Monday, November 03, 2014

Obama Officials’ Insults Are Vulgar, But Their Policies Are Far Worse

The Obama administration officials’ vulgar treatment of Israel’s prime minister is troubling. But the policies behind their vulgarity – and reckless – are far worse.
Two officials were involved: one who used the epithet to describe Israel’s leader, and a second who agreed with the obscene remark. The point they were both making is that they consider Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a “coward” because he won’t make the concessions that they believe might lead to peace.
What concessions, exactly? President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and other senior administration officials have said time and again that they want Israel to retreat to the 1967 armistice lines and permit the establishment of an independent Palestinian state. That would, of course, reduce Israel to just nine miles wide at its vulnerable mid-section, near Netanya. It would also almost certainly lead to a hostile Arab state — whether nationalist or Islamist — in Israel’s heartland.
What about Jerusalem? The White House and the State Department are very careful to refrain from saying explicitly that they want to redivide Jerusalem. They don’t say that out loud because they know it would infuriate millions of pro-Israel Christian and Jewish voters (not to mention almost all Israelis).
But “redivide Jerusalem” is exactly what the Obama administration is implying every time it condemns Israel for building apartments in so-called “East Jerusalem” and claims that such construction endangers peace. But the only peace it would endanger is one in which that part of Jerusalem is expected to be given to the Palestinians.
Otherwise, why would the White House be so upset if apartments are built in Ramat Shlomo, an Orthodox neighborhood in northern Jerusalem, or Gilo, a section of southern Jerusalem? The problem with Ramat Shlomo and Gilo is they are situated slightly beyond the old 1967 line.
Israelis naturally find the Obama administration’s characterization of such areas as “illegal settlements” laughable. Gilo is not a collection of trailers on some wind-swept hill. It is a modern, urban locale with more than 30,000 residents. Anyone who has driven in Jerusalem knows that Ramat Shlomo, Gilo, and the other neighborhoods denounced by the U.S. administration are physically indistinguishable from the rest of the city.
But the White House and State Department refuse to accept this reality. They are locked into a rigid ideological formula, according to which the 1967 line is sacrosanct and anything beyond it is “illegal” and “occupied.” And anything that is illegal and occupied, is expected to be surrendered.
There is, of course, nothing sacred about the 1967 armistice line. It was never an official border. It was simply the furthest point to which Jordanian troops managed to advance in the 1948 war. The Jordanian aggression in 1948 was illegal. The Jordanian occupation of the eastern part of Jerusalem, including the Old City, from 1948 to 1967 was illegal. The Jordanian destruction of 57 synagogues in the Old City during the 1950s and 1960s was illegal. Jordan’s use of tombstones from the Mount of Olives cemetery as latrines in Jordanian Army barracks was illegal (not to mention repulsive).
When Israel won the 1967 war and reunited Jerusalem, it was correcting an outrageous historical injustice. Decent people everywhere should celebrate that the city has, since 1967, been ruled by a democratic government that respects the rights of all religions and safeguards the holy sites of all faiths.
And, indeed, the United States Congress has recognized it since 1992, when the House of Representatives and the Senate unanimously adopted Senate Concurrent Resolution 113, celebrating “the reunification of Jerusalem.” That resolution asserted that Jerusalem “must remain an undivided city.”
Perhaps the Obama administration should be more frank about its true aim of re-dividing Jerusalem. Perhaps it should honestly acknowledge that it regards all construction beyond the 1967 line as illegal because it wants to Israel to give those areas to the Palestinians. xxx Perhaps they should say it plainly, and then see how it plays out among Israel’s voters, and America’s.
For here, in plain English, is what redividing Jerusalem would mean: The new capital of “Palestine” would include the Temple Mount, the Western Wall, the Jewish Quarter of the Old City, the Mount of Olives cemetery, and most or all of the following “new city” Jerusalem neighborhoods: Ramot, French Hill, Gilo, Neve Yaakov, Ramat Shlomo, Har Homa and Givat Hamatos.
And that would be truly obscene.
Moshe Phillips and Benyamin Korn are members of the board of the Religious Zionists of America.

Netanyahu is no Coward, but Obama is a Liar

The real reason Israel did not attack Iran is just part of it.

PM Netanyahu has been a brave Israeli Prime Minister on the Iranian nuclear issue.  Why?  The entire present-day country of Iran is rung with huge difficult mountains.  In specific, the Zagros Mountains line Iran’s western borders and tower over 4,000 meters high.  For Israel, Iran’s multiple geographically and topographically nested nuke facilities are no Iraqi Osirik in the plains of Mesopotamia.  Iran is tough military nut to crack.  Prime Minister Netanyahu didn’t attack Iran, but not because he is a coward.  Israel didn’t attack Iran because:

1.Obama serially lied to Israel, and promised Israel the US wouldn’t allow Iran to construct a nuclear bomb. 

2. Obama also extorted and threatened Israel not to attack Iran.  

Netanyahu’s not a coward on Iran; but Obama is liar and an Iranian stooge.

This started in October 2008, not October 2014.  Claims that “ISIS aligned the US and Iran” just recently are pure idiocy.  Obama walked into the Oval Office in 2009 already aligned with Iran, and with Valerie Jarett having a direct telephone line to the Iranian Twelver mullahs.  “ISIS” is only a convenient excuse for Obama to come out of his Iranian closet.  Obama has protected the Iranian-terror state from the start   For instance, when there was the first Iranian uprising Obama doted over Iran's regime like a doting mother over her little new-born babe as Iran machine-gunned protesters in the streets.

Obama has always held an American military supply knife to Israel’s throat.  Obama withheld vital US Hellfire air-to-ground missiles from Israel when Hamas was actively firing Iranian M302mm Khaibar missiles into Tel Aviv; just imagine what American military supplies Obama would have withheld from Israel if Israel had violated Obama’s “don’t-attack-Iran-or-else” threats.  In retrospect, Bibi wasn’t a coward for not attacking Iran, he was a prescient military genius.  One never begins a war without having the supply chain to finish it. 

Imagine what horrific concessions in “Judea and Samaria” Obama could have extorted out of Israel if Israel was in the middle of a war with Iran/Hebollah/Hmas, and Obama had pulled the military plug on Israel as in the 2014 Gaza War?  This would expose Israel to a Hamastan 'WestBank' rocket state.  I have always believed Obama would betray Israel in any war, let alone an Israel-Iran war, so I never sided with a unilateral Israeli attack on Iran. 

Obama betrayed Israel on a defensive operation, letting Israel understood that it could never trust Obama in any war, let alone an offensive war against Iran’s nukes where Israel would have to project power over a thousand miles away.

Iran was never Israel’s problem; Iran is everybody’s problem.  It is Saudi Arabia’s, Egypt’s, Pakistan’s and America’s problem.  Why should Israel do the dirty work on Iran, and get all the blame and condemnation, where the Sunnis are likely to be attacked first?  Obama may have called Netanyahu a coward, but the unintended consequence of his insults will be to strengthen Israel’s military and strategic bonds with Saudi Arabia and Egypt.  Both the Egyptians and Saudis now see Obama will betray Israel as Obama has betrayed both of them.  

An extremely bad Obama-Iran nuclear deal must be very close at hand.  There’s a chance that the Senate may turn Republican, and hence may be a constitutional thorn to consummating an Iranian-nuke deal.  Obama may be forced to get the Iran-nuke-deal done after the congressional mid-term elections, but before the Republican majority Senate is sworn in in January.  A Republican majority Senate will likely constitutionally demand that any Iranian-nuke deal constitutes a treaty, and, therefore, must be put to a Senate treaty ratification vote.  

Obama may even have arranged a pre-emptive verbal attack on Israel to give Israel a taste of what may happen if Israel dares complain about Obama’s deal to empower Iran as a nuclear-weapons’ state.
The only silver lining is that Netanyahu and Saudi Arabia have now seen Obama’s betrayal on the Iranian nuclear track.  This means Obama is planning an even greater betrayal of Israel over the 'West Bank'.  Idisagree with Josh Ernst the White House spokesperson, actually the Obama insults were very “productive.”  Obama is exposed as a lying Iranian stooge before hoodwinking Israel on the 'West Bank'.  

Prime Minister can now show Obama he is the true hero of Israel by building not just a mere 1,000 homes in Judea and Samaria, but by building 100,000 homes in Israel’s sovereign homeland.