The Shtetl (Ghetto) Jews take over again and may G-d help us

The Shtetl (Ghetto) Jews take over again and may G-d help us

Redacted from an article by Gil Solomon

February 10, 2014

I could not have been more disgusted when hearing about a recent prayer rally organized by thousands of orthodox Jews at the Kotel (Western Wall), the aim of which was to beseech the almighty to “cancel the decrees” of the US Secretary of State. Cancel the “decrees”! Do they regard Kerry as an Emperor who issues decrees from on high for which they, as poor ghetto Jews, have no power over whatsoever? This act of cringing passivity only reinforces the view that these people do not regard Israel as a sovereign nation in control of its own destiny.

The way Israel is behaving one could easily come to this conclusion but to the main issue, if a rally is organized it should be to beseech G-d to put some sense and a spine into the current Israeli leadership and once the prayers are over to move on and:

1. Demand that the sovereign nation of Israel finally gets up off its knees and cease its relentless capitulation to Kerry’s demands.

2. Demand that the true story of the nation be told whereby the so called “Palestinian” narrative be exposed as the fiction that it is.

It is my opinion that Obama and Kerry aim to destroy Israel or at least bring it to its knees. The 2003 Bush Road Map was in theory a blueprint of where these so called “negotiations” could revolve, but Obama and Kerry have deviated so far off course as to make this “roadmap” a dirt track in the middle of nowhere. This is the track they want Israel to travel on and to date Israel has foolishly indulged their every whim, including the release of the most heinous terrorist murderers in order to just bring Abbas to the table. It should be of great significance that Obama has put Muslim Brotherhood members/sympathizers in key administrative positions in his administration.

The current US administration, headed by someone whose credentials for office are dubious, is a clear and present danger to the Jewish nation, yet American Jews, by a vast majority and to their shame have voted for Obama not once but twice!

All the warning signs were there for those whose eyes were open and were not deaf. Now we have the disgraceful recent spectacle of a brainwashed American Jewry, a group truly worthy of the title of ghetto Jews of the diaspora, attacking the New York City (NYC) Mayor, Bill de Blasio for his support of Israel!

(The author neglects to mention the vaunted American Jewish political lobby AIPAC (American Israel Political Affairs Committee) that recently genuflected, capitulating to Obama/Kerry and pouring cold water in the faces of the dedicated 42 Republican Congressmen that demanded sanctions continue and in the process AIPAC also spat in the faces of PM Netanyahu and the state of Israel that knows these sanctions are the only weapons remotely successful in slowing down Iran’s nuclear arsenal. Someone at AIPAC evidently forgot that supporting Israel is supposedly AIPAC’s main raison d’être ) jsk

Israel’s own paralysis is the net result of being sucked into the Obama so called “peace process”. Combined with the constant lack of support and hostility towards Israel and what it stands for has led to an IDF that has lost the confidence or will to even deal with a rag tag bunch of rock throwers on the West Bank. The IDF is taunted daily but refuses to respond in the only way that these people will understand. No other army on the face of the earth would put up with this nonsense.

Worse still, according to Israel’s Chief of Military Intelligence, Major General Aviv Kohavi, Israel faces 170,000 rockets aimed at her. To quote General Kohavi: “Israel is surrounded by 360 degrees of actual enemies. We call this period in time the ‘Era of Fire,’ in light of the amount of missiles and rockets we face as a constant threat. There are about 170,000 rockets and missiles that threaten Israel. For the first time the enemy now has the ability to hit Israeli cities hard. IAF pilots can no longer move freely towards their targets and have to dodge missiles that threaten them.”

MK Tzipi Livni, is the disaster of a “negotiator” — a woman totally out of her depth but who unbelievably heads the so called “peace talks” on behalf of Israel is a prime example of a left winger hell bent on capitulation. A woman who has no concept of the fact that capitulation after capitulation brings more and more outrageous demands.

Not lost too are Kerry’s stupid hints that, should the peace process fail, the intifada will resume. One has to assume that Abbas is not a fool. He would have realized that he has just been given the green light by a US Secretary of State to restart a massive terrorist campaign when these talks break down. Peace to Abbas would mean obscurity and this man, together with the rest of the PA will not give up their lavish lifestyles which includes them being feted by world leaders on centre stage and indulging themselves with money that is bestowed on them by foolish nations who think they are aiding the cause of peace and the supposed suffering of a people who have attempted to rewrite history.

The Israelis, for some inexplicable reason, fail to present the irrefutable history that in biblical times, all of what is now Israel and Judea and Samaria (West Bank) was Jewish. When the Romans conquered the territory they named the entire area “Philistina” in order to rub salt into the wounds of the defeated Jews by renaming it in honour of the Jews’ ancient and mortal enemies the Philistines. Decades later, Arabs cleverly commandeered the term “Palestinian” as their own designation when for all the centuries before they were just Arabs who happened to be living on what was historically Israeli land.

No other country or people on the face of the earth would have even indulged their ludicrous and incessant claims nor given them the time of day. Unfortunately for Israel, it to this day has no concept of Hasbara (public relations), let alone realizes that Hasbara is a war that Abbas and Co. have mastered to an extent beyond their wildest imagination. They have turned history on its head and convinced the world of the truth of the Palestinian narrative.

It is now up to supporters of Israel and finally the Israelis to counter this gross lie and get Israel off the defensive and unleash the great power that G-d has once more given the Jews to insure their survival.

(Gil Solomon is a retired finance manager and author.)

Obama’s constipated record of the past 3½ years vis-à-vis Israel

Romney vs. Obama vis-à-vis Israel
By Daniel Pipes

Obama’s constipated record of the past 3½ years vis-à-vis Israel

September 4, 2012

“President Obama has thrown allies like Israel under the bus.” That’s what Mitt Romney, Republican candidate for president, said in the high-profile speech accepting his party’s nomination last week, repeating a slang phrase for sacrificing a friend for selfish reasons. Romney had deployed this phrase before, for example in May 2011 and Jan. 2012. This criticism of Obama fits a persistent Republican critique. Specifically, several other recent presidential candidates used or endorsed the same “bus” formulation vis-à-vis Obama and Israel, including Herman Cain in May 2011, Rick Perry in Sept. 2011, Newt Gingrich in Jan. 2012, and Rick Santorum in Feb. 2012.

Barack Obama pointed a finger at Binyamin Netanyahu in 2008.

These Republican attacks on Obama’s relations with Israel have several important implications for U.S. foreign policy. First, out of the many Middle East-related issues, Israel, and Israel alone, retains a permanent role in U.S. electoral politics, influencing how a significant numbers of voters – not just Jews but also Arabs, Muslims, Evangelical Christians, conservatives and liberals – vote for president.

Second, attitudes toward Israel serve as a proxy for views toward other Middle Eastern issues: If I know your views on Israel, I have a good idea about your thinking on such topics as energy policy, Islamism, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, AKP-led Turkey, the Iranian nuclear build-up, intervention in Libya, the Mohamed Morsi presidency in Egypt, and the Syrian civil war.

Third, the Republican criticism of Obama points to a sea change in what determines attitudes toward Israel. Religion was once the key, with Jews the ardent Zionists and Christians less engaged. Today, in contrast, the determining factor is political outlook. To discern someone’s views on Israel, the best question to ask is not “What is your religion?” but “Who do you want for president?”

As a rule, conservatives feel more warmly toward Israel and liberals more coolly. Polls show conservative Republicans to be the most ardent Zionists, followed by Republicans in general, followed by independents, Democrats, and lastly liberal Democrats. Yes, Ed Koch, the former mayor of New York City, also said, in Sept. 2011, that Obama “threw Israel under the bus,” but Koch, 87, represents the fading old guard of the Democratic party. The difference between the parties in the Arab-Israeli conflict is becoming as deep as their differences on the economy or on cultural issues.

Fourth, as Israel increasingly becomes an issue dividing Democrats from Republicans, I predict a reduction of the bipartisan support for Israel that has provided Israel a unique status in U.S. politics and sustained organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. I also predict that Romney and Paul Ryan, as mainstream conservatives, will head an administration that will be the warmest ever to Israel, far surpassing the administrations of both Bill Clinton or George W. Bush. Contrarily, should Obama be re-elected, the coldest treatment of Israel ever by a U.S. president will follow.

Obama’s constipated record of the past 3½ years vis-à-vis Israel on such topics as the Palestinians and Iran leads to this conclusion; but so does what we know about his record before he entered high electoral politics in 2004, especially his associations with radical anti-Zionists. For example, Obama deferentially listened to Edward Said in May 1998 and sat quietly by at a going-away party in 2003 for former PLO flack Rashid Khalidi as Israel was accused of terrorism against Palestinians. (In contrast, Romney has been friends with Binyamin Netanyahu since 1976.)

Also revealing is what Ali Abunimah, a Chicago-based anti-Israel extremist, wrote about his last conversation with Obama in early 2004, as the latter was in the midst of a primary campaign for the Democratic nomination for the U.S. Senate. Abunimah wrote that Obama warmly greeted him and then added: “Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.” More: referring to Abunimah’s attacks on Israel in the Chicago Tribune and elsewhere, Obama encouraged him with “Keep up the good work!”

When one puts this in the context of what Obama said off-mic to then-Russian president Dmitry Medvedev in March 2012 (“This is my last election. And after my election, I have more flexibility”) and in the context of Obama’s dislike for Netanyahu, it would be wise to assume that, if Obama wins on Nov. 6, things will “calm down” for him and he finally can “be more up front” about so-called Palestine. Then Israel’s troubles will really begin.

Mr. Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum
All rights reserved

Obama’s Priority No.1? Stop Israel

By Charles Krauthammer

http://israel-commentary.org/?p=2994

It’s Lucy and the football, Iran-style. After ostensibly tough talk about preventing Iran from going nuclear, the Obama administration acquiesced this week to yet another round of talks, with the mullahs. This, 14 months after the last group-of-six negotiations collapsed in Istanbul because of blatant Iranian stalling and unseriousness. Nonetheless, the new negotiations will be both without precondition and preceded by yet more talks to decide such trivialities as venue.

These negotiations don’t just gain time for a nuclear program about whose military intent the International Atomic Energy Agency is issuing alarming warnings. They make it extremely difficult for Israel to do anything about it (while it still can), lest Israel be universally condemned for having aborted a diplomatic solution.

If the administration were serious about achievement rather than appearance, it would have warned that this was the last chance for Iran to come clean and would have demanded a short timeline. After all, President Obama insisted on deadlines for the Iraq withdrawal, the Afghan surge and Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Why leave these crucial talks open-ended when the nuclear clock is ticking?

This re-engagement comes immediately after Obama’s campaign-year posturing about Iran’s nukes. Speaking Sunday in front of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee), he warned that, “Iran’s leaders should have no doubt about the resolve of the United States.” This just two days after he’d said  (to the Atlantic)  of possible U.S. military action, “I don’t bluff.” (Yes, you do!) Yet on Tuesday he returned to the very engagement policy that he admits had previously failed.

Won’t sanctions make a difference this time, however? Sanctions are indeed hurting Iran economically. But when Obama’s own director of national intelligence was asked by the Senate intelligence committee whether sanctions had any effect on the course of Iran’s nuclear program, the answer was simple: No. None whatsoever.

Obama garnered much AIPAC applause by saying that his is not a containment policy but a prevention policy. But what has he prevented? Keeping a coalition of six together is not prevention. Holding talks is not prevention. Imposing sanctions is not prevention.

Prevention is halting and reversing the program. Yet Iran is tripling its uranium output, moving enrichment facilities deep under a mountain near Qom and impeding IAEA inspections of weaponization facilities.

So what is Obama’s real objective? “We’re trying to make the decision to attack as hard as possible for Israel,” an administration official told The Post in the most revealing White House admission since “leading from behind.”

Revealing and shocking. The world’s greatest exporter of terror (according to the State Department), the systematic killer of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan, the self-declared enemy that invented “Death to America Day” is approaching nuclear capability — and the focus of U.S. policy is to prevent a democratic ally threatened with annihilation from preempting the threat?

Indeed it is. The new open-ended negotiations with Iran fit well with this strategy of tying Israel down. As does Obama’s “I have Israel’s back” reassurance, designed to persuade Israel and its supporters to pull back and outsource to Obama what for Israel are life-and-death decisions.

Yet 48 hours later, Obama says at a news conference that this phrase is just a historical reference to supporting such allies as Britain and Japan — contradicting the intended impression he’d given AIPAC that he was offering special protection to an ally under threat of physical annihilation.

To AIPAC he declares that “no Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map, and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel’s destruction” and affirms “Israel’s sovereign right to make its own decisions . . . to meet its security needs.”

And then he pursues policies — open-ended negotiations, deceptive promises of tough U.S. backing for Israel, boasts about the efficacy of sanctions, grave warnings about “war talk” — meant, as his own official admitted, to stop Israel from exercising precisely that sovereign right to self-protection.

Yet beyond these obvious contradictions and walk-backs lies a transcendent logic: As with the Keystone pipeline postponement, as with the debt-ceiling extension, as with the Afghan withdrawal schedule, Obama wants to get past Nov. 6 without any untoward action that might threaten his reelection.

For Israel, however, the stakes are somewhat higher: the very existence of a vibrant nation and its 6 million Jews. The asymmetry is stark. A fair-minded observer might judge that Israel’s desire to not go gently into the darkness carries higher moral urgency than the political future of one man, even if he is president of the United States.

letters@charleskrauthammer.com

The brilliant Brett Stephens, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, on Barack Obama

I The ‘Jewish’ President?

March 6, 2012

By BRET STEPHENS

The brilliant Brett Stephens, Wall Street Journal Editorial Board, on Barack Obama

II Video by Israeli Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs, MK Danny Ayalon – Just the Facts, Ma’am

Should Israelis and pro-Israel Americans take President Obama at his word when he says—as he did at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference in Washington, D.C., on Sunday—”I have Israel’s back”? No!

Here is a president who fought tooth-and-nail against the very sanctions on Iran for which he now seeks to reap political credit. He inherited from the Bush administration the security assistance to Israel he now advertises as proof of his “unprecedented” commitment to the Jewish State. His defense secretary has repeatedly cast doubt on the efficacy of a U.S. military option against Iran even as the president insists it remains “on the table.” His top national security advisers keep warning Israel not to attack Iran even as he claims not to “presume to tell [Israeli leaders] what is best for them.”

Oh, and his secretary of state answers a question from a Tunisian student about U.S. politicians courting the “Zionist lobbies” by saying that  “a lot of things are said in political campaigns that should not bear a lot of attention.” It seems it didn’t occur to her to challenge the premise of the question. Still, if you’re looking for evidence of Mr. Obama’s disingenuousness when it comes to Israel, it’s worth referring to what his supporters say about him.

Consider Peter Beinart, the one-time Iraq War advocate who has reinvented himself as a liberal scourge of present-day Israel and mainstream Zionism. Mr. Beinart has a book coming out next month called “The Crisis of Zionism.” Chapter five, on “The Jewish President,” fully justifies the cover price.

Mr. Beinart’s case is that Mr. Obama came to his views about Israel not so much from people like his friend Rashid Khalidi or his pastor Jeremiah Wright. Instead, says Mr. Beinart, Mr. Obama got his education about Israel from a coterie of far-left Chicago Jews who “bred in Obama a specific, and subversive, vision of American Jewish identity and of the Jewish state.”

At the center of this coterie, Mr. Beinart explains, was a Chicago rabbi named Arnold Jacob Wolf. In 1969, Wolf staged a synagogue protest in favor of Black Panther Bobby Seale. In the early 1970s, he founded an organization that met with Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) —this being some 20 years before Arafat officially renounced terrorism. In the early 1990s, Wolf denounced the construction of the Holocaust Museum in Washington. And, in 1996, the rabbi “was one of [Mr. Obama’s] earliest and most prominent supporters” when he ran for the Illinois state Senate. Wolf later described Mr. Obama’s views on Israel as “on the line of Peace Now”—an organization with a long history of blaming Israel for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Mr. Obama had other Jewish mentors, too, according to Mr. Beinart. One was Bettylu Saltzman, whose father, developer Philip Klutznick, had joined Wolf in “his break with the Israeli government in the 1970s.” Ms. Saltzman, writes Mr. Beinart, “still  seethes with hostility toward the mainstream Jewish groups” and later became active in left-wing Jewish political groups like J Street. Among other things, it was she who “organized the rally against the Iraq War where Obama proclaimed his opposition to an American invasion.”

Ms. Saltzman also introduced Mr. Obama to David Axelrod, himself a longtime donor to a group called the New Israel Fund. For a flavor of the NIF’s world view, a WikiLeaks cable from 2010 noted that an NIF associate director told U.S. embassy officials in Tel Aviv that  “the disappearance of a Jewish state would not be the tragedy that Israelis fear since it would become more democratic.”

Other things that we learn about Mr. Obama’s intellectual pedigree from Mr. Beinart: As a student at Columbia, he honed his interests in colonialism by studying with the late pro-Palestinian agitator, Prof. Edward Said. In 2004, Mr. Obama “criticized the barrier built to separate Israel and its major settlements from the rest of the West Bank”—the  “barrier” meaning the security fence that all-but eliminated the wave of suicide bombings that took 1,000 lives in Israel.

We also learn that, according to one of Mr. Beinart’s sources, longtime diplomat Dennis Ross was brought aboard the Obama campaign as part of what Mr. Beinart calls “Obama’s inoculation strategy” to mollify Jewish voters apprehensive about the sincerity of his commitments to Israel. Not surprisingly, Mr. Ross was a marginal figure in the administration before leaving last year.

In Mr. Beinart’s telling, all this is evidence that Mr. Obama is in tune with the authentic views of the American Jewish community when it comes to Israel, but that he’s out of step with Jewish organizational leadership. Maybe. Still, one wonders why organizations more in tune with those “real” views rarely seem to find much of a base.

But the important question here isn’t about American-Jewish attitudes toward Israel. It’s about the president’s honesty. Is he being truthful when he represents himself as a mainstream friend of Israel—or is he just holding his tongue and biding his time? On the evidence of Mr. Beinart’s sympathetic book, Mr. Obama’s speech at AIPAC was one long exercise in political cynicism.

II Video – MK Danny Ayalon