UNBELIEVABLE! Obama Administration Puts Israel On List Of Countries That Support Terrorism

Only in the twisted world of the Obama Administration, where allies are trashed, and enemies are embraced, could the tiny nation of Israel, on the front lines of the war on terror for decades, be on a list of 36 nations which “have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members.”

This is no joke and Alan Funt is dead so you can't be on Candid Camera. As reported by CNS News

The Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General published the list of "specially designated countries" as an appendix to an unclassified May 11 report--"Supervision of Aliens Commensurate With Risk"--that was publicly posted on the Internet. (The appendix is on page 18 of the document.)

As a matter of policy, according to the inspector general’s report, citizens of Israel and other “specially designated countries” are subjected to a special security screening called a “Third Agency Check” (TAC) when they are actually detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the division of the Department of Homeland Security responsible for enforcing the immigration laws.

The five countries on the list that do not have majority Muslim populations--Kazakhstan (47 percent Muslim), Eritrea (36.5 percent Muslim), Israel (16.9 percent Muslim), the Philippines (5 percent Muslim) and Thailand (4.6 percent)--have had internal problems with radical Muslim terrorists, as reported by the State Department. 

Isn't that kind of blaming the victim?

ICE officers are supposed to check all aliens they take into custody against the Terrorist Watchlist, which includes the identities of individuals the U.S. government knows or reasonably suspects to be terrorists. When ICE holds a citizen from a “specially designated country” in its own detention facilities, according to the agency’s standing policy, the individual is also supposed to be run through a TAC.

“In addition to the Terrorist Watchlist screening, ICE uses a Third Agency Check (TAC) to screen aliens from specially designated countries (SDCs) that have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” says the inspector general’s report.

“The purpose of the additional screening is to determine whether other agencies have an interest in the alien,” says the report. “ICE’s policy requires officers to conduct TAC screenings only for aliens from SDCs if the aliens are in ICE custody. As a result, ICE does not perform a TAC for the majority of its population of aliens, which includes those incarcerated or released under supervision.”

The inspector general recommended in the report that ICE change its screening policy “to require officers to conduct TAC screenings for all aliens from SDCs, not just those held in ICE detention facilities.”

OK lets get this straight. Based on new Department of Homeland Security procedures, illegal immigrants who are caught breaking the law will not be deported, but the Inspector General is no recommending that every Israeli that visits the US should be subject to special screening procedures.

Wait! It gets crazier:

Even though the adminisration includes Israel among “specially designated countries” that it believes "have shown a tendency to promote, produce, or protect terrorist organizations or their members,” ICE Spokeswoman Gillian Christensen told CNSNews.com that the U.S. also considers Israel, as well as some other countries on the “specially designated countries” list, as partners in the struggle against terrorism.

“The U.S. does not and never has considered Israel to have links to terrorism, but rather they are a partner in our efforts to combat global terrorism,” Christensen said in a written statement. “Countries may have been included on the list because of the backgrounds of arrestees, not because of the country’s government itself.”

OH Israelis will now be subject to extra screening because the country arrests terrorists.
That makes sense?

ICE declined to say who put Israel on the list or when Israel was put there. However, in her written statement, ICE spokeswoman Christensen said the “specially designated country” list had been created "at least" seven years ago--which would have been during the presidency of George W. Bush--and that ICE was not responsible for creating it.

True but when this final list was proposed in March 2008 Israel was not on the list but North Korea was, today that is reversed.

“So many federal agencies have created different lists that U.S. officials contemplated adopting a single one to streamline the process, Stark wrote,” said the McClatchey report. “The proposed list, which officials said had yet to be adopted, includes 35 countries, most with significant Muslim or Arab populations.”

“The group of agencies--which included ICE, the National Security Agency and U.S. Customs and Border Protection--not only recommended one list but also suggested an interagency definition of ‘special interest alien,’” said the McClatchey report. “Under the proposal, a special interest alien would be an immigrant with terrorist ties or an immigrant who by nationality, ‘ethnicity or other factors may have ties or sympathies’ with the listed country.”

The 35 countries plus the West Bank and Gaza that were on the proposed list discussed in the ICE memo uncovered by McClatchey in March 2008 almost exactly matches the “specially designated countries” on the list published by the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General on May 11, 2011. There are only two differences: North Korea was on the list proposed in 2008; it is not on the May 2011 list. Israel was not on the list proposed in 2008; it is on the May 2011 list.

See how this administration cares about Israel?  Even though the list was already set, they made a change to put our ally on this special list. Boy oh boy, just like he is with Great Britain, whose Queen he gave an Ipod full of his speeches and Broadway Show tunes, Barack Obama is a real friend of Israel.

Obama always says that despite his constant criticism of  Israel, America will always have a special partnership with the Jewish State.  Now we understand he means putting Israel on a "special" terrorism watch list.

Are Jewish Democrats Beginning to Say No To Obama ?

It seems as if everything is finally beginning to add up. According to several dozen interviews conducted by Politico, Americans of the Jewish faith are finally waking up to the fact that Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel. And the best efforts of Democratic spin-masters isn't going to change the truth.

David Ainsman really began to get worried about President Barack Obama’s standing with his fellow Jewish Democrats when a recent dinner with his wife and two other couples — all Obama voters in 2008 — nearly turned into a screaming match.

Ainsman, a prominent Democratic lawyer and Pittsburgh Jewish community leader, was trying to explain that Obama had just been offering Israel a bit of “tough love” in his May 19 speech on the Arab Spring. His friends disagreed — to say the least.

One said he had the sense that Obama “took the opportunity to throw Israel under the bus.” Another, who swore he wasn’t getting his information from the mutually despised Fox News, admitted he’d lost faith in the president.

But its not just this particular speech, it seems as if it is a cumulative effect of all of the times Obama has thrown Israel and its leaders under the bus since he was elected President.

“It’s less something specific than that these incidents keep on coming,” said Ainsman.

Ainsman is correct Obama's "war on Israel" began just a few days after inauguration and continued through his first year and even through today. For example, these are only some of the articles I wrote about Obama and Israel during his first months in office, and all this happened prior to his getting involved in the Israeli/Palestinian issue.

• Jan 29th 2009 Israel-Hating Samantha Power Named Key Obama Adviser
• Feb. 2009 Obama Appoints Anti-Israel Chas Freeman as Chairman of the National Intelligence Board
• June 4th 2009 Obama's Cairo Speech Threw Israel Under the Bus
• Sept. 29th 2009 Obama Tosses Israel Under The Bus--AGAIN !
  

Politico reports that the recent speech was the straw that broke the Camel's back:

The immediate controversy sparked by the speech was Obama’s statement that Israel should embrace the country’s 1967 borders, with “land swaps,” as a basis for peace talks. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu seized on the first half of that phrase and the threat of a return to what Israelis sometimes refer to as “Auschwitz borders.”

Ben Smith, the reporter who wrote the article believes that it is hard to resist the conclusion that some kind of tipping point has been reached.

Most of those interviewed were center-left American Jews and Obama supporters — and many of them Democratic donors. On some core issues involving Israel, they’re well to the left of Netanyahu and many Americans: They refer to the “West Bank,” not to “Judea and Samaria,” fervently supported the Oslo peace process and Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza and believe in the urgency of creating a Palestinian state.

But they are also fearful for Israel at a moment of turmoil in a hostile region when the moderate Palestinian Authority is joining forces with the militantly anti-Israel Hamas.

“It’s a hot time, because Israel is isolated in the world and, in particular, with the Obama administration putting pressure on Israel,” said Rabbi Neil Cooper, leader of Temple Beth Hillel-Beth El in Philadelphia’s Main Line suburbs, who recently lectured his large, politically connected congregation on avoiding turning Israel into a partisan issue.

Some of these traditional Democrats now say, to their own astonishment, that they’ll consider voting for a Republican in 2012. And many of those who continue to support Obama said they find themselves constantly on the defensive in conversations with friends.

“I’m hearing a tremendous amount of skittishness from pro-Israel voters who voted for Obama and now are questioning whether they did the right thing or not,” said Betsy Sheerr, the former head of an abortion-rights-supporting, pro-Israel PAC in Philadelphia, who said she continues to support Obama, with only mild reservations. “I’m hearing a lot of ‘Oh, if we’d only elected Hillary instead.’”

Mentally challenged Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, told Smith detected a level of anxiety in a recent visit to a senior center in her South Florida district.

“They wanted some clarity on the president’s view,” she said. “I answered their questions and restored some confidence that maybe was a little shaky, [rebutted] misinformation and the inaccurate reporting about what was said.”

Of course the reporting was not inaccurate, like most Democrats in Congress, Wasserman-Shultz was defending her party's President. Well, either that or the reporting was
written above the third grade reading level.

“There’s an inclination in the community to not trust this president’s gut feel on Israel and every time he sets out on a path that’s troubling you do get this ‘ouch’ reaction from the Jewish Community because they’re distrustful of him,” said the president of a major national Jewish organization, who declined to be quoted by name to avoid endangering his ties to the White House.

Democrats argue that during this point of every presidential race there are arguments that this will be the year Jews abandon the Democratic party.  Truthfully, the only time that actually happened was the reelection campaign of Jimmy Carter.

“When Obama was running, there was a lot of concern among the guys in my group at shul, who are all late-30s to mid-40s, who I hang out with and daven with and go to dinner with, about Obama,” recalled Scott Matasar, a Cleveland lawyer who’s active in Jewish organizations.

Matasar remembers his friends’ worries over whether Obama was “going to be OK for Israel.” But then Obama met with the community’s leaders during a swing through Cleveland in the primary, and the rabbi at the denominationally conservative synagogue Matasar attends — “a real ardent Zionist and Israel defender” — came back to synagogue convinced.

Obama was aided in the turn-around by prominent Jews such as former NY Mayor Ed Koch and New Republic Editor Marty Peretz who gave the candidate a "Kosher on Israel" certificate. They will not be supporting Obama this time.

Now Matasar says he’s appalled by Obama’s “rookie mistakes and bumbling” and the reported marginalization of a veteran peace negotiator, Dennis Ross, in favor of aides who back a tougher line on Netanyahu. He’s the most pro-Obama member of his social circle but is finding the president harder to defend.

...A Philadelphia Democrat and pro-Israel activist, Joe Wolfson, recalled a similar progression.

“What got me past Obama in the recent election was Dennis Ross — I heard him speak in Philadelphia and I had many of my concerns allayed,” Wolfson said. “Now, I think I’m like many pro-Israel Democrats now who are looking to see whether we can vote Republican.”

Its not just the votes, this "Jewish Awakening" will also hurt him in the pocketbook.

A top-dollar Washington fundraiser aimed at Jewish donors in Miami last week raised more than $1 million from 80 people, and while one prominent Jewish activist said the DNC had to scramble to fill seats, seven-figure fundraisers are hard to sneer at.

People involved in the Philadelphia event, however, said they think Jewish doubts are taking a fund raising toll.

“We’re going to raise a ton of money, but I don’t know if we’re going to hit our goals,” said Daniel Berger, a lawyer who is firmly in the “peace camp” and said he blamed the controversy on Netanyahu’s intransigence.

The bottom line is that even hard core pro-Israel Jews do not vote on only one issue. Certainly Israel wasn't the only reason that 55% of American Jews voted against Jimmy Carter in 1980.  But, just as what happened 31 years ago, Barack Obama's anti-Israel policies are causing liberal Jews to take the rose-tint off their glasses and evaluate what has happened since January 2009, domestically, his foreign policy and his policy toward the Jewish state, and what they see is not very positive.

Lets just hope the trend continues because in the end a one-term Obama Presidency would be the best thing for America.

"Big NY Times Scoop”: Israel Claims Media Coverage is Unfair

  by Barry Rubin


Sometimes when one of the better reporters around tries to be fair the result shows up the low quality of Middle East coverage generally. In an article on the Gaza Strip, Israeli policy, and the flotilla of anti-Israel, pro-Hamas activists, the New York Times informs us:

“Israel’s relationship with the foreign news media has grown strained in recent years; the country increasingly believes that foreign portrayals of its conflict with the Palestinians are harsh and one-sided.”

Since Israelis have been quite aware of media bias since the mid-1980s and provided hundreds (thousands) of examples this should not exactly be a discovery. But American newspaper readers or television watchers are rarely informed of this fact by the very institutions that stand accused of bias, ignorance, and just plain bad reporting.

Note the way the sentence (perhaps revised by editors in New York) is written:

–This is an Israeli perception, not a fact nor necessarily a view held by anyone else in the world.

–It is just happening now (“recent,” “increasingly”)

–And the result is Israeli hostility toward the media (that is, the action involved is Israel becoming more aggressive in its treatment of foreign journalists). In other words the problem is framed as Israel challenging freedom of the media, not the media subverting the existence and well-being of Israel. The action that prompted the writing of that article–Israel’s announcing possible sanctions against journalists going on the Gaza flotilla ships–was quickly rescinded. In other words, even though Israel knows there is rampant media bias it does everything possible to give freedom to the foreign media, in sharp contrast to most of the other countries in the region which get far more favorable coverage.

–No examples are provided which thus undermines the claim. Actually, while space is of course limited, it would have been easy to mention in regard to a specific event cited–Israel banning foreign journalists from Gaza durin the 2008-2009 fighting–that Israel was concerned that it might accidentally kill foreign correspondents during operations and that reporters could tip off Hamas (inadvertently or otherwise) about Israeli actions thus causing casualties.

Thus, the hint is clearly–though it is equally quite deniable–that Israelis are irrationally and suddenly believing that the media is biased against it and this makes it take bad actions that restrict media freedom.

In other words, it’s good that this view is being reported but the framework signals the reader to disbelieve it. Here’s a parallel example:

“Israel says that its Gaza blockade is legal and that it will make sure that no boat violates it, even if that means resorting to force again.”

On the surface, this is perfectly correct. But in fact there has been no serious legal challenge to the blockade and various international authorities have said that it is quite legal. Again, the hint is that this is just what Israel claims, in other words, a partisan assertion without merit.

Especially disturbing is this passage:

“Some of the vessels planning to take part this year are bringing construction equipment and humanitarian aid, including medicine, which have been scarce in Gaza because of a siege imposed by Israel and Egypt for the past four years to isolate Hamas.”

Has medicine been scarce in Gaza because of a “siege” (a correct but loaded word)? That just isn’t true since medicine has never been subject to restrictions. Again, the reader is conditioned, this time by the inhumane nature of those evil Israelis. They won’t even let medicine in for those poor Gazans? What a bunch of barbarians! One should certainly hate such people.

Incidentally, a survey of the first flotilla’s cargo shows that the medicine brought was beyond expiration date and pretty random, not exactly saving people suffering from disease.

As for construction equipment and materials, a key factor here is that Israel has charged these have been used to build military installations. In Lebanon, where Hizballah has full access to construction equipment, a network of bunkers, tunnels and other fortifications have been built in the south. Southern Lebanon, you know, the place where the U.S. government and the UN promised Israel that Hizballah would not be allowed to return.

Or take this sentence:

“Thirteen months ago, Israeli commandos boarded a Turkish vessel whose crew and passengers were seeking to break the blockade and, facing resistance, killed nine people aboard.”

Technically accurate and better than most as it indicates there was “resistance” (which could mean, presumably, sitting in a circle and singing a song from the American civil rights movement) but:

–The “resistance” consisted of people with weapons who attacked the soldiers and took some prisoner.

–The “nine people” were members of radical Turkish Islamist groups that had previously proclaimed they intended to be martyrs and participated in chants about massacring Jews.

Even when the article includes “balancing” material the phrasing is somewhat misleading or, more accurately, leading toward a specific conclusion:

“But the real purpose of the flotilla is less to deliver goods and building supplies, which are increasingly available in Gaza now, than to challenge Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders. The American vessel, for example, will not be loaded with any goods.”

Aside from the question of Egypt opening the border with Gaza, this sentence is really a response to one of Israel’s main talking points. How can this flotilla be portrayed as humanitarian if it is bringing virtually no goods? The answer is that it is political, but the phrase used is “to challenge Israel’s control over Gaza’s borders” as if there is nothing on the other side but people short of construction materials and medicine.

Here’s the real answer: to help Hamas’s control of Gaza. The main organizers are Islamists allied with Hamas; the other organizers are people who, like Hamas, want to see Israel wiped off the map. They view Hamas–a terrorist group that is openly antisemitic and genocidal, represses women, and expels Christians–as better than Israel.

We thus have three groups:

–Islamists who are allies with Hamas and want to help it.

–Western leftists who think that Israel is evil and shouldn’t exist and who ignore Hamas or even supportive of it.

–Western readers of newspapers and watchers of television who are given news that ignores or systematically challenges Israel’s side of the story. Thus, they are driven toward the conclusion that Israel is wrong and the Palestinians are right.

As I said earlier, this is one of the better stories by a journalist who is consciously trying to be fair. For example, it points out that Israel defended itself in 2008 against the firing of thousands of rockets from the Gaza Strip. And in another article he points out how well much of the Gaza Strip is economically.

Moreover, this is a short article whose goal is to discuss Israel’s warning to reporters not to go on the flotilla ships. But often it is the shorter pieces, that try to summarize and explain events, which most clearly demonstrate how coverage is skewed. And again, by attempting to be balanced this piece shows how unbalanced is much of the other coverage.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org.

What You Should Know About the Second Gaza Flotilla

Sometime in the next day or two, ten boats carrying 5-600 anti-Israel activists will be approaching the waters surrounding the Gaza Strip. It is not known whether there will be some sort of confrontation as there was last year when a flotilla run by Turkish terrorists attacked members of the IDF as they attempted to board the ship and turn it around.

What is known is that the mainstream media, which is not a big fan of the Jewish State, will misrepresent the flotilla. Last year Reuters even doctored the pictures to make the terrorists look like innocent victims. So what follows is some of the background on the boat trip that the mainstream media will not tell you:

Purpose: The purpose of the second Gaza flotilla is the same as the first, to delegitimize the Jewish State of Israel and turn her into a pariah nation. The terrorists aboard are hoping that there is violence so that violence could be used to further hurt Israel.

During the past year, the Hamas-run Gaza has opened new shopping malls, theme parks and resort hotels. Not shabby for an area supposedly being strangled by an Israeli naval embargo. As for humanitarian aid, Israel transfers 5,000-6,000 tons of humanitarian supplies per day to Gaza.

Who is Behind It? This flotilla has many parents, however the two most significant are progressive Americans and Turkish terrorists.

The Americans have named their boat after their favorite American, President Obama. Called the Audacity of Hope, their hate boat includes progressive activists, long term supporters of the Palestinian cause and 9/11 “truthers” (people who believe 9/11 was an inside job). Some of the passengers include:

Greta Berlin, a member of the Anti-Semitic, International Solidarity Movement (ISM); Linda Durham, Who was part of the Gaza protests in 2009 supported by former Presidential candidate Senator John Kerry and led by the wife of Obama ally Bill Ayers, Bernadette Dohrn; Hedy Epstein board member of both the St. Louis Workers Rights Board and the Marxist, Palestine Solidarity Committee which in the past has endorsed PLO terrorist activity; Ridgely Fuller Code Pink activist; Kathy Kelly a long time pacifist who was honored by the Chicago Communist Party; Richard Levy, member of the Progressive Jewish Alliance who sued the Simon Wiesenthal Center to stop them from building a tolerance center in Jerusalem on what he claimed was a Muslim cemetery (it didn’t exist); Ray McGovern of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity was one of 100 "prominent Americans" who signed an October 26 2004 statement circulated by 911Truth.org calling on the U.S. Government to investigate 9/11 as a possible "inside job; Robert Naiman peace activist who attended a meeting in Sept 2010 with Iranian President Ahmadinejad, and other leaders of the “peace and social justice movements;” Alice Walker who wrote “The Color Purple;” and Medea Benjamin, founder of Code Pink, 9/11 “truther”, progressive activist.

According to Leslie Cagan, former co-chairman of Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and coordinator of the American boat, the Audacity of Hope will not be carrying any aid, simply letters.

The group has received support by the Progressive Democrats of America, a group whose leadership includes Democratic politicians including, John Conyers, Donna Edwards, Raul Grijalva, Barbara Lee, Jim McGovern, Lynn Woolsey and Dennis Kucinich.

On other flotilla boats will be terrorists from the Turkish organization IHH, which was involved in the deadly IDF raid on the Mavi Marmara in last year’s Gaza flotilla, additionally two of the people participating in the flotilla have connections to Hamas. They named the first one as Amin Abu Rashad, one of the Dutch organizers for the Gaza flotilla had served in the past as the head of the Hamas’ Charitable Foundation in Holland which was closed down by Dutch authorities’ because of its involvement in funding terror activities.

Unlike last year’s flotilla when the terrorists had their own boat (which contained shipments of arms to Hamas), this year it is believed that the terrorists will be spread out among the boats with the hope that if there is violence “civilians” will be hurt.

The other Hamas figure is Mohammed Ahmed Hanon who is the head of the ABSPP, which is involved in transferring funds to terrorists.

Just like the one a year ago, this guerilla flotilla is being launched under the false pretext of providing humanitarian assistance. But if humanitarian aid was their goal, they would send any supplies through Egypt a solution which was offered by both the Arab nation last week, the American boat would have supplies instead of letters, and the Hamas and Turkish terrorists would not be allowed to participate. The truth is that this flotilla is being run by radicals within the American Progressive movement and terrorists, designed to serve their extremist political agenda.

Sadly this flotilla holds the potential for dangerous consequences. According to the IDF, some of the flotilla participants have prepared sacks with sulfur, which they plan to pour on the soldiers as they board the vessels.

“This is a chemical weapon, and if poured on a soldier it can paralyze him,” an IDF source told The Jerusalem Post “If the sulfur is then lit on fire, the soldier will light up like a torch.”

The objective of these “Ships of Fools” has nothing to do with helping the people of Gaza, or promoting peace. Its purpose is to delegitimize Israel and kill Jews.

The Benefits of the 'Arab Spring'

 By BARRY RUBIN


There are two types of strategic perspectives in Israel today. They aren’t contradictory, but they have different priorities. These can be called the “northern” and the “southern” views.

The “northern” approach is the more traditional one, focusing on the situation in that direction. The key longer-term concern is over Iran and its drive for nuclear weapons. More closely, there are both concerns and hopes regarding Lebanon and Syria.

Regarding Iran, the new feature is the assumption that Israel will not attack Iran to prevent it from getting nuclear weapons. This means Israel will be constructing a multi-level defensive system that includes long-range attack planes, the ability to subvert Iran’s nuclear force through covert operations, possibly submarine platforms, and several types of anti-missile missiles and defenses.

The goal here is fourfold:

• To delay as long as possible Iran acquiring nuclear weapons and to minimize the size and effectiveness of its arsenal through sanctions, international pressure, sabotage and other means.

• To have the maximum ability to deter Iran from launching a nuclear attack and demonstrating the ability to stop its missiles. The aim is to discourage Iran from launching such an attack, given a nearcertainty that it can be stopped and, as a result, it would suffer very heavy damage.

• Of course, ordinary deterrence is not a sufficient safeguard against Iran, given the Islamic regime’s ideological extremism and passionate hatred of Israel, the recklessness of some key elements there, and the rulers’ shortcomings in assessing reality.

Consequently Israel must put a high priority on stopping any Iranian attack from happening or succeeding.

•  To be able, if Israel determines there is a real danger of an Iranian attack, to launch a first strike to inflict maximum damage on Iran’s nuclear strike force. In other words, an Israeli attack would be premised not on Iran getting nuclear weapons, but on Iran being likely to use them.

US deterrence, early-warning, and anti-missile efforts would supplement this system, but this strategy is not premised on any dependence on the US government.

BUT ISRAEL also knows that an equal or even greater danger is the spread of Iranian influence, taking over Arab countries or turning them into proxies. Here, the northern focus is on Syria and Lebanon.

On the surface, the news from these two countries is potentially bad. Lebanon is now controlled by Hezbollah and other Syrian or Syrian-Iranian clients. Hezbollah can thus use Lebanon as a virtual fiefdom for building its military power and attacking Israel. This is much worse than the 2006 Hezbollah-Israel war, when Lebanon as a government and army had a separate identity.

Syria itself is faced with a serious internal upheaval that seems likely to bring down President Bashar Assad. Here the “glass halfempty” analysis is that Assad might be replaced by a regime even more hostile to Israel.

There is also a “glass half-full” analysis. As long as Syria is in such turmoil, it cannot so effectively threaten Israel. And if Assad is overthrown, a government that is more preoccupied by internal affairs, and less eager to start a conflict, might take power.

Iraq offers a good model here.

Between the interests of the Kurds, the internal conflict, a greater focus on domestic development and other factors, Iraq has dropped out of the conflict with Israel.

Hezbollah also suffers from this turmoil. Since it has sided with the Assad regime, it has gone from being wildly popular to widely hated by the Syrian people. Hamas, which has sided against the Syrian regime and in favor of its Muslim Brotherhood comrades, has thus lost Syrian patronage. Finally, Syria’s aggressive behavior has opened a rift between that country and Turkey’s government, which has been increasingly acting like an ally of the Iranian and Syrian regimes.

CONSEQUENTLY, WHILE this is no ideal situation, Israel can be considered to have benefitted from this aspect of the “Arab spring.” From Israel’s standpoint, the relative stability in Jordan and Saudi Arabia is a plus, since these countries are unlikely to be transformed into radical Islamist states under a government linked to al-Qaida, Iran or the Muslim Brotherhood. The turmoil in Bahrain, Yemen and Tunisia is of relatively little strategic significance to Israel.

Generally there can be a hope that democracy and domestic development will become a higher priority than fighting Israel, thus easing the pressure on Israel, or at least preoccupying Arabs and Muslims for a while. Clearly, merely calling dissidents Zionist agents and hoping to unite the people around an anti-Israel platform no longer works for incumbent governments.

In time, this strategy might work for replacing Islamist governments, but that hasn’t happened yet.

Moreover, American weakness and the Obama administration’s cooler view toward Israel is worrisome. So is the possibility that things might be moving in a way to strengthen Iran.

IF ONE looks at the southern front, though, it is harder to find a silver lining. Egypt is likely to elect a radical government more hostile than anything Israel has faced there since about 1974. The future of the Egypt-Israel peace treaty is gloomy.

Peace between Israel and the Arab world’s most populous country cannot be taken for granted.

There is also the problem of the Egypt-Hamas relationship. Egypt is likely to see itself as Hamas’s ally and patron. In a future Hamas-led conflict with Israel, Egypt could take the side of the Palestinian Islamists, and will certainly help them. The long-quiet southern front now has to be treated as a very possible war zone.

This is the basic way things look for Israeli strategists.

One can stress better- or worse-case scenarios and different parts of the challenge, but there is a general consensus on the fundamental challenges – and on whether they will be met successfully.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.     

OMG! Helen Thomas Wants Back into the White House Press Corps

Sheeee's Baaaaaaaaaaaaack! Or at least she wants to be back.   Helen Thomas made an appearance at the Busboys & Poets bookstore in Washington, D.C.  yesterday, and said she is ready for a comeback. She wants to return to the White House briefing room.

“Nothing can replace being there when you’re a reporter,” Thomas said. “Seeing with your own eyes — no, nothing can replace that. I was very lucky to cover history for so long.”

Thomas forced out of her job last June when a video first seen on this website came to light, where she told the Israeli Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine and go back to Germany and Poland.  

Anas “Andy” Shallal, the owner of Busboys & Poets and moderator for her appearance Sunday, followed up by asking her if she had reapplied for those credentials. According to Thomas, she said she had but hadn’t gotten an official response and assumed she had been denied.

“In a back way,” Thomas said. “I’ve been denied – I think so, I never heard.”

The words made to Rabbi Nesenoff last  June was even the worst of it.  Just a few months later in a speech made to a Muslim Anti-Bias conference Thomas used almost every anti-Semitic stereotype in the book.

"I paid the price for that," said Thomas, a longtime White House correspondent. "But it was worth it, to speak the truth. The Zionists have to understand that's their country, too. Palestinians were there long before any European Zionists."

Thomas claimed that "You can not say anything (critical) about Israel in this country."

That was the nicest thing Thomas said all night. In her speech about about discrimination against Arabs she launched into an anti-Semitic tirade about how those rich Jews control America

In a speech that drew a standing ovation, Thomas talked about "the whole question of money involved in politics."

"We are owned by propagandists against the Arabs. There's no question about that. Congress, the White House, and Hollywood, Wall Street, are owned by the Zionists. No question in my opinion. They put their money where there mouth is…We're being pushed into a wrong direction in every way.

It was almost as if Thomas was reading directly from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, at an anti-Bias conference!!!

During her interview and speech, Thomas often used the term "Zionists" negatively, saying that Dennis Ross, President Obama's adviser to the Middle East, was a Zionist.

"Obama, he puts in charge for the Arab world a Zionist like Dennis Ross…You don't put a Zionist in charge of the Muslim world in the White House."

Below is the video of the Speech.



There are some people who believe that any criticism of Israel is Antisemitism. That belief is as ignorant as Antisemitism itself. There is however, a great deal of crossover between hatred of Israel and hatred of the Jews. To find out what people really mean you need to examine the words they use. Make no mistake about it, Thomas uttered the word "Zionists" but her words showed that she meant the word "Jews."  What Thomas said in December and again in her Playboy interview, that Congress, the White House, Hollywood and Wall Street are owned by Zionists, was a repetition of the anti-Semitic stereotypes that have been used for centuries to incite hatred of Jews. Ms. Thomas is nothing but a bigoted hater and that was the reason she was fired, not because she hates Israel (although most of the progressive media is anti-Israel). Thomas was canned because she is a low-life hater, an anti-Semite and she should not be allowed back into the White House press corps, nor should any other bigot.

Obama Meets With Jewish Donors (The President Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks)

By Barry Rubin

Speaking to Jewish donors (or should we say possible Jewish donors?) to his presidential campaign, President Barack Obama pledged that his administration would “devote all of its creative powers” to trying to bring about Mideast peace.

This is not an art project. What is needed is not “creative powers” but to deal with the actual, real situation. To me, “creative powers” (Samantha creative Powers?) means to come up with gimmicks, to do anything possible to bring about the supposed signing of a peace of paper [pun] as fast as possible. If they know the Palestinian Authority is inflexible, then they will just demand more concessions from Israel. And they won’t bother to ask whether the “peace agreement” they are pushing would last a month or produce a more stable region and a more secure Israel.

Every time Obama says that the “status quo is unsustainable,” he’s suggesting that anything would be better than the status quo. What he would produce, then, is a worse status quo.

Meanwhile, as if to prove the point, Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas said he would drop seeking UN approval of unilateral Palestinian independence if the United States offers something better: “I don’t know if the U.S. has another option, but if it does, we will not go to the U.N..”

This is a beautiful example of Palestinian leaders’ chutzpah disguised as victimhood. Let’s consider the following points:

1. The Palestinian bid at the UN will fail. Abbas knows this. Therefore, he is asking to be given a better offer to a situation where he’d get nothing.

2. This strategy breaks every previous Palestinian Authority commitment but he wants to be paid for abandoning it.

3. The Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate with Israel for 2.5 years yet has faced no pressure or punishment for its behavior. Now he wants to be given more.

4. The Palestinian Authority has partnered with Hamas, a genocidal antisemitic terrorist group that is aligned against U.S. interests and rejects peace with Israel, and the Palestinian Authority has faced no pressure or punishment for its behavior. Yet Abbas wants U.S. concessions to a PA in which Hamas is a full partner. (Whether the coalition collapses in future that is what the United States is dealing with at this time.) Does it bother anyone that the PA is ready to take on as equal partner a group that openly says that Jews have caused all major wars, seek to control the world, and should be wiped out by murdering all of them? Does it bother anyone that the Obama Administration has not cut off all relations or even support of the PA until it ends this partnership? Let’s face it, the only reason the current U.S. government isn’t dealing directly with Hamas is because of public and congressional opposition.

5. The U.S. government allows Abbas to put the blame on itself and promises to try harder, rush faster, and offer more rather than slapping him and the PA down for their intransigence, behavior, and lack of cooperation.

In other words, Abbas is acting as if he’s doing the United States a favor by taking its money, diplomatic support, and flattery when he does absolutely nothing in return, and then demands even more!

And the Obama Administration lets him get away with it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.  

Dana Milbank Speaks of Shanda (Embarrassment) But Acts Like Just Another Progressive Schmednrik (Stupid Person)

Washington Post columnist Dana Milbank tends to use an unusual barometer to select his topics.  He likes to write about subjects for which he has a very strong opinion, but very little knowledge. His latest column, Joe Lieberman joining Glenn Beck: a shanda proves my point.  Unfortunately Milbank would not know a shanda (Yiddish for embarrassment), if one jumped up kissed him on the lips and wished him a gut morgan. (good morning).

The purpose of this column was to criticize Senator Joe Lieberman for joining Glenn Beck for his August rally in Jerusalem called "Restoring Courage."

“I’d love to participate,” Lieberman confirmed when The Post’s Felicia Sonmez found him in a Capitol hallway. “It’s just going to be a rally to support Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship.”

This nearly caused me to plotz [faint].

Notice how cleverly Milbank stuck a Yiddish word into his column to prove his Jewish "street cred?"

Joe Lieberman, first Jew on a presidential ticket, was embracing Beck, the leading purveyor of anti-Semitic memes in the mass media. One of the most visible Jews in America was making common cause with a man who invoked apocalyptic Christian theology in promoting his rally in Israel.

I admire Lieberman, and I’ve defended him over the years when he defied party and faction. But if he shares a stage with this creature, he will surrender the decency that has defined his public life.

Its interesting that Milbank uses Yiddish to establish his Jewish "street cred", but calls him the leading purveyor of anti-Semitic memes" If Milbank truly wants to prove his Jewishness, perhaps he should learn the concept of, "motzi shem ra"is the spreading of malicious lies," which according to the Rabbis is a severe sin. With this comment, Milbank is showing he buys into the George Soros/ Media Matters strategy of trying to destroy Glenn Beck by branding him as an anti-Semite (the history of this strategy is outlined here).

For those of you who are not familiar with the Beck rally allow me to present this explanation.

Israel is in the most precarious position she has faced since the 1967 War. Palestinian terrorists are on three of its borders, Fatah in Judea and Samaria,  Hamas in Gaza,  Hezbollah in Lebanon. Adding to the threat is that the Syrian regime is  facing collapse, so it is tying to divert its people's attention from hating it leaders to hating Israel, Egypt is becoming radicalized and most of the parties with potential to twin the next election and take over leadership of the country are promising to tear up the Camp David treaty. And Iran, close to developing the capability to send a nuclear warhead into Tel Aviv continues to threaten to wipe the Jewish State off the map.

All this is happening in the background of a United States President, who's policies are the most anti-Israel in the short 63-year history of the Jewish State. Let's face it, Israel is more isolated today than she has ever been.

The purpose of Beck's Restoring Courage rally in Jerusalem in August is to show the world that good people of all faiths from across the world are standing with Israel.

It is time for us to courageously stand with Israel.

“I invite you to join me in Israel this summer to stand together and show the world what living a life of faith and honor really means. I invite you to join me in my quest to Restore Courage,” Glenn said.

Honesty, it would be nice if American Jewish Organizations created such a rally, but unfortunately most Jewish leaders in this country are more concerned with protecting the President's progressive agenda no matter what, than protecting Israel, which is not only the Jewish homeland, but the United State's biggest ally in the Middle East. But neither religious heritage nor the best interests of the United States are as important to most of these Jewish leaders as is reelecting Barack Obama and maintaining political power. Beck is throwing his rally partially because American Jewish leadership does not have the guts to do it themselves.

Milbank on the other hand feels that Beck's religion should eliminate him from leading such a rally:

It’s nice that Beck wants to defend Israel before the United Nations attempts in September to create a Palestinian state. But this support comes with an asterisk. Beck’s descriptions of his event as a gathering and a restoration echo his Mormon faith’s theology: there will be a “Gathering of Scattered Israel” in which Jews return to the Holy Land and are converted to Christianity as part of “the restoration of all things” and the Second Coming.

Hey Mr. Plotzing Shanda, did you know that Jewish theology is something very similar? In fact the tenth blessing of the Amidah prayer Jews recite every day is called, Kibbutz Galuyot ingathering of exiles :

"Sound the great shofar for our freedom and raise a banner to gather our exiles and unite us together from the four corners of the earth. Blessed are You, LORD, who regathers the scattered of His people Israel."

The sounding of the Shofar part is all about the coming of the Messiah (Jews believe the Messiah has not come yet and when he does will be a regular man). With his comment about Beck's religion is he saying that all Christians should not have freedom of religion in Israel or just Mormons?   Or maybe he believes Jewish practice should be banned  also, because he criticizes Beck for quoting a Jewish prophet.

Announcing his event on the radio last month, Beck invoked “the words of Ezekiel” – a prophet associated with end times theology – and said: “There are people who will say, ‘oh you are crazy, that’s not going to happen. People have been saying this is Ezekiel for 5,000 years, yadda yadda yadda.’ I have no idea if these are the Times. I just know that the old hatreds are starting up, and God will not hold us blameless. I choose to stand and be counted.”

....Beck assumed a Messianic role: “The peace that is promised comes from standing in the place where He asks us to stand. I believe I have been asked to stand in Jerusalem.” He predicted his gathering would send “a global shockwave. It will ripple across the earth.”

Mainstream Mormonism has de-emphasized this notion of a literal gathering of Jews in Israel, but megalomaniacal Beck sees value in it.

So Dana Milbank a Jew who based on his writing knows very little about Judaism, is now also an expert on the Mormon religion also (Note to Milbank: If you went to Broadway  to see  Book of Mormon, I hate to break this to you, but it is a work of fiction).

Beck is not Milbank's only Israel related target.  Another frequent target of the progressive WAPO writer is Israeli Prime Minster Binyamin Netanyahu.  For example after Obama's Middle East speech earlier this month, where he unilaterally called for negotiations to start with the 1948 armistice lines, Milbank criticized the President, not for abandoning an ally but because criticizing Israel will generate more support for Netanyahu.

... Obama bungled his Middle East speech. He unwittingly strengthened Israeli hawks such as Netanyahu and made the already remote prospect of peace that much more distant.

Milbank goes on to describe the reaction to Bibi's speech to AIPAC and Congress by his Israeli au pair, Inna who he describes as a moderate who was suspicious of the uncompromising Netanyahu, the episode turned her into a supporter.

She’s aware that Netanyahu isn’t about to strike a peace deal. After she listened on Tuesday to Netanyahu’s list of requirements for a Palestinian state — a list one Palestinian official called a “declaration of war” — she knew it was a nonstarter. “I can’t imagine it on a map,” she said.

Its interesting that Milbank is upset that Inna has become a Bibi fan, he does not argue against the President's plan, only Inna's reaction. He talks about the Palestinian reaction to Netanyahu's speech but ignores the fact that the Palestinians (even President Abbas who is considered a "moderate") refuse to accept Israel as a Jewish State and Obama refuses to push them toward that acceptance.

So what is a Shanda? Well, the fact that Senator Joe Liberman or any American Jew or not joins Glenn Beck in Jerusalem is not a shanda (if I could afford it, I would be there).  What is a shanda is the fact that the leadership of major American Jewish organizations are too cowardly to stand up to a progressive president and join the Beck rally).

What is also a shanda is a Washington Post columnist trying to establish his Jewish "street cred" by using Yiddish when he has no real idea about what Judaism is all about, uses progressive talking points to smear someone who is doing what those Jewish Leaders should be doing, protects the most anti-Israel President in history while falsely disparaging an Israeli Prime Minster.  The fact that Dana Milbank acts the part of balmalocha (Yiddish for expert) regarding Judaism, Mormonism, and Israel when he is only a partisan progressive schmednrik (Yiddish for stupid person) that is a shanda.

Epic Fail: Obama Supporters Try to Defend His Middle East Policy

By Barry  Rubin

It is remarkable how supporters of Obama’s Middle East policy are forced back onto wishful thinking and total projection based on new evidence. For example, in response to my critique of Obama’s strategy one reader writes:

I have a feeling that Obama will get an acknowledgement from PA to recognize right of Israel to exists and a cease violence so the 2 state solution can go forward.

Note the expression, “I have a feeling.” In other words, a subjective emotion rather than anything that has been observed in the actual world.

The PA, of course, recognized Israel’s right to exist (well, actually the PLO as the framework for creating the PA) 18 years ago in the Oslo agreement of 1993. So getting that wouldn’t be much of an achievement. BUT Fatah leaders have repeatedly stated that their group has not recognized and will never recognize Israel’s right to exist based on the excuse that the PA is the body to do so. But we all know what that means. Moreover, Hamas will never do so and it is now part (perhaps temporarily) of the PA.

Finally, the hope that the PA will agree to “cease violence.” Again, that was the basis of the Oslo agreement and the PA has not implemented it. There was a five-year-long intifada and a series of riots and terrorist attacks promoted by the PA with every means at its disposal.

The problem is not to get the PA to make promises — and it even often refuses to do that — but to implement the promises. Israel’s dilemma is that if it gives a lot of territory and returns close to the 1967 border, Palestine is then a state and can do what it wants. Israel would then be dependent on Obama’s support — a thin reed — and its own military. It would not be better off than it is now and would arguably be worse off.

Another reader writes:


Obama has already been twisting Europe to get up to plate thru NATO…He has given the PA ultimatums about taking their proposal to the UN. He knows Israel is AR only ally in the Mideast.

Let’s consider this:

A. Britain, France, Italy, and Germany all announced they would vote against unilateral independence before Obama did anything. He didn’t twist their arms; they took the lead.

B. There is no evidence that Obama has tried to twist anyone’s arm in Europe on this issue. Quite the opposite, he’s tried to get them to endorse his program of: We’ll get Palestine independence real fast so they don’t need to go to the UN. In other words, it is an appeasement strategy.

C. No, he has not given “ultimatums”; he’s just said he’s against it and will vote against it. In saying that, he’s assuming that it will go to the UN. An ultimatum is when you threaten someone with serious consequences unless they give in. He has not done so.

D. “He knows Israel is [our] only ally in the Mideast.” This is the most interesting sentence of all. No public action Obama has taken demonstrates that in any way. We only have the ritual pro-Israel statements. And such things as continued good military relations are not expressions of Obama’s personal views, but of Defense Department policies and sheer inertia.

In a sense, Obama’s strategy is like that of French President Charles de Gaulle in 1967, turning from a strong bilateral alliance with Israel to a policy of distancing oneself from Israel in a bid to win support from Arabs and Muslims. Of course, Obama cannot go so far as de Gaulle did, but that’s more due to American public opinion and Congress than to anything in Obama’s own psyche.

What fascinates me is that on the rare occasions when Obama supporters defend his policy against real and informed criticism, they cannot come up with anything good. Only by forgetting history, distorting it, or leaving out huge chunks of reality can they make a case.

The only way they can “win” arguments is in media, where the other side is basically not permitted to speak at all.

 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are teased and other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.  

Obama’s Israel Policy: “F*** The Jews, They Will Vote For Us Anyway!”

President Obama gave Bibi Netanyahu an ultimatum on renewing negotiations with the Palestinians, according to reports cited by Israel Radio Sunday morning. According to the ultimatum, Netanyahu has to decide within a month whether he agrees to accept President Barack Obama's platform and resume talks based on 1967 lines.

The President has been working on getting the leaders of major Jewish organizations on their side realizing that some of them, such as Abe Foxman of the ADL are more concerned about advancing their power in the progressive political world than their organization’s Jewish mission.

According to Eli Lake of the Washington Times the Obama White House appealed to Jewish leaders on Friday that the request of Israel was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations

Defenders of the President insist that the President’s “1967 borders with land swaps” is nothing new. But it certainly is.

As Jennifer Rubin reported in the Washington Post, “On Saturday I asked a State Department official authorized only to speak on background: Does “1967 borders with land swaps” mean “1967 and then we discuss swaps” or does it mean “1967 borders plus the swaps that the parties previously agreed to in negotiations including the Jerusalem suburbs”? The latter, I pointed out is consistent with the 2004 Bush-Sharon letters, but the former is not. In fact, if it is 1967 and then they discuss land swaps, that is the same as starting with the 1967 borders. Period. And sure enough the State Department official told me, “It means swaps that the parties will agree on in the course of direct negotiations.”

In other words, Obama wants Israel to start negotiating under the assumption that that the Kotel, the old city and the Jerusalem suburbs are Palestinian property, cancelling up prior understandings that these areas would never be part of a Palestinian state. That has never before been the U.S. government’s demand, and it weakens Israel’s bargaining position.” In other words, there is zero difference in the Obama plan between “1967 borders” and “1967 border with land swaps.” In both, the starting point is borders Israel has deemed indefensible.

At the same time President Obama has not made similar demands of the Palestinians, not even requesting the most basic of concessions that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish State.  When you put it all together, Obama is asking Israel to make concessions with a government which is comprised of two terrorist organizations bent on its destruction, Fatah makes their calls for Israel’s destruction in Arabic only, and Hamas who calls for the destruction of Israel is clear in any language.

It’s time for the President to remember the famous words of Albert Einstein “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.” The last time Obama called for one-sided concessions by Israel (the settlement freeze), the only result was a break off in talks because the Palestinians used the administration’s demands as preconditions for further talks. The bottom line is that the Palestinian Authority is not ready to sign a peace deal that recognizes Israel as a Jewish State, whether the boarders are the 1948 armistice lines or the small UN Mandate borders.

Supposedly Obama is making the demands because he does not want to be forced to veto the unilateral Palestinian Statehood declaration in September. The truth is that the Palestinians are well aware their unilateral statehood push has no chance; its only purpose is to continue the international de-legitimization of Israel. Obama’s demand for the 67 lines as a starting point is serving the same purpose, because there is no way Israel can agree to it. An Israeli concession on borders prior to talks even start robs them of their one bargaining chip. And there is no corresponding Palestinian concession.

But that is not a concern of the President, almost every action he as taken since his inauguration indicates that he is not a big friend of the Jewish State, despite the support he has gotten from the progressive leadership of the major Jewish organizations.

Unfortunately it looks as if the administration will be able to have it both ways. While the President’s strategy is being exposed here and in much of the conservative media, the progressive mainstream media, most of the Jewish press, normally pro-Israel democratic legislators and even leaders of major Jewish organizations are reluctant to stand in front of the camera and break with their progressive meal ticket Barack Obama.

During the administration of George H.W. Bush, probably the most anti-Israel American presidency prior to this one, Secretary of State James Baker once commented on whether his anti-Israel stance will hurt the Jewish vote for Bush’s reelection campaign. His famous response was, “F*** the Jews, they won’t vote for us any way.”  Today the administration of Barack Obama has a similar attitude, “F*** the Jews, they will vote for us whatever we do!”

Sadly they are probably right.  Jewish money still pours into Democratic Party coffers even though the President from their party is the most anti-Israel in history, and the legislators are two cowardly to confront him in public.  Hopefully when it comes time to vote in 2012, American Jews will wake up and smell the hummus. If this administration is this anti-Israel in the middle of a re-election campaign, I shudder to think what will happen during a second, lame duck campaign when he no longer needs any Jewish support.

Obama Trying To Force Israel To Negotiate With PA-Hamas Govt. On Obama's Terms

According to a report in the Washington Times, President Obama is working hard to get the Israeli government  to publicly adopt President Obama’s view that Israel’s pre-1967 border should be the basis for future peace talks. And for help, he is going to leaders of American Jewish organizations, who tend to put progressive politics in front of everything else.  According to Eli Lake of the Times

The Obama White House appealed to Jewish leaders on Friday that the request of Israel was part of an effort to head off Palestinian plans to declare an independent state at the United Nations in September.

The request of Mr. Netanyahu was made Monday to the prime minister’s top peace negotiator, Yitzhak Molcho, at a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at the National Security Council, according to an Israeli diplomat based in Jerusalem.

.....Steven Simon, the new White House National Security Council senior director for the Middle East and North Africa, told representatives of the Jewish Community Friday during a conference call that the White House was looking to get both the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli government to adopt Mr. Obama’s “principles as a basis for negotiation,” according to a recording of the call played for the Washington Times.

Mr. Obama’s position is “the borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”

Interestingly Obama's position  does not make demands of Palestinians. He is trying to force Israel to negotiate with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. And a government where neither of the ruling parties Hamas or Fatah are willing to recognize Israel as the Jewish State.

According to Jennifer Rubin, Israel supporters in Congress are fuming.

A spokesman for Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) conveyed the senator’s view: “The president’s insistence last month that Israel return to the pre-1967 borders represented a significant departure from past U.S. policy and has been roundly repudiated by members of both parties. Given this lack of support, even from his own party, it is inconceivable why the President would continue to undermine the position of our democratic ally Israel in its negotiations with a hostile neighbor.”

I spoke to Rep. Peter King (R-N.Y.), who plainly was angry over the continued effort to bully Israel. He said in a phone interview, “President Obama never learns. His real instinct is to weaken Israel. You don’t treat an ally this way.” He said he has never seen this sort of behavior from any U.S. president. After the apparent “rapprochement” following the Arab Spring speech, King says the current posture is “shameful.” Given the strong support in the Congress for Israel, will there be resolutions or a cutoff of funding for the Palestinians? He said firmly that it is time to start “fighting fire with fire.” In other words, as much as Obama seeks to pressure Israel while whispering vague promises to the American Jewish community, the Congress may very well try to recalibrate the balance. We should at least have one branch of government in our ally’s corner, right?

According to Jpost Obama has given Netanyahu an ultimatum:

The United States gave Netanyahu an ultimatum on renewing negotiations with the Palestinians, according to reports cited by Israel Radio Sunday morning.

According to the ultimatum, Netanyahu has to decide within a month whether he agrees to accept US President Barack Obama's platform and resume talks based on 1967 lines.

Meanwhile, Netanyahu was expected to travel to Italy on Sunday where he will meet his Italian counterpart Silvio Berlusconi.

Let's see if the leaders of Jewish organizations join in on criticizing Obama's anti-Israel stance or, like Abe Foxman of the ADL, will the put progressive politics in front of doing the right thing when it comes to protecting America's only ally in the Middle East.

Exclusive Video of President Obama's Secret Test of Brand New 2012 Stump Speech

Exclusive Video of President Obama's Secret  Try-Out of  New 2012 Stump Speech Pundits all across  America are wondering, just how the heck is he going to do it. With the country in such lousy shape, unemployment up, factory orders down, economists predicting a double-dip recession, relations with our best allies such as Great Britain and Israel in such lousy shape, just how the heck does Barack Obama expect to win re-election in 2012?

Well in a Lid exclusive,  you the reader will know. Thanks to a secret meeting between my cousin Ben, the spy and a not to be named member of the Obama re-election team, I have obtained a copy of a video of the President giving his 2012 stump speech a tryout.

How did Ben do it? Well lets just say that my cousin had some information that the Obama campaign operative did not want to become public knowledge.

As you can see in the video below, President Obama plans confront his challenges head-on and will give clear explanations for all his policy failures (If you cannot see video below..Click Here)

Six-Day-War Revisionist History

"The Jewish people has had to fight unceasingly to keep itself alive," says Israel's Premier Levi Eshkol. "Hopeful ever of redemption, we labored to return to the land of our fathers and to set foundations for the resurgence of an exiled folk. We made our arduous way to the shores of that land. We fought to open its gates to our brethren. We acted from an instinct to save the soul of a people." 

Both the land and the soul of Israel are sorely tried. Last week, 19 years after the Diaspora dream of return to Zion became a reality in the first Jewish state in almost 2,000 years, Levi Eshkol and his people found themselves besieged and threatened as few nations have ever been in their history. Tiny, dagger-shaped Israel, whose 2,700,000 people cling to 7,993 sq. mi. on the shores of the eastern Mediterranean, faced the implacable hostility and cocked guns of 14 Arab nations and their 110 million people. Its borders were ringed with Arab troops on all sides; its important sea access through the Gulf of Aqaba remained blocked by Egyptian mines and patrol boats.

Time Magazine June 9th 1967

Reading reports about the Six-Day-War from 44-years ago and comparing them to today reminds me of one of those Star Trek episodes where Kirk and the crew goes back in history and change the past---it seems like two different wars.

Forty-four years ago the reports spoke of the underdog Israel and her need to defend herself against the warlike acts of the big bullies lead by Egypt who was committing many acts that could be interpreted as acts of war including: conspiring with other belligerent countries  for a coordinated attack (in this case, Syria and Jordan), closing Israel’s access to international waterways (the straits of Tiran), violating the terms of the 1956 armistice by re-militarizing the Sinai. Expelling the UN and USA peace-keeping troops form the Sinai, perpetrating illegal spy-plane fly-overs to reconnoiter Israeli sensitive areas and massing troops and tanks on Israel’s borders.

(Dewy Beats Truman?)

The United States tried to prevent the war through negotiations, but the other side did not want peace, The US could not persuade Nasser or the other Arab states to cease their belligerent statements and actions (back then they tried). So just like today,  they warned Israel not to attack. Right before the war, President Johnson warned: “Israel will not be alone unless it decides to go alone.” Then, when the war began, the State Department announced: “Our position is neutral in thought, word and deed.”

While the Arabs were falsely accusing the United States of airlifting supplies to Israel, Johnson imposed an arms embargo on the region (France, Israel’s other main arms supplier, also embargoed arms to Israel). By contrast, the Soviets were supplying massive amounts of arms to the Arabs. Simultaneously, the armies of Kuwait, Algeria, Saudi Arabia and Iraq were contributing troops and arms to the Egyptian, Syrian and Jordanian fronts.

Today, retrospectives tell a different story, the tale of the cynical Zionist nation whe saw an opportunity to deal a blow to the Arab nation, expand her territory, and rule over the Palestinian people. Some even say that maybe the Six Day War was not the best thing for Israel, "since it lead her to become the evil rogue nation she is today"

But there is one indisputable fact that today's revisionist historians keeps forgetting, if Israel didn't fight and win the Six Day War---there would be no Israel today. Just as if Israel doesn't protect herself from the likes of Hamas, Hezbollah and Fatah today--there will be no Israel in 44  years.

In the immediate aftermath of the war, Israel offered to give everything except Jerusalem back in exchange for peace. Rather than respond to Israel’s invitation, the Arab states met in Khartoum, Sudan, for a conference in August, 1967. They unanimously decided in favor of the now famous three "NOs," better that Israel hold on to the territories taken in the war. Better that the refugees continue languishing in their squalor and misery. Better that the Arab states re-arm for another war…than to recognize Israel’s right to exist or negotiate toward a peaceful settlement of the conflict. For most of the Middle East, the rule is still the three "NOs": No recognition, No negotiation, No peace.

On 6/5/1967, in a pre-dawn raid, Israeli jets destroyed almost all the fighter planes of Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Iraq before their pilots could get them off the ground. With most of their air forces a smoldering wreck, the Arabs had lost the war almost as soon as it had begun. Arab armor without air cover was destroyed by Israeli planes; and Arab infantry without armor was no match for the Israeli land forces.  In six days, Israel re-gained the Sinai, drove the Jordan Legion from the West Bank, and took control of the Golan Heights within artillery range of Damascus.  Suddenly there was a new order in the Middle East.

Israel had done much more than is generally acknowledged to avoid this war.  It struck only after working for weeks under threat of annihilation to exhaust all reasonable diplomatic channels, and after begging the Arab states to honor their cease-fire agreements. But even more compelling, unnoticed by many but thoroughly documented in diplomatic archives is the communication between the Israeli government and King Hussein of Jordan. On Tuesday, June 5, several hours AFTER the Jordan Legion had begun its bombardment of Jerusalem and Petakh Tikvah, Israel sent a message via the Rumanian Embassy to King Hussein. The message was short and clear: stop the bombardment now and we will not invade the West Bank.

But King Hussein had already received a phone call from Nasser. This call was monitored by the Israeli Secret Service. Even though he knew that his air force was in ruins, Nasser told Hussein that Egyptian planes were over Tel Aviv and his armor was advancing on Israeli positions. Hussein believed him, and disregarded Israel’s plea. Had Hussein listened to Israel, the West Bank would still be in Jordanian hands.  Instead, he sent his troops into the Israeli section of Jerusalem.  Only AFTER its territorial integrity in Jerusalem was violated did Israel mount an assault on the Jordanian West Bank.

A few days after the UN cease fire of 6/11/67, Abba Eban, Israel’s representative at the UN, made his famous speech.  He held out the olive branch to the Arab world, inviting Arab states to join Israel at the peace table, and informing them in unequivocal language that everything but Jerusalem was negotiable. Territories taken in the war could be returned in exchange for formal recognition, bi-lateral negotiations, and peace.

Some wonder if peace could ever happen in the holy land.  The Arabs have seen Israel prosper on soil from which they barely scratched a living when they had it. If you have ever stood within Israel looking out into the Palestinian territories the border between the two is very obvious.  On the Israeli "side of the line" the ground is lined with lush green trees, however the other side is parched land.

To the Arab  States, Israel's success is not only a blow to their pride but a constant rebuke to the dismal poverty in which most of the Arab world lives, that's why Israel is so hated.

Obama Administration's Mishandling of the Palestinian Unilateral Independence Bid is Wasting 2011

By Barry Rubin

And so he rushes off to Europe to muster support so that the United States is not alone. It’s the end of May already. Besides, the UK, France, Germany, and Italy have already made clear that they won’t support unilateral independence.

In a real sense this issue has illustrated Obama’s incompetence and the mess created by his world view. What would a “real” president have done?

First, get an early start. The moment the PA announced it was considering this scheme, he would have coordinated with European allies to get a joint statement that this was unacceptable and that there would be negative consequences for the PA in pursuing it and refusing to negotiate with Israel. What’s being done in May should (and could) have been done in January. Why is Obama trying to get a joint stand with Europe now when the issue has been discussed for months?

Second, lobby hard in the Third World. American diplomats should be limousining into the offices of presidents, prime ministers, and foreign ministers all over the world to make it clear that the United States wants them to oppose this initiative. Favors should be called in; gentle warnings made. Yet as Latin American countries—a traditional area of U.S. influence--unilaterally recognized a Palestinian state, Obama stood by and did nothing.

Third, make the consequences clear to the PA. The PA has done many things to sabotage Obama’s prized peace process. Here’s a partial list:

--Went back on its promise to him not to push the Goldstone Report, which even its principle author now disowns, at the UN.

--Sabotaged his September 2009 initiative for a Camp David-style summit to be held in December, after he publicly announced it at the UN.

--Refused to negotiate seriously with Israel when Israel accepted and implemented a nine-month-long freeze of construction on settlements and then even added Jerusalem to it. The PA waited a few days before the expiration, held a couple of formal chats, and then demanded that the freeze be renewed!

--Made a deal with Hamas that obviously runs counter to U.S. policy and puts a big hole in the side of the already sinking peace process.

--Going to the UN in this time-wasting, negotiations’ killing maneuver.

Ironically, the Palestinians are almost universally portrayed as the world’s leading victims. Yet in a very real sense, they are the world’s most spoiled political grouping. Decades of refusal to negotiate, intransigence, and terrorism are rewarded while massive subsidies continue ignoring political behavior, incitement, violation of commitments, terrorism, and corruption.

Maybe that’s the real problem making this conflict persist.

Fourth, Obama has not put any sanctions on the PA, refused to threaten it, and has barely criticized it in public. Indeed, the money and diplomatic support continues no matter what the PA does. Obama’s level of backing for Israel does not go up in response to PA behavior either. So he has taught the PA that sabotaging American policy pays because it makes him (and the world) criticize Israel, widens the U.S.-Israel rift, and even brings more U.S. concessions for the Palestinians in a desperate effort to make peace, even if the Palestinian leadership cares less about that achievement than the United States, EU, and UN.

It is an amazing example of Obama’s exaltation of weakness that even a deal between the PA and Hamas has barely brought a squeak from him, after a period of saying “we’ll see what happens.” The administration’s great defense is that maybe the deal will collapse of its own weight. We’re also told that Congress will declare U.S. aid to the PA illegal and stop it because of this alliance with a terrorist group.

Yet what kind of president let’s something happen that would lead to Congress forcibly terminating one of his priority policy initiatives? This is not leadership and, of course, if it happens that will be a major embarrassment for the White House. The obvious criticism is: Why didn’t you do anything?

Fifth, the president should have explained very clearly why he is opposed to this maneuver. The problem is that he cannot really do so without blaming the PA.

Let us remember that in the year 2000—that’s eleven years ago! How time flies when you’re fantasizing about an unworkable peace process—the Palestinian leadership rejected peace. (Note: So did the Syrian leadership and the U.S. government is still treating that regime as a friend!) President Bill Clinton denounced the PA rulers. Then President George W. Bush discovered that PA leader Yasir Arafat was lying to him and trying to import Iranian weapons to launch a full-scale war on Israel. He, too, got angry.

Obama, however, has not caught on and probably never will. The PA does not want to make a compromise peace resulting in a two-state solution. Going to the UN to circumvent talks and allying with Hamas are two major ways that the PA is violating the Oslo agreement, the very basis of its existence. In fact, by rejecting peace and instead launching a terrorist war on Israel they violated it eleven years ago. And, as far as Western diplomacy goes, they never pay the price.

It will pull the rug out from under the United States every time and make its president look foolish. And that’s sure what’s happening with the PA’s unilateral independence bid.

In short, this is a huge mess. And while the PA is responsible for it, the president is, too. The PA is showing by how it behaves that it doesn’t want peace. Still, the West just doesn’t want to recognize this fact. It’s far easier and cost-free to blame Israel.

But what’s the point in Obama coming up with a new peace plan when it should be clear that it isn’t going anywhere, and why it isn’t going anywhere. People talk of a “cycle of violence.” Well what about the cycle of diplomacy? Here’s how that works:

U.S. and Europe propose plan, demand is made for both sides to make concessions, Israel makes concessions, PA doesn’t implement its part; plan fails; Israel blamed; new cycle begins.

Of course, sometimes Israel refuses also or only makes partial concessions. Yet every time the PA’s score is zero. At least Israel is always willing to talk. The PA has now refused serious talks for 2.5 years and there’s no doubt it will get to the three-year-mark.

The fact that Israel has caught onto this game and refuses to play anymore has provoked astonishment in Europe and America. Don’t those Israelis realize that it’s for their own good? No, they realize it is against their interests and also realize that these countries either haven’t been paying attention or don’t care.

But to return to the PA’s UN maneuver. The Obama Administration has botched it. In the end, the unilateral independence gimmick will be defeated but at the cost of at least one year wasted diplomacy and an increasingly reckless PA strategy. This time, though, the U.S. government will have to stick its neck out and (very possibly) do a unilateral veto.

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, former U.S. Ambassador to the UN John Bolton explained how a previous president dealt with a previous such situation. Secretary of State James Baker, someone personally unfriendly to Israel by the way, made it clear in 1989 that if the UN were to take such a step the United States would cut off all of its financial donations to that institution. The problem immediately disappeared.

That's called using power, unapologetically taking leadership, and getting your way. It's a concept totally alien to the Obama Administration. But not to America's enemies.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist at PajamasMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/ His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and other articles available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.co