Posts
Poll: Palestinians Reject '67 Borders, Sharing Jerusalem with Israel (Angus Reid Global Monitor)
67% of the residents of the West Bank and Gaza are opposed to the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders with some land exchange as part of a solution to the current impasse with Israel, according to a poll by An-Najah University in the West Bank.
77% reject making Jerusalem the capital of both an eventual Palestinian state and Israel.****Let's be clear what this shows: those identified as "Palestinians" are not satisfied with a Palestinian state on even the 1967 borders and with a shared Jerusalsm. They have not come to the realization that Israel should exist at all.The idea of a "two-state solution", elevated by Obama to a status beyond that of peace in the Middle East, is not acceptable to the mass of Palestinians, except possibly as a way station on the road to a total obliteration of any Jewish state.****
Friday, April 30, 2010
Little "asides" reveal the true Obama.
McCain 'Disturbed' by Obama's View of American Power By: Jim Meyers
Sen. John McCain...was “very disturbed” by President Barack Obama’s statement that America remains a dominant military superpower “whether we like it or not.”
At the close of the two-day nuclear weapons summit in Washington, D.C., on April 13, Obama said that the United States must do its best to resolve conflicts around the world before they grow too serious."It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them."...“It was a very interesting statement. We went to Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims. We went to Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims. We should have gone to Rwanda to stop genocide. America has a role in the world, and I’m proud of the role that we’ve played in defense of freedom and democracy —usually somebody else’s.” Asked if he has any idea why the president appears apologetic about America’s role in the world, the Arizona Republican says simply: “No, I don’t.” ****Of course he does. Obama is apologetic about America's role, doesn't believe in "American exceptionalism," and even recently commented that people can make too much money.Even in his speech in Berlin, Obama revealed that he regards himself first as a citizen of the world rather than one of the United States and has many times indicated he doesn't approve of either the Judeo-Christian or capitalist nature of the U.S. ****
Sen. John McCain...was “very disturbed” by President Barack Obama’s statement that America remains a dominant military superpower “whether we like it or not.”
At the close of the two-day nuclear weapons summit in Washington, D.C., on April 13, Obama said that the United States must do its best to resolve conflicts around the world before they grow too serious."It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into them."...“It was a very interesting statement. We went to Bosnia to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims. We went to Kosovo to stop ethnic cleansing of Muslims. We should have gone to Rwanda to stop genocide. America has a role in the world, and I’m proud of the role that we’ve played in defense of freedom and democracy —usually somebody else’s.” Asked if he has any idea why the president appears apologetic about America’s role in the world, the Arizona Republican says simply: “No, I don’t.” ****Of course he does. Obama is apologetic about America's role, doesn't believe in "American exceptionalism," and even recently commented that people can make too much money.Even in his speech in Berlin, Obama revealed that he regards himself first as a citizen of the world rather than one of the United States and has many times indicated he doesn't approve of either the Judeo-Christian or capitalist nature of the U.S. ****
Peggy Noonan and charges of racism in immigration debate.
...Both parties resemble Gordon Brown, who is about to lose the prime ministership of Britain. On the campaign trail this week, he was famously questioned by a party voter about his stand on immigration. He gave her the verbal runaround, all boilerplate and shrugs, and later complained to an aide, on an open mic, that he'd been forced into conversation with that "bigoted woman."
He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.
The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.
The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations...
He really thought she was a bigot. Because she asked about immigration. Which is, to him, a sign of at least latent racism.
The establishments of the American political parties, and the media, are full of people who think concern about illegal immigration is a mark of racism. If you were Freud you might say, "How odd that's where their minds so quickly go, how strange they're so eager to point an accusing finger. Could they be projecting onto others their own, heavily defended-against inner emotions?" But let's not do Freud, he's too interesting. Maybe they're just smug and sanctimonious.
The American president has the power to control America's borders if he wants to, but George W. Bush and Barack Obama did not and do not want to, and for the same reason, and we all know what it is. The fastest-growing demographic in America is the Hispanic vote, and if either party cracks down on illegal immigration, it risks losing that vote for generations...
Thursday, April 29, 2010
Whatever the twists and turns in Obama's "new" policy, it cannot be relied on.
****Once burnt, twice shy. Twice burnt, four times shy. Consistency with past hostility cannot be papered over with short-term and insincere gestures.The worst thing about Obama is not that he's more unsmart than many think; rather it's that he thinks others are stupid. ****
Why Gates Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Ehud Barak - Laura Rