Netanyahu, Palestinians, Iran, Putin and Obama/Kerry on usual cross purposes. II Michele Bachman comments

II Is the Obama administration condoning sanctions and boycotts against Israel?
By MICHELE BACHMANN

Netanyahu, Palestinians, Iran, Putin and Obama/Kerry on usual cross purposes. II Michele Bachman comments

DAILY ALERT
March 5, 2014

The Israeli navy seized a ship in the Red Sea on Wednesday that was carrying dozens of advanced Iranian-supplied rockets made in Syria that were intended for Palestinian militants in Gaza. The Panamanian-flagged cargo vessel, Klos-C, was boarded in international waters without resistance and is being escorted to the Israeli port of Eilat.
   

Israel Defense Forces (IDF) spokesman Lt-Col Peter Lerner said dozens of M302 rockets were found. “The M302 in its most advanced model can strike over 100 miles, and if they would have reached Gaza, ultimately that would have meant millions of Israelis under threat.” Lerner said the rockets were flown from Syria to Iran, from which they were shipped first to Iraq and then toward Sudan. Iran had orchestrated the shipment, Lerner said, describing the process as months in the making.

The Iranian arms vessel was intercepted about 930 miles from the Israeli coast by special forces from the Flotilla 13 (naval commando) unit. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said Wednesday: “It has once again become clear that Iran continues to be the greatest exporter of terror in the world…and its failed effort to transfer the weapons discovered this morning is additional evidence. The Iranian regime continues to deceive the world; while it shows its smiling face it continues to be the biggest threat to world peace.” 

Netanyahu Promotes Efforts Toward a Peace Deal (Huh!)

By Mark Landler and Jodi Rudoren


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel on Tuesday made an enthusiastic pitch for a peace accord with the Palestinians, saying it would enable Israel to tighten ties with its Arab neighbors and “catapult the region forward” on issues like health, energy and education. “We could better the lives of hundreds of millions,” Netanyahu said in a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). “We all have so much to gain from peace.”
 “I hope that the Palestinian leadership will stand with Israel and the United States on the right side of the moral divide, the side of peace, reconciliation and hope,” Netanyahu said. (New York Times)
   

II Is the Obama administration condoning sanctions and boycotts against Israel?

By MICHELE BACHMANN
The Jerusalem Post
Feb. 12, 2014

When Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addressed a Joint Session of Congress two years ago, he accurately proclaimed “Israel is not what is wrong with the Middle East. Israel is what is right with the Middle East.” Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s actions have repeatedly contradicted that longstanding belief, which has stood as the cornerstone of our valued 65-year relationship with the Jewish State of Israel.



It is imperative, for our mutual best interests, that America and Israel remain the reliable and solidly staunch allies they have always been. 

Given Congress’ almost unanimously positive bipartisan response to the prime minister’s speech is further proof of that sentiment.

Then why does the Obama administration continue to engage policies that are clearly detrimental to Israel’s best interests? At the recent Munich Conference, Secretary of State John Kerry’s never before heard comments from a US administration regarding Israel shocked the international community, and gave comfort and resolve to Israel’s enemies. 

Secretary Kerry clearly stated that if the status quo is maintained, and peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians fail, Israel could face further “boycotts” and “de-legitimization.”

It is clearly this administration’s expectation that Israel must submit to the outrageous demands of Hamas, Hezbollah and the mullahs in Tehran.

 Not surprisingly, the swift and thunderous outrage of the Israeli people has put the Israel-American relationship in a most perilous position.

And in a recent interview with CNN, Secretary Kerry had an opportunity to clearly enunciate that the United States will oppose any boycott or de-legitimization efforts against Israel, but failed to affirm that long-held position.

The policy of the United States should and must be to boycott any company that boycotts Israel, and to openly and aggressively counter any country that even infers de-legitimization of Israel. The United States needs to be clear that it will expeditiously and robustly respond accordingly to anyone who maliciously attempts to sabotage Israel.

 It is historically inaccurate and diplomatically deplorable to suggest the peace process has or will fail because of Israel.

Most recently, the Obama administration pressured Israel to release terrorist murderers as a necessary prerequisite to meeting with the Palestinians, for which Israel got nothing else in return. The unreasonable demands continue to mount from the Palestinians, and rather than rebuke these requests to continually move the goalposts, the Obama administration has unconscionably insinuated that there will be further economic consequences if Israel does not acquiesce and surrender land that is most vital to its security interests.



The root of the problem, which dates back 65 years, is that the Palestinians and most of Israel’s neighbors refuse to accept Israel’s right to exist.

 As a result, its neighbors will not assent to the fact that Israel has a right to defend its borders, its way of life, and to protect its Jewish identity.



Given that reality, it stands to reason that it would be irresponsible for any nation to accept such a so-called “peace.”

 IT BECOMES even more reprehensible when one considers the fact that the threats against Israel are today laid in the context of a nuclear Iran, a stronger Hezbollah and an active Muslim Brotherhood that reportedly recently found itself graciously invited to a White House meeting with the president and vice president of the United States.



The only thing worse than Secretary Kerry’s words are his deeds, particularly when it comes to Israel and America’s greatest threat – a nuclear Iran. Recently, without Israel’s involvement and despite Israel’s strong objection, he carelessly and naively negotiated a P5+1 agreement with Iran that does nothing to bring to an end or even temporarily halt their enrichment of uranium. And just when sanctions on the Iranian regime, the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, were finally beginning to bear fruit, the Obama administration agreed to significantly ease the pressure?

It is the irony of our time that while the US agreed to ease sanctions on Iran, which has continually refused to follow UN resolutions, they reaffirmed the threat of sanctions against Israel, a friend and an ally that has fulfilled the obligations it committed to in all previously negotiated “peace” agreements.

