel Aviv… Ahlan Usahlan,” using the Arabic expression meaning “Welcome.” His objection, rather, was to the nature of the changes being discussed at the time, starting with the proposal to make participation mandatory, not voluntary.

But that was just the start of his objections. My sense was that at the heart of all the opposition was the fact that a Knesset committee made up solely of Jewish politicians was discussing instituting a program that would be imposed on the Arab minority, without including any members of that minority in the planning process.

Next Tuesday’s election will lead either to a right-wing government led by Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud, a center-left government led by Yitzhak Herzog’s Zionist Camp (a cooperative venture of the Labor Party and Tzipi Livni’s Hatnuah party), or a “unity government,” in which Netanyahu and Herzog agree to share power and work together, maybe even by rotating the office of prime minister between them. Hard as it may be to imagine that last scenario, and as much as it may seem to presage political paralysis in terms of the numbers, a unity government may be the most likely outcome to an election out of which left- and right-wing camps seem destined to emerge with roughly the same number of seats.

If that is the case, the possibility exists that the official opposition, which is always led by the largest party not in the coalition, could be headed by the Joint List. By law, the prime minister is obligated to brief the opposition leader on the state of affairs once a month. Considering that Arabs have never been allowed to sit on the sensitive subcommittees of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, for fear they can’t be trusted with state secrets, it’s hard to imagine Benjamin Netanyahu, for example, briefing Opposition Leader Ayman Odeh on plans for bombing Iranian nuclear facilities.

The only way that Herzog would be able to form a center-left coalition is with the support of the Arab Joint List, which would have to recommend to President Reuven Rivlin that Herzog form the government. In the past, none of the Arab parties has participated in the process of making a recommendation to the president. While Odeh has said explicitly that his list “will not sit in a coalition”—no Arab party would want to share ministerial responsibility for the next war—he has, however, hinted strongly that the Joint List could support a Herzog-led government “from the outside,” which would mean voting with the coalition in the Knesset without formally joining it.

Interviewed in late February on Israel’s TV Channel 1, Odeh declared that, “We really truly want to influence. … If we find a partner who will agree to our demands of peace and of equality between Jews and Arabs, we will be able to support them.” For those Arabs and Jews who see a peaceful future for Israel dependent on cooperation between the two groups, the prospect of the Joint List supporting a coalition from the outside, and of Arab List MKs even playing leadership roles on Knesset committees and subcommittees, would be welcome.

But being a player, after close to seven decades of being the perennial outside, will take some adjusting. Despite the reconciliatory noises made by Odeh to the Hebrew-language press during the campaign (he’s comfortable enough in the language and culture of the Jewish majority that he will pepper his comments with Talmudic quotes, or analogies from Zionist history), a failure by the Arab List to agree to an excess vote-sharing arrangement with Meretz last week was a sign that not all of the list’s members have the same approach to cooperation. Meretz is a Zionist party, but it has always supported a two-state solution and taken a progressive stance on issues of economic equality, human rights, and other subjects of crucial importance to most Arabs. In short, it shares a lot of positions with the Joint List. Nonetheless, the latter decided not to go with Meretz on an excess-vote arrangement, reportedly because of the objections of Balad, which according to one account was not willing in principle to sign a deal with a Zionist party, but according to another feared it would drive away voters.

Meretz Chairwoman Zehava Galon, whose party is now polling at five seats, which puts it uncomfortably close to the threshold, was sharp in her criticism of the Joint List. “Meretz has proved that it is the only party that believes in true Jewish-Arab solidarity. I hope this isn’t the decision that will condemn us to another four years of Netanyahu’s rule,” she warned.

In the end, Meretz signed a sharing deal with the Zionist Camp, but its preference would have been the Joint List, which didn’t sign an agreement with anyone. The loss of the potential extra seat that having such a pooling arrangement could yield could determine what sort of government emerges from the election. No matter what its composition, that government may now have to reckon with the representatives of Israel’s Arab population in a new way.
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2073 on: March 14, 2015, 10:11:16 AM »


Israel's Next 22 Months
Caroline Glick | Mar 13, 2015

The next 22 months until President Barack Obama leaves office promise to be the most challenging period in the history of US-Israel relations.


Now unfettered by electoral concerns, over the past week Obama exposed his ill-intentions toward Israel in two different ways.


First, the Justice Department leaked its intention to indict Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez on corruption charges. Menendez is the ranking Democratic member, and the former chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is also the most outspoken Democratic critic of Obama’s policy of appeasing the Iranian regime.


As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote this week at PJMedia, “It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Menendez may be guilty of corruption offenses and that his political opposition on Iran is factoring into the administration’s decision to charge him. Put it another way, if Menendez were running interference for Obama on the Iran deal, rather than trying to scupper it, I believe he would not be charged.”

The Menendez prosecution tells us that Obama wishes to leave office after having vastly diminished support for Israel among Democrats. And he will not hesitate to use strong-arm tactics against his fellow Democrats to achieve his goal.


We already experienced Obama’s efforts in this sphere in the lead-up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the joint houses of Congress on March 3 with his campaign to pressure Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s address.


Now, with his move against Menendez, Obama made clear that support for Israel – even in the form of opposition to the nuclear armament of Iran – will be personally and politically costly for Democrats.


The long-term implications of Obama’s moves to transform US support for Israel into a partisan issue cannot by wished away. It is possible that his successor as the head of the Democratic Party will hold a more sympathetic view of Israel. But it is also possible that the architecture of Democratic fund-raising and grassroots support that Obama has been building for the past six years will survive his presidency and that as a consequence, Democrats will have incentives to oppose Israel.


The reason Obama is so keen to transform Israel into a partisan issue was made clear by the second move he made last week.

Last Thursday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice announced that the NSC’s Middle East Coordinator Phil Gordon was stepping down and being replaced by serial Israel-basher Robert Malley.

Malley, who served as an NSC junior staffer during the Clinton administration, rose to prominence in late 2000 when, following the failed Camp David peace summit in July 2000 and the outbreak of the Palestinian terror war, Malley co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times blaming Israel and then-prime minister Ehud Barak for the failure of the negotiations.

What was most remarkable at the time about Malley’s positions was that they completely contradicted Bill Clinton’s expressed views. Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s shoulders.

Not only did Arafat reject Barak’s unprecedented offer of Palestinian statehood and sovereignty over all of Gaza, most of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, he refused to make a counter-offer. And then two months later, he opened the Palestinian terror war.

As Jonathan Tobin explained in Commentary this week, through his writings and public statements, Malley has legitimized Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Malley thinks it is perfectly reasonable that the Palestinians refuse to concede their demand for free immigration of millions of foreign Arabs to the Jewish state in the framework of their concocted “right of return,” even though the clear goal of that demand is to destroy Israel. As Tobin noted, Malley believes that Palestinian terrorism against Israel is “understandable if not necessarily commendable.”


During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, then-senator Obama listed Malley as a member of his foreign policy team. When pro-Israel groups criticized his appointment, Obama fired Malley.


But after his 2012 reelection, no longer fearing the ramifications of embracing an openly anti-Israel adviser, one who had documented contacts with Hamas terrorists and has expressed support for recognizing the terror group, Obama appointed Malley to serve as his senior adviser for Iraq-Iran-Syria and the Gulf states. Still facing the 2014 congressional elections, Obama pledged that Malley would have no involvement in issues related to Israel and the Palestinians. But then last week, he appointed him to direct the NSC’s policy in relation to the entire Middle East, including Israel.


The deeper significance of Malley’s appointment is that it demonstrates that Obama’s goal in his remaining time in office is to realign US Middle East policy away from Israel. With his Middle East policy led by a man who thinks the Palestinian goal of destroying Israel is legitimate, Obama can be expected to expand his practice of placing all the blame for the absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians solely on Israel’s shoulders.


Malley’s appointment indicates that there is nothing Israel can do to stem the tsunami of American pressure it is about to suffer. Electing a left-wing government to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will make no difference.


Just as Malley was willing to blame Barak – a leader who went to Camp David as the head of a minority coalition, whose positions on territorial withdrawals were rejected by a wide majority of Israelis – for the absence of peace, so we can assume that he, and his boss, will blame Israel for the absence of peace over the next 22 months, regardless of who stands at the head of the next government.

In this vein we can expect the administration to expand the anti-Israel positions it has already taken.


The US position paper regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiation that was leaked this past week to Yediot Aharonot made clear the direction Obama wishes to go. That document called for Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, with minor revisions.


In the coming 22 months we can expect the US to use more and more coercive measures to force Israel to capitulate to its position.


The day the administration-sponsored talks began in July 2013, the EU announced it was barring its member nations from having ties with Israeli entities that operate beyond the 1949 armistice lines unless those operations involve assisting the Palestinians in their anti-Israel activities. The notion that the EU initiated an economic war against Israel the day the talks began without coordinating the move with the Obama administration is, of course, absurd.


We can expect the US to make expanded use of European economic warfare against Israel in the coming years, and to continue to give a backwind to the anti-Semitic BDS movement by escalating its libelous rhetoric conflating Israel with the apartheid regime in South Africa.


US-Israel intelligence and defense ties will also be on the chopping block.


While Obama and his advisers consistently boast that defense and intelligence ties between Israel and the US have grown during his presidency, over the past several years, those ties have suffered blow after blow. During the war with Hamas last summer, acting on direct orders from the White House, the Pentagon instituted a partial – unofficial – embargo on weapons to Israel.

As for intelligence ties, over the past month, the administration announced repeatedly that it is ending its intelligence sharing with Israel on Iran.

The Hillary Clinton email scandal has revealed that during her tenure as secretary of state, Clinton transferred top secret information regarding Israel’s operations against Iran to the New York Times. We also learned that the vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is being fingered as the source of the leak regarding the Stuxnet computer virus that Israel and the US reportedly developed jointly to cripple Iran’s nuclear centrifuges.

In other words, since taking office, Obama has used the US’s intelligence ties with Israel to harm Israel’s national security on at least two occasions.

He has also used diplomacy to harm Israel. Last summer, Obama sought a diplomatic settlement of Hamas’s war with Israel that would have granted Hamas all of its war goals, including its demand for open borders and access to the international financial system.


Now of course, he is running roughshod over his bipartisan opposition, and the opposition of Israel and the Sunni Arab states, in the hopes of concluding a nuclear deal with Iran that will pave the way for the ayatollahs to develop nuclear weapons and expand their hegemonic control over the Middle East.

AMID ALL of this, and facing 22 months of ever more hostility as Obama pursues his goal of ending the US-Israel alliance, Israelis are called on to elect a new government.

This week the consortium of former security brass that has banded together to elect a leftist government led by Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni accused Netanyahu of destroying Israel’s relations with the US. The implication was that a government led by Herzog and Livni will restore Israel’s ties to America.

Yet as Obama has made clear both throughout his tenure in office, and, over the past week through Malley’s appointment and Menendez’s indictment, Obama holds sole responsibility for the deterioration of our ties with our primary ally. And as his actions have also made clear, Herzog and Livni at the helm will receive no respite in US pressure. Their willingness to make concessions to the Palestinians that Netanyahu refuses to make will merely cause Obama to move the goalposts further down the field. Given his goal of abandoning the US alliance with Israel, no concession that Israel will deliver will suffice.


And so we need to ask ourselves, which leader will do a better job of limiting the danger and waiting Obama out while maintaining sufficient overall US support for Israel to rebuild the alliance after Obama has left the White House.

The answer, it seems, is self-evident.


The Left’s campaign to blame Netanyahu for Obama’s hostility will make it all but impossible for a Herzog-Livni government to withstand US pressure that they say will disappear the moment Netanyahu leaves office.

In contrast, as the US position paper leaked to Yediot indicated, Netanyahu has demonstrated great skill in parrying US pressure. He agreed to hold negotiations based on a US position that he rejected and went along with the talks for nine months until the Palestinians ended them. In so doing, he achieved a nine-month respite in open US pressure while exposing Palestinian radicalism and opposition to peaceful coexistence.

On the Iranian front, Netanyahu’s courageous speech before Congress last week energized Obama’s opponents to take action and forced Obama onto the defensive for the first time while expanding popular support for Israel.

It is clear that things will only get more difficult in the months ahead. But given the stakes, the choice of Israeli voters next Tuesday is an easy one.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2074 on: March 14, 2015, 11:10:40 AM »

All this proves the American Jews who are Democrats are Democrats first, Socialists or Communists second, and sadly Americans a very distant third, and Jews dead last.

I no longer identify with them and I am ashamed and embarrassed by them.

What else can I say.

They disgust me.   What back stabbers they are.

I was so proud as an American Jew to hear Netanyahu give that speech.  I recall texting my sister that I was proud to be Jewish again.

Then the phony liberal Jews support this President.  Why because he is a Democrat - no other reason.  If he was a Republican they would be attacking him till hell freezes over.



Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2075 on: March 17, 2015, 01:13:19 PM »



http://pamelageller.com/2015/03/obama-refuses-to-renew-40-year-old-emergency-oil-supply-pact-with-israel.html/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2076 on: March 18, 2015, 06:23:11 AM »

NAZARETH, Israel — Choruses of beeping horns echoed through this Arab city in northern Israel as word spread that an alliance of Arab parties had received 14 seats in the next Parliament, making it the third-largest bloc.

Long-divided Arab parties’ forming a coalition was unprecedented; so was the size of their new bloc, offering a good reason for Nazareth and other Arab towns to rejoice.

“This is a great achievement,” said Ahmad Tibi, a veteran Arab politician who was elected to Parliament on Tuesday, speaking at the alliance’s headquarters in Nazareth. Men and women cheered and waved flags bearing the alliance’s slogan, “The Will of the People.”

“We will have before us great challenges. We will fight racism, we will fight fascism; we will defend our rights, regardless of the government,” he said. “Today, we are stronger.”

Yet as the euphoria fades, it remains far from clear what influence the Arab cohort, which calls itself the Joint List, will actually have.

Exit polls on Tuesday night showed that the race between the Likud party, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and the center-left Zionist Union, led by Isaac Herzog, was very close. But as the votes were counted, Likud actually had a substantial lead.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel posted a video to social media on Tuesday urging Israelis to vote. He said right wing rule was threatened by Arab voters.
Video by YouTube.com/BenjaminNetanyahu on Publish Date March 17, 2015. Photo by Sebastian Scheiner/Associated Press.

In any event, Arab parties have never joined governing coalitions, not wanting to be seen as complicit in Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Moreover, Zionist parties do not invite them, explained Jafar Farah, the director of the Mossawa Center, an Arab advocacy group.

Yet the head of the Joint List, Ayman Odeh, sees an achievement in getting this far in Israeli politics.

“There is no Arab in this country who imagined that we would be the third force,” said Mr. Odeh, who only weeks ago was a little-known municipal counselor from Haifa, a mixed Arab-Jewish city in northern Israel.

Some see this election as a beginning in Israeli politics, in which the Arab alliance will become an active oppostion. At the very least, the large turnout gave Arabs more weight to promote their community, said the Mossawa Center director, Mr. Farah.

“The discourse of separation, the discourse of racism, the discourse of incitement, that have been promoted by Bibi Netanyahu and Lieberman is the discourse that we are challenging,” he said, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname and to Avigdor Lieberman, the foreign minister.

Arabs in Israel number some 1.7 million, forming one-fifth of the country’s population.

Though most are Israeli citizens, they tend to be poorer, less educated and less likely to be employed than their Jewish counterparts. Israeli Arabs say they have felt more marginalized during the years when the government in Jerusalem has been dominated by Mr. Netanyahu and Likud.

For some, it culminated on Tuesday when Mr. Netanyahu, with polls showing Likud falling behind the Zionist Union, implored his party’s faithful to turn out, warning that Arab voters could influence the outcome of the elections.

Later, however, he said in Hebrew on Facebook that “there is nothing wrong with citizens voting, Jewish or Arab, as they wish.”

Few Israeli Arabs appeared mollified.

Both Sami Issa and his son Bassel said they used to vote for Israeli Jewish parties, as did many Arabs in Israel. But separately, they both said that a sense of growing discrimination had pushed them to reconsider.

“I’m an Arab!” said Bassel Issa, 27, a baker. “I vote for Arabs.”
« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 06:29:00 AM by Crafty_Dog » Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2077 on: March 18, 2015, 06:28:22 AM »

second post

TEL AVIV — After a bruising campaign focused on his failings, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel won a clear victory in Tuesday’s elections and seemed all but certain to form a new government and serve a fourth term, though he offended many voters and alienated allies in the process.

With 99.5 percent of the ballots counted, the YNet news site reported Wednesday morning that Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party had captured 29 or 30 of the 120 seats in Parliament, sweeping past his chief rival, the center-left Zionist Union alliance, which got 24 seats.

Mr. Netanyahu and his allies had seized on earlier exit polls that showed a slimmer Likud lead to create an aura of inevitability, and celebrated with singing and dancing. While his opponents vowed a fight, Israeli political analysts agreed even before most of the ballots were counted that he had the advantage, with more seats having gone to the right-leaning parties likely to support him.


It was a stunning turnabout from the last pre-election polls published Friday, which showed the Zionist Union, led by Isaac Herzog, with a four- or five-seat lead and building momentum, and the Likud polling close to 20 seats. To bridge the gap, Mr. Netanyahu embarked on a last-minute scorched-earth campaign, promising that no Palestinian state would be established as long as he remained in office and insulting Arab citizens.

Mr. Netanyahu, who served as prime minister for three years in the 1990s and returned to office in 2009, exulted in what he called “a huge victory” and said he had spoken to the heads of all the parties “in the national camp” and urged them to help him form a government “without any further ado.”

“I am proud of the Israeli people that, in the moment of truth, knew how to separate between what’s important or what’s not and to stand up for what’s important,” he told an exuberant crowd early Wednesday morning at Likud’s election party at the Tel Aviv Fairgrounds. “For the most important thing for all of us, which is real security, social economy and strong leadership.”

But it remained to be seen how his divisive — some said racist — campaign tactics would affect his ability to govern a fractured Israel.

Mr. Herzog also called the election “an incredible achievement.” He said he had formed a negotiating team and still hoped to lead “a real social government in Israel” that “aspires to peace with our neighbors.”

“The public wants a change,” he said at an election-night party in Tel Aviv, before the Likud’s large margin of victory was revealed by the actual vote count. “We will do everything in our power, given the reality, to reach this. In any case, I can tell you that there will be no decisions tonight.”
Photo
An Arab Israeli woman casting her vote in the Arab town of Umm el-Fahm. Credit Atef Safadi/European Pressphoto Agency

Based on the results reported on YNet, Mr. Netanyahu could form a narrow coalition of nationalist and religious parties free of the ideological divisions that stymied his last government. That was what he intended when he called early elections in December. President Reuven Rivlin, who in coming days must charge Mr. Netanyahu or Mr. Herzog with trying to forge a coalition based on his poll of party leaders’ preferences , said shortly after the polls closed that he would suggest they join forces instead.
Continue reading the main story

“I am convinced that only a unity government can prevent the rapid disintegration of Israel’s democracy and new elections in the near future,” he told the Israeli newspaper Haaretz.

Both camps rejected that option publicly, saying the gaps between their world views were too large. Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Herzog started working the phones immediately after the polls closed, calling party heads to begin the horse-trading and deal-making in hopes of lining up a majority of lawmakers behind them.

The biggest prize may be Moshe Kahlon, a popular former Likud minister who broke away — in part out of frustration with Mr. Netanyahu — to form Kulanu, which focused on pocketbook issues. Mr. Kahlon leans to the right but has issues with the prime minister, and he said Tuesday night that he would not reveal his recommendation until the final results were tallied.

Kulanu — Hebrew for “All of Us” — won 10 seats , according to the tally YNet reported Wednesday based on 99.5 percent of ballots counted. That is enough to put either side’s basic ideological alliance over the magic number of 61 if they also win the backing of two ultra-Orthodox parties that won a total of 14 seats.

“The clearest political outcome is that Kahlon is going to be the kingmaker, and it really depends on how he is going to play his cards,” said Yohanan Plesner, president of the Israel Democracy Institute. “It very much depends on Kahlon.”

Silvan Shalom, a Likud minister, told reporters that the prime minister would reach out first to Naftali Bennett of the Jewish Home party and to Avigdor Lieberman of Yisrael Beiteinu, two archconservatives, and “of course Moshe Kahlon,” predicting a coalition “within the next few days” of 63 or 64 seats.

“Israel said today a very clear ‘yes’ to Prime Minister Netanyahu and to the Likud to continue leading the State of Israel,” Mr. Shalom said. “We’ll do it with our allies. We’ll have a strong coalition that is able to deal with all the important issues.”

The Zionist Union said, essentially, not so fast.

Nachman Shai, a senior lawmaker from the Labor Party, which joined with the smaller Hatnua to form the new slate, said Mr. Herzog could still form a coalition, thought he did not specify how, and advised the public to “wait and see.” “They’re trying to cash the check and create a certain atmosphere of victory," Mr. Shai told reporters. “We’ll do the same.”

The murky exit-poll predictions led to a murky reaction from the White House, where a spokesman said that President Obama remained “committed to working very closely with the winner of the ongoing elections to cement and further deepen the strong relationship between the United States and Israel, and the president is confident that he can do that with whomever the Israeli people choose.”

The Joint List of Arab parties won 13 seats, making it the third-largest parliamentary faction. Its four component parties previously had 11.

The unity seems to have lifted turnout among Arab voters to its highest level since 1969, said the list’s leader, Ayman Odeh. Arab parties have never joined an Israeli coalition, but Mr. Odeh has indicated that he would try to help Mr. Herzog in other ways in hopes of ending Mr. Netanyahu’s tenure.

Yesh Atid, a centrist party that won a surprising 19 seats in the 2013 election, its first, earned 11 this time. The Jewish Home lost votes to Mr. Netanyahu’s swing to the right and ended up with eight, according to YNet, down from its current 12. The ultranationalist Yisrael Beiteinu had six, and the leftist Meretz four.

A new ultra-Orthodox breakaway faction apparently failed to pass the raised electoral threshold to enter Parliament, which means its votes will be discarded, costing the right-wing bloc.

As the results of Israel’s tight election roll in, Israelis reflect on the issues they hope the next prime minister will make priorities.
Video by Quynhanh Do, Tamir Elterman and Emily B. Hager on Publish Date March 17, 2015. Photo by Gil Cohen Magen/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images.

Turnout was near 72 percent, four percentage points higher than in 2013, which analysts attributed to the surprisingly close contest between the Likud and Zionist Union.

“For the first time in many years, we see a serious strengthening in the two major parties,” said Yehuda Ben Meir of the Institute for National Security Studies. “Both parties are higher up at the expense of the smaller parties, which is good for stability, and it’s a move to the center. The larger parties are always more to the center than the satellite parties.”

But Mr. Plesner of the Democracy Institute said the results showed the need for electoral reform because Israel’s “system is so fragmented, so unstable, so difficult to govern.”

Tuesday’s balloting came just 26 months after Israel’s last election, but the dynamic was entirely different. In 2013, there was no serious challenge to Mr. Netanyahu. This time, Mr. Herzog teamed up with Tzipi Livni to form the Zionist Union, an effort to reclaim the state’s founding pioneer philosophy from a right-wing that increasingly defines it in opposition to Palestinian national aspirations.

They promised to stop construction in isolated Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank, to try to renew negotiations with the Palestinians, and to restore relations Mr. Netanyahu had frayed with the White House. Mostly, though, they — along with Yesh Atid and Kulanu — hammered the prime minister on kitchen-table concerns like the high cost of housing and food.

Mr. Netanyahu talked mainly about the threats of an Iranian nuclear weapon and Islamic terrorism, addressing economics only in the final days. That was also when he made a sharp turn to the right, backing away from his 2009 endorsement of a two-state solution to the Palestinian conflict and sounding an alarm Tuesday morning that Arabs were voting “in droves.”

Many voters complained about a bitter campaign of ugly attacks and a lack of inspiring choices.

“I am happy today to be able to vote, but I know I’ll be unhappy with the result, no matter who wins,” said Elad Grafi, 29, who lives in Rehovot, a large city south of Tel Aviv. Sneering at the likelihood of any candidate being able to form a coalition stable enough to last a full term, he added, “Anyway, I’ll see you here again in two years, right?”

In the Jerusalem suburb of Tzur Hadassah, Eli Paniri, 54, a longtime Likud supporter, said he “voted for the only person who should be prime minister: Netanyahu.”

“I am not ashamed of this,” Mr. Paniri said after weeks of Netanyahu-bashing from all sides. “He is a strong man and, most important, he stood up to President Obama.”
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2078 on: March 18, 2015, 06:33:12 AM »

Third post


By
Joshua Mitnick
Updated March 18, 2015 6:08 a.m. ET
171 COMMENTS

TEL AVIV—Benjamin Netanyahu has won a fourth term as Israel’s prime minister, with his right-wing Likud party seizing a decisive five-seat advantage in parliament over the main opposition Zionist Union party.

With 99% of the ballots counted, Likud is slated to control 29 of parliament’s 120 seats to 24 for Isaac Herzog’s Zionist Union, Israel Radio reported early Wednesday.

That advantage means Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest serving premier after David Ben-Gurion, will have little difficulty in forming a majority coalition based on right-wing nationalist and religious parties.

After declaring victory “against all odds’’ before a crowd of ecstatic Likud activists shortly after midnight on Wednesday, Mr. Netanyahu promised to form a government swiftly.

In a statement later Wednesday morning, he said he had already spoken by telephone with leaders of right-wing and religious parties that won seats in parliament, as well as Moshe Kahlon, leader of the centrist Kulanu party and a former Likud member.

Mr. Herzog conceded the election in a phone call to Mr. Netanyahu, telling reporters Wednesday morning that he had congratulated the prime minister on his victory. “I wished him success,” he said.

Leader of the Labor Party, Mr. Herzog in December joined Tzipi Livni and her Hatnua party in forming a joint slate, Zionist Union, to unseat Mr. Netanyahu. He said his party’s showing was “a wonderful achievement” and vowed to pursue a coalition that “closes social gaps…a party that will seek peace with our neighbors.”

Gadi Wolfsfeld, a political scientist at IDC Herzliya, an Israeli university, said the vote could pave the way for a government far more right-wing than Mr. Netanyahu’s current one. That would give Mr. Netanyahu greater latitude to resist the U.S. and Europe and their calls for peace talks with the Palestinians and a freeze on construction of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The outcome of Tuesday’s vote differed sharply with exit polls released by Israeli news channels after voting stations closed. Those surveys showed Mr. Herzog and Mr. Netanyahu in a virtual tie.

In the waning days of the three-month campaign, voter surveys showed Likud trailing Zionist Union by four seats. But while support for Mr. Herzog’s liberal-left coalition remained steady, backing for Likud surged, apparently as a result of Mr. Netanyahu’s last-minute campaign push to secure right-wing votes.

Mr. Netanyahu renounced his previous support for a Palestinian state, declared there was a well-funded foreign conspiracy to topple him and voiced alarm that a large turnout by Israeli Arab voters could determine the outcome of the election.

He warned that Mr. Herzog would give up territory to the Palestinians, who seek a state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, lands Israel captured in the 1967 Mideast war.


“We have a different approach,” Mr. Netanyahu said Tuesday. “They [Zionist Union] want to withdraw. I don’t want to withdraw. If I put together the government, it will be a nationalist government.”

During the campaign, Mr. Herzog accused the prime minister of neglecting Israel’s economy. Besides reducing the gap between rich and poor Israelis, he said he would revive peace efforts with the Palestinians and repair relations with the Obama administration, which have frayed because of differences over nuclear negotiations with Iran and peace talks with the Palestinians.

“Whoever wants to follow Bibi’s path of despair and disappointment will vote for him,” Mr. Herzog said after casting his vote on Tuesday, referring to Mr. Netanyahu by his nickname. “But whoever wants change, hope, and really a better future for Israel, will vote the Zionist Camp led by me.”

Write to Joshua Mitnick at joshua.mitnick@wsj.com
Popular on WSJ

Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6376


« Reply #2079 on: March 18, 2015, 10:24:45 AM »

Over here we wonder how this election could have even been close.

(WSJ)  "During the campaign, Mr. Herzog accused the prime minister of neglecting Israel’s economy."

This accusation resonated.  We have seen the success of the Israeli economy but lately there are serious complaints of very high cost of living, over-regulation, and other problems.  Netanyahu reportedly neglected domestic issues with his focus on security threats.  His opponents would address these problems with the wrong solutions.  Now that he won, I hope he will do as America should do, energize the free economy at home, as the right thing to do AND as an essential component of any national security strategy.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2080 on: March 19, 2015, 07:36:41 AM »

"But whoever wants change, hope, and really a better future "

Change and hope - gee wiz - where did we ever hear this phrase from?   Sound familiar.   

He means give the country away to the world.  Just like here.
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2081 on: March 21, 2015, 02:10:52 PM »

This could go under Bush or '16 thread but I settled on this.  Mark Levin has the same feelings about Baker as me.  He worked for Reagan as did Baker.   I don't recall George Schultz being a lot better with regard to his affect with "Jews".

Well W brought back Rumsfeld.  That did not work.   Cheney I like but I am certainly in the minority.   Too bad Kissinger is too old.   When he speaks I listen.
(like I do with Levin who is one of the few real warrior's fighting out fight left:


http://www.breitbart.com/video/2015/03/20/levin-criticizes-jebs-association-with-israel-hater-advisor/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2082 on: March 21, 2015, 03:43:45 PM »

As usual, CK nails it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/no-peace-in-our-time/2015/03/19/8df19520-ce61-11e4-a2a7-9517a3a70506_story.html?postshare=1021426951825559
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2083 on: March 22, 2015, 08:05:21 PM »

Just when one thinks there may be just a tiny crack in the dam that hold Jews to the Democrat party the "out" will be to simply look ahead to Hillary.  Thus the liberal Jews will remain mostly silent as long as they can then start propping her up.

This article nicely outlines what to us is obvious:

http://nypost.com/2015/03/22/israel-beware-of-obama/
Logged
Crafty_Dog
Administrator
Power User
*****
Posts: 32847


« Reply #2084 on: March 23, 2015, 09:40:30 PM »

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/myths3/MFrefugees.html#8
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 679


« Reply #2085 on: March 27, 2015, 07:15:03 AM »

Obama Leaks Israeli Nuke Secrets

Posted By Matthew Vadum On March 27, 2015

President Obama ratcheted up his personal war on the State of Israel and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu by leaking Israel’s nuclear secrets to the media.

This betrayal of one of America’s most loyal allies took the form of the Pentagon’s quiet declassification of a 386-page top-secret memo, titled, “Critical Technological Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations.” The report from 1987, released just before Netanyahu’s address March 3 to a joint session of the U.S. Congress, goes into intricate detail about the Israeli nuclear weapons program and explains how Israel became a nuclear power in the 1970s and 1980s.

Israel is “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs,” according to the report by the taxpayer-funded Institute for Defense Analysis. “That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level.”

By the 1980s Israelis were close to being able to produce bombs a thousand times more powerful than atomic bombs, the report states.

Israel’s nuclear infrastructure is “an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories,” it states, noting that research facilities in Israel  “are equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge National Laboratories,” which have been essential to the development of the U.S. nuclear arms program.

The reports indicates that in some cases, Israeli military technology “is more advanced than in the U.S.”

Israel has never officially acknowledged it possesses a nuclear arsenal, reportedly in order to avoid a regional arms race. By releasing the memo, the U.S. government has breached an informal agreement with Israel to not communicate publicly about its nuclear weapons.

Given the Obama administration’s well-documented hostility to the Jewish state, there can be little doubt that the release of the report was a malicious act calculated to undermine Israel’s security. Remember that red diaper baby Obama was a close friend of former PLO spokesman Rashid Khalidi and that he is now putting forward a maximal effort to help the murderous mullahs of totalitarian Iran develop a nuclear weapons capability.

And when not golfing, appearing on late night TV shows, or berating Republicans as “enemies,” America’s Marxist president has spent much of his time in the Oval Office sticking it to Israel. It is hardly exaggeration to say that beating up on Israel is the cornerstone of Obama’s foreign policy.

The sections of the report about Israel were declassified but the Pentagon “kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document,” according to Israel National News.

All of this means that the Obama administration, which is notorious for dragging its heels and failing to comply with even the most trivial of Freedom of Information Act (FoIA) requests, suddenly opted to declassify an ally’s vital military secrets while the media’s attention was focused on Netanyahu and his approaching speech. It used a dusty old FoIA request, which it could easily have stonewalled for years, as a pretext for the document dump.

The three-year-old request came from anti-Israel activist Grant F. Smith, director of something called the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy (IRmep), in Washington, D.C. He has written two histories of AIPAC and was editor of the book Neocon Middle East Policy, according to his official biography.

Breitbart News reports that Smith’s IRmep “organizes an anti-Israel conference each year in Washington, D.C. Last year, the conference featured speakers from anti-Semitic and pro-Islamist publications. During the Q & A session, a speaker openly called for education about the supposed ‘Zionist-Nazi collaboration’ during the Holocaust, while another endorsed the possibility that ‘Israel had a hand in 9/11.'”

Meanwhile, an unnamed senior Israeli government official explained Obama’s hostile actions to the Times of Israel.

“The White House is driven by three main motives,” said the official. “The first is revenge [over the Congress speech]. The second is frustration: It’s no secret that they were involved in an attempt to bring down the Netanyahu government – something that we have clear knowledge of – and failed. The third [motive] is the administration’s attempt to divert attention from the negotiations with Iran to the Palestinian issue.”

Earlier this week President Obama sent his cadaverous White House chief of staff, Denis McDonough, to blast Israel in a speech to the Israel-hating leftist group J Street, which the top Obama aide referred to as “our partner.”

McDonough indicated the White House was less than pleased with Netanyahu’s efforts in recent days to explain what he was trying to say when he vowed there would be no Palestinian state while he is prime minister.

“We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made,” McDonough said. He added disingenuously, “The United States will never stop working for a two-state solution and a lasting peace that Israelis and Palestinians so richly deserve.”

If there is no two-state agreement, Israel will experience “further isolation,” which a Politico article interpreted to mean there will be “more divestment, boycotts and efforts to delegitimize Israel in the international community.”

McDonough received a standing ovation when he said, “An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end.”

The Obama administration’s efforts to defeat Netanyahu in the March 17 Knesset elections flopped spectacularly.

Two weeks after Netanyahu’s March 3 address to Congress which 58 Democratic lawmakers boycotted, the prime minister’s Likud party went on to win a historic victory. Obama refused to attend the speech and with anger in his voice claimed he didn’t even watch it on television. The president, always the sore loser, also took his sweet time congratulating Netanyahu.

The Obama administration funneled U.S. taxpayer dollars to a radical anti-Israel group that aimed to drive Netanyahu from office. The U.S.-based group receiving the money, OneVoice International, in turn worked with V15, an “independent grassroots movement” in Israel, according to Ha’aretz. V15’s unofficial motto was said to be “anyone but Bibi,” a reference that includes the prime minister’s nickname.

Obama operatives temporarily relocated to Israel to try to give Netanyahu the boot. OneVoice hired Obama campaign aides such as Jeremy Bird of political consulting powerhouse 270 Strategies. Bird was national field director for Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign.

Even though Obama lost this fight, that doesn’t mean he is finished with Israel.

Before Obama leaves office on that glorious day in January 2017, he will have many more opportunities to do injury to the Jewish state that his insidious ideology requires him to despise.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6376


« Reply #2086 on: March 27, 2015, 10:24:33 AM »

Things like this make Obama and the US far worse than just an ally who won't help; he undermines security in the region to the point causing a nuclear arms race.  It makes me upset about the comparisons of Obama to Cruz or Rubio.  He doesn't do this because he has is young (over 50) or because he was once a first term Senator.  What will Cruz do on the other side of the spectrum, go nuts about liberty and security because he is young and inexperienced?  Obama does things like this because he is a jerk, narcissist, liar who is wrongheaded about which side America should be on.  Did they bother to deny the leak?  Or other leaks, or wiretapping journalists, or using the IRS against political opponents, or a thousand other acts of deception, corruption...  Why don't they leak documents that are under subpoena from Congress?
« Last Edit: March 27, 2015, 12:01:50 PM by DougMacG » Logged
DougMacG
Power User
***
Posts: 6376


« Reply #2087 on: March 27, 2015, 11:39:13 AM »

Obama's rise to power was based on his opposition to the war that stopped Saddam's Iraq, who had already bombed Israel, from going nuclear.  We shouldn't be surprised now.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 679


« Reply #2088 on: March 27, 2015, 11:58:15 AM »

This infuriates me, as well, Doug.  For someone as intelligent as Charles Krauthammer to make such an idiotic comparison based on Obama being a "one-term Senator" is beyond stupid.  Obama is not who he is as a result of having one term (or zero, or 4) in the U.S. Senate.  He is who he is as a result of his ideology, which is informed by his father and mother's hatred of America and what they considered to be its corrupt founding.  He is an Alinskyite and communist to the core.  His hatred of America and of Jews and Israel knows no bounds.  To equate this in any way with Cruz or Rubio is completely mindless.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2089 on: March 28, 2015, 09:51:29 AM »

"For someone as intelligent as Charles Krauthammer to make such an idiotic comparison based on Obama being a "one-term Senator" is beyond stupid."

What did Krauthammer say?

I didn't hear this.
Logged
objectivist1
Power User
***
Posts: 679


« Reply #2090 on: March 28, 2015, 10:30:03 AM »

He said, paraphrasing - on "Special Report with Bret Baier," regarding Ted Cruz's announcement of his candidacy on Monday, that "We've tried having a one-term Senator as President and it didn't work out so well.  We don't need to try it again."  Essentially dismissing Cruz as a serious candidate for this reason alone.  I found it idiotic.
Logged

"You have enemies?  Good.  That means that you have stood up for something, sometime in your life." - Winston Churchill.
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2091 on: March 28, 2015, 10:35:34 AM »

Never mind I found Charle's comparison that you speak of.

I agree he is totally off the mark.  

The implication is that Obama is not qualified or stupid, or not able to see what he is doing.   Again like everyone who concludes this continues to misread Obama.   I believe he knows exactly what he is doing and doing so quite purposely.

If only we could get a conservative who is as effective at rebuilding and undoing damage as Obama and his mob are at destroying the US we would be quite lucky.

Obama the "one term" senator has, with his master planners, done quite a job at advancing their agenda.
If only Rubio, Cruz or someone from the right do the same thing.....  Not holding my breath.  

I believe it is over for the conservatives.

But I hold out hope.   (I am wrong)
Logged
ccp
Power User
***
Posts: 4419


« Reply #2092 on: March 28, 2015, 10:36:52 AM »

thanks obj.  I typed just as you posted.  Charles stated the same in his most recent column where he handicaps the Republican hopefuls for '16.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 40 41 [42] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!