Doc's Talk: Obama is going after regime change in… Israel

Thursday, March 25, 2010

Obama is going after regime change in… Israel

DEBKAfile Exclusive Analysis March 25, 2010, 1:33 PM (GMT+02:00)

Put all his weight behind cowing Netanyahu

The deep abyss into which US-Israeli friendship was dumped this week is virtually unbridgeable because there is no point of contact between the ideology and politics held by President Barack Obama and his chief advisers Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod and Israel's fundamental security needs - no matter who sits in the Prime Minster's Office in Jerusalem. When he visited Washington this week, Binyamin Netanyahu discovered to his dismay that the protestations of America's "rock solid" support for Israel's security and future by top Obama administrations officials and US guarantees to furnish Israel with the resources needed for its defense were no more than lip-service to the verities espoused by previous administrations. Equally outdated were the standard Israeli assertions that the US needs Israel, its strategic partner, as much as Israel needs America.

Common ground between Washington and Jerusalem has shrunk exponentially in the current administration fourteen months: President Obama wants to see a Palestinian state stretching across all the territory Israel captured in 1967 including Jerusalem (forget the UN resolution promising Israel secure, defensible borders), the siege lifted on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip, a territorial link between the two Palestinian territories (across a chunk of southern Israel) and a large number of the 1948 Palestinian refugees, most of whom are concentrated in Syria and Lebanon, returned - some to their former homes in Israel, some resettled on the West Bank.

But before getting to that point, the president wants a guarantee that Israel will not attack Iran's nuclear facilities and docilely swallow his acceptance of a nuclear-armed Iran as a fact of Middle East life.

This is obviously what Obama has been pushing for all along, notwithstanding his speeches against Iran's nuclear bomb drive. How else to explain why his administration has never lifted a finger against Iran - not even in the form of sanctions?

President Obama brooks no recalcitrance and therefore the showdown he staged with the Israeli prime minister at the White House this week was inevitable; Jerusalem was a convenient trigger, but he might have grabbed any other handy issue as a device for a confrontation designed to bring about the fall of Netanyahu and his government.
He therefore has no qualms about seeking regime change in Jerusalem - even ahead of Tehran.

History has shown that whenever a US president decided to oust an Israeli leader, he succeeded. When Yitzhak Rabin stood up to the Middle East policies of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter in the late 1970's, his wife's illegal foreign currency account in New York happened to come to light and force his resignation.

Twenty years later, the first President George Bush and James Baker contrived Yitzhak Shamir's downfall over the gap in their outlooks on the region. After he challenged Bill Clinton, Netanyahu had a taste of the same American presidential medicine which ended his first term as prime minister prematurely in 1999.

Obama is confident that the Israeli voter will punish Netanyahu for disagreeing with him this time round as well. He has lost patience with the endless complexities of Middle East peacemaking and, possibly because of his failure to bring Iran to heel, is in a hurry to get the process moving after dictating its outcome.

Getting what he wants, he believes, necessitates Netanyahu's removal
The difference between Barack Obama and his predecessors is that his methods are far blunter, swifter and more brutal. After he showed his teeth to the prime minister, it no longer matters that he erred tactically in using Jerusalem, an issue on which most Israelis and American Jews are united, as his pretext for triggering huge crisis - or that the Israeli prime minister blundered foolishly in going to Washington and putting his head in the lion's mouth.

What matters now is that Netanyahu's options have narrowed to three:

1. He can resign and call a snap election, running on the Iran and Jerusalem tickets. In any case, Washington and his political rivals at home are intent on forcing him out.
2. He can order the Israeli military to attack Iran, an action which would restore Israel to its former pivotal position on the Middle East stage, an advantage it lost in 2006 by failing to drive Hizballah into the ground.

Again, if he holds back, his hand may be forced by Iran and its allies, Syria, Hizballah and the Palestinian Hamas, who will be encouraged to go on the offensive by Obama's cold shoulder to the Jewish state.

3. He can take cover and do nothing and hope the ill wind blows over.
He has opted for non-response so far against the British decision to expel the Mossad representative at the Israeli embassy in London over the forged passports allegedly used by the Dubai killers. Israel's failure to hit back in kind has caused the Australian, French and other governments whose passports were cloned to seriously consider following in the UK's footsteps.

London has given the Obama administration an opening for further isolating and humiliating Israel.

As Netanyahu was airborne on his way home Thursday, March 25, the Washington Post underscored this lesson: "Netanyahu is being treated as if he were an unsavory Third World dictator, needed for strategic reasons but conspicuously held at arm's length," the paper wrote.

Will the prime minister take this lesson to heart? It is up to him to stand up and show that Israel will never accept the humiliation of being treated as a legitimate US target for regime change and reduced to the level of a Third World dictatorship.

Comment: This blog appreciate PM Netanyahu standing firm against the Chicago style political tactics of Obama and his gang. I warned Israel and the Jewish community that the separation would begin if Obama was elected. It was not nor is it now only about Obama, you must spend some time and analyze his ME support team. Couple this analysis with his actions thus far: Diplomatic snubs unbecoming an ally of the USA, denying military equipment and materials to Israel during the past 14 months thus disabling our qualitative edge over our enemies,linkage of expanded apartments being built and reducing America's ability to effectively deal with the Arab and Persian worlds-shall I continue? The next tipping point in the Obama raid on America is soon approaching.

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