The United States House of Representatives voted to increase sanctions on Iran by the overwhelming vote of 400-20. The Senate companion bill to increase sanctions boasts 58 bipartisan co-sponsors, and would almost certainly pass if it was allowed to have an up or down vote. But the administration’s pressure not to move it forward, and the president’s threat to veto the legislation if passed, has temporarily put the bill “on ice.”



To listen to this president and his secretary of state is proof that the de-legitimization campaign against Israel is underway, and United States policy, which infers prejudice and pressure against Israel, only exacerbates the situation. President Obama should know that words matter, and the actions of his administration have worked to embolden and legitimize our common enemies.



President Obama has dangerously taken a calculated position that Iran can be trusted, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas have reconciliatory intentions, and Israel needs to be pressured into acquiescence.

 Since Israel’s rebirth on May 15, 1948, the one thing that could always be counted on was the loyal and unwavering support of the United States. That unqualified support still exists, with the American people and in the US Congress.



Unfortunately, the Obama administration’s policies sadly do not reflect it.

Obama’s virtual reality

By Yoram Ettinger
Israel Opinion/Ynet
21 May ’11

Op-ed: President’s idealistic vision ignores Arab tradition of tyranny, political violence

On November 2, 2010, the US electorate decided that President Obama was detached from domestic reality, and therefore dealt the Democratic Party a devastating defeat in federal and state legislatures, as well as in gubernatorial elections. In his May 19, 2011 speech on the Middle East, the President proved himself detached from Mideast reality as well.

President Obama is determined to introduce democracy to Arab countries, in spite of their 1,400 year old systemic track record of tyranny, terror, political violence, uncertainty, volatility and treachery. He prefers the virtual reality of the “Arab Spring,” rather than contending with the Middle Eastern reality of the “Stormy Arab Winter.” Hence, he views the seismic events rocking the region as “a story of self-determination” and is convinced that “repression will not work anymore.”

Obama’s virtual reality leads him to compare the violent Arab Street to “the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a king, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat.” Are the two million Egyptians who assembled at Cairo’s Tahrir Square, cheering Sheikh Kardawi, a top Muslim Brotherhood leader, following in the footsteps of Patrick Henry and Martin Luther King???

President Obama offers to relieve “a democratic Egypt” of up to $1billion in debt and to channel billions of dollars to Egypt and Tunisia, “the vanguard of this democratic wave…, (which) can set a strong example through free and fair elections, a vibrant civil society, accountable and effective democratic institutions and responsible regional leadership.” He expects the flow of aid to generate trade, entrepreneurship and a free market economy. However, he downplays the absence of an appropriate infrastructure of values and education in the Arab Middle East, which is a prerequisite for democracy and a free market economy.

Obama has chosen to ignore in his speech clear and present threats to US economic and national security interests – such as Iran’s nuclearization and Islamic terrorism – while the “Arab Roller Coaster” runs uncontrollable and Russia and China deepen their penetration of the Middle East. Furthermore, the US is about to withdraw from Iraq and Afghanistan, which could be leveraged by rogue regimes, exacerbating regional violence, instability and uncertainty.

In February, 2010, President Obama appointed a new ambassador to Damascus – following four years of diplomatic absence – “because Assad could play a constructive role in the Middle East.” So much for Mideast realism…

Like deer caught in headlights

Persian Gulf leaders are traumatized by the Iranian threat, by domestic upheaval and by a potential Iraqi “earthquake” in the aftermath of the US departure, irrespective of the Palestinian issue. Other Arab leaders are shaky in the face of lethal domestic turbulence, which is totally unrelated to the Palestinian issue, to the Arab-Israeli conflict or to Israel’s existence. Nonetheless, Obama is convinced that “the conflict between Israelis and Arabs has cast a shadow over the region.”

Like a deer caught in a headlights-look, the American president is glued to the Palestinian “screen saver.” He is convinced that the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Palestinian issue are a root cause of Middle East turbulence, the crown jewel of Arab policy-making and a core cause of anti-US Islamic terrorism.

Hence, he disregards the sweeping popularity of bin Laden and Saddam Hussein on the Palestinian Street, the presence of Palestinian terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan, Abbas’ track record in intra-Arab subversion and terrorism and the anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and anti-US hate-education and incitement in Abbas-controlled education, the media and the clergy.

Obama also disregards the unprecedented Palestinian terrorism triggered by the Oslo Accord, by the Israeli initiative to establish the Palestinian Authority and by Israel’s withdrawal from the entire Gaza Strip and from 40% of Judea and Samaria.

Obama pressures the Jewish State to partition Jerusalem and to retreat to the 9-15 miles wide pre-1967 lines, in defiance of precedents which document that the Palestinian-Israeli conflict has never been over the size – but over the existence – of the Jewish State. Thus, Obama radicalizes Palestinian expectations and demands, distances them from – and replacing them at – the negotiation table, and signals to the Palestinians that terrorism is rewarded. By doing so, he forfeits the role of an honest broker.

President Obama’s position is at odds with the majority of the American people and most Democrats. It is out of step with most Senators and Representatives, who are empowered to initiate, bloc, suspend, amend and turn around policy. Therefore, Obama’s plan will not be implemented unless the Jewish State wastes its substantial base of American support, submitting itself to the pressure of a relatively-weak president, who is rapidly losing the “Bin Laden bonus,” and increasingly requires congressional cooperation in order to be reelected.

In fact, it was the pressure by congressional Democrats that forced Obama – against his worldview – to declare in his speech that “symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the UN in September won’t create an independent state.” In other words, the US will not tolerate a Palestinian Tsunami in the UN in September.