THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: November 28, 2009 (first post)
What should we make of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, who apparently killed 13 innocent people at Fort Hood? Here’s my take: Major Hasan may have been mentally unbalanced — I assume anyone who shoots up innocent people is. But the more you read about his support for Muslim suicide bombers, about how he showed up at a public-health seminar with a PowerPoint presentation titled “Why the War on Terror Is a War on Islam,” and about his contacts with Anwar al-Awlaki, a Yemeni cleric famous for using the Web to support jihadist violence against America — the more it seems that Major Hasan was just another angry jihadist spurred to action by “The Narrative.”
What is scary is that even though he was born, raised and educated in America, The Narrative still got to him.
The Narrative is the cocktail of half-truths, propaganda and outright lies about America that have taken hold in the Arab-Muslim world since 9/11. Propagated by jihadist Web sites, mosque preachers, Arab intellectuals, satellite news stations and books — and tacitly endorsed by some Arab regimes — this narrative posits that America has declared war on Islam, as part of a grand “American-Crusader-Zionist conspiracy” to keep Muslims down.
Yes, after two decades in which U.S. foreign policy has been largely dedicated to rescuing Muslims or trying to help free them from tyranny — in Bosnia, Darfur, Kuwait, Somalia, Lebanon, Kurdistan, post-earthquake Pakistan, post-tsunami Indonesia, Iraq and Afghanistan — a narrative that says America is dedicated to keeping Muslims down is thriving.
Although most of the Muslims being killed today are being killed by jihadist suicide bombers in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan and Indonesia, you’d never know it from listening to their world. The dominant narrative there is that 9/11 was a kind of fraud: America’s unprovoked onslaught on Islam is the real story, and the Muslims are the real victims — of U.S. perfidy.
Have no doubt: we punched a fist into the Arab/Muslim world after 9/11, partly to send a message of deterrence, but primarily to destroy two tyrannical regimes — the Taliban and the Baathists — and to work with Afghans and Iraqis to build a different kind of politics. In the process, we did some stupid and bad things. But for every Abu Ghraib, our soldiers and diplomats perpetrated a million acts of kindness aimed at giving Arabs and Muslims a better chance to succeed with modernity and to elect their own leaders.
The Narrative was concocted by jihadists to obscure that.
It’s working. As a Jordanian-born counterterrorism expert, who asked to remain anonymous, said to me: “This narrative is now omnipresent in Arab and Muslim communities in the region and in migrant communities around the world. These communities are bombarded with this narrative in huge doses and on a daily basis. [It says] the West, and right now mostly the U.S. and Israel, is single-handedly and completely responsible for all the grievances of the Arab and the Muslim worlds. Ironically, the vast majority of the media outlets targeting these communities are Arab-government owned — mostly from the Gulf.”
This narrative suits Arab governments. It allows them to deflect onto America all of their people’s grievances over why their countries are falling behind. And it suits Al Qaeda, which doesn’t need much organization anymore — just push out The Narrative over the Web and satellite TV, let it heat up humiliated, frustrated or socially alienated Muslim males, and one or two will open fire on their own. See: Major Hasan.
“Liberal Arabs like me are as angry as a terrorist and as determined to change the status quo,” said my Jordanian friend. The only difference “is that while we choose education, knowledge and success to bring about change, a terrorist, having bought into the narrative, has a sense of powerlessness and helplessness, which are inculcated in us from childhood, that lead him to believe that there is only one way, and that is violence.”
What to do? Many Arab Muslims know that what ails their societies is more than the West, and that The Narrative is just an escape from looking honestly at themselves. But none of their leaders dare or care to open that discussion. In his Cairo speech last June, President Obama effectively built a connection with the Muslim mainstream. Maybe he could spark the debate by asking that same audience this question:
“Whenever something like Fort Hood happens you say, ‘This is not Islam.’ I believe that. But you keep telling us what Islam isn’t. You need to tell us what it is and show us how its positive interpretations are being promoted in your schools and mosques. If this is not Islam, then why is it that a million Muslims will pour into the streets to protest Danish cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad, but not one will take to the streets to protest Muslim suicide bombers who blow up other Muslims, real people, created in the image of God? You need to explain that to us — and to yourselves.”
Comment: Tom and the NYT you are getting closer to sharing the truth but still can't get "over the hump" of disbelief-can you?
Monday, November 30, 2009
The Arabs Have Stopped Applauding Obama
FOUAD AJAMI
'He talks too much," a Saudi academic in Jeddah, who had once been smitten with Barack Obama, recently observed to me of America's 44th president. He has wearied of Mr. Obama and now does not bother with the Obama oratory.He is hardly alone, this academic. In the endless chatter of this region, and in the commentaries offered by the press, the theme is one of disappointment. In the Arab-Islamic world, Barack Obama has come down to earth.
He has not made the world anew, history did not bend to his will, the Indians and Pakistanis have been told that the matter of Kashmir is theirs to resolve, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the same intractable clash of two irreconcilable nationalisms, and the theocrats in Iran have not "unclenched their fist," nor have they abandoned their nuclear quest.
There is little Mr. Obama can do about this disenchantment. He can't journey to Turkey to tell its Islamist leaders and political class that a decade of anti-American scapegoating is all forgiven and was the product of American policies—he has already done that. He can't journey to Cairo to tell the fabled "Arab street" that the Iraq war was a wasted war of choice, and that America earned the malice that came its way from Arab lands—he has already done that as well. He can't tell Muslims that America is not at war with Islam—he, like his predecessor, has said that time and again.
It was the norm for American liberalism during the Bush years to brandish the Pew Global Attitudes survey that told of America's decline in the eyes of foreign nations. Foreigners were saying what the liberals wanted said.
Now those surveys of 2009 bring findings from the world of Islam that confirm that the animus toward America has not been radically changed by the ascendancy of Mr. Obama. In the Palestinian territories, 15% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 82% have an unfavorable view. The Obama speech in Ankara didn't seem to help in Turkey, where the favorables are 14% and those unreconciled, 69%. In Egypt, a country that's reaped nearly 40 years of American aid, things stayed roughly the same: 27% have a favorable view of the U.S. while 70% do not. In Pakistan, a place of great consequence for American power, our standing has deteriorated: The unfavorables rose from 63% in 2008 to 68% this year.
View Full Image
ajami
Martin Kozlowski
ajami
ajami
Mr. Obama's election has not drained the swamps of anti-Americanism. That anti-Americanism is endemic to this region, an alibi and a scapegoat for nations, and their rulers, unwilling to break out of the grip of political autocracy and economic failure. It predated the presidency of George W. Bush and rages on during the Obama presidency.
We had once taken to the foreign world that quintessential American difference—the belief in liberty, a needed innocence to play off against the settled and complacent ways of older nations. The Obama approach is different.
Steeped in an overarching idea of American guilt, Mr. Obama and his lieutenants offered nothing less than a doctrine, and a policy, of American penance. No one told Mr. Obama that the Islamic world, where American power is engaged and so dangerously exposed, it is considered bad form, nay a great moral lapse, to speak ill of one's own tribe when in the midst, and in the lands, of others.
The crowd may have applauded the cavalier way the new steward of American power referred to his predecessor, but in the privacy of their own language they doubtless wondered about his character and his fidelity. "My brother and I against my cousin, my cousin and I against the stranger," goes one of the Arab world's most honored maxims. The stranger who came into their midst and spoke badly of his own was destined to become an object of suspicion.
Mr. Obama could not make up his mind: He was at one with "the people" and with the rulers who held them in subjugation. The people of Iran who took to the streets this past summer were betrayed by this hapless diplomacy—Mr. Obama was out to "engage" the terrible rulers that millions of Iranians were determined to be rid of.
On Nov. 4, on the 30th anniversary of the seizure of the American embassy in Tehran, the embattled reformers, again in the streets, posed an embarrassing dilemma for American diplomacy: "Obama, Obama, you are either with us or with them," they chanted. By not responding to these cries and continuing to "engage" Tehran's murderous regime, his choice was made clear. It wasn't one of American diplomacy's finest moments.
View Full Image
Rove
Associated Press
Rove
Rove
Mr. Obama has himself to blame for the disarray of his foreign policy. American arms had won a decent outcome in Iraq, but Mr. Obama would not claim it—it was his predecessor's war. Vigilance had kept the American homeland safe from terrorist attacks for seven long years under his predecessors, but he could never grant Bush policies the honor and credit they deserved. He had declared Afghanistan a war of necessity, but he seems to have his eye on the road out even as he is set to announce a troop increase in an address to be delivered tomorrow.
He was quick to assert, in the course of his exuberant campaign for president last year, that his diplomacy in South Asia would start with the standoff in Kashmir. In truth India had no interest in an international adjudication of Kashmir. What was settled during the partition in 1947 was there to stay. In recent days, Mr. Obama walked away from earlier ambitions. "Obviously, there are historic conflicts between India and Pakistan," he said. "It's not the place of the United States to try to, from the outside, resolve those conflicts."
Nor was he swayed by the fate of so many "peace plans" that have been floated over so many decades to resolve the fight between Arab and Jew over the land between the River Jordan and the Mediterranean. Where George W. Bush offered the Palestinians the gift of clarity—statehood but only after the renunciation of terror and the break with maximalism—Mr. Obama signaled a return to the dead ways of the past: a peace process where America itself is broker and arbiter.
The Obama diplomacy had made a settlement freeze its starting point, when this was precisely the wrong place to begin. Israel has given up settlements before at the altar of peace—recall the historical accommodation with Egypt a quarter century ago. The right course would have set the question of settlements aside as it took up the broader challenge of radicalism in the region—the menace and swagger of Iran, the arsenal of Hamas and Hezbollah, the refusal of the Arab order of power to embrace in broad daylight the cause of peace with Israel.
The laws of gravity, the weight of history and of precedent, have caught up with the Obama presidency. We are beyond stirring speeches. The novelty of the Obama approach, and the Obama persona, has worn off. There is a whole American diplomatic tradition to draw upon—engagements made, wisdom acquired in the course of decades, and, yes, accounts to be settled with rogues and tyrannies. They might yet help this administration find its way out of a labyrinth of its own making.
Mr. Ajami, a professor at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and a senior fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, is the author of "The Foreigner's Gift" (Free Press, 2007).
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703499404574558300500152682.html
Netanyahu: Israel wants peace, but Palestinians don't seem ready
Gili Izikovitch, Haaretz Correspondent
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel was fully committed to renewing Middle East peace negotiations, but questioned whether the Palestinian Authority was prepared to enter the political process. "It is clear today, to anyone willing to check the facts, that Israel wants peace - to enter the peace process with the aspiration of fulfilling it," Netanyahu told the annual Eilat Journalists Conference. "I don't see the same firmness on the other side."
According to Netanyahu, the government is doing everything in its power to advance the peace process, but has found itself stymied by obstacles from the Palestinian side.
"I see preconditions being laid that never before existed. I see legal steps being taken at the international court to advance that absurd thing called the Goldstone report. You can't reach peace if the horizon is moving away, and it is moving away because of the stereotype," Netanyahu said, referring to common perceptions of him being a hawk.
The prime minister was also referring to the Palestinian Authority's endorsement of the Goldstone Commission's damning report on the Gaza war, and to complaints it had submitted against Israel to the International Criminal Court.
"I think they need to decide to enter negotiations, because only if we start them, we can finish them," he said.
The prime minister declared that his government was willing to make concessions for peace, difficult as they may be.
"It will be difficult, it will require many concessions from us, it will require self-abnegation, to abandon many of the tactical procedure,s" said Netanyahu. "And that is a strategic decision."
"We are approaching the process, but even now it is not clear who what the leader of the Palestinian side has decided. There is an opportunity here, from an economic perspective too, and because an international coalition is coming together against Iran and its proxies, and because the people in Israel and the Palestinians themselves are tired and want to reach peace already," he said. "I hope the Palestinians will choose to advance peace."
Netanyahu reminded his audience that last year he discussed the deep economic crisis the country was in. This time, he pledged to implement a number of steps, including the building of roads, freeing up land for construction and "a revolution in the planning and construction committees."
"The combination of land, fast transportation and simplifying planning will allow the Israeli economy to grow," the premier said.
Netanyahu also focused on the creation of an international front against the Iranian nuclear program, which he said the government was working "tirelessly" to promote. He noted that last week's strongly worded decision by the International Atomic Energy Agency against Iran, made as a result of U.S. President Barack Obama's efforts, was "important progress, especially as Russia and China had signed on against the Islamic Republic.
"Efforts must continue to focus real pressure and real sanctions," Netanyahu said.
If we sacrifice Jerusalem, why defend London?
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/if_we_sacrifice_jerusalem_why.html
November 29, 2009
By James Lewis
It is an interesting exercise to question all the assumptions of American foreign policy for the last sixty years -- that is, for as long as we've provided the defense umbrella for Europe, the free countries of Asia, and for our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
That's after all the meaning of Pax Americana. We do the work, they do the bitching. Obama and the Left don't have the least inkling of the vital peace-keeping role of America as the cop on the world beat for the last six decades. They hardly understand the idea of peace officers on domestic beats. It just doesn't get through those hard plastic space helmets around their heads.
Let's pretend there is no Pax Americana. Obama sounds like he's ready to shaft Israel, which certainly would be consistent with his whole upbringing and his locked-in Leftist worldview. Jerusalem, according to the administration, is doing the dirty on the Palestinians by adding housing in the city for Jews. Funny thing, nobody seemed to mind much when Obama sent that message to Benjamin Netanyahu. Least of all the Israelis, who just ignored it.
Well, the Left has managed to conceive an inveterate hatred of Israel while not losing many Jewish liberal votes. Shafting Israel is a no-lose proposition for them. And still they keep their liberal Jewish voters. It is a miracle to behold.
No wonder Obama wants to walk away from that troublesome little country that gets all the Arabs so angry. What's he got to lose?
Well, Taiwan, for one thing. There's another troublesome little country right off the coast of mighty China, which owns a lot of US debt, and has had lines into the last two Democrat administrations that have looked mighty suspicious. Nothing would please China more than having the US Navy withdraw its protection from Taiwan.
See, Obama's making peace already.
Then there's South Korea, another troublesome partner.
Why not have the Kim family take over the South? It's no skin off our noses. The conquest of South Korea could probably feed the hungry people of the North for years and years before the whole peninsula went kaput. And Kim Jong il could finally get his nukes to work.
We could dump Afghanistan, too. Obama is turning up his nose at Hamid Karzai because his re-election looked dubious. Which makes Kabul sound just like Chicago. It takes awesome gall for a Chicago Machine politician to criticize an impoverished and nearly ungovernable Third World country for its electoral imperfections.
Well, let's send Mayor Daley over there to fix Afghan politics. Maybe he can teach them to make the dead rise up on Election Day. That way Afghanistan will come up to high Illinois standards of democratic probity.
That solves our biggest foreign policy problems, right?
But that's not all. Why should the United States defend Europe against the Russians? Or protect the free nations of Asia against China and North Korea? Why not let them all go down? And why do we have to defend free trade in the world? Why are we in the Persian Gulf? Just think of all the money we can save -- and we'll need that money if O-Mob-O-Care passes Congress.
We've subsidized Europe's and Asia's defenses for sixty years. Maybe Uncle Vlad the Poisoner over in Moscow would be willing to protect Europe against militant Islam just the way he did with Chechnya. For a price, of course.
To be sure, if we walk away from our allies they will inevitably build up their own nukes and missiles. Japan could have WMDs rather quickly, with South Korea and Taiwan not so far behind. The French would be happy to supply nukes to the emerging EU army. Israel and the Saudis both want to stop the mad Twelver Cult in Tehran before it gets nukes. All nations want to survive; they may hate each other, but that has never stopped alliances. Europeans who hated each other still made alliances for a thousand years before the United States became a world power. They can do it again.
Pax Americana has been the most benevolent imperial enterprise in all of human history, bar none. Our good friends in Europe love to rant at us, especially if they can get us to knuckle under to Euro-Socialism, which puts them in charge of the United States. That's after all the reigning goal of the EU and UN corruptocracy. That's what the Global Warming Fraud has been all about.
The newly appointed President of the EU just declared that 2009 is the first year of global governance. Guess who gets to do the global governance? It's not us. No, this is Year One of the Belgian Empire.
Americans forget that we've defended the civilized world for almost a hundred years because the Europeans couldn't be trusted to do it. Europe has been the source of almost every single aggressive imperialism in the last two centuries, from Napoleon to Bismarck, Karl Marx, the Kaiser, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin in the Cold War. Imperial Japan is the sole significant exception. Our liberal media constantly cover up that inconvenient fact.
But it is true, and we forget it at our peril.
Euro-Imperialism is rising again today under the smiling face of EU socialism. That's Obama's creed, as we know. That's why he keeps apologizing for the United States to all the socialists of the world.
Obama's mental blinders come straight from Karl Marx's Prussia in the 19th century, and from V.I. Lenin in 1917. Now those were real imperialisms, not the Coca-Cola kind that has our European friends crying in their beer.
If we walk away from the world, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Brits, the Czechs and Poles, the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans have to accelerate their own nuke and missile defenses, because in the nuclear age that's their only chance for survival. China may not really want to see Japan owning nuclear weapons and missiles. They still smart from the pain of Nanking. Obama's deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not buy him any friends in Beijing.
Tehran already tried to stir up riots in Mecca. Without the United States to control the Gulf, what is to keep the Iranians from overrunning Saudi Arabia? They have the population and the military power to do it. If the US goes home, all the Iranians have to do is bust through the desert (good tank country) and go straight to the Holy Cities of Islam. Think they wouldn't dare, if they owned a nice set of nukes and missiles? Who would stop them? Obama?
For sixty years we've lived with the fantasy that the world has become a safe place at last, and that peace is the natural condition of mankind. Let's see if Barack Obama is fool enough to tinker with that delicately balanced contraption.
The last time a delicate power balance broke apart, the immediate result was World War I, Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution and Hitler. If Obama walks away from Afghanistan, Israel and Taiwan, we will see Europe and Asia switching all their alliances very fast. Pull out that American peg from the Big Circus tent, and it won't look like peace on earth, good will to men, forever and ever, amen.
It might look a lot more like August, 1914.
November 29, 2009
By James Lewis
It is an interesting exercise to question all the assumptions of American foreign policy for the last sixty years -- that is, for as long as we've provided the defense umbrella for Europe, the free countries of Asia, and for our allies in the Middle East, including Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
That's after all the meaning of Pax Americana. We do the work, they do the bitching. Obama and the Left don't have the least inkling of the vital peace-keeping role of America as the cop on the world beat for the last six decades. They hardly understand the idea of peace officers on domestic beats. It just doesn't get through those hard plastic space helmets around their heads.
Let's pretend there is no Pax Americana. Obama sounds like he's ready to shaft Israel, which certainly would be consistent with his whole upbringing and his locked-in Leftist worldview. Jerusalem, according to the administration, is doing the dirty on the Palestinians by adding housing in the city for Jews. Funny thing, nobody seemed to mind much when Obama sent that message to Benjamin Netanyahu. Least of all the Israelis, who just ignored it.
Well, the Left has managed to conceive an inveterate hatred of Israel while not losing many Jewish liberal votes. Shafting Israel is a no-lose proposition for them. And still they keep their liberal Jewish voters. It is a miracle to behold.
No wonder Obama wants to walk away from that troublesome little country that gets all the Arabs so angry. What's he got to lose?
Well, Taiwan, for one thing. There's another troublesome little country right off the coast of mighty China, which owns a lot of US debt, and has had lines into the last two Democrat administrations that have looked mighty suspicious. Nothing would please China more than having the US Navy withdraw its protection from Taiwan.
See, Obama's making peace already.
Then there's South Korea, another troublesome partner.
Why not have the Kim family take over the South? It's no skin off our noses. The conquest of South Korea could probably feed the hungry people of the North for years and years before the whole peninsula went kaput. And Kim Jong il could finally get his nukes to work.
We could dump Afghanistan, too. Obama is turning up his nose at Hamid Karzai because his re-election looked dubious. Which makes Kabul sound just like Chicago. It takes awesome gall for a Chicago Machine politician to criticize an impoverished and nearly ungovernable Third World country for its electoral imperfections.
Well, let's send Mayor Daley over there to fix Afghan politics. Maybe he can teach them to make the dead rise up on Election Day. That way Afghanistan will come up to high Illinois standards of democratic probity.
That solves our biggest foreign policy problems, right?
But that's not all. Why should the United States defend Europe against the Russians? Or protect the free nations of Asia against China and North Korea? Why not let them all go down? And why do we have to defend free trade in the world? Why are we in the Persian Gulf? Just think of all the money we can save -- and we'll need that money if O-Mob-O-Care passes Congress.
We've subsidized Europe's and Asia's defenses for sixty years. Maybe Uncle Vlad the Poisoner over in Moscow would be willing to protect Europe against militant Islam just the way he did with Chechnya. For a price, of course.
To be sure, if we walk away from our allies they will inevitably build up their own nukes and missiles. Japan could have WMDs rather quickly, with South Korea and Taiwan not so far behind. The French would be happy to supply nukes to the emerging EU army. Israel and the Saudis both want to stop the mad Twelver Cult in Tehran before it gets nukes. All nations want to survive; they may hate each other, but that has never stopped alliances. Europeans who hated each other still made alliances for a thousand years before the United States became a world power. They can do it again.
Pax Americana has been the most benevolent imperial enterprise in all of human history, bar none. Our good friends in Europe love to rant at us, especially if they can get us to knuckle under to Euro-Socialism, which puts them in charge of the United States. That's after all the reigning goal of the EU and UN corruptocracy. That's what the Global Warming Fraud has been all about.
The newly appointed President of the EU just declared that 2009 is the first year of global governance. Guess who gets to do the global governance? It's not us. No, this is Year One of the Belgian Empire.
Americans forget that we've defended the civilized world for almost a hundred years because the Europeans couldn't be trusted to do it. Europe has been the source of almost every single aggressive imperialism in the last two centuries, from Napoleon to Bismarck, Karl Marx, the Kaiser, Lenin, Hitler, and Stalin in the Cold War. Imperial Japan is the sole significant exception. Our liberal media constantly cover up that inconvenient fact.
But it is true, and we forget it at our peril.
Euro-Imperialism is rising again today under the smiling face of EU socialism. That's Obama's creed, as we know. That's why he keeps apologizing for the United States to all the socialists of the world.
Obama's mental blinders come straight from Karl Marx's Prussia in the 19th century, and from V.I. Lenin in 1917. Now those were real imperialisms, not the Coca-Cola kind that has our European friends crying in their beer.
If we walk away from the world, the Israelis, the Saudis, the Brits, the Czechs and Poles, the Germans, Japanese and South Koreans have to accelerate their own nuke and missile defenses, because in the nuclear age that's their only chance for survival. China may not really want to see Japan owning nuclear weapons and missiles. They still smart from the pain of Nanking. Obama's deep bow to Emperor Akihito did not buy him any friends in Beijing.
Tehran already tried to stir up riots in Mecca. Without the United States to control the Gulf, what is to keep the Iranians from overrunning Saudi Arabia? They have the population and the military power to do it. If the US goes home, all the Iranians have to do is bust through the desert (good tank country) and go straight to the Holy Cities of Islam. Think they wouldn't dare, if they owned a nice set of nukes and missiles? Who would stop them? Obama?
For sixty years we've lived with the fantasy that the world has become a safe place at last, and that peace is the natural condition of mankind. Let's see if Barack Obama is fool enough to tinker with that delicately balanced contraption.
The last time a delicate power balance broke apart, the immediate result was World War I, Lenin's Bolshevik Revolution and Hitler. If Obama walks away from Afghanistan, Israel and Taiwan, we will see Europe and Asia switching all their alliances very fast. Pull out that American peg from the Big Circus tent, and it won't look like peace on earth, good will to men, forever and ever, amen.
It might look a lot more like August, 1914.
Turning Point: Couric Rips Obama
Katie Couric may be best known for her unflattering interview with Sarah Palin. But her nightly news broadcast this past Monday night may be an indicator that the big liberal media are now turning their guns on Obama.Couric said on “CBS Evening News” that Americans are growing “disenchanted” with Obama and are openly questioning his credibility.
“Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.
“Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan.
“His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”
Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”
The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.
CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.
The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”
An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.
“Is the honeymoon over?” anchor Couric said at the beginning of her correspondent’s report.
“Although President Obama has been in office less than a year, many Americans are growing disenchanted with his handling of the enormous problems he and the country are facing, from healthcare to unemployment to Afghanistan.
“His poll numbers are sliding, and at least one poll shows his job approval rating has fallen, for the first time, below 50 percent.”
Correspondent Chris Reid chimed in: “The president is getting battered on everything from the economy to foreign policy. Some polls show Americans are increasingly questioning his credibility.”
The report asserted that while Obama talks about dealing with unemployment, which is over 10 percent and expected to rise, he has developed “no new ideas” for dealing with the problem.
CBS also cited a poll showing that only 14 percent of Americans believe Obama’s claim that healthcare reform won’t add to the budget deficit, and only 7 percent believe that the stimulus has created any jobs at all.
The report also criticized the president for being “indecisive” on Afghanistan, and for returning from his recent Asian trip “with little to show for it.”
An expert was quoted as describing his trip as the “amateur hour,” as he did not line up agreements with foreign countries before venturing abroad.
Sunday, November 29, 2009
The freeze deal is now clear. How did Beilin know?
Ted Belman
When Netanyahu came to into office he continued the freeze that Olmert had started in August 2008 and came under withering pressure from Obama for more. Why Olmert agreed to it in the first place has never been discussed.
Last summer it appeared that the quid pro quo would be normalization steps by Arab countries. Nothing came of it. Then Netanyahu and Obama counted on getting Abbas to accept the freeze when they were all in New York. Abbas didn’t bite. Finally, Netanyahu decided to announce the freeze unilaterally which he did on Wednesday.
Surely he doesn’t want endless negotiations with no hope of progress. So one must conclude that its all about gaining time to deal with Iran.
Herb Keinon in his article Gaining Grace?
points out that Yossi Beilin knew about this 9 days ago,
Yossi Beilin - former MK, minister and one of the architects of the Oslo accords - was downright prophetic nine days ago when he accepted a French honor from visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.
Within a few days, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will declare a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction that would not include Jerusalem and would make exceptions for “normal life” in the settlements, Beilin said in his remarks, breaking the formula of banal acceptance speeches and getting the reporters in the audience to take up their pens.
The US, Beilin continued, would say that this was not everything they had asked and hoped for, but that it was enough to resume Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And the Palestinians, Beilin prophesized, would reject the deal.
Beilin never revealed his sources, but within a week, his scenario played itself out.
How did he know? Everything unfolded as he foresaw with one exception.
Beilin, in short, went three for three in his predictions. But then he made a fourth prediction, that the Palestinian refusal to resume negotiations under these terms would create a “dangerous vacuum” that would trigger a chain of events that could very well lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.
Keinon maintains that
The prime objective of his settlement-start moratorium was to get the burden of being blamed for stalling the diplomatic process off of Israel’s back.
Netanyahu keeps repeating that the ball is now in Abbas’ court.
BUT WHAT is even more important from Netanyahu’s point of view is that the Americans - as evidenced by Mitchell’s statement - don’t see the step as hollow.
The US realizes that it hadn’t delivered on normalization or the end of incitement so it took what it could get from Netanyahu. It had no choice.
The moratorium was never meant to be a unilateral step, but ended up being one because no one moved on the other side. The expectation is that this will now be appreciated in Washington.
Netanyahu managed to convince right-wing ministers like Bennie Begin, Moshe Ya’alon and Avigdor Lieberman to vote for the moratorium, something done because - one government source said - they had sat in the discussions over the last few months and seen what was initially demanded, what was agreed upon, and the whole array of pressures coming to bear on Netanyahu and the country.
Keinon believes that Netanyahu’s moves in accepting a Palestinian State, all be it with conditions, and announcing a freeze, although limited, are cut from the same cloth.
Netanyahu is now gambling that as a result of what he gave, the world will press the Palestinians to take the gestures and run with them. If the Palestinians don’t do so, Netanyahu seems to be assuming, it will be clear who will get the blame.
But considering recent history, that seems a somewhat risky assumption. Back in 2000, at Camp David and then at Taba, then-prime minister Ehud Barak justified his generous offer to the Palestinians by saying that if they accepted it, there would be peace, and if not, then the world would see who should be blamed for the failure and what came after.
I agree with Keinon when he writes
Wednesday’s move may have bought Netanyahu some temporary grace in Washington and the international community, but that grace - judging by other unilateral steps Israel has taken in the past - may prove fleeting. Netanyahu will only get temporary relief from pressure.
It would appear that the revelations in the Yediot Aronot’s Thursday article which Caroline Glick referred to in Bibi’s Bad Week,may not have any import.
Now we will have to wait to see if Beilin’s fourth prediction comes true.
Keinon makes no mention of any agreement on Iran.
But Alex Fishman does in Saving Abbas published Thursday. He also said its about avoiding Beilin’s fourth prediction.
When Netanyahu came to into office he continued the freeze that Olmert had started in August 2008 and came under withering pressure from Obama for more. Why Olmert agreed to it in the first place has never been discussed.
Last summer it appeared that the quid pro quo would be normalization steps by Arab countries. Nothing came of it. Then Netanyahu and Obama counted on getting Abbas to accept the freeze when they were all in New York. Abbas didn’t bite. Finally, Netanyahu decided to announce the freeze unilaterally which he did on Wednesday.
Surely he doesn’t want endless negotiations with no hope of progress. So one must conclude that its all about gaining time to deal with Iran.
Herb Keinon in his article Gaining Grace?
points out that Yossi Beilin knew about this 9 days ago,
Yossi Beilin - former MK, minister and one of the architects of the Oslo accords - was downright prophetic nine days ago when he accepted a French honor from visiting French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner.
Within a few days, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will declare a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction that would not include Jerusalem and would make exceptions for “normal life” in the settlements, Beilin said in his remarks, breaking the formula of banal acceptance speeches and getting the reporters in the audience to take up their pens.
The US, Beilin continued, would say that this was not everything they had asked and hoped for, but that it was enough to resume Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. And the Palestinians, Beilin prophesized, would reject the deal.
Beilin never revealed his sources, but within a week, his scenario played itself out.
How did he know? Everything unfolded as he foresaw with one exception.
Beilin, in short, went three for three in his predictions. But then he made a fourth prediction, that the Palestinian refusal to resume negotiations under these terms would create a “dangerous vacuum” that would trigger a chain of events that could very well lead to the collapse of the Palestinian Authority.
Keinon maintains that
The prime objective of his settlement-start moratorium was to get the burden of being blamed for stalling the diplomatic process off of Israel’s back.
Netanyahu keeps repeating that the ball is now in Abbas’ court.
BUT WHAT is even more important from Netanyahu’s point of view is that the Americans - as evidenced by Mitchell’s statement - don’t see the step as hollow.
The US realizes that it hadn’t delivered on normalization or the end of incitement so it took what it could get from Netanyahu. It had no choice.
The moratorium was never meant to be a unilateral step, but ended up being one because no one moved on the other side. The expectation is that this will now be appreciated in Washington.
Netanyahu managed to convince right-wing ministers like Bennie Begin, Moshe Ya’alon and Avigdor Lieberman to vote for the moratorium, something done because - one government source said - they had sat in the discussions over the last few months and seen what was initially demanded, what was agreed upon, and the whole array of pressures coming to bear on Netanyahu and the country.
Keinon believes that Netanyahu’s moves in accepting a Palestinian State, all be it with conditions, and announcing a freeze, although limited, are cut from the same cloth.
Netanyahu is now gambling that as a result of what he gave, the world will press the Palestinians to take the gestures and run with them. If the Palestinians don’t do so, Netanyahu seems to be assuming, it will be clear who will get the blame.
But considering recent history, that seems a somewhat risky assumption. Back in 2000, at Camp David and then at Taba, then-prime minister Ehud Barak justified his generous offer to the Palestinians by saying that if they accepted it, there would be peace, and if not, then the world would see who should be blamed for the failure and what came after.
I agree with Keinon when he writes
Wednesday’s move may have bought Netanyahu some temporary grace in Washington and the international community, but that grace - judging by other unilateral steps Israel has taken in the past - may prove fleeting. Netanyahu will only get temporary relief from pressure.
It would appear that the revelations in the Yediot Aronot’s Thursday article which Caroline Glick referred to in Bibi’s Bad Week,may not have any import.
Now we will have to wait to see if Beilin’s fourth prediction comes true.
Keinon makes no mention of any agreement on Iran.
But Alex Fishman does in Saving Abbas published Thursday. He also said its about avoiding Beilin’s fourth prediction.
How Hamas is Islamicizing Gaza
Hillel Fendel
A7 News
A report by the Shin Bet (Shabak, Israel’s secret security force) describes how Hamas has instituted Islamic law and thought in all areas of Gaza life since its violent takeover of the area. Hamas is also threatening to take over Judea and Samaria, and is favored to win the next elections, if and when they are held.
Among the report’s main points are these: A dress code for women on the street, in schools and in courts is enforced. Principals can expel female students who do not wear a head covering and wide dresses. Judges have been instructed not to hold sessions if female lawyers do not appear in Islamic garb. On official Hamas TV, Al-Aqsa, women announcers wear a veil, and Islamic content is increasingly featured in the programs.Men may not swim in the ocean without a shirt, and female mannequins may not be exhibited in store windows. Mixed-gender public ceremonies may not be held, and men may not teach in girls’ schools. Hamas is also trying to separate boys and girls in the UN-run schools.
Fatah-identified teachers are being replaced by Hamas members.Hamas police arrest immodestly clad women and enforce gender separation. Unmarried couples may not appear in public; married couples must be ready to produce a marriage certificate on demand.Religious-studies classes have been added in schools, mosques and prisons. Prisoners who become more religious can have their sentences shortened. An across-the-board 1% public sector pay cut was imposed during the summer months in order to pay for summer camps for reviewing the Koran. The pace of building mosques, medrasahs and Islamic sharia courts is being stepped up.Hamas is working on establishing the Islamic National Bank and an Islamic insurance company.The Bureau for Legal Counsel and Legislation is preparing a new criminal code based on Islamic law. In June 2009, for instance, the Legislative Council passed amendments to the code for the purpose of “preventing immoral incidents in public.”The Shabak report emphasizes that the instilling of these and other Hamas ideas into public life is the result of a carefully orchestrated Hamas program. Hamas, as the ruling body in Gaza, “dictates daily Islamic routine,” the report states.
In addition, the report notes, some organizations have cropped up to the right of Hamas, claiming that Hamas is too compromising and moderate.
President Ahmadinejad’s trip to Africa and Latin America:
Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center
President Ahmadinejad’s official trip to Brazil, Bolivia, Venezuela, Senegal, and Gambia drew mixed reactions from the Iranian press last week. While pro-government conservative newspapers expressed their support of the president’s trip, the government’s critics had some reservations about the visits as well as the size of the president’s entourage. n an editorial published last week, the conservative daily Resalat stressed the importance of Ahmadinejad’s visit to Brazil given that country’s global economic significance, indicating the considerable potential in fostering economic and trade relations between Iran and Brazil due to the impressive economic growth in both countries. Ahmadinejad’s trip to Brazil, the article says, is a reflection of Iran’s offensive foreign policy and its struggle against Western hegemony. The diplomacy of resistance and the offensive foreign policy are some of the most important achievements of the current government, and one of the best ways to secure Iran’s national interests. The history of Latin America is replete with struggles against imperialism, and Iran must make the most of the potential which exists in Latin American countries in order to put an end to the current unipolar world order, based on Western hegemony (Resalat, November 24).
The conservative daily Qods was also in favor of Ahmadinejad’s trip to Latin America, defining the strengthening of Iranian-Latin American relations as one of Iran’s positive achievements in recent years. Those relations are cause for concern in the US, Israel, and Western countries, which fear Iran’s growing influence in that region, but that concern is not enough to hinder the relations nurtured by Iran with Latin American countries in recent years (Qods, November 23).
Those media affiliated with the president’s critics took a different approach to his trip to Africa and Latin America. According to an article published last week in the reformist daily E’temad (November 24), the president’s intention to bring about a change in the existing world order by increasing Iran’s cooperation with Africa and Latin America was impractical. Out of the countries visited by the president, the only one with economic significance is Brazil. The other countries on the president’s trip are too poor and weak to bring about a change in the world order, while the president’s unrealistic and impossible views cause nothing but heavy expenses for Iranians.
Hashmatollah Falahat-Pisha, a member of the Majles Foreign Policy and National Security Committee, also addressed the president’s trip. In an interview granted to Farda, a website affiliated with the pragmatic conservative bloc, he said that Iran’s relations with small, poor countries did not make up for its lack of relations with big, powerful countries. He noted that while the president’s trip to African and Latin American countries was politically and economically worthwhile, Iranian officials must remember that Iran’s national interests would be secured mostly through establishing relations with big countries. He said that establishing relations with smaller, poor countries could be problematic since those countries could change their policy towards Iran if they estimated that they would be better served by their relations with the West (Farda, November 24).
The Farda website also criticized the size of the delegation which accompanied the president on his visit to Brazil—over 300 people. While the significance of the president’s visit to Africa and Latin America cannot be ignored, said an article published on the website, the question that needs to be asked is whether such a large delegation is truly necessary. The website noted that during the presidential campaign and throughout his presidency, President Ahmadinejad had stressed the need for modesty and the difference in spending practices between his and previous governments. The website wondered whether sending such a large delegation in a year that was declared the year of reform in consumption culture would prove beneficial to the realization of the goals of the president’s visit (Farda, November 23).
President Ahmadinejad’s trip to Africa and Latin America
The debate on gender segregation in Iran’s universities heats up once again
Last week’s announcements of two senior Iranian officials in favor of gender segregation in universities reignited the internal debate about that issue. Habib Mohammadnejad, deputy on research affairs in the office of the Supreme Leader’s representation in the universities, suggested conducting a pilot study in one of Iran’s leading universities to test the impact of gender segregation on academic achievements in higher education institutions. According to Mohammadnejad, many studies indicated that co-education in universities was not beneficial to the students’ success, arguing that the students’ grades would improve as a result of gender segregation in universities. He suggested conducting a pilot in a large university of a high scientific level, such as Tehran University, Sharif University of Technology, or Shahid Beheshti University in order to test the impact of gender segregation on academic success rate (ILNA, November 20).
The Supreme Leader’s representative in Tehran’s Khaje Nasir Toosi University of Technology also expressed support last week for gender segregation in universities. He said that co-education resulted in the formation of dangerous connections between male and female students. Mixing young men and women is like mixing cotton and fire, the cleric said. He noted that young people were passionate and therefore could not sustain normal relations between themselves. University experience shows that even students from religious families are exposed to inappropriate relations with the opposite sex during their studies (Javan Farda, November 20).
Cartoon drawn by Firoozeh Mozaffari
Cartoon drawn by Firoozeh Mozaffari, from
milliharakat.com/Wpimgs/pico/photo1233942914.jpg
Those statements were strongly criticized by reformist last week. Former reformist Majles member Fatemeh Rake’i responded to the suggestion to separate men and women in universities by saying she did not understand why young people aged 18 and up could not decide for themselves whether they wanted to study in mixed-sex classes. In an interview granted to ILNA news agency, Rake’i said that even Ayatollah Khomeini, the founder of the Islamic revolution, was opposed to gender segregation in universities and did not approve of it. She said that even Prophet Muhammad did not support the idea and that men and women worked together in all spheres of life in Prophet Muhammad’s time: society, politics, economy, and culture. Those in favor of gender segregation, Rake’i said, actually opposed the presence of women in public, and were interested in having women live in their own separate world. Such segregation is an insult to Iran’s Muslim men and women alike.
The reformist cleric Ayatollah Mohsen Mousavi Tabrizi also criticized the proposal to impose gender segregation in universities, saying that it is impossible and undesirable to separate men and women everywhere. Islamic religious law does not prohibit interaction between men and women, the senior cleric said, and such interaction does not disrupt the Islamic society in any way (ILNA, November 22).
In an editorial published early last week, the reformist daily Mardom Salari complained that instead of discussing the level of higher education in Iran, the debate about gender segregation in universities surfaced once again. Those who believe that relations between men and women are the main problem in the universities forget that universities are the place where knowledge is produced and acquired. Instead of debating gender segregation, the daily writes, those in charge of the universities had better discuss the quality of education, the level of the lecturers, the level of publications and textbooks, and the scientific level in the universities. Instead of dealing with gender segregation, what needs to be discussed is the improvement of higher education in Iran, which may also alleviate some of the moral concerns of those in charge of the higher education system. In a proper scientific, critical environment, the students will not see their classmates only from a gender-based point of view, but will instead consider them partners in knowledge with a shared responsibility for achieving scientific progress (Mardom Salari, November 22).
It should be noted that gender segregation is the rule in Iran’s schools; in recent years, however, Iran’s conservative circles have time and again called to institute complete gender segregation in higher education institutions and in other public places such as hospitals, parks, and public transportation.
A daily newspaper was temporarily shut down for publishing
photographs of a Baha’i temple in India
Last week, the Press Monitoring Council decided to temporarily shut down Hamshahri, a daily published on behalf of the Tehran municipality. The decision, which was revoked one day later, was made after the daily published on its first page an advertisement for encouraging tourism to India which featured a photograph of the Baha’i Lotus Temple in the city of New Delhi (ILNA, November 23). Prior to the authorities’ decision to temporarily shut down the daily, conservative websites strongly condemned the publication of the ad. Fars news agency and the Raja News website accused Hamshahri of encouraging the Baha’is’ religious propaganda efforts (Raja News; Fars, November 22).
The advertisement published in Hamshahri
The advertisement published in Hamshahri
Several Iranian conservative websites have recently claimed that the Baha’is have stepped up their religious propaganda through satellite TV broadcasts. According to those websites, the Baha’is use such broadcasts to promote their religion and their way of life and, supported by Zionist circles, incite world public opinion against Iran by accusing it of violating the rights of Iran’s religious minorities (Farda, November 15).
In the past two years, the Baha’is have become increasingly oppressed in Iran. A number of Baha’is have been arrested by the Iranian security forces, including some Baha’i community leaders who have been accused of acting in concert with “Western and Zionist” elements against state security. The security forces have raided the houses of several Baha’i residents and confiscated books on the Baha’i faith, photographs, and computers; several dozen Baha’i students have even been expelled from various universities across Iran. The country’s conservative media have also stepped up incitement against the Baha’is and their faith, which, according to Islam, is an expression of religious infidelity punishable by death.
So You Think You Can Dance-Iran style: dancing lessons grow in popularity in Tehran
Conservative news websites in Iran reported last week about the growing popularity of dancing lessons in Tehran. Those websites complain about the significant increase in dancing classes which they claim operate without licenses in the city’s gyms and sports clubs.
According to the conservative websites, the phenomenon reflects the weakness of the government’s enforcement, as well as the cultural weakness of Iranian society which results in an increasing demand for participation in dancing lessons.
From: Khabar Online, November 21
Ad for dancing lessons (officially: dance therapy under the supervision of an international
instructor and psychology experts). From: Khabar Online, November 21.
According to reports published last week, the lessons are taught by instructors trained abroad and are accompanied by loud music from different styles, such as Iranian, Arab, and Spanish music, as well as hip-hop and techno. The websites that reported the phenomenon criticized the authorities, mainly the physical education organization, for not taking measures against it and not shutting down the public places that allow such illegal dancing lessons to be held.
The lessons are advertised via the Internet. The cost for participating in dancing lessons which take place in public places ranges from 15 to 40 thousand tomans per month (about 15-40 dollars) while private dancing lessons may cost up to 150 thousand tomans per month (Fars, November 21).
Iran’s art of dancing took a severe blow after the Islamic revolution in 1979. The national ballet company, which had been formed in the 1950s, was dissolved, and most of the ballet dancers were forced to emigrate. Dancing was considered by the clerics to be perverse and immoral and was banned in accordance with the principles of the “cultural revolution”. Dancing continued, however, to be popular in various private establishments across Iran. Some of the restrictions on dancing were lifted during the wave of reforms which took place in the 1990s. Teaching of dance has been allowed to women by women, and discussions of the art of dancing have appeared in cultural periodicals published in the last decade.
The presence of men in dance shows with women is obviously prohibited; in recent years that issue was highlighted by several political scandals involving President Ahmadinejad and his close associates. Released in late 2006 was a video tape showing the president at the opening ceremony of the Asia Cup in Doha, the capital of Qatar. His presence was strongly condemned by Iran’s senior clerics since the opening ceremony featured dancing routines performed by women. Shortly afterwards, another tape released in Iran showed one of Ahmadinejad’s vice-presidents taking part in a show held in Turkey in which immodestly dressed female dancers took part. That video tape was also criticized by senior clerics, who even called on the vice-president to resign.
Activist: We Can Bypass Construction Freeze
Malkah Fleisher
A7 News
Israel Lands Fund activist Aryeh King is calling on Jews to circumvent the "discriminatory" 10-month ban on construction imposed by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Jewish building in Judea and Samaria . Don't Build, Buy!
"I call on Jews who hesitate to build in order not to be put under the microscopes of the inspectors, to buy homes of Arabs," suggested King. "I'm talking about thousands of buildings and luxury residential homes and houses scattered in throughout Judea and Samaria… that the inspectors could not prevent. The Defense Minister could prevent the purchase permit, but if you work by the book and buy homes, then it will be difficult to fight us. I call on people to continue to buy houses in order to escape the eyes of the anti-Jewish unit."
Mazuz's 'Grim Picture'
King condemned recent statements made by Attorney General Menachem Mazuz that there is a shortage of building inspectors available to ensure the Jews of Judea and Samaria do not build.
"Menachem Mazuz exposed the grim picture of the illegal building of Arabs in Judea and Samaria, in Jerusalem, as well as Bedouin building in the Negev," said King. "To illustrate the discrimination, it should be noted that there are currently 3,000 building offenses carried out by Judean and Samarian Jews being investigated by 16 inspectors from the special anti-Jewish unit of the civil administration whose goal is to catch Jews. Juxtapose that to [Ara eastern Jerusalem, in which 26,000 building violations are being investigated by just 6 inspectors from the Jerusalem municipality. In the Galilee, 18,000 building violations are being investigated by just 8 inspectors."
Regarding inspectors who have been trained specifically to catch Jews, King said, "These are quality folks that were put on to the task of nabbing Jews in illegal development inside blue lines and open areas – they're not going into Areas B and C in the event of illegal Arab construction."
King also decried the relentless persecution of Jews who conduct illegal building, and said Jews are specifically targeted, as juxtaposed to Arabs who are sometimes not administered over at all.
"Menachem Mazuz is right about the shortage of inspectors, but I suggest he first compare the situation to that which prevails in eastern Jerusalem. The Jerusalem municipality and the Interior Ministry are supposed to halt the illegal building in Jerusalem, and there are whole neighborhoods they won't even go into." King referred to the Arab neighborhoods of Qalandia and Shuafat, in which he said he personally submitted requests for building investigations to the authorities, but received no "appropriate response."
King also accused inspectors of intensifying their conduct toward Jews for political motives. "The inspection unit of the Ministry of Defense was instructed to worsen and increase their enforcement against Jews, prompted by Defense Minister [E Barak, seemingly to strengthen the Labor Party [of which Barak is a membe."
Freeze Opponents Move to Convene Likud Central Committee
Gil Ronen Likud Plenum to Debate Freeze
MK Danny Danon (Likud) arrived at the offices of Likud Central Committee Chairman Moshe Kachlon on Sunday and delivered the necessary signatures for convening the Likud Central Committee. The purpose: to debate the settlement freeze in Judea and Samaria.
"The signatures express public opinion within the Likud and the opinion of ministers who are not here today,” Danon said.
Kachlon, who is the Minister of Communications, said that “in times of crisis, too, we must involve the Likud members and debate the issues.”
Hundreds of people showed up at a gathering organized by MK Danon in Raanana Saturday evening, against Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's decision to freeze construction in Israels mountainous heartland.
MK Tzipi Hotovely also participated in the gathering, as did Likud municipal council heads and local branch chairmen. Signatures were collected and MK Danon informed those assembled that he would deliver them Sunday morning and demand that the Central Committee be convened.
Danon told the gathering that “Netanyahu needs to tell [US President Barac Obama – 'I will not fold.' Today we are beginning the blocking move that is intended to prevent these harsh decrees.”
The head of the Jewish Leadership faction in Likud, Moshe Feiglin, said at the gathering that “the freeze is a completely racist law. After all, it will not be enforced on the Arabs and their illegal construction. Whoever here claimed that Bibi [Netanya betrayed us is wrong. He did not hoodwink anyone. The writing has long been on the wall.”
Political realities
Ira Sharkansky
Saturday, November 28, 2009
In response to a recent note, an American friend wrote the following:
In other words, you are saying that the Israeli gesture is not a good faith effort to restart peace talks. Isn't that what the Israelis have done before when they offered "concessions" they knew were inadequate and not
acceptable to the Palestinians so they could claim to be the good guys while really sabotaging meaningful negotiations?
This response is not too different from others I have seen, which accuse Israel of taking advantage of its power in order to preserve its advantages.
Most likely true, and understandable. My friend is retired from a career in the financial sector. I doubt that he negotiated any differently than Israeli officials, seeking to preserve or enhance his opportunities or those of his employer. If he did not seek the advantage of his employer, most likely he was violating his trust.
In my own career, which included several years of teaching and writing about religion and politics, I have encountered several people who told me about contacts with angels, or messengers from heaven. I have neglected to ask such people how angels negotiate, or if they do negotiate. Perhaps they are not self serving. Or they may negotiate as toughly as worldly folks, in their case concerned to preserve or enhance the power of the Lord.
From everything I know about politics, I expect that politicians are concerned to preserve or enhance their status, and that of their constituents. Indeed, they would be violating their public trust if they did not concern themselves with their constituents' interests.
In other words, most Israelis do not vote for politicians who will serve Palestinians, and it is up to the Palestinians to serve their own interests.
Now we have come to the knotty problem of how two communities in a decades long struggle should look after themselves.
Not be maximizing short term advantages. Neighbors have to make concessions to one another in order to live peacefully.
As I have written in several notes, the Israeli record appears to be fair. Its elected leaders have offered concessions to the Palestinians, usually against what substantial segments of the Israeli population wants. The settlers and their supporters have the rights of citizens to express themselves, and to use their votes to select individuals who will serve their interests.
Here and elsewhere in politics, we should not fool ourselves into thinking we are talking about absolute rights and wrongs. Even in the Holy Land, the Lord has absented himself since Malachi, according to the Jewish tradition. The Almighty has left us to get on with it as we see best.
The Palestinian pattern, since the 1930s, is to maximize their demands, to rely on others to pressure the Jews to deliver, and to reject compromise.
As I understand politics and business, individuals who demand everything or nothing usually get nothing.
It's us who are doing the work. As noted above, we do not know how angels would do it.
In the same note, my American friend also recalled a report I have made several times:
You have referenced 4% support for Obama in Israel. Does this include all Israeli citizens or just Jewish Israelis? If the latter, you are deliberately creating "facts" out of whole cloth. Or is that only Jewish citizens of Israel count?
Again, my friend seems to be looking for angels where none are likely to be found.
Of course only the Jews count. Again, the explanation is political. Almost all the people who vote for parties likely to join the government are Jews. The vast majority of Arabs vote for anti-establishment parties, whose Knesset members spend their time slamming the government as unjust. Unlike American minorities, they do not play the game of going along in order to get along. They do not trade political support for concessions.
The Arabs of Jerusalem are in a separate category. They were offered citizenship after the 1967 war, and very few accepted it. As local residents they can vote in municipal elections. But for their own nationalistic reasons, usually about 90 percent boycott the elections.
Another rule of politics is that you get what you vote for. If you don't vote, you don't get. If you vote for parties that refuse to deal with the government, you also don't get.
So in talking about the Israelis who feel Obama is supporting them, why bother to count the Arabs?
Tough talk? Politics is not for the innocent. It is the best way of dealing with dispute. If leaders of a community want something from a democracy, they should not expect gifts. They have to use the power of their votes wisely. Otherwise they will remain on the sidelines with nothing more than occasional screams of injustice.
No one with power is likely to listen. Especially if the community shouting injustice has a history of violence against those who do control things.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Saturday, November 28, 2009
In response to a recent note, an American friend wrote the following:
In other words, you are saying that the Israeli gesture is not a good faith effort to restart peace talks. Isn't that what the Israelis have done before when they offered "concessions" they knew were inadequate and not
acceptable to the Palestinians so they could claim to be the good guys while really sabotaging meaningful negotiations?
This response is not too different from others I have seen, which accuse Israel of taking advantage of its power in order to preserve its advantages.
Most likely true, and understandable. My friend is retired from a career in the financial sector. I doubt that he negotiated any differently than Israeli officials, seeking to preserve or enhance his opportunities or those of his employer. If he did not seek the advantage of his employer, most likely he was violating his trust.
In my own career, which included several years of teaching and writing about religion and politics, I have encountered several people who told me about contacts with angels, or messengers from heaven. I have neglected to ask such people how angels negotiate, or if they do negotiate. Perhaps they are not self serving. Or they may negotiate as toughly as worldly folks, in their case concerned to preserve or enhance the power of the Lord.
From everything I know about politics, I expect that politicians are concerned to preserve or enhance their status, and that of their constituents. Indeed, they would be violating their public trust if they did not concern themselves with their constituents' interests.
In other words, most Israelis do not vote for politicians who will serve Palestinians, and it is up to the Palestinians to serve their own interests.
Now we have come to the knotty problem of how two communities in a decades long struggle should look after themselves.
Not be maximizing short term advantages. Neighbors have to make concessions to one another in order to live peacefully.
As I have written in several notes, the Israeli record appears to be fair. Its elected leaders have offered concessions to the Palestinians, usually against what substantial segments of the Israeli population wants. The settlers and their supporters have the rights of citizens to express themselves, and to use their votes to select individuals who will serve their interests.
Here and elsewhere in politics, we should not fool ourselves into thinking we are talking about absolute rights and wrongs. Even in the Holy Land, the Lord has absented himself since Malachi, according to the Jewish tradition. The Almighty has left us to get on with it as we see best.
The Palestinian pattern, since the 1930s, is to maximize their demands, to rely on others to pressure the Jews to deliver, and to reject compromise.
As I understand politics and business, individuals who demand everything or nothing usually get nothing.
It's us who are doing the work. As noted above, we do not know how angels would do it.
In the same note, my American friend also recalled a report I have made several times:
You have referenced 4% support for Obama in Israel. Does this include all Israeli citizens or just Jewish Israelis? If the latter, you are deliberately creating "facts" out of whole cloth. Or is that only Jewish citizens of Israel count?
Again, my friend seems to be looking for angels where none are likely to be found.
Of course only the Jews count. Again, the explanation is political. Almost all the people who vote for parties likely to join the government are Jews. The vast majority of Arabs vote for anti-establishment parties, whose Knesset members spend their time slamming the government as unjust. Unlike American minorities, they do not play the game of going along in order to get along. They do not trade political support for concessions.
The Arabs of Jerusalem are in a separate category. They were offered citizenship after the 1967 war, and very few accepted it. As local residents they can vote in municipal elections. But for their own nationalistic reasons, usually about 90 percent boycott the elections.
Another rule of politics is that you get what you vote for. If you don't vote, you don't get. If you vote for parties that refuse to deal with the government, you also don't get.
So in talking about the Israelis who feel Obama is supporting them, why bother to count the Arabs?
Tough talk? Politics is not for the innocent. It is the best way of dealing with dispute. If leaders of a community want something from a democracy, they should not expect gifts. They have to use the power of their votes wisely. Otherwise they will remain on the sidelines with nothing more than occasional screams of injustice.
No one with power is likely to listen. Especially if the community shouting injustice has a history of violence against those who do control things.
--
Ira Sharkansky (Emeritus)
Department of Political Science
Hebrew University of Jerusalem
NGO to Clinton: Settlements are legal
JACOB KANTER , THE JERUSALEM POST
The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL) non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law.
The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders. "The treaty has been hidden," said OFICL director Mark Kaplan. "But if you look at the House [of Representatives] deliberations during World War I, people are saying, 'Look, we've invested a lot of money in Palestine, and we expect that this treaty will be upheld.'"
Though the United Nations' 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the mandate's borders still hold today.
"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence," Kaplan said. "But the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum."
"The UN partition plan was just that-a plan," said OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor in a statement. "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders."
Clinton's rhetoric, according to Kaplan, has become more and more troubling. "Our letter was sent as a result of so many comments that have been made by the secretary of state," he said. "It's part of a process that we've been involved with for a number of months, but we're speeding things up because of the acceleration of recent events."
A few days after praising Israel for its "unprecedented" actions in freezing settlement activity, Clinton reemphasized the supposedly illegal status of the settlements. "The United States believes that settlements are not legitimate," she said. "That has been the policy of our government for 40 years. That is the policy of President [Barack] Obama today and going forward."
According to Kaplan, the IDF presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.
"Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation," Kaplan said. "And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that's been out there. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention, and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions."
The OFICL letter also warned Clinton that if her office does not comply with the civil rights recognized in the Anglo-American convention, OFICL will file a class-action suit in a US district court.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze last Wednesday, but the letter, which was also sent to Netanyahu's office, states that under the legal principle of estoppel - which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body - any demand on Israel to freeze construction within the mandated borders is illegal under US law.
According to one adviser, Netanyahu's staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL's planned actions.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Guest Comment:GOOD NEWS: Last week OFICL sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning Clinton that if her office does not comply with the civil rights recognized in the Anglo-American convention, OFICL will file a class-action suit in a US district court.
Though the United Nations' 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the UN Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders!
The last sentence: "According to one adviser, Netanyahu's staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL's planned actions." Are they such fools? Don't they know this already? Political ploy of the first degree! Shame on Bibi Netanyahu, shame! Is he with Israel or against Israel? I now wonder....!!!
-------------
Shalom, Nurit
The Office for Israeli Constitutional Law (OFICL) non-governmental legal action organization, sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton last week, warning that by labeling Jewish settlements in the West Bank illegal, she is violating international law.
The little-known Anglo-American Convention, a treaty signed by the US and British governments in 1924, stipulated that the US fully accepted upon itself the Mandate for Palestine, which declared all of the West Bank within its borders. "The treaty has been hidden," said OFICL director Mark Kaplan. "But if you look at the House [of Representatives] deliberations during World War I, people are saying, 'Look, we've invested a lot of money in Palestine, and we expect that this treaty will be upheld.'"
Though the United Nations' 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the mandate's borders still hold today.
"The mandate expired in 1948 when Israel got its independence," Kaplan said. "But the American-Anglo convention was a treaty that was connected to the mandate. Treaties themselves have no statute of limitations, so their rights go on ad infinitum."
"The UN partition plan was just that-a plan," said OFICL chairman Michael Snidecor in a statement. "The General Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders."
Clinton's rhetoric, according to Kaplan, has become more and more troubling. "Our letter was sent as a result of so many comments that have been made by the secretary of state," he said. "It's part of a process that we've been involved with for a number of months, but we're speeding things up because of the acceleration of recent events."
A few days after praising Israel for its "unprecedented" actions in freezing settlement activity, Clinton reemphasized the supposedly illegal status of the settlements. "The United States believes that settlements are not legitimate," she said. "That has been the policy of our government for 40 years. That is the policy of President [Barack] Obama today and going forward."
According to Kaplan, the IDF presence in the West Bank has added to this misconception of illegal activity.
"Israel chose to adopt a policy of military rule in 1967, which makes it smell of occupation," Kaplan said. "And the world says it is illegal occupation because of all the propaganda that's been out there. Israel's presence in Judea and Samaria does not qualify as an occupation under international law because of the Anglo-American Convention, and if you look at the Hague and Geneva conventions."
The OFICL letter also warned Clinton that if her office does not comply with the civil rights recognized in the Anglo-American convention, OFICL will file a class-action suit in a US district court.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu declared a 10-month settlement freeze last Wednesday, but the letter, which was also sent to Netanyahu's office, states that under the legal principle of estoppel - which precludes someone from denying the truth of a fact which has been determined in an official proceeding or by an authoritative body - any demand on Israel to freeze construction within the mandated borders is illegal under US law.
According to one adviser, Netanyahu's staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL's planned actions.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1259243026960&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter
Guest Comment:GOOD NEWS: Last week OFICL sent a letter to US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warning Clinton that if her office does not comply with the civil rights recognized in the Anglo-American convention, OFICL will file a class-action suit in a US district court.
Though the United Nations' 1947 partition plan declared the West Bank an Arab territory, the UN Assembly has no authority to create countries or change borders!
The last sentence: "According to one adviser, Netanyahu's staff is reviewing the documents and will discuss the issues before replying to OFICL's planned actions." Are they such fools? Don't they know this already? Political ploy of the first degree! Shame on Bibi Netanyahu, shame! Is he with Israel or against Israel? I now wonder....!!!
-------------
Shalom, Nurit
Divided we FALL! UNITED we stand and WIN!
November 29, 2009
By Nurit Greenger
The latest events are a great worrisome to me. Within the Jewish Sate borders, the headlines are zooming in my ears: Bibi Netanyahu’s government agreed to a ten months constructions freeze while the freeze does not apply to Arabs who are building nonstop; Netanyahu’s government continuously chasing the Arab-“Palestinian” bride to engage in talks to make “peace” while the bride keeps on saying NO unless she get another, larger, diamond engagement ring; more are expelled from “illegal” posts; and now the scary thought of the upcoming release of hundreds of terrorists, whom in all likelihood go back to their old profession of killing Jews. And these are just few issues that are cause for alarm. Outside the Jewish Sate borders, anti-Israel diplomacy, anti-Jewish-anti-Semitic bigotry is now world epidemic and Hitlerism is everywhere!
A very dark cloud is hovering over the State of Israel and the Israeli-Jewish Nation.
What are the dark clouds?
Seemingly there are some genetic defects or millenniums of conditioning or a combination of both have made a portion of Jewish people unable, unwilling and inimical to function as free Nation at its historic and ancient Homeland.
A standard observer would not find much difficulty to record blatant plots to keep electing the same elements, who have been most unsuccessful, over and over again. And if a ‘pre cooked’ elections fail to do so, then they rely of "vahadot messadrot" (organizing committees) to do the clean up job for them.
There is a new expression developing. It is the unJew, a/k/a a ‘new type’ of Jews. These unJews are everywhere.
If we left is to the unJews they would have opted Uganda as the Jewish Homeland instead of the Ancient Homeland of the Jewish Nation in the Galeel, Yehuda and Shomron. Others simply prefer to see the Jewish Nation disperse again from the Holy Land all over the Galut-Diaspora. Some are already practicing this outside Eretz Yisrael unJew mentality.
Sadly there are way too many such unJew examples. One perfect example for unJews are George Schwartz, now Soros and J Street members abroad, and in Israel ‘Peace Now’-Shalom Achshav-שלום עכשיו. Others to name are people like Abraham Burg, a former Knesset Speaker, the Jewish Agency Chairman and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel former Foreign Minister. There are others too, less known who have already settled outside of Eretz-Yisrael and renounced their Israeli status, thus turning into virulent anti-Semites constantly demonizing Israel.
The phenomenon of the untold harm unJews do to the Jewish Nation is not new; it goes back to Biblical times well depicted when the newly formed Israelite-Jewish Nation turned to an unJew conduct and built the Golden-Calf while making their way back home in Sinai desert. Such unJew episode caused a forty-years delay in entering the Promised Land of Israel.
One has to also reckon the fact that there have always been the erev-rav--mixed multitude and unJews factored into the Jewish Nation.
In David Ben Gurion’s Stalinist jargon, since day one, in Pre-State of Israel days, with their maneuvers, supported by the British and USSR linked, the unJews intentionally plotted to sabotage the Jewish Nation and the Jewishness of the State. Since the 1967 Six Days War such maneuvers elevated its aggressiveness and peaked at the Oslo Accords 20 years later.
Assaults against Jews and Jewish heritage in Israel and abroad have become institutionalized and has been made part of agreements with anti-Semitic people.
Today is the sovereign State of Israel there are widely known state financed special organizations’ operations solely dedicated to assault Jews and Jewish heritage. Among such state budgeted organizations are: the "Jewish Sektion" of Israel’s General Security Services-Shabak (Sherutei Bitachon Klalih), originally created by, who else, but Shimon Peres and is directed from the Prime Minister's Office. Then there is the black uniformed and well equipped "Yassan," a murderous paramilitary shock police regiment specialized on field assaults against boys, girls, women, elderly and other Jews. And then there is the "Gilboa" regiment part of the so called Israel Defense Force-IDF, a mix bag of mental basket cases, foreign non-Jews rumored and published to be “Chechnya sharpshooters." Lastly to name is a large numbers of tenured University "professors" whose inserts are mostly to persecute and harm Jews, which has been widely publicized and then silenced in Israel.
The unJew traitor class behavior in Israel and abroad only gives a free pass and triggers anti-Israel and anti-Semitism venomous behavior coming at Israel from the four corners of the world.
Abroad the anti-Semitism is spreading at full speed. Virtually the entire world has concluded that the State of Israel, thus Jews—the Jewish Lobby--are the principal cause for the Middle East impasse, and all other world perils and problems. Though it is frequently alleged that Israelis and Jews are responsible for the world turning against them, it is not true. It is simply the ancient anti-Semitism disease that is spreading like wild fire!
Anti-Semitism, which translates into hate the Jews, kill the Jews, has taken over the "enlightened" global public opinion now regards Israel as a rogue state and perhaps even a greater threat to world “peace” than North Korea or Iran!
The Arabs never won a war, but they won the minds and hearts of the entire world, including many in Israel. They convinced the world that they are the victims and Israel is the aggressor and the oppressor.
If Israel does not make a complete turn around of its internal and foreign policy Israel may be left with its tongue hanging out or worse.
The act of self preservation is upon Israelis and Jews. It can only be accomplished if we unequivocally and unquestionably unite and together we fight, with the most sincere drive to win, the anti-Semitism and the unJew disease.
I am looking for the ray of sunshine among the dark clouds. The sunshine will appear when Israelis and Jews everywhere, open up the umbrella of defense that will protect the nation from the rain the dark cloud above us is about unleash.
UNITED we stand and WIN!
By Nurit Greenger
The latest events are a great worrisome to me. Within the Jewish Sate borders, the headlines are zooming in my ears: Bibi Netanyahu’s government agreed to a ten months constructions freeze while the freeze does not apply to Arabs who are building nonstop; Netanyahu’s government continuously chasing the Arab-“Palestinian” bride to engage in talks to make “peace” while the bride keeps on saying NO unless she get another, larger, diamond engagement ring; more are expelled from “illegal” posts; and now the scary thought of the upcoming release of hundreds of terrorists, whom in all likelihood go back to their old profession of killing Jews. And these are just few issues that are cause for alarm. Outside the Jewish Sate borders, anti-Israel diplomacy, anti-Jewish-anti-Semitic bigotry is now world epidemic and Hitlerism is everywhere!
A very dark cloud is hovering over the State of Israel and the Israeli-Jewish Nation.
What are the dark clouds?
Seemingly there are some genetic defects or millenniums of conditioning or a combination of both have made a portion of Jewish people unable, unwilling and inimical to function as free Nation at its historic and ancient Homeland.
A standard observer would not find much difficulty to record blatant plots to keep electing the same elements, who have been most unsuccessful, over and over again. And if a ‘pre cooked’ elections fail to do so, then they rely of "vahadot messadrot" (organizing committees) to do the clean up job for them.
There is a new expression developing. It is the unJew, a/k/a a ‘new type’ of Jews. These unJews are everywhere.
If we left is to the unJews they would have opted Uganda as the Jewish Homeland instead of the Ancient Homeland of the Jewish Nation in the Galeel, Yehuda and Shomron. Others simply prefer to see the Jewish Nation disperse again from the Holy Land all over the Galut-Diaspora. Some are already practicing this outside Eretz Yisrael unJew mentality.
Sadly there are way too many such unJew examples. One perfect example for unJews are George Schwartz, now Soros and J Street members abroad, and in Israel ‘Peace Now’-Shalom Achshav-שלום עכשיו. Others to name are people like Abraham Burg, a former Knesset Speaker, the Jewish Agency Chairman and Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Shlomo Ben Ami, Israel former Foreign Minister. There are others too, less known who have already settled outside of Eretz-Yisrael and renounced their Israeli status, thus turning into virulent anti-Semites constantly demonizing Israel.
The phenomenon of the untold harm unJews do to the Jewish Nation is not new; it goes back to Biblical times well depicted when the newly formed Israelite-Jewish Nation turned to an unJew conduct and built the Golden-Calf while making their way back home in Sinai desert. Such unJew episode caused a forty-years delay in entering the Promised Land of Israel.
One has to also reckon the fact that there have always been the erev-rav--mixed multitude and unJews factored into the Jewish Nation.
In David Ben Gurion’s Stalinist jargon, since day one, in Pre-State of Israel days, with their maneuvers, supported by the British and USSR linked, the unJews intentionally plotted to sabotage the Jewish Nation and the Jewishness of the State. Since the 1967 Six Days War such maneuvers elevated its aggressiveness and peaked at the Oslo Accords 20 years later.
Assaults against Jews and Jewish heritage in Israel and abroad have become institutionalized and has been made part of agreements with anti-Semitic people.
Today is the sovereign State of Israel there are widely known state financed special organizations’ operations solely dedicated to assault Jews and Jewish heritage. Among such state budgeted organizations are: the "Jewish Sektion" of Israel’s General Security Services-Shabak (Sherutei Bitachon Klalih), originally created by, who else, but Shimon Peres and is directed from the Prime Minister's Office. Then there is the black uniformed and well equipped "Yassan," a murderous paramilitary shock police regiment specialized on field assaults against boys, girls, women, elderly and other Jews. And then there is the "Gilboa" regiment part of the so called Israel Defense Force-IDF, a mix bag of mental basket cases, foreign non-Jews rumored and published to be “Chechnya sharpshooters." Lastly to name is a large numbers of tenured University "professors" whose inserts are mostly to persecute and harm Jews, which has been widely publicized and then silenced in Israel.
The unJew traitor class behavior in Israel and abroad only gives a free pass and triggers anti-Israel and anti-Semitism venomous behavior coming at Israel from the four corners of the world.
Abroad the anti-Semitism is spreading at full speed. Virtually the entire world has concluded that the State of Israel, thus Jews—the Jewish Lobby--are the principal cause for the Middle East impasse, and all other world perils and problems. Though it is frequently alleged that Israelis and Jews are responsible for the world turning against them, it is not true. It is simply the ancient anti-Semitism disease that is spreading like wild fire!
Anti-Semitism, which translates into hate the Jews, kill the Jews, has taken over the "enlightened" global public opinion now regards Israel as a rogue state and perhaps even a greater threat to world “peace” than North Korea or Iran!
The Arabs never won a war, but they won the minds and hearts of the entire world, including many in Israel. They convinced the world that they are the victims and Israel is the aggressor and the oppressor.
If Israel does not make a complete turn around of its internal and foreign policy Israel may be left with its tongue hanging out or worse.
The act of self preservation is upon Israelis and Jews. It can only be accomplished if we unequivocally and unquestionably unite and together we fight, with the most sincere drive to win, the anti-Semitism and the unJew disease.
I am looking for the ray of sunshine among the dark clouds. The sunshine will appear when Israelis and Jews everywhere, open up the umbrella of defense that will protect the nation from the rain the dark cloud above us is about unleash.
UNITED we stand and WIN!
White House crasher: So who is Tareq Salahi?
This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy...at the end it will be deleted from Wikipedia ...
Tareq Dirgham Salahi who crashed into the White House party is the son of Palestinian-Israeli parents! Can you imagine if Tareq was on a Jihad mission? No mention of it in the news!
--------------------
Shalom, Nurit
Divided we FALL! UNITED we stand and WIN!
---------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tareq_Salahi
THIS COLUMN WILL BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA....
Tareq Dirgham Salahi (born May 26, 1968) is known for crashing, along with his wife Michaele, the November 24, 2009 White House state dinner in honor of visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.[1][2] Tareq is the son of Palestinian-Israeli parents, Dirgham and Corinne Salahi. Dirgham was educated as a petroleum geologist and worked in the Middle East and United States. He retired and settled in Virginia where he became manager of an estate farm which he then subsequently bought. The vineyard and winery were expanded and the estate developed so that ancilliary income could be brought in through use as a function and polo venue. Tareq is a graduate of the University of California, Davis. He is an accomplished polo player and, prior to a bitter family feud that bankrupted the operation, was the CEO & owner of Oasis Winery in Hume, Virginia.[3][4] Oasis Winery the equipment, trademark and licenses separate from the farm currently belongs to a partnership in which the Salahis are still involved and in charge of quality control, marketing and publicity.
Tareq Salahi married Michaele in 2003 in a lavish ceremony at St. Matthews Cathedral in Washington DC with 28 bridesmaids, 28 groomsmen, and, according to a video posted on YouTube and her Facebook page, enjoyed a reception at the Tareq family winery prepared by 46 chefs hosted in a 36,000 square-foot tent, capped off with a 30-minute fireworks display and an eight-foot wedding cake. The guest list included 1,836 guests featuring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Sen. Mark Warner, and former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Margaret Heckler. The wedding originally scheduled for October 2002 was postponed numerous times prompting Kennedy to quip that he needed to issue "subpoenas" to the bride and groom.[2][3]
The Salahis are the co-chairs of America's Polo Cup[5][6] an event Tareq Salahi got off the ground. The current chief sponsor of which is Land Rover which with Jaguar Cars were recently sold by Ford Motors. Though traditionally British auto marques they currently belong to Tata Motors of Indian controlled by Indian industrialist Dr. Ratan Tata. Dr. Ratan Tata was one of the guests who were in attendance at the White House. It is doubtful Dr. Tata knew that the Salahis would bring this much attention. It is probable that the Salahis intent was publicising their event for their client rather than further applying for the TV show and did not fully anticipate the result of having a security clearance but not an invitation.
The Salahis have been involved in numerous controversies over the years including allegedly running a bogus charity, numerous fights with their neighbors, a bitter and protracted legal battle for control of the family winery, and allegedly failing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills for the America's Polo Cup on time.[7][2][8][9][4][10]
References
1. ^ "Feds: Couple crashed Obama's state dinner". 2009-11-26. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/25/state.dinner.crashers/index.html.
2. ^ a b c Cristina Corbin (2009-11-26). "Who Are the White House Party Crashers?". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/26/white-house-party-crashers/.
3. ^ a b "HOLT-SALAHI OCTOBER WEDDING". http://www.washingtonlife.com/backissues/archives/02mar/weddings.htm.
4. ^ a b Ian Shapira (2008-11-05). "Tangles in the Vine: A Storied Va. Winery Is Up for Sale, but a Complex Family Dispute Has Confronted Potential Buyers". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403492.html.
5. ^ "The Real Housewives of DC". Pop Tower. http://www.poptower.com/real-housewives-of-dc.htm.
6. ^ "News from Around the Globe:Michaele Salahi". 2009-11-26. http://www.makli.com/michaele-salahi-0014599/.
7. ^ Marion Horsley (2009-05-13). "State warns public about charitable solicitation by Journey For The Cure Foundation". http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/news/releases-b/051309journeycure.shtml.
8. ^ Andrea Rodgers (2009-11-26). "Tareq and Michaele Salahi: Sari Behavior". http://askmissa.com/2009/11/26/tareq-and-michaele-salahi-sari-behavior/.
9. ^ Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts (2009-11-26). "Off the list, but somehow on the South Lawn". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112504113.html?hpid=topnews.
10. ^ "Tareq Dirgham Salahi's Rap Sheet". http://www.webofdeception.com/whitehousepartycrasher.html.
[edit]
Tareq Dirgham Salahi who crashed into the White House party is the son of Palestinian-Israeli parents! Can you imagine if Tareq was on a Jihad mission? No mention of it in the news!
--------------------
Shalom, Nurit
Divided we FALL! UNITED we stand and WIN!
---------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tareq_Salahi
THIS COLUMN WILL BE DELETED FROM WIKIPEDIA....
Tareq Dirgham Salahi (born May 26, 1968) is known for crashing, along with his wife Michaele, the November 24, 2009 White House state dinner in honor of visiting Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh.[1][2] Tareq is the son of Palestinian-Israeli parents, Dirgham and Corinne Salahi. Dirgham was educated as a petroleum geologist and worked in the Middle East and United States. He retired and settled in Virginia where he became manager of an estate farm which he then subsequently bought. The vineyard and winery were expanded and the estate developed so that ancilliary income could be brought in through use as a function and polo venue. Tareq is a graduate of the University of California, Davis. He is an accomplished polo player and, prior to a bitter family feud that bankrupted the operation, was the CEO & owner of Oasis Winery in Hume, Virginia.[3][4] Oasis Winery the equipment, trademark and licenses separate from the farm currently belongs to a partnership in which the Salahis are still involved and in charge of quality control, marketing and publicity.
Tareq Salahi married Michaele in 2003 in a lavish ceremony at St. Matthews Cathedral in Washington DC with 28 bridesmaids, 28 groomsmen, and, according to a video posted on YouTube and her Facebook page, enjoyed a reception at the Tareq family winery prepared by 46 chefs hosted in a 36,000 square-foot tent, capped off with a 30-minute fireworks display and an eight-foot wedding cake. The guest list included 1,836 guests featuring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, Sen. Mark Warner, and former U.S. Ambassador to Ireland Margaret Heckler. The wedding originally scheduled for October 2002 was postponed numerous times prompting Kennedy to quip that he needed to issue "subpoenas" to the bride and groom.[2][3]
The Salahis are the co-chairs of America's Polo Cup[5][6] an event Tareq Salahi got off the ground. The current chief sponsor of which is Land Rover which with Jaguar Cars were recently sold by Ford Motors. Though traditionally British auto marques they currently belong to Tata Motors of Indian controlled by Indian industrialist Dr. Ratan Tata. Dr. Ratan Tata was one of the guests who were in attendance at the White House. It is doubtful Dr. Tata knew that the Salahis would bring this much attention. It is probable that the Salahis intent was publicising their event for their client rather than further applying for the TV show and did not fully anticipate the result of having a security clearance but not an invitation.
The Salahis have been involved in numerous controversies over the years including allegedly running a bogus charity, numerous fights with their neighbors, a bitter and protracted legal battle for control of the family winery, and allegedly failing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in bills for the America's Polo Cup on time.[7][2][8][9][4][10]
References
1. ^ "Feds: Couple crashed Obama's state dinner". 2009-11-26. http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/11/25/state.dinner.crashers/index.html.
2. ^ a b c Cristina Corbin (2009-11-26). "Who Are the White House Party Crashers?". Fox News. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/26/white-house-party-crashers/.
3. ^ a b "HOLT-SALAHI OCTOBER WEDDING". http://www.washingtonlife.com/backissues/archives/02mar/weddings.htm.
4. ^ a b Ian Shapira (2008-11-05). "Tangles in the Vine: A Storied Va. Winery Is Up for Sale, but a Complex Family Dispute Has Confronted Potential Buyers". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/04/AR2008110403492.html.
5. ^ "The Real Housewives of DC". Pop Tower. http://www.poptower.com/real-housewives-of-dc.htm.
6. ^ "News from Around the Globe:Michaele Salahi". 2009-11-26. http://www.makli.com/michaele-salahi-0014599/.
7. ^ Marion Horsley (2009-05-13). "State warns public about charitable solicitation by Journey For The Cure Foundation". http://www.vdacs.virginia.gov/news/releases-b/051309journeycure.shtml.
8. ^ Andrea Rodgers (2009-11-26). "Tareq and Michaele Salahi: Sari Behavior". http://askmissa.com/2009/11/26/tareq-and-michaele-salahi-sari-behavior/.
9. ^ Amy Argetsinger and Roxanne Roberts (2009-11-26). "Off the list, but somehow on the South Lawn". Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/25/AR2009112504113.html?hpid=topnews.
10. ^ "Tareq Dirgham Salahi's Rap Sheet". http://www.webofdeception.com/whitehousepartycrasher.html.
[edit]
Obama the Racist?
Kevin Jackson
The question was recently posed to me, "Do you think Obama is a racist?" I answered, "Obama is the best kind of racist to whites, but the worst kind of racist to blacks." My questioner was perplexed.
I began by explaining that Obama's racism against whites is upfront, in-your-face racism, which he discussed in his book Dreams from My Father:
I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.
I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.
Obama learned this racist ideology during his formative years from his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a self-admitted communist and sexual deviant, and most certainly a racist -- the kind that blacks say cannot exist. As Robin of Berkeley suggested in an article in American Thinker, "Davis blamed racism and capitalism for all of the problems in society and instructed young Barry, 'Don't fully trust white people,' and ‘Black people have a reason to hate.'"
In Obama's defense, his book was written prior to his emergence onto the scene in 2004. Perhaps he had formulated new ideas on whites, and had stopped "nursing that pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [my] mother's race"? Or not.
After the tutelage of Davis, Obama's next-biggest "non-influence," as it were, came in his twenty-plus-year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama sold his racism to whites during his presidential campaign, saying that he didn't really listen to the hate-speech wrongfully labeled "sermons" at his so-called church. This was a "church" that practiced Cone's Black Liberation Theology,-a "theology" in which if the word "black" were replaced with "white," the "church" would have undoubtedly been considered a haven for the Aryan Brotherhood. The Acton Institute reports:
The echoes of Cone's theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain't never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are burdened by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."
Obama claimed that he didn't pay attention to Wright's rants. As Obama said, "I missed a lot of Sundays." Liberal whites gave him yet another pass.
Post-election Obama continued to flaunt his racism in the face of whites by loading his team with black racists. His first appointment was a noted Black Nationalist, Van Jones, to the post of Green Jobs Czar. Appointing a Black Nationalist to this position by Obama would be like Bill Clinton appointing a Klansman to a similar position. At least with the latter appointment, the Left might have feigned outrage.
John Bracey sketches his interpretation of Black Nationalism: [Published circa 1969.]
First, Black America exists in a state of colonial subordination to White America. Black America is a colony. It is and has always been subjected to political, economic, social, and cultural exploitation by White America. These circumstances define Black America's "underdevelopment" as a nation. Political decisions are made by whites outside the black community; no black bourgeoisie with any meaningful economic power has been allowed to develop, and the major vehicles for cultural expression such as schools, radio, television, and the printed media are under white control.
One would think that with BET and The WB, and the all-black radio stations that you can find in any major city, that there is no longer a need for Black Nationalists like Van Jones, or even a Black Nationalist movement in general. However, no sooner was Van Jones appointed than we were treated to the racist stylings of Mark Lloyd, his most famous quip being, "...white people need to relinquish their power to others." Others being "non-whites."
As for Obama's racism against blacks, you don't have to be a genius to understand it. However, it is easier to understand if you are not a product of government schools. Obama's racism against blacks is much more subtle, though exponentially more insidious.
Obama actually believes he helps blacks through his policies, when in fact the outcome devastates them. A good example is education.
Blacks recognize almost universally that education is the key to escaping the cycle of poverty and other ills plaguing the black community.
Obama's first racist act as president was to remove the voucher program that Bush had established in D.C., a program that Democrats vote against overwhelmingly. This program was producing proven positive results, but it was eliminated -- and black children in D.C. were relegated to socialized schools in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods. Simply put, why give black children the choice to opt out of the indoctrination?
Here is how one Liberal organization interpreted Obama's actions:
Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have expressed their clear opposition to voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools and their support for a strong public school system. This is a sharp contrast to the Bush administration, which lobbied relentlessly for vouchers, imposed a voucher scheme on the District of Columbia and even held a last-minute conference to push for a government bail-out of financially troubled inner-city Catholic schools.
Obama thinks so highly of the public schools in D.C. (and Chicago) that he put his children in private school.
There are many other examples of these train-wreck policies of Liberals, and particularly with this administration -- an administration that had poor blacks believing that Obama was Santa Claus. As with most policies implemented by Liberals, the real trickle-down impact ends up costing blacks more, making them that much more dependent on the government...the endgame orchestrated by then-Senator and racist Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson, when he commented in 1957:
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.
The first black president's policies marginalize blacks. It is the cruelest sort of racism, as it robs blacks of hope instead of inspiring it. Blacks were left with the hope that Obama would redistribute money from creators of wealth to those who would gladly take something for nothing.
The president, voted for by overwhelming numbers of blacks and guilty whites, has likely been the most destructive force in racial politics since his fellow racist Democrat Bull Connor. And what Obama seeks for blacks -- socialism, or the leveling of the playing field -- has not benefited blacks anywhere on the planet.
On blacks' ancestral continent, there is not one country that provides a beacon of hope. Africa is where one would think Obama could prove that his policies would work for blacks. Yet in Africa today, there are wars and rumors of wars. The outcome depends only on the "cide" you are on...infanticide, homicide, fratricide, or genocide. Dictators are pillaging the countries they should be serving, and the African people have nothing to show for it but abject poverty and oppression.
In Euro-socialist countries with representative black populations like France, Sweden, and others with representative black populations, there are no black leaders now or emerging. The fact is that the place where black people thrive best is the United States of America. America boasts more multi-millionaire black athletes, entertainers, business moguls, and so on than any country in the world -- all due to capitalism.
Here's the wrap:
Is Obama a racist? Of course he is! But as I say about racists, most just need to see what the other side is like. Obama knows conservatism only anecdotally, as he has never had a conservative friend. He understands only one side -- the racist radical side. This is why sanity appears to be radical to him, why patriots are persecuted and achievers neutered.
A true conservative would never befriend a person like Obama. Obama needs to be surrounded by sycophants and suckups, or radical leaders he can admire. My hope is that Obama will actually get to know a few conservatives, black and white. Then maybe, just maybe, he will understand how he is both the best and worst kind of racist.
Kevin Jackson is author of the Amazon Best Seller, The BIG Black Lie, as well as his blog theblacksphere.net, and appears regularly on The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obama_the_racist.html at November 28, 2009 - 06:45:29 PM EST
The question was recently posed to me, "Do you think Obama is a racist?" I answered, "Obama is the best kind of racist to whites, but the worst kind of racist to blacks." My questioner was perplexed.
I began by explaining that Obama's racism against whites is upfront, in-your-face racism, which he discussed in his book Dreams from My Father:
I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.
I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.
Obama learned this racist ideology during his formative years from his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, a self-admitted communist and sexual deviant, and most certainly a racist -- the kind that blacks say cannot exist. As Robin of Berkeley suggested in an article in American Thinker, "Davis blamed racism and capitalism for all of the problems in society and instructed young Barry, 'Don't fully trust white people,' and ‘Black people have a reason to hate.'"
In Obama's defense, his book was written prior to his emergence onto the scene in 2004. Perhaps he had formulated new ideas on whites, and had stopped "nursing that pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against [my] mother's race"? Or not.
After the tutelage of Davis, Obama's next-biggest "non-influence," as it were, came in his twenty-plus-year association with Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Obama sold his racism to whites during his presidential campaign, saying that he didn't really listen to the hate-speech wrongfully labeled "sermons" at his so-called church. This was a "church" that practiced Cone's Black Liberation Theology,-a "theology" in which if the word "black" were replaced with "white," the "church" would have undoubtedly been considered a haven for the Aryan Brotherhood. The Acton Institute reports:
The echoes of Cone's theology bleed through the now infamous, anti-Hilary excerpt by Rev. Wright. Clinton is among the oppressing class ("rich white people") and is incapable of understanding oppression ("ain't never been called a n-gg-r") but Jesus knows what it was like because he was "a poor black man" oppressed by "rich white people." While Black Liberation Theology is not mainstream in most black churches, many pastors in Wright's generation are burdened by Cone's categories which laid the foundation for many to embrace Marxism and a distorted self-image of the perpetual "victim."
Obama claimed that he didn't pay attention to Wright's rants. As Obama said, "I missed a lot of Sundays." Liberal whites gave him yet another pass.
Post-election Obama continued to flaunt his racism in the face of whites by loading his team with black racists. His first appointment was a noted Black Nationalist, Van Jones, to the post of Green Jobs Czar. Appointing a Black Nationalist to this position by Obama would be like Bill Clinton appointing a Klansman to a similar position. At least with the latter appointment, the Left might have feigned outrage.
John Bracey sketches his interpretation of Black Nationalism: [Published circa 1969.]
First, Black America exists in a state of colonial subordination to White America. Black America is a colony. It is and has always been subjected to political, economic, social, and cultural exploitation by White America. These circumstances define Black America's "underdevelopment" as a nation. Political decisions are made by whites outside the black community; no black bourgeoisie with any meaningful economic power has been allowed to develop, and the major vehicles for cultural expression such as schools, radio, television, and the printed media are under white control.
One would think that with BET and The WB, and the all-black radio stations that you can find in any major city, that there is no longer a need for Black Nationalists like Van Jones, or even a Black Nationalist movement in general. However, no sooner was Van Jones appointed than we were treated to the racist stylings of Mark Lloyd, his most famous quip being, "...white people need to relinquish their power to others." Others being "non-whites."
As for Obama's racism against blacks, you don't have to be a genius to understand it. However, it is easier to understand if you are not a product of government schools. Obama's racism against blacks is much more subtle, though exponentially more insidious.
Obama actually believes he helps blacks through his policies, when in fact the outcome devastates them. A good example is education.
Blacks recognize almost universally that education is the key to escaping the cycle of poverty and other ills plaguing the black community.
Obama's first racist act as president was to remove the voucher program that Bush had established in D.C., a program that Democrats vote against overwhelmingly. This program was producing proven positive results, but it was eliminated -- and black children in D.C. were relegated to socialized schools in crime and drug-infested neighborhoods. Simply put, why give black children the choice to opt out of the indoctrination?
Here is how one Liberal organization interpreted Obama's actions:
Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan have expressed their clear opposition to voucher subsidies for religious and other private schools and their support for a strong public school system. This is a sharp contrast to the Bush administration, which lobbied relentlessly for vouchers, imposed a voucher scheme on the District of Columbia and even held a last-minute conference to push for a government bail-out of financially troubled inner-city Catholic schools.
Obama thinks so highly of the public schools in D.C. (and Chicago) that he put his children in private school.
There are many other examples of these train-wreck policies of Liberals, and particularly with this administration -- an administration that had poor blacks believing that Obama was Santa Claus. As with most policies implemented by Liberals, the real trickle-down impact ends up costing blacks more, making them that much more dependent on the government...the endgame orchestrated by then-Senator and racist Democrat Lyndon Baines Johnson, when he commented in 1957:
These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again.
The first black president's policies marginalize blacks. It is the cruelest sort of racism, as it robs blacks of hope instead of inspiring it. Blacks were left with the hope that Obama would redistribute money from creators of wealth to those who would gladly take something for nothing.
The president, voted for by overwhelming numbers of blacks and guilty whites, has likely been the most destructive force in racial politics since his fellow racist Democrat Bull Connor. And what Obama seeks for blacks -- socialism, or the leveling of the playing field -- has not benefited blacks anywhere on the planet.
On blacks' ancestral continent, there is not one country that provides a beacon of hope. Africa is where one would think Obama could prove that his policies would work for blacks. Yet in Africa today, there are wars and rumors of wars. The outcome depends only on the "cide" you are on...infanticide, homicide, fratricide, or genocide. Dictators are pillaging the countries they should be serving, and the African people have nothing to show for it but abject poverty and oppression.
In Euro-socialist countries with representative black populations like France, Sweden, and others with representative black populations, there are no black leaders now or emerging. The fact is that the place where black people thrive best is the United States of America. America boasts more multi-millionaire black athletes, entertainers, business moguls, and so on than any country in the world -- all due to capitalism.
Here's the wrap:
Is Obama a racist? Of course he is! But as I say about racists, most just need to see what the other side is like. Obama knows conservatism only anecdotally, as he has never had a conservative friend. He understands only one side -- the racist radical side. This is why sanity appears to be radical to him, why patriots are persecuted and achievers neutered.
A true conservative would never befriend a person like Obama. Obama needs to be surrounded by sycophants and suckups, or radical leaders he can admire. My hope is that Obama will actually get to know a few conservatives, black and white. Then maybe, just maybe, he will understand how he is both the best and worst kind of racist.
Kevin Jackson is author of the Amazon Best Seller, The BIG Black Lie, as well as his blog theblacksphere.net, and appears regularly on The Glenn Beck Show on Fox News Channel.
Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/11/obama_the_racist.html at November 28, 2009 - 06:45:29 PM EST
Israel Air Force chief indicates no total security against multi-directional missiles
Israeli Air Force chief Maj. Gen. Ido Nehushtan told a Tel Aviv University audience Friday, Nov. 27: "The time for hard decisions is fast approaching," adding "The scope of security threats to Israel is very complex and we must prepare for all exigencies." He was addressing a ceremony marking 30 years of the IDF's Talpiot program which offers hi-tech, math and physics training and degrees for high IQ conscripts to join special projects.Nehushtan was clearly referring to the No. 1 security challenge facing Israel, which is Iran's nuclear weapons program and its constant threats against the Jewish state. DEBKAfile's military experts translate the "hard decisions," he referred to as the tough choice of priorities facing government and military decision-makers in a potential war. They would have to choose between striking Iran's ballistic missile bases or the missiles pointing at Israel from Syria, Lebanon and the Gaza Strip, as well dealing with hostile ships facing Israel from a fifth direction, the Mediterranean.
All five potential fronts were addressed by the joint US-Israel Juniper Cobra 10 missile interception exercise that took place for two weeks at the beginning of November. US and Israeli forces successfully practiced close sync between their interceptors, radar and electronic jamming systems.
It also exposed a major vulnerability: In the event of a coordinated missile offensive from several directions, Israel would be unable to extend total security both to its missile bases, airfields and strategic sites and also to its civilian population. The Israeli Air force is not capable of knocking out all out once all five potential sources of missile attacks.
This means that if the Israel air force first targeted Iran, Syria and Hizballah would be free to provide Iran with active support by sending their missiles and rockets flying into Israel from its northern borders before their bases can be seriously impaired in an Israeli counter-attack. This gap in Israel's defenses leaves large parts of Israel open to attack - and not just the northern region which was blasted by Hizballah in 2006. Iran has provided its Lebanese proxy with upgraded rockets for reaching further south to Israel's central urban heartland of Greater Tel Aviv.
Defense minister Ehud Barak had this expanded peril in the mind when he said Wednesday, Nov. 25, that
Hizballah's next attack would expose all of Lebanon, not just the south, to Israel counter-strikes. He said this time unlike in 2006, the Lebanese government would be held responsible, given that the Iran-backed Shiite group had scattered its missile bases across the country.
Barak was flashing signals to the Lebanese and Syrian governments - as well as the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza - that they risked their countries being totally devastated if they opted to retaliate on Iran's behalf for an Israeli strike on the Islamic republic nuclear installations.
He also left the door open to possible pre-emptive Israeli strikes to demolish the missiles Syria, Hizballah and the Hamas have been steadily stockpiling.
The next day, Thursday, Nov. 26, deputy defense minister Mattan Vilnai promised to present the government with a complete missile defense program for the population within two weeks. He said there was no way the state could provide enough shelters for everyone, so his plan would provide for the rapid fortification of residential buildings and the enforcement of walls in apartments and stair wells. The ministry had learned from the Juniper Cobra that in the short time available before a possible military confrontation, this was the fastest and safest way to make sure that most people stayed put in an emergency and did not go wandering across the country and getting in the way of military operations.
All three statements by the Air Force commander, the defense minister and his deputy followed came in quick succession in the space of a week, during which civil defense measures and siren alerts were tested in different parts of Israel.
All five potential fronts were addressed by the joint US-Israel Juniper Cobra 10 missile interception exercise that took place for two weeks at the beginning of November. US and Israeli forces successfully practiced close sync between their interceptors, radar and electronic jamming systems.
It also exposed a major vulnerability: In the event of a coordinated missile offensive from several directions, Israel would be unable to extend total security both to its missile bases, airfields and strategic sites and also to its civilian population. The Israeli Air force is not capable of knocking out all out once all five potential sources of missile attacks.
This means that if the Israel air force first targeted Iran, Syria and Hizballah would be free to provide Iran with active support by sending their missiles and rockets flying into Israel from its northern borders before their bases can be seriously impaired in an Israeli counter-attack. This gap in Israel's defenses leaves large parts of Israel open to attack - and not just the northern region which was blasted by Hizballah in 2006. Iran has provided its Lebanese proxy with upgraded rockets for reaching further south to Israel's central urban heartland of Greater Tel Aviv.
Defense minister Ehud Barak had this expanded peril in the mind when he said Wednesday, Nov. 25, that
Hizballah's next attack would expose all of Lebanon, not just the south, to Israel counter-strikes. He said this time unlike in 2006, the Lebanese government would be held responsible, given that the Iran-backed Shiite group had scattered its missile bases across the country.
Barak was flashing signals to the Lebanese and Syrian governments - as well as the Palestinian Hamas in Gaza - that they risked their countries being totally devastated if they opted to retaliate on Iran's behalf for an Israeli strike on the Islamic republic nuclear installations.
He also left the door open to possible pre-emptive Israeli strikes to demolish the missiles Syria, Hizballah and the Hamas have been steadily stockpiling.
The next day, Thursday, Nov. 26, deputy defense minister Mattan Vilnai promised to present the government with a complete missile defense program for the population within two weeks. He said there was no way the state could provide enough shelters for everyone, so his plan would provide for the rapid fortification of residential buildings and the enforcement of walls in apartments and stair wells. The ministry had learned from the Juniper Cobra that in the short time available before a possible military confrontation, this was the fastest and safest way to make sure that most people stayed put in an emergency and did not go wandering across the country and getting in the way of military operations.
All three statements by the Air Force commander, the defense minister and his deputy followed came in quick succession in the space of a week, during which civil defense measures and siren alerts were tested in different parts of Israel.
Lebanon agrees Hezbollah right to use arms against Israel
BEIRUT — Lebanon's new cabinet has agreed on a policy statement that acknowledges Hezbollah's right to use its weapons against Israel, despite disagreement by some members of the ruling majority.
Information Minister Tarek Mitri said late Wednesday after a cabinet committee set up to draft the statement met for the ninth time that an agreement had been reached.He said the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006 and is considered a terrorist organisation by Washington.
The clause states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah is commonly referred to as the resistance in Lebanon.
Mitri said that reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority would be noted in the government programme.
Christian members of the majority, including the Phalange Party and Lebanese Forces, argue that Hezbollah's arsenal undermines state authority and runs counter to UN resolutions.
However the Shiite party, which has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet, has made it clear that its weapons are not open to discussion.
The party argues its arms are necessary to protect the country against any future aggression by Israel, which withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation.
Lebanon's new cabinet is headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose US- and Western-backed alliance defeated a Hezbollah-led opposition supported by Syria and Iran in a June vote.
Information Minister Tarek Mitri said late Wednesday after a cabinet committee set up to draft the statement met for the ninth time that an agreement had been reached.He said the new statement will retain the same clause approved by the previous cabinet as concerns the arsenal of Hezbollah, which fought a devastating war with Israel in 2006 and is considered a terrorist organisation by Washington.
The clause states the right of "Lebanon, its government, its people, its army and its resistance" to liberate all Lebanese territory.
Hezbollah is commonly referred to as the resistance in Lebanon.
Mitri said that reservations concerning the clause by members of the Western-backed majority would be noted in the government programme.
Christian members of the majority, including the Phalange Party and Lebanese Forces, argue that Hezbollah's arsenal undermines state authority and runs counter to UN resolutions.
However the Shiite party, which has two ministers in the 30-member unity cabinet, has made it clear that its weapons are not open to discussion.
The party argues its arms are necessary to protect the country against any future aggression by Israel, which withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after a 22-year occupation.
Lebanon's new cabinet is headed by Prime Minister Saad Hariri, whose US- and Western-backed alliance defeated a Hezbollah-led opposition supported by Syria and Iran in a June vote.
Hillary's Bombshell: Obama Administration Subtly Launches Dramatic Policy Change on Peace Process
RubinReports
Barry Rubin
In a one-paragraph statement welcoming Israel’s ten-month-long freeze on building apartments in existing West Bank settlements, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a major statement. The dramatic new U.S. stance on Israel-Palestinian Authority peace agreement is camouflaged by brevity and subtle wording. But make no mistake: this is one of the most important foreign policy steps the Obama Administration has taken.Here is the statement in full:
"Today's announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
Clearly, this approach builds on the 2000 Camp David meeting and the December 2000 plan of President Bill Clinton. Ironically, the latter is called the Clinton plan, so the name need not change since now it is renewed and extended by another Clinton.
These 77 words are worth analyzing in great detail. First, there is what the United States is offering the Palestinian side:
“The Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps…”
One should first ask, which Palestinians? Hamas and Islamic Jihad don’t favor this approach and Hamas still runs the Gaza Strip. To pretend that Israel can or should make a peace treaty with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) which has no authority over the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is ludicrous. Whatever deal Israel makes with the PA, it could—indeed, probably would--be attacked by Palestinians from Gaza the next day. The conflict cannot be ended by anything the PA does by itself. Without a real commitment to overthrow Hamas the United States can never make peace.
The second issue is that what Clinton lists is not the entire Palestinian goal since the PA also demands a right for all Palestinians to go and live in Israel, thus subverting that country and destroying the state. This is no mere throw-away line but a very strongly held demand. Anyone who thinks that the PA is just going to drop it—no matter how much land or money it is given—knows nothing about Palestinian politics.
The word “based” in the phrase, “based on the 1967 lines” is carefully chosen to imply flexibility as to where the exact border would be drawn. In fact, the PA has always said that it must get the 1967 boundaries completely, never mentioning the word “swaps.” Therefore, when Clinton says that this is a Palestinian “goal” she is wrong.
It tells a great deal that the idea of “swapping land” so that the PA gets the equivalent of the same number of square miles as Jordan ruled before 1967 is an Israeli idea, another example of Israel’s willingness to compromise. Remember that the original Israeli position was that it annex about four percent of the West Bank.
Hence, by whittling down the demands she is making the typical negotiators' error of putting forward a false stance and then finding out the negotiation fail. But at the same time, however, Clinton is trying to define how the United States sees a reasonable Palestinian demand that it will accept. In other words, she is implying: this is all you're going to get.
There is also Clinton’s formulation of what Israel gets:
“The Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
This incorporates several Israeli demands:
--“An outcome which ends the conflict”: Israel insists that any peace treaty will explicitly end the conflict. Makes sense, right? But the PA refuses to agree to this principle. The reason is, of course, that it does not view getting an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem as an end to the conflict but only as stage one of a longer-term effort to wipe Israel off the map.
-- “Jewish state”: Israel wants Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Why: To show a real acceptance on the Palestinian side. In addition, though, it has a very practical side, avoiding a Palestinian claim to recognize “Israel” and then doing everything possible—like flooding it with Palestinian Arabs—to transform it into an Arab and/or Islamic state. (“Binationalism” is just a cover word to hide a step in that direction.)
--“With secure and recognized borders”: Israel wants borders recognized as a sign that full peace exists. The word “secure” here implies security arrangements to prevent future attacks.
--“That reflect subsequent developments”: This is a fascinating and new phrase. What can it mean other than this: Since so many Jews have moved into settlements, this new factor must be taken into account in shifting the borders. This is the Obama Administration’s version of its predecessor’s idea that Israel could keep “settlement blocs,” large towns built up along its border like the Etzion bloc and Maale Adumim. It could also be applied to Jerusalem, though that sensitive word is not mentioned in the statement.
--“And meets Israeli security requirements”: Another and stronger reference to security guarantees.
How will this statement be received in Israel? This raises a fascinating question: Was it coordinated with the Netanyahu government as part of the freeze deal? If so, the Netanyahu government has certainly proved itself to be flexible and peace-oriented. Certainly, there isn’t everything Israel wants in this statement yet it does encompass some important points taken out of the cabinet’s position on peace arrangements.
The more I think about this point, the more it makes sense to me that the position is a gesture toward Israel. This is a statement that favors Israel's position while still offering the Palestinians, in the mind of the administration, enough to make them happy (wrong) and enough to show the world that the United States is even-handed (right for Europe; wrong for the Arab world). It isn’t a blatantly pro-Israel stance but does incorporate key elements of what Israel wants to an extent greater than where the United States has gone before.
It also offers the Palestinians, or at least the PA, what it says it wants. Well, not exactly but in a way that Americans think is reasonably close. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the PA thinks. For more than thirty years the United States has been trying to formulate plans on the basis of what it thinks will satisfy Palestinian goals—the first Camp David meeting, the Reagan plan, the second Camp David meeting, and a thousand plans, conferences, statements, and initiatives in between.
Each time they fail because they aren’t addressing what the Palestinian leadership really wants. And today that is further complicated by there being two Palestinian leaderships.
The United States has endorsed the Israeli position that the PA must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this is a big step forward and a victory for Israel.
ps: (in response to a reader's question asking if this means the United States demands that Israel return to the 1967 borders):
It does NOT say the 1967 borders. Israel's formula for the last 15 year has been: "with minor modifications" to the borders. I definitely don't think this will lead to any breakthrough--the Palestinians will reject it and there is no treaty in sight for decades. In that sense, what it offers the Palestinians is not important because they will say no to everything short of all they want without their making any concesions.
Compare this statement to the Israeli government's own program as well as to Israel's position in the 2000 Camp David meeting and the subsequent [Bill] Clinton plan in December 2000. It is quite comparable. It includes recognition of the Jewish state, security arrangements satisfactory to Israel, changing the border, and end of conflict are four of the main six points. The fifth, resettling Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state--no return, is unquestionably going to be endorsed by the United States. The sixth, a demilitarized Palestinian state, is also not mentioned either way.
Of course, Jerusalem is an important issue not explicitly mentioned here. But Clinton statement of ["that reflect subsequent developments"] also must apply to Jerusalem, thus legitimizing post-1967 Israeli neighborhoods there. This is very significant.
As I said, this is not a statement endorsing everything Israel would like to have. But it is the best conceivable position that the United States, and especially the Obama Administration, could conceivably take.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. 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).
Barry Rubin
In a one-paragraph statement welcoming Israel’s ten-month-long freeze on building apartments in existing West Bank settlements, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made a major statement. The dramatic new U.S. stance on Israel-Palestinian Authority peace agreement is camouflaged by brevity and subtle wording. But make no mistake: this is one of the most important foreign policy steps the Obama Administration has taken.Here is the statement in full:
"Today's announcement by the Government of Israel helps move forward toward resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. We believe that through good-faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome which ends the conflict and reconciles the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps, and the Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
Clearly, this approach builds on the 2000 Camp David meeting and the December 2000 plan of President Bill Clinton. Ironically, the latter is called the Clinton plan, so the name need not change since now it is renewed and extended by another Clinton.
These 77 words are worth analyzing in great detail. First, there is what the United States is offering the Palestinian side:
“The Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state based on the 1967 lines, with agreed swaps…”
One should first ask, which Palestinians? Hamas and Islamic Jihad don’t favor this approach and Hamas still runs the Gaza Strip. To pretend that Israel can or should make a peace treaty with the Fatah-dominated Palestinian Authority (PA) which has no authority over the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip is ludicrous. Whatever deal Israel makes with the PA, it could—indeed, probably would--be attacked by Palestinians from Gaza the next day. The conflict cannot be ended by anything the PA does by itself. Without a real commitment to overthrow Hamas the United States can never make peace.
The second issue is that what Clinton lists is not the entire Palestinian goal since the PA also demands a right for all Palestinians to go and live in Israel, thus subverting that country and destroying the state. This is no mere throw-away line but a very strongly held demand. Anyone who thinks that the PA is just going to drop it—no matter how much land or money it is given—knows nothing about Palestinian politics.
The word “based” in the phrase, “based on the 1967 lines” is carefully chosen to imply flexibility as to where the exact border would be drawn. In fact, the PA has always said that it must get the 1967 boundaries completely, never mentioning the word “swaps.” Therefore, when Clinton says that this is a Palestinian “goal” she is wrong.
It tells a great deal that the idea of “swapping land” so that the PA gets the equivalent of the same number of square miles as Jordan ruled before 1967 is an Israeli idea, another example of Israel’s willingness to compromise. Remember that the original Israeli position was that it annex about four percent of the West Bank.
Hence, by whittling down the demands she is making the typical negotiators' error of putting forward a false stance and then finding out the negotiation fail. But at the same time, however, Clinton is trying to define how the United States sees a reasonable Palestinian demand that it will accept. In other words, she is implying: this is all you're going to get.
There is also Clinton’s formulation of what Israel gets:
“The Israeli goal of a Jewish state with secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meet Israeli security requirements."
This incorporates several Israeli demands:
--“An outcome which ends the conflict”: Israel insists that any peace treaty will explicitly end the conflict. Makes sense, right? But the PA refuses to agree to this principle. The reason is, of course, that it does not view getting an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, and east Jerusalem as an end to the conflict but only as stage one of a longer-term effort to wipe Israel off the map.
-- “Jewish state”: Israel wants Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state. Why: To show a real acceptance on the Palestinian side. In addition, though, it has a very practical side, avoiding a Palestinian claim to recognize “Israel” and then doing everything possible—like flooding it with Palestinian Arabs—to transform it into an Arab and/or Islamic state. (“Binationalism” is just a cover word to hide a step in that direction.)
--“With secure and recognized borders”: Israel wants borders recognized as a sign that full peace exists. The word “secure” here implies security arrangements to prevent future attacks.
--“That reflect subsequent developments”: This is a fascinating and new phrase. What can it mean other than this: Since so many Jews have moved into settlements, this new factor must be taken into account in shifting the borders. This is the Obama Administration’s version of its predecessor’s idea that Israel could keep “settlement blocs,” large towns built up along its border like the Etzion bloc and Maale Adumim. It could also be applied to Jerusalem, though that sensitive word is not mentioned in the statement.
--“And meets Israeli security requirements”: Another and stronger reference to security guarantees.
How will this statement be received in Israel? This raises a fascinating question: Was it coordinated with the Netanyahu government as part of the freeze deal? If so, the Netanyahu government has certainly proved itself to be flexible and peace-oriented. Certainly, there isn’t everything Israel wants in this statement yet it does encompass some important points taken out of the cabinet’s position on peace arrangements.
The more I think about this point, the more it makes sense to me that the position is a gesture toward Israel. This is a statement that favors Israel's position while still offering the Palestinians, in the mind of the administration, enough to make them happy (wrong) and enough to show the world that the United States is even-handed (right for Europe; wrong for the Arab world). It isn’t a blatantly pro-Israel stance but does incorporate key elements of what Israel wants to an extent greater than where the United States has gone before.
It also offers the Palestinians, or at least the PA, what it says it wants. Well, not exactly but in a way that Americans think is reasonably close. Unfortunately, that’s not the way the PA thinks. For more than thirty years the United States has been trying to formulate plans on the basis of what it thinks will satisfy Palestinian goals—the first Camp David meeting, the Reagan plan, the second Camp David meeting, and a thousand plans, conferences, statements, and initiatives in between.
Each time they fail because they aren’t addressing what the Palestinian leadership really wants. And today that is further complicated by there being two Palestinian leaderships.
The United States has endorsed the Israeli position that the PA must recognize Israel as a Jewish state, this is a big step forward and a victory for Israel.
ps: (in response to a reader's question asking if this means the United States demands that Israel return to the 1967 borders):
It does NOT say the 1967 borders. Israel's formula for the last 15 year has been: "with minor modifications" to the borders. I definitely don't think this will lead to any breakthrough--the Palestinians will reject it and there is no treaty in sight for decades. In that sense, what it offers the Palestinians is not important because they will say no to everything short of all they want without their making any concesions.
Compare this statement to the Israeli government's own program as well as to Israel's position in the 2000 Camp David meeting and the subsequent [Bill] Clinton plan in December 2000. It is quite comparable. It includes recognition of the Jewish state, security arrangements satisfactory to Israel, changing the border, and end of conflict are four of the main six points. The fifth, resettling Palestinian refugees in a Palestinian state--no return, is unquestionably going to be endorsed by the United States. The sixth, a demilitarized Palestinian state, is also not mentioned either way.
Of course, Jerusalem is an important issue not explicitly mentioned here. But Clinton statement of ["that reflect subsequent developments"] also must apply to Jerusalem, thus legitimizing post-1967 Israeli neighborhoods there. This is very significant.
As I said, this is not a statement endorsing everything Israel would like to have. But it is the best conceivable position that the United States, and especially the Obama Administration, could conceivably take.
Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. 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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)