Doc's Talk: Confronting Obama’s Messiah complex

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Confronting Obama’s Messiah complex

Isi Leibler
March 31, 2010
http://wordfromjerusalem.com/?p=2131

In the midst of celebrating Pesach we watch the storm clouds gathering against Israel. On this festival when we commemorate the liberation of the Jewish people from bondage we must remind ourselves that with the help of the Almighty, for over 3000 years we prevailed over all those who sought to destroy us whilst our enemies were destroyed..
Since the birth of Israel we have overcome greater challenges than those confronting us today and emerged stronger every time.

Chag sameach v'kasher.
We send our Christian friends and supporters best wishes for a happy Easter.
Isi Leibler
________________________________________________________________________

Seemingly intoxicated by Congress's endorsement of his health care legislation, President Barack Obama appears to have been overcome by a Messiah complex. His actions relating to the Middle East during recent weeks oblige us to face realities about our "unshakable" alliance with the United States. Over the past year, Israel has made major concessions to the Palestinians with zero reciprocity. Yet the US president, who seeks to engage and appease tyrants like Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Syrian President Bashar Assad, exploited a bureaucratic bungle over a building zoning permit (for which Israel immediately apologized) as a pretext to ignite a massive crisis. He publicly and repeatedly humiliated the head of the only democratic state in the Middle East.

Obama demonstrated that, far from being an honest broker, he is forsaking Israel and adopting the most extreme Palestinian demands. Obama not only demanded that Israelis be denied building in their capital, but tried to impose a prohibition on construction in the exclusively Jewish suburbs of east Jerusalem which former US administrations had unequivocally agreed would remain in Israel. Obama was effectively demanding that Netanyahu agree to a division of Jerusalem even before final status talks with the Palestinians were initiated.

Beyond that, Obama sought to intimidate Netanyahu into signing additional undertakings instantly without even consulting his cabinet. These included: indefinite extension of the settlement freeze; release of thousands of Palestinian terrorists; transfer of additional territory to Palestinian control; commitment to withdraw to the 1967 "Auschwitz borders"; undertaking to discuss all core issues in the indirect negotiations; and easing the blockade against Hamas.

Obama's objective was to demonstrate to the Arab League meeting this week in Libya that the US could bludgeon Israel into acquiescing to whatever it demanded. If Israel acceded to these demands, that would represent the opening benchmark for further concessions which Israel would be expected to grant to the Palestinians in the course of the proximity talks. In such circumstances, the Palestinians have every incentive to reject direct negotiations while the US extracts more concessions from Israel on their behalf.

NO US ally has been treated in such a contemptible manner by an American president. Obama even responds to representatives of rogue states like Libya's Gaddafi and Venezuela's Chavez more courteously. US administration press leaks to Israeli media alleging that Netanyahu froze and "panicked" were a cynical ploy to undermine his government. Yet despite the blunders committed by their government, Israelis will rally behind their leaders as they internalize the humiliation to which their prime minister was subjected.

It now appears that the current crisis was a calculated strategy to orchestrate a public confrontation with Israel.

Obama recognized that Palestinian intransigence would lead to a breakdown in the proximity talks and that the US public would blame the Palestinians. However, by confronting Netanyahu with outrageous demands which no Israeli government would accept, Obama's ambition to become more popular in the Muslim world would be realized and Israel would be held responsible for the failure in negotiations.

This would be used to justify the US weakening support for Israel at the UN and other international bodies, thereby encouraging the Islamic Council and their acolytes, including the Europeans, to intensify their efforts to delegitimize and transform the Jewish state into a pariah.

Obama would then be in a position to intervene and demand that Israel accept a US-imposed settlement based on the so-called Saudi peace plan, which he has already enthusiastically endorsed.

Beneath the hypocritical facade of concern for Israel's security, Obama's brutal anti-Israel onslaught has unleashed dark forces which will embolden the jihadists and other enemies of Israel and fuel the growing waves of anti-Israel hysteria and global anti-Semitism.

Fortunately, the United States is a democracy whose leaders are expected to conduct foreign policies based on morality, and the majority of Americans remain overwhelmingly supportive of Israel. This was exemplified by the exceptionally warm bipartisan welcome extended to Netanyahu by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and House Republican leader John Boehner. It was reinforced by the letter urging the president to end the dispute signed by over three quarters of the members of Congress.

But the struggle for the hearts and minds of the American people is not over and this is a battle we must win because ultimately people power will determine US policy.

TO SUCCEED in communicating our position in this complex labyrinth requires more effective direction and better diplomacy than Israel has hitherto displayed. To start, the prime minister must stop equivocating and rally the nation. While seeking consensus, he must also lead and cease reciting false mantras suggesting that the alliance between Israel and the Obama administration remains in place. This only emboldens the White House to intensify its pressure on Israel.

Netanyahu must act decisively in the diplomatic arena. While avoiding direct or personal confrontations with the president, he must demonstrate that his government policies reflect the consensus of the nation and are morally justified; that the Palestinians are intransigent, refuse to accept a Jewish state in the framework of a two-state solution and continue to promote a culture of death, martyrdom and incitement; that Israel is a democracy and is entitled to some respect from its senior partner and not be treated as a vassal; that behaving shabbily to a long-standing friend like Israel will undermine the standing of the US with all its allies.

Netanyahu must call on mainstream opposition parties, in particular Kadima, to suspend internecine politics and establish a consensus over issues such as building in Jerusalem and defensible borders.

He must create a strategic planning committee to communicate the morality of our case and the reciprocal benefits of the alliance to friends of Israel - committed Jews, evangelicals and others.

The commitment to Israel by American Jews, Obama's greatest supporters, will now be tested. Disregard the marginal Jew. It was always committed Jews who determined policy and led the way. Now for the first time American Jews face a president who radiates hostility towards Israel. Will they have the courage to stand up?

Abe Foxman of the ADL responded immediately and courageously criticized the policy of the administration. The AIPAC meeting showed that activist mainstream Jews remain supportive of Israel irrespective of their political orientation. The standing ovation for Hillary Clinton was somewhat bizarre. Especially so in light of some of her remarks and the commitments extended by her and her president at the previous AIPAC meeting which have now been cynically repudiated.

The stand taken by the Presidents Conference, the umbrella body dealing with Israel affairs on behalf of the Jewish community which includes many who supported Obama at the elections, will be an important indicator. American Jews are a small but influential minority. If they speak up courageously and the American people retain their support for Israel, Obama may still be diverted from his present destructive path. There is every likelihood that they will do so if our government gets its act together.

ileibler@netvision.net.il

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk