Author Topic: Israel, and its neighbors  (Read 888485 times)

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
I am not sure if he really opposes the outgoing
« Reply #2251 on: December 23, 2016, 04:23:34 PM »
POTUS or this is more show for his constituency:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/schumer-israel-un-veto/2016/12/23/id/765404/

They have been speaking negotiations for a lifetime.  Lets face it.  Many Muslims simply will not recognize the Jews as having rights to a Jewish state in Israel.  So what is there to negotiate?

Until The Arabs recognize this there is nothing else to say.

If Isis can burn to death two Turks one can only imagine what they would just like to do to Jews.


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2252 on: December 23, 2016, 06:14:51 PM »
Went to Huffington Post to see what all the liberal Jews are saying now about their king Obama that he screwed over our homeland.  Interesting that by 9 pm EST there is exactly zero mentions of the abstention from voting at the UN.  Plenty of Trump bashing and linking him to Russia.

I am waiting for Paul Krugman and Naom Chomsky to laud this landmark shift in US policy towards Israel.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Obama's Tantrum
« Reply #2253 on: December 23, 2016, 09:34:33 PM »
The decision by the United States to abstain from a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel over its settlements on the West Bank is one of the most significant, defining moments of the Obama Presidency.

It defines this President’s extraordinary ability to transform matters of public policy into personal pique at adversaries. And it defines the reality of the international left’s implacable opposition to the Israeli state.

Earlier in the week, Egypt withdrew the Security Council resolution under pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. President-elect Donald Trump also intervened, speaking with Egypt’s government and, via Twitter, urging Mr. Obama to block the resolution, as have past U.S. Administrations and Mr. Obama himself in 2011.

As was widely reported Friday after the U.N. vote, the White House decided to abstain—thereby allowing the pro-Palestinian resolution to pass—in retaliation against the intervention by Messrs. Netanyahu and Trump.

Mr. Obama’s animus toward Prime Minister Netanyahu is well known. Apparently Mr. Obama took it as an affront that the President-elect would express an opinion about this week’s U.N. resolution.

It is important, though, to see this U.S. abstention as more significant than merely Mr. Obama’s petulance. What it reveals clearly is the Obama Administration’s animus against the state of Israel itself. No longer needing Jewish votes, Mr. Obama was free, finally, to punish the Jewish state in a way no previous President has done.

No effort to rescind the resolution, which calls the settlements a violation of “international law,” will succeed because of Russia’s and China’s vetoes.

Instead, the resolution will live on as Barack Obama’s cat’s paw, offering support in every European capital, international institution and U.S. university campus to bully Israel with the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer implored the Administration to veto the resolution, noting rightly that it represents nothing more than the “Zionism is racism” bias at the U.N. Let Senator Schumer note the true nature of his party’s left wing.

House Speaker Paul Ryan called the Administration’s action “shameful.” Senator Lindsey Graham said he will form a bipartisan coalition to suspend or reduce U.S. financial support for the U.N. That should proceed.

For Donald Trump, meet your State Department. This is what State’s permanent bureaucrats believe, this is what they want, and Barack Obama delivered it to them.

Tweets won’t change this now-inbred hostility to America’s oldest democratic ally in the Middle East. Mr. Obama’s pique, however, has made it crystal clear to the new Administration where the lines in the sand are drawn.


DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18292
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Tantrum
« Reply #2255 on: December 24, 2016, 10:12:00 AM »
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/252744/

The most instructive thing about Obama’s Security Council abstention is he didn’t have the guts to do it earlier, when he stood to lose something by doing it. Only after he calculated there was nothing more to squeeze from that particular quarter did he run up the Jolly Roger. Had it cost him it would have meant something, even as a gesture.

But even more interesting was his willingness to damage the Democratic party who he’s leaving with political bill, not to mention the fact that the policy his abstention represents makes little sense.

Israel is likely to emerge as a linchpin in the region, after Obama’s power vacuum bomb reduces the nearby countries to waste. If Turkey and Iran fall apart, which is not inconceivable, then Obama will have antagonized the last man standing.

It was bad timing and pointless, like a punch thrown by a fighter lying on the canvas — at the referee. That would leave his legacy a consistently dysfunctional whole: conceived in delusion, executed in incompetence and spite.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Obama's Tantrum
« Reply #2256 on: December 24, 2016, 11:09:48 AM »
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/226104/la-times-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape-andrew-c-mccarthy

Rachel unavailable for comment.



https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/252744/



The most instructive thing about Obama’s Security Council abstention is he didn’t have the guts to do it earlier, when he stood to lose something by doing it. Only after he calculated there was nothing more to squeeze from that particular quarter did he run up the Jolly Roger. Had it cost him it would have meant something, even as a gesture.

But even more interesting was his willingness to damage the Democratic party who he’s leaving with political bill, not to mention the fact that the policy his abstention represents makes little sense.

Israel is likely to emerge as a linchpin in the region, after Obama’s power vacuum bomb reduces the nearby countries to waste. If Turkey and Iran fall apart, which is not inconceivable, then Obama will have antagonized the last man standing.

It was bad timing and pointless, like a punch thrown by a fighter lying on the canvas — at the referee. That would leave his legacy a consistently dysfunctional whole: conceived in delusion, executed in incompetence and spite.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Bolton, and Glick on the UN Resolution
« Reply #2257 on: December 24, 2016, 02:55:44 PM »
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5260207465001/?#sp=show-clips

As Ambassador Bolton said in the clip below from Fox News, Obama killed the peace process by pushing this anti-Semitic, evil resolution. He killed the peace process and all prospects for peace by destroying the foundation of the process. That foundation was "land for peace."

Land for peace formed the basis of UN Security Council resolution 242 from the end of the 1967 Six Day War. It stipulated that in exchange for Arab recognition of Israel and peace with the Jewish state, Israel would cede some of the land that it took control over during the course of that war.

But Friday's resolution says that Israel has no right to any of the land, that the presence of Israelis in that land -- yes, including the Western Wall -- is illegal. So Israel has no land to give and the Arabs will give no peace. And that is that.

The other thing the resolution does is annul all the bilateral agreements that Israel signed with the PLO, which formed the basis of their peace process. Those agreements were all witnessed by the US, the EU and Russia. And those agreements committed the sides to the bilateral framework for resolving their conflict.

In signing the agreements, the Palestinians committed themselves to not going to the UN or any other international body to coerce a settlement with Israel. Their UN strategy is a material breach of the agreements they signed.

Friday's resolution makes zero mention of any of those agreements. In pretended they don't exist. And in so doing, it killed them. They are dead.

For 23 years, confined by the Oslo framework, Israel was wary of taking the unilateral step of applying its law to all or parts of Judea and Samaria just as it was wary of building new Jewish communities in the areas. But now that those agreements are dead, Israel has no such limitations on its actions. It can act unilaterally just as it did in the past.

To be clear, this resolution is terrible for Israel. But it is mainly terrible for Jews in the West, and particularly in America.

Some argue that the resolution increases the threat that the International Criminal Court will try Israeli leaders or even private citizens. But this argument makes no sense. Israel is not a signatory to the ICC convention. It has no jurisdiction over us.

The greatest victims of this resolution are not Israeli Jews, they are the Jews of the Diaspora, and particularly Jews in the West. Harassment of Jews in the US, Canada and Europe by Muslim thugs and their useful leftist idiots both on and off campus will rise as a result of this resolution.

There is an ironic silver lining to this resolution for Israel.
First, there is the obvious silver lining which is that we don't need to lie about Obama anymore. He revealed himself in his final month as the Jew hating, Israel hating bastard we have always known him to be but our leaders, out of fear that he would act as he did on Friday felt compelled to pretend that the man who gave the bomb to Iran is a friend of ours.

Second, and more importantly, there is the irony of the consequences of the resolution.

By joining the UN gang rape of Israel in an act of diplomatic terrorism against the Jewish people and the Jewish state, Obama destroyed not only all prospects for peace. He destroyed all prospects for Palestinian state.

He destroyed all prospects for Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. He destroyed all prospect of any Israeli withdrawal at all.

And he even managed to weaken the UN which will now faces a massive cut in funding from the Trump White House and the Republican controlled Congress.

The news of this resolution hit us like a brick wall. It hurts to see a room full of well dressed, well schooled, supposedly cultured and caring people acting like a lynch mob of Cossacks setting fire to synagogues and attacking Jewish villagers with pitchforks. It is nauseating beyond measure to watch Samantha Power, who branded herself as "Miss Genocide," as in, the redhead who fights for the powerless, standing with murderers against innocent, law abiding, human rights respecting, good Jews.

But we've been through much worse and survived and prospered. Samantha Power won't even merit a footnote in history, except in the section on the greatest hypocrites in the early 21st century.

Obama will go on to become Jimmy Carter on steroids. He will be relentless, and powerful. But we will survive him as well.

And John Kerry will remembered first and foremost for betraying the men that served with him in Vietnam. All the treacheries he committed since, including this one, were preordained the moment he stepped out of the crowd and libeled his brothers in arms.

With G-d's help, we Jews will survive and thrive and move on from strength to strength, as our forefathers did, as we have always done.


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2261 on: December 25, 2016, 03:11:38 AM »
Dershowitz is a strong advocate for Israel.  Yet he is a terrible partisan Democrat on most everything else.

Ask him who he voted for President in '08 and '12.  Ask 80% of my fellow Jews who they thought they needed to vote for to prove how liberal they are in '08, '12, '16.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Haaretz supports Obama and the resolution
« Reply #2263 on: December 25, 2016, 04:31:19 PM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israelis say Obama-Kerry drafted it
« Reply #2266 on: December 26, 2016, 06:59:00 PM »
http://hotair.com/archives/2016/12/26/israeli-spokesman-we-have-ironclad-information-that-the-obama-pushed-this-un-resolution/

Who could have possibly guessed that Rev. Wright's most well known follower would have done this?

Rachel unavailable for comment.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Glick: Obama's play has just begun
« Reply #2267 on: December 27, 2016, 12:18:52 PM »
Caroline Glick
9 hrs ·

Here is what I think is a reasonable assessment of Obama's likely timeline for action against Israel.

Today, December 27, 2016: John Kerry is scheduled to address the UN Security Council and lay out his blueprint for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.

January 15, 2017: Kerry participates in French President Hollande's summit along with other leaders of the so called Quartet. The Quartet produces a document ratifying Kerry's speech as a unanimous position.

January 16, 2017: Obama makes a speech for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday. In his speech he merges Palestinian statehood with the civil rights movement and announces it is time for Palestine to be formally recognized.

January 17, 2017: The Security Council convenes to ratify the Quartet's blueprint for Palestine as a Security Council resolution. The resolution will probably only speak of a process of bringing Palestine in as a full member in order to prevent automatic US defunding of the UN in accordance with standing US law requiring a funding cut-off in response to any UN recognition of Palestine.

January 20, 2017: Donald Trump is inaugurated and presented with Obama's fait accompli.

Obama has without a doubt been lobbying the incoming members of the Security Council to support this program, just as he lobbied the current members to support last Friday's resolution.

The only person who can derail this operation is Donald Trump.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18292
    • View Profile
Re: Glick: Obama's play has just begun
« Reply #2268 on: December 28, 2016, 06:19:55 AM »
Caroline Glick
Here is what I think is a reasonable assessment of Obama's likely timeline for action against Israel.
Today, December 27, 2016: John Kerry is scheduled to address the UN Security Council and lay out his blueprint for the establishment of a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza.
January 15, 2017: Kerry participates in French President Hollande's summit along with other leaders of the so called Quartet. The Quartet produces a document ratifying Kerry's speech as a unanimous position.
January 16, 2017: Obama makes a speech for Martin Luther King Jr.'s Birthday. In his speech he merges Palestinian statehood with the civil rights movement and announces it is time for Palestine to be formally recognized.
January 17, 2017: The Security Council convenes to ratify the Quartet's blueprint for Palestine as a Security Council resolution. The resolution will probably only speak of a process of bringing Palestine in as a full member in order to prevent automatic US defunding of the UN in accordance with standing US law requiring a funding cut-off in response to any UN recognition of Palestine.
January 20, 2017: Donald Trump is inaugurated and presented with Obama's fait accompli.
Obama has without a doubt been lobbying the incoming members of the Security Council to support this program, just as he lobbied the current members to support last Friday's resolution.

The only person who can derail this operation is Donald Trump.

Jan 21, President Trump suspends US financial support for the United Nations of terror and kleptocracy, proposes US embassy move to Jerusalem.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18292
    • View Profile
Re: Haaretz supports Obama and the resolution
« Reply #2269 on: December 28, 2016, 07:19:59 AM »
second post

http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761269

The liberal left is alive and well in Israel too, temporarily defeated by a great leader, Netanyahu.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18292
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2270 on: December 28, 2016, 07:35:34 AM »
Pre-answering John Kerry's speech today, an old proverb describes the Kerry dilemma perfectly and I want to be first to put this out there.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

We will help Israel attain peace by taking away the only thing they have to offer in exchange for peace.  Makes sense if you have absolutely no awareness of history, reality or strategy.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2271 on: December 28, 2016, 08:58:32 AM »
Pre-answering John Kerry's speech today, an old proverb describes the Kerry dilemma perfectly and I want to be first to put this out there.

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt.

We will help Israel attain peace by taking away the only thing they have to offer in exchange for peace.  Makes sense if you have absolutely no awareness of history, reality or strategy.

But, community organizer!

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18292
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, UN Security Council, George Friedman
« Reply #2272 on: December 28, 2016, 10:32:11 AM »
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2016/12/27/a_meaningless_un_security_council_resolution_112154.html

Neither the United Nations resolution nor Trump’s shift is of great significance. Over the years, throughout the world, UNSC resolutions have been met with indifference. It does not matter what the UNSC says. It matters what the permanent members of the UNSC do. In the case of Israel and Palestine, no one on either side can do very much of significance. As for public opinion, that is fairly well locked into place. There are four camps: those who are pro-Israeli, those who are pro-Palestinian, those who wring their hand and express pieties and those who couldn’t care less. Nothing that happened at the U.N. will change anyone’s mind.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2273 on: December 28, 2016, 02:37:11 PM »
Legal issues concerning boycotts, embargoes, arrest in various countries, DO matter.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
McCarthy on Kerry - Obama
« Reply #2274 on: December 28, 2016, 05:52:03 PM »
The great friends of Israel.   

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443390/john-kerry-speech-israel-jewish-democratic-one-state-solution-islam

According to to Gerathy,

Kerry saluted
“Yasser Arafat’s transformation from outlaw to statesman.”


Remember Arafat.   The murderer who was the single figure who refused Clinton's peace deal yet the elites thought him worthy of a Nobel Peace prize just like Obama , another one worthy of such a prize which is really a joke prize.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443392/john-kerry-secretary-state-failure-weakness

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
First the Stab In the Back, Now the Twist of the Knife: Obama, Kerry Set to Dec
« Reply #2275 on: December 28, 2016, 07:09:45 PM »
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/367600.php

December 28, 2016
First the Stab In the Back, Now the Twist of the Knife: Obama, Kerry Set to Declare Palestinian Statehood

If the despicable action of not vetoing the blatantly anti-Israeli UN resolution was supposed to be a parting kick in the groin to the Jewish state - and it's pretty clear that the US actually crafted Resolution 2334 - Obama would have done it on January 20th, 2017 some time before noon. But there are still 23 days left for this momzer to inflict an incredible amount of damage. And it seems as if he's about to commit one of the worst acts imaginable, after eight years of heretofore unimaginable destruction and strife.

    Multiple media outlets are reporting that U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is finalizing a document that the Obama administration hopes will form the basis for a UN Security Council resolution that officially recognizes a Palestinian state before the end of Barack Obama's term on January 20th. This comes on the heels of the UN Security Council's adoption of resolution 2334 on December 23rd. That resolution declared that all Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal, it stated that the Security Council recognizes the 1967 ceasefire lines as the border between Israel and "Palestine", and it officially gave East Jerusalem to the Palestinians. But it stopped short of formally recognizing a Palestinian state. Resolution 2334 speaks of a Palestinian state in the future tense, but this new resolution that John Kerry is reportedly working on would give immediate and permanent UN Security Council recognition to a Palestinian state.

For those who have not looked at a map, the distance from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea is roughly 35-40 miles, give or take. Not exactly vast open country, but it's defensible. Barely. If Israel were to go back to its pre-1967 borders, as per Obama's and Kerry's plan, that distance would be cut to about 10 miles at its widest point. The Israelis refer to that as the Auschwitz borders for good reason.

But Obama doesn't just seek to destroy Israel because he's an anti-Semite (and he is). This is indicative of his hatred for the country that twice elected him president.

    When Obama chose to lead the anti-Israel lynch mob at the Security Council last week, he did more than deliver the PLO terrorist organization its greatest victory to date against Israel. He delivered a strategic victory to the anti-American forces that seek to destroy the coherence of American superpower status. That is, he carried out a strategic strike on American power.

    By leading the gang rape of Israel on Friday, Obama undermined the rationale for American power. Why should the US assert a sovereign right to stand against the radical forces that control the UN? If US agrees that Israel is committing a crime by respecting the civil and human rights of its citizens to live in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, then how can America claim that it has the right to defend its own rights and interests, when those clash with the views of the vast majority of state members of the UN?

Since its founding in 1948, the modern State of Israel has been the lone beacon of freedom and enlightenment surrounded by a vast wasteland of medieval tyranny, pig-ignorance, squalor, barbarity and a blind, centuries-old unreconstructed hatred. In spite of this, it has year after year made concession after concession in a desperate attempt to stop generational bloodshed and save the lives of not only its own children but of children whose parents use them as suicide bombers. It has only earned them enmity. And the twin ideologies of Islam and Marxism are converging with the aim of wiping Israel off the map and annihilating every Jew that Hitler couldn't gas now in sight; all thanks to Barack Hussein Obama, 44th President of the United States.

Having backed Israel into a corner by all but giving Iran nukes, and now opening a second front at the UN to annihilate the Jewish state politically, I suppose Bibi's only response must be as unthinkable as Obama's incitement: Annex the West Bank and to hell with the consequences.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
MEF Three Reasons Kerry is wrong
« Reply #2276 on: December 28, 2016, 07:44:44 PM »
John Kerry is Dead Wrong about Israeli Settlements
by Gregg Roman
The Los Angeles Times
December 28, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6451/john-kerry-is-dead-wrong-about-israeli-settlements
 
 
Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Israel for settlement policies that "make two states impossible" on December 28.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334, which describes Israel's settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as illegal, should never have passed last week. But the U.S. refused to use its veto power, in part because, as Secretary of State John F. Kerry explained in a speech on Wednesday, the Obama administration believes settlements are an obstacle to peace in the Middle East. In the outgoing administration's view, extreme criticism is, conversely, necessary to advance the peace process.

This argument is dead wrong. Still, let's examine it.

Although administration officials have been reluctant to explain the precise reasoning behind their last-minute series of attacks on Israel, as near as I can tell it rests on three assumptions.

The first, as Kerry outlined in his speech, is that a freeze on Israeli settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian negotiators to make painful compromises at the negotiating table. It supposedly does this by easing Palestinian suspicions that Israel either won't make major territorial concessions at the negotiating table, or won't implement these concessions once made.

The main impediment to compromise is Palestinian unwillingness to accept the existence of a Jewish state.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu put this assumption to the test in November 2009 when he imposed a 10-month moratorium on new housing construction (East Jerusalem excepted) at the urging of the Obama administration.

What happened? Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas refused to return to talks until the very end of the moratorium and remained every bit as intransigent as before.

The main impediment to Palestinian compromise is not Palestinian suspicion; it is the fundamental unwillingness of Palestinian leaders across the spectrum to accept the existence of a Jewish state alongside their own.

Some settlement growth makes it easier for Palestinian moderates to build public support for compromise.

What's more, a strong case can be made that some settlement growth actually makes it easier for Palestinian moderates to build public support for compromise by underscoring that a continuation of the status quo is untenable and injurious to Palestinian national aspirations in the long run.

The Obama administration's second assumption is that pressure from the international community or from the United States will bring about this supposedly desirable settlement freeze.

However, by collapsing the distinction between East Jerusalem and bustling Israeli towns just inside the West Bank — which no major Israeli political party will contemplate abandoning — and the remaining settlements, most of which Israelis are willing to give up, this policy does the opposite.

"It is a gift to Bibi Netanyahu, who can now more easily argue to Israelis that the bad relationship with America these last eight years wasn't his fault," notes the writer Jonah Goldberg.

Finally, even if it were true that a settlement freeze would make it easier for Palestinian negotiators to trust Israel and that international pressure would increase the willingness of Israeli leaders to accept such a freeze, these effects would be far overshadowed by the problems created by branding Israeli claims outside the 1949 armistice line illegal and invalid.

Palestinian leaders will have double the trouble compromising now that the UN has endorsed their maximalist demands.

Since Palestinian leaders already have trouble justifying to their people the abandonment of territorial claims to Ma'ale Adumim, the Jewish quarter in Jerusalem, and so forth, they will have double the trouble now that the United States has endorsed these demands. What Palestinian leader can sign away territory to which Washington and the Security Council have declared Israelis have no legitimate claim?

Kerry stated plainly that Israel is to blame for the demise of the two-state process, and that — unless its leaders listen to counsel — Israel will not survive as both a Jewish and a democratic state. Now that the administration's views are crystal clear, pundits should spare us the back and forth on whether its eleventh-hour obsessions are good for peace – no one as smart as Obama or Kerry can possibly believe that it is.

The more interesting question, sure to be the focus of congressional hearings next year, is why the administration used its last few weeks to damage relations with Israel.

Gregg Roman is director of the Middle East Forum, a research center headquartered in Philadelphia.
 

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2277 on: December 29, 2016, 04:51:06 AM »
"The main impediment to compromise is Palestinian unwillingness to accept the existence of a Jewish state."

It has been this way since ~ 1800 BC.

Certainly since 1947.

Israel has always wanted peace.   They just want to be recognized and accepted.   For some reason the world (perhaps bribed by oil) seems to single the Jews out as not having this right.

Kerry just ignores this.   He stabs Israel in the back just like he did to his fellow soldiers in Vietnam.  Hey but he is married to ketchup billiionaire.  Good for him.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 26643
    • View Profile
Lurch to the left
« Reply #2278 on: December 29, 2016, 07:55:21 AM »

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18292
    • View Profile
Re: Lurch to the left
« Reply #2279 on: December 29, 2016, 09:32:54 AM »


http://ace.mu.nu/archives/kerry_vietnam1.jpg

What a picture, really shows ashamed of his country as he so falsely reported his facts.  The man hasn't changed.  How is it that out of hundreds of millions of people, this is what rises up to nearly the top?
« Last Edit: December 29, 2016, 09:47:50 AM by DougMacG »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Charles K summarizes the Brock Kerry treachery
« Reply #2280 on: December 30, 2016, 05:51:06 AM »
in  a nut shell.
This could go under the anti semitism thread as well because it is really hard to see any other way.
I alway figured obama was one of the Jew hating blacks like Sharpton and J Jackson and spike lee to name a feew, of which there are many , though certainly not all:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443416/security-council-settlements-resolution-shameful-betrayal-obama


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2282 on: December 30, 2016, 11:47:42 AM »
Gott love this part.  Speaking about civil society should speak out about Israel  ....   while arabs are murdering each other and other all over the world.

"European countries, Russia, China, India, and civil society in the United States and elsewhere must act decisively to underscore the global isolation of the proponents of unending occupation and colonization in Palestine. As too little and too late as Resolution 2334 and the Kerry speech were, they do offer an opening for an overdue global response to the arrogance of the Israeli and American enablers of the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people."

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile



Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
poTH: Is Trump the friend Israel needs?
« Reply #2286 on: January 01, 2017, 06:41:52 AM »
ISTRUM p the friend Israel Needs?

By BERNARD AVISHAIDEC. 31, 2016


JERUSALEM — “We cannot continue to let Israel be treated with such total disdain and disrespect.” Thus President-elect Donald J. Trump tweeted just before Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the Israeli-Palestinian conflict last week. He added: “They used to have a great friend in the U.S., but …”

Mr. Trump was presuming to side with Israel in its regional fight, but … as Mr. Kerry implied, particularly when he spoke elegiacally of Shimon Peres, one cannot be a friend to Israel without actually being a friend to some Israelis over others, one conception of Israel, the region, and Jews, for that matter, over another. These are also Jewish culture wars — centered on Israel, but played out vicariously among American Jews — and Mr. Trump has stepped, or stumbled, into the thick of them. Nor do they affect Jews alone, given America’s web of relations in the region. One hopes and trusts that senior appointees to his foreign policy team will take notice.

Their job became more difficult last month when Mr. Trump’s transition team named David M. Friedman, his bankruptcy lawyer, as the next United States ambassador to Israel, soon after announcing an intention to move the American Embassy to Jerusalem. Mr. Friedman, a major fund-raiser for the Beit El settlement built on the hills around the West Bank city of Ramallah, would doubtless feel at home in Jerusalem, where I live for half the year. The mental atmosphere of Greater Israel is nested here and in its encircling settlements.

By contrast, he would barely know what to make of Tel Aviv, where the embassy is now. That city is the heart of what could be called “Global Israel,” a Hebrew hub in a cosmopolitan system.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Opinion Room for Debate
    Should the U.S. Embassy Be Moved From Tel Aviv to Jerusalem? DEC. 27, 2016

ADVERTISEMENT
Continue reading the main story

Mr. Friedman’s allies in Israel’s right-wing Likud Party and its nationalist and Orthodox coalition partners see the land, including the West Bank, which they call Judea and Samaria, as holy. They regard any strategic territorial compromise entailing a withdrawal of Israeli sovereignty as sinful. In this respect, they benefit politically from the violence produced by the occupation.

Perhaps 40 percent of Jewish Israelis hold these attitudes, which imply others, such as theocracy over Supreme Court defenses of individual dignity, or privileges for Jewish citizens over Arab citizens, whose right to vote they consider provisional. A clear majority of these rightists want the release of Yigal Amir, who assassinated Yitzhak Rabin in 1995. They see Europeans as anti-Semitic unless proven otherwise, Reform Jews as apostates, and Islam as terrorism’s gateway drug. Last week, the editor in chief of Haaretz, Aluf Benn, warned that Greater Israel zealots have moved to control the news media, schools, courts and army. “That means replacing the heads of cultural institutions and threatening a halt to government funding for those who don’t go with the flow,” he said.

People in Tel Aviv are cut from different cloth. Invite friends from Tel Aviv to dinner in Jerusalem, and they raise an eyebrow, as if you’re asking them to leave Israel for the ancient Kingdom of Judea.

The ethos of Tel Aviv — which runs, in effect, up the seaboard to Haifa — reflects the attitudes of another 40 percent of the Israeli Jewish population, which declares itself secular. One can slice the data many ways, but these Israelis see themselves as a part of the Western world and Israel’s Jewishness as custodianship of a historic civilization, not Orthodox rabbinical law.

Zionism, to them, means a culture. There may be a sentimental attachment to the rhetoric of Zionism’s insurgent period around independence: “redeeming” the land of Israel, “answering” the Holocaust, building a “majority” of people with J-positive blood, and so forth. But for most liberal Israelis, Zionism concretely means building a modern Hebrew-speaking civil society that can assimilate all comers.

There are some less liberal, who might call themselves “centrists.” They fear (or loathe) Arabs — about a third of secular Israelis would entertain expulsion — and have given up on the Oslo peace process, if not the two-state solution in the abstract. Yet they think the occupation, for which their conscripted children provide the backbone, should be run according to civilized norms. They fear (or loathe) settlers, too. In 2016, reflecting on the influence of the settlers, senior military and political leaders worried publicly about the growth of Israeli “fascism.”

America has coasts; Israel has a coast.

Which brings me to American Jews. According to the Pew Research Center, a clear majority, more than 70 percent, see themselves in shades of classical liberalism. Over 70 percent consider it a duty to remember the Holocaust; their significant concern for Israel — which about 40 percent profess — is seen in that light. Four-fifths do not keep kosher; nearly 60 percent say “working for justice and equality” is an integral part of their values (but then, more than 40 percent say “a sense of humor” is).
Photo
Ultra-Orthodox Jews burning leavened food before Passover near Tel Aviv. Credit Oded Balilty/Associated Press

When not in Jerusalem, I live in New England. It is hard to find Jews who are not proudly erudite, emancipated, attending synagogue only sporadically, comfortable with intermarriage, identified with the Democratic Party. Liberal American Jews overwhelmingly support the two-state solution. Their largest political organization, J Street, welcomed the United Nations Security Council condemnation of settlements. They cannot imagine rallying to an apartheid Israel.

American Jews are more likely to identify with Philip Roth’s protagonists than with a figure like Mr. Friedman, who might have been a Rothian foil. Righteously Orthodox, he traffics in the pathos of anti-Semitism (he dismissed J Street supporters as “worse than kapos,” the Jewish trustees in Nazi concentration camps), mocks the Anti-Defamation League for criticizing anti-Semitic messaging in Mr. Trump’s final campaign ad, and has cozied up to Republicans for whom being pro-Israel is tantamount to being pro-guns on the world stage.

Institutions on the right of the organized Jewish American community like the Zionist Organization of America openly embrace the minority sentiments Mr. Friedman espouses.

“The American Israel Public Affairs Committee and the Conference of Presidents profess neutrality,” J Street’s founder and president, Jeremy Ben-Ami, told me, “but their unwillingness to criticize Friedman or to defend critics of Israeli policies from attack put them in much the same space.”

In consequence of this rift, which has been long in the making, only about 30 percent of young American Jews polled in 2013 said that Israel plays a part in their lives. More and more, as the writer Peter Beinart noted, are becoming indifferent to Jewish community life altogether.

Mr. Trump’s professed friendship for Israel, then, brings an unexpected moment of truth. It will advance the cause of extremists in Israel, while making a majority of American Jews more skeptical of American policy and organized Jewish institutions — and no less skeptical of him.

Mr. Trump may feel he is discharging a personal debt to Orthodox neo-Zionists, who, alone among American Jews, disproportionately vote Republican. But Mr. Friedman will ultimately be accountable to the secretaries of state and defense, whose charge will be Middle East policy as a whole. Can they be expected to go along with the friendship program?

Soon after he left his post as head of Central Command, Mr. Trump’s choice for defense secretary, Gen. James N. Mattis, lamented that Israel was headed for “apartheid.” He has also questioned the price America has paid in the region for being identified with Israel’s actions. And, in the end, he endorsed the Iran nuclear deal.

The pick for state, Rex W. Tillerson, is a self-described risk manager, who spent his professional life at ExxonMobile managing huge upfront investments that would have to be recouped over a generation. What he has cared most about are the rewards of long-term stability, irrespective of a nation’s governing ideology or tyrannical behavior.

Mr. Trump reportedly complied with Mr. Netanyahu’s request to pressure Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, to prevent the United Nations Security Council vote on settlements. Does it serve regional stability for Mr. Sisi to be seen as Mr. Netanyahu’s agent?

The more immediate risk to stability would be the embassy move. Of Israel’s neighbors, the most vulnerable state — and the most crucial to American interests — is Jordan. The Hashemite Kingdom, which has signed a peace agreement with Israel, has long been on the defensive for its association with the United States. The country also shares a border both with Syria and the Islamic State and has accepted a million refugees from the Syrian war. Jordan’s capital, Amman, is by most reckonings majority Palestinian, including a substantial middle class and two large Palestinian refugee camps, which are decidedly less affluent. The residents of the camps have become increasingly receptive to radical Sunni jihadist ideas.

After the announcement about the embassy move, polls showed that 44 percent of Israelis thought Mr. Trump a “true” friend — but only 6 percent believed he’d make good on the promise. The skepticism is revealing. Both Israelis and Palestinians are alert to how violence in the occupied territories could spread; the distance from Amman to Jericho, in the West Bank, is roughly that from Newark Airport to Kennedy Airport. Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian public opinion expert, told me in December that an embassy move “could ignite the territories.” Is this the time for America to signal approval for Israel’s annexation of the whole of Jerusalem, merely to back the Israeli right’s symbolic claim?

Mr. Trump has heated up the Jewish culture wars and, inadvertently or otherwise, advanced fanaticism. His incoming national security team is made up of people who purport to be realists, so here are the facts: Safeguard American interests and, as a byproduct, you strengthen Israeli democracy; Israeli advocates of Greater Israel, and their American allies, subvert both.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2287 on: January 01, 2017, 07:03:06 AM »
Andrew McCarthy - last part of the article (link below)

------
This week, Obama betrayed our Israeli allies by orchestrating (and cravenly abstaining from) a U.N. Security Council resolution. As I’ve explained, the ostensible purpose of the resolution is to condemn the construction of Israeli settlements in the disputed territories of East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria that Israel has controlled since 1967; the real purpose is to declare that those territories are sovereign Palestinian land, and thus that Israel is “occupying” it in violation of international law (“international law” is the gussied-up term for the hyper-political, intensely anti-Israeli Security Council’s say-so).
What does this have to do with our enemy’s ideology? Everything.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation. Hamas, the aforementioned Muslim Brotherhood branch that has been lavishly supported by Saudi Arabia, Iran, Turkey, and other Muslim governments, is more explicit about this than its rival for Palestinian leadership, Fatah. But both are clear on the matter. They take the doctrinal position that any territory that comes under Islamic control for any duration of time is Islam’s forever. (That’s why Islamists still refer to Spain as al-Andalus and vow to retake it, notwithstanding that they lost it half a millennium ago.)

Further, radical Islam regards the presence of a sovereign Jewish state in Islamic territory as an intolerable affront. Again, the reason is doctrinal. Do not take my word for it; have a look at the 1988 Hamas Charter (“The Covenant of the Islamic Resistance Movement”). Article 7, in particular, includes this statement by the prophet Muhammad:

The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say, “O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.” . . . (Related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).

Understand: Al-Bukhari and Muslim are authoritative collections of hadith. These memorializations of the prophet’s sayings and deeds have scriptural status in Islam. Hamas is not lying — this story of an end-of-times annihilation of Jews is related, repeatedly, in Islamic scripture. (See, e.g., here.) And please spare me the twaddle about how there are competing interpretations that discount or “contextualize” these hadith. It doesn’t matter which, if any, interpretation represents the “true Islam” (if there is one). What matters for purposes of our security is that millions of Muslims, including our enemies, believe these hadith mean what they say — unalterable, for all time.

The Palestinians and the Islamist regimes that support them frame their struggle against Israel in terms of Islamic obligation.
________________________________________
Even after all the mass-murder attacks we have endured over the last few decades, and for all their claptrap about respecting Islam as “one of the world’s great religions,” transnational progressives cannot bring themselves to accept that something as passé as religious doctrine could dictate 21st-century conflicts. So, they tell themselves, the Israeli–Palestinian conflict is simply about territorial boundaries and refugee rights. It could be settled if Israel, which they reckon would never have been established but for a regrettable bout of post-Holocaust remorse, would just make a few concessions regarding land it was never ceded in the first place (conveniently overlooking that East Jerusalem and the West Bank are disputed territories, and were not “Palestinian” when Israel took them in the 1967 war of Arab aggression).

Transnational progressives see Israel as intransigent, notwithstanding its many attempts to trade land for peace. They rationalize Palestinian terrorism as the product of that intransigence, not of ideology. Thus their smug calculation that branding Israel as an “occupier” of “Palestinian land” in gross “violation of international law” is the nudge Israel needs to settle. This will effectively grant the Palestinians their coveted sovereign state. Thus accommodated, Palestinians will surely moderate and co-exist with Israel — if not in peace, then in the same uneasy state in which Parisians coexist with their banlieues and Berliners with their refugees.

It is not just fantasy but willfully blind idiocy. No one who took a few minutes to understand the ideology of radical Islam would contemplate for a moment a resolution such as the one Obama just choreographed.

Under Islamic law, the Palestinians regard all of the territory — not just East Jerusalem, Judea, and Samaria but all of Israel — as Muslim territory.
Furthermore, they deem the presence of a Jewish-ruled state on that territory as anathema. A Security Council resolution that declares Israeli control of the disputed territory not merely an “obstacle to peace” but illegitimate tells the Islamists that their jihad has succeeded, that non-Muslim powers accede to their sharia-based demands. It can only encourage them to continue their jihad toward their ultimate regional goal of eradicating the Jewish state. After all, Mahmoud Abbas has stated his racist terms: Not a single Israeli will be permitted to reside in the Palestinian state. As Islamists see it (and why shouldn’t they?), Obama’s reaction was not to condemn Abbas; it was to appease Abbas. As Islamists see it, Allah is rewarding their fidelity to Islamic doctrine; of course they will persevere in it.

We are not merely in a shooting war with jihadists. We are in an ideological war with sharia supremacists. Mass murder is not their sole tactic; they attack at the negotiating table, in the councils of government, in the media, on the campus, in the courtroom — at every political and cultural pressure point. To defeat jihadists, it is necessary to discredit the ideology that catalyzes them. You don’t discredit an ideology by ignoring its existence, denying its power, and accommodating it at every turn.

President Obama never got this. Will President Trump?
In his campaign, Trump made a welcome start by naming the enemy. Now it is time to know the enemy — such that it is clear to the enemy that we understand his objectives and his motivation, and that we will deny him because our own principles require it.
The new president should begin by renouncing Obama’s Palestinian power-play: Revoke any state recognition Obama gives the Palestinians; defund them; clarify the disputed (not occupied) status of the territories; move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem; reaffirm the principle that the conflict may only be settled by direct negotiations between the parties; and make clear that the United States will consider the Palestinians pariahs until they acknowledge Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, stop indoctrinating their children in doctrinal Jew-hatred, and convincingly abandon terrorism.
That would tell radical Islam that America rejects its objectives as well as its tactics, that we will fight its ideology as well as its terrorism. This is not just about restoring our reputation as a dependable ally. Our security depends on it.
— Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior policy fellow at the National Review Institute and a contributing editor of National Review.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/443440/donald-trump-radical-islam-israel-palestinian-conflict-test-case-new-administration

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Why Obama pandered to UN's bigotry
« Reply #2288 on: January 02, 2017, 09:42:46 AM »

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Jared - to save the Middle East?
« Reply #2291 on: January 16, 2017, 04:41:34 AM »
Well if one takes the position with, "what have we got to lose?" and "it couldn't get any worse"  then I suppose this is a great idea:

http://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Jared-Kushner-will-broker-Middle-East-peace-at-the-White-House-says-Trump-478554

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
History of President Jimmy Carter and Israel
« Reply #2294 on: January 20, 2017, 07:26:00 PM »
Jimmy Carter's Lifelong Pursuit of a Palestinian State
by A.J. Caschetta
American Thinker
December 30, 2016
http://www.meforum.org/6469/jimmy-carter-pursuit-of-palestinian-state
 
Perhaps sensing that he would soon have to relinquish his position as America's worst ex-president, Jimmy Carter reminded everyone last month how he earned the title with yet another call for the U.S. to recognize a Palestinian state. Carter's call is a departure from American diplomacy, which insists, per UN Resolution 338, that an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement can only be reached through negotiations "between the parties."

Carter's presidency was mired in bad foreign policy decisions, and his post-presidency has been marred with excusing terrorism, attempting to revise history, and meddling in the affairs of every subsequent occupant of the White House – especially where the Middle East, which Carter considers his forte, is concerned. At each stage of his post-presidency, he has advocated on behalf of the Palestinians and against Israel, a nation he considers an apartheid state.
The Carter presidency is notable mostly for its failures: a 21.5% prime interest rate, the aborted April 1980 mission to rescue American hostages held in Iran, and dreary speeches to the nation, like the "crisis of confidence" or "malaise" speech. The only bright spot, and the one achievement upon which he has built his post-presidency reputation, is the Egyptian-Israeli peace deal known as the Camp David Accords. Were it not for that lone foreign policy success during his presidency, few would listen to Jimmy Carter today.

At each stage of his post-presidency, Carter has advocated on behalf of the Palestinians against Israel.

Unfortunately, Carter gets too much credit for Camp David. He almost botched the whole deal with two ill-advised strategies: bringing the USSR into the negotiations and insisting on a comprehensive deal that would create a Palestinian state.

Egypt had been moving out of the Soviet orbit long before Camp David. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat wrote in his autobiography: "I wanted to put the Soviet Union in its place... to tell the Russians that the will of Egypt was entirely Egyptian; I wanted to tell the whole world that we are always our own masters. Whoever wished to talk to us should come over and do it, rather than approach the Soviet Union."

In a secret meeting on September 16, 1977 in Morocco, Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Dayan and Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister Hassan Tuhami conducted the second round of negotiations, without the assistance or even the knowledge of anyone in the Carter administration. At that meeting, Tuhami told Dayan that Sadat "do[es] not wish to be in touch with the Soviet Union, but only with the U.S."

The other flaw in Carter's plans was his attempt to involve the Arab states in a deal that would create a Palestinian state, even after Sadat made it clear that he was pursuing a bilateral arrangement with Israel. Sadat told the American ambassador in Cairo that the negotiations "are getting lost in the papers," meaning the process Carter was cooking.

A few weeks into his presidency, Carter spoke about the Palestinians in a way that no previous U.S. president had ever spoken. Abandoning the positions of every prior administration since Harry S. Truman's, he said: "There has to be a homeland provided for the Palestinian refugees who have suffered for many, many years."
 
Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with the defining moment that made bilateral Israel-Egyptian negotiations possible.

Though contrary to U.S. official policy at the time, Carter even reached out secretly to Yassir Arafat, only to be snubbed by the PLO leader.
Carter's two errors converged when U.S. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko announced a return to the 1973 Geneva Conference in a joint statement. An incensed Sadat rejected the call and soon made his own historic trip to Israel. It was the defining moment that made bilateral negotiations possible, and Jimmy Carter had nothing to do with it.

In the best book on the topic, Heroic Diplomacy, Kenneth W. Stein describes the American reaction to Sadat's trip:

In Washington there was a sense of disarray and surprise, because Carter and Brzezinski were particularly immersed in getting to Geneva. The administration had not been consulted, and the American game plan was thrown out of kilter.

Sadat went to Israel, breaking what Stein calls "the Arab psychological barrier by recognizing the existence and legitimacy of the Jewish state.
Menachem Begin soon made his own historic trip to Egypt and the peace accord they eventually signed in 1979 bowed neither to Carter's comprehensive negotiating formula nor to his demand for a Palestinian state.

It is no accident that Begin and Sadat were co-recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize in 1978 -- the year before the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty was signed. The brave actions each man took paved the way for the treaty. Jimmy Carter, whose advocacy for a Palestinian state almost made the treaty impossible, got his Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 -- largely because a politicized Nobel Committee sought to reward him for undercutting George W. Bush's response to 9/11.

Carter left office convinced that he could have brokered a comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace settlement.

Carter came into office believing he could personally arrange an Israeli-Arab peace deal. After losing his reelection bid to Ronald Reagan, he left office convinced that he could have finalized a deal in his second term, and has been, in Asaf Romirowsky's words, "practicing foreign affairs without an electoral mandate" ever since.

After Hamas won control of the Palestinian parliament in the 2006 election, Carter fretted in the Washington Post that, as Hamas is a terrorist organization, the West would henceforth be unable to distribute aid in the territories and thereby further "alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians." Carter seemed unconcerned that these same "innocents" had just elected a terrorist organization to represent them.
 
Carter receiving a warm reception by Gaza standards, June 2009.

In 2014 Carter wrote in Foreign Policy that the West needs to recognize Hamas' "legitimacy as a political actor" in order to facilitate peace in Gaza. Here he was echoing his former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski's November 2007 open letter to President George W. Bush urging him to open "a genuine dialogue with the organization." This is the same Brzezinski who suggested in 2008 that a President Obama might order the downing of Israeli airplanes should they cross into Iraqi airspace on a mission to bomb Iranian nuclear sites.

Carter needs to ask himself why the world should accept a Palestinian state comprised of the highest concentration of Muslims who believe that suicide bombing is justified when carried out "against civilian targets in order to defend Islam from its enemies." Why should the U.S. accept a nation ruled by terrorists who have repeatedly killed Americans, even when we were there to offer scholarships to Palestinian students? And why should Israel to accept a state on its borders that does not recognize its own right to exist?

The world should not confuse admiration for Jimmy Carter's charitable and philanthropic work and joy that he beat brain cancer with the delusion that he was an effective president whose wisdom can see us through troubled times 35 years after he left office.

A.J. Caschetta is a Shillman-Ginsburg fellow at the Middle East Forum and a senior lecturer at the Rochester Institute of Technology.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
A final FU from Baraq
« Reply #2295 on: January 23, 2017, 05:38:03 PM »

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2296 on: January 25, 2017, 04:30:01 AM »
This does anger some Jews but bROCK is out the door so now Jews can go after Trump as they already are.   Forget about any Jews leaving the Democrat party .  It will not happen.  bROCK as always gets away with it:


http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/444210/obama-palestinian-aid-supports-gaza-anti-semitic-propaganda

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
Re: Israel, and its neighbors
« Reply #2297 on: January 25, 2017, 05:21:05 AM »
It will be very interesting to see how Trump handles the US Embassy in Jerusalem issue.

It certainly is the "right" thing to do, but the blow back could be very destructing to the under the radar screen but apparently real development of Israeli-Sunni (e.g. Saudi) alliances based upon fear of Iran.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 69460
    • View Profile
No sympathy from Turkey
« Reply #2298 on: January 25, 2017, 08:04:55 AM »
Despite ISIS Attacks, Little Empathy for Israel in Turkey
by Burak Bekdil
The Gatestone Institute
January 19, 2017
http://www.meforum.org/6496/despite-isis-attacks-little-empathy-for-israel-in-turkey
 
Police arrive at the scene of an explosion in Istanbul on December 10.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had a good point when, a day after a terrorist attack in Istanbul killed 38 people on Dec. 10, he said that he condemned all terrorism in Turkey and expected that Turkey did the same when terror targeted Israel. "The fight against terrorism must be mutual,"
Netanyahu said. "It must be mutual in condemnation and in countermeasures, and this is what the State of Israel expects from all countries it is in contact with, including Turkey," Netanyahu said a day before Ankara and Jerusalem formally normalized their frozen diplomatic relations. Netanyahu's expectation was legitimate but not realistic, especially with Turkey.

A few days later, Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman issued an order outlawing the Istanbul-based International Kanadil Institute for Humanitarian Aid, a Turkish aid group, accusing it of funneling money to Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood. "The Kanadil foundation is identified with Hamas and with the Muslim Brotherhood and in recent years had been used as a main pipeline for funding projects by Hamas in Jerusalem," Lieberman's spokesperson said in a statement. Turkey's logistical and political support for its ideological next of kin, Hamas, did not come as a surprise, despite normalization with Israel: for Turkey's rulers, there are terrorists, and terrorists who go with fancy tags.

One would expect such a front-runner ISIS victim as Turkey to have empathy for victims elsewhere.

In a November interview with Israel's Channel 2, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said that he does not view Hamas as a terrorist organization. He called it instead a "political movement born from [a] national resurrection." He also said he meets with Hamas "all the time."

What Erdogan says about terror and terrorists often makes perfect sense. On June 11, 2016, he said that "for us there is no good terrorist or bad terrorist; all terrorists are bad." On June 15, 2016, Erdogan proposed that "let us oppose terror regardless of the terrorist's identity, rhetoric or faith... Let us disapprove of [terror] whoever it targets." And on Dec. 1, 2016, after meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Erdogan said that "terrorism has no religion, nationality or identity ... that we should exhibit a common stance and common solidarity in our fight against all kinds of terror."
 
 
Erdogan warmly greets Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal in Ankara, March 2012.

Turkey, since a near civil-war paralyzed life in the 1970s, has been one of the most notable victims of terror in the world. The street violence along ultra left- and right-wing lines took thousands of lives and led to a military coup on Sept. 12, 1980. After barely three years of relative peace in post-coup Turkey, the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) burst onto the scene in 1984, launching a violent campaign for a Kurdish homeland. That war has so far taken nearly 40,000 lives. Turkey also is a relatively recent target of the jihadist Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (IS). In its latest attack shortly after midnight on the New Year's Eve, an IS militant killed 39 people at an upscale Istanbul nightclub. By a modest estimate, in less than half a century, tens of thousands of Turks must have lost their lives in terror.

Common sense would expect such a front-runner victim at least to have some sense of empathy for terror victims elsewhere. Right? Wrong. Not in Turkey. Unfortunately, Erdogan's ideological attachments visibly defeat his fake rhetoric that there are no good terrorists and bad terrorists.

On Jan. 8, four Israeli officer cadets were killed and a dozen wounded when a Palestinian driving a truck ploughed into them deliberately. Israeli police said the dead, three women and one man, were all in their twenties. Among the wounded three were described as in a serious condition. Hamas, Erdogan's "political movement born from [a] national resurrection," praised the truck attack but did not claim responsibility. In a statement, the group's spokesman Abdul-Latif Qanou called it a "heroic" act and encouraged other Palestinians to do the same and "escalate the resistance."

Ten statements condemning terror. Not a word for the young victims in Jerusalem.

Unsurprisingly, Erdogan who "opposes terror regardless of the terrorist's identity, rhetoric or [religious] faith ... whoever it targets," has not condemned the latest attack in Jerusalem. His mind may have been too busy with victims of terror in his own country. But then Turkey often has a "Protocol B" level of condemnation of acts of terror abroad: Leaders may remain silent but, officially, the Foreign Ministry does the job.

On Jan. 10, the Turkish Foreign Ministry's web page exhibited a list of press releases on various subjects including terror attacks in foreign countries. A simple check would reveal that between Dec. 1, 2016 and Jan. 10, 2017 the Ministry had issued two press releases condemning terror attacks in Egypt, two in Iraq, one at the Mogadishu Airport, one in Berlin, one in Somalia, two in Yemen and one in Jordan. Ten statements in total condemning terror. Not a single word for the young victims of terror in Jerusalem.

Burak Bekdil is an Ankara-based political analyst and a fellow at the Middle East Forum.

ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 18542
    • View Profile
not so fast bROCK
« Reply #2299 on: January 25, 2017, 11:24:08 AM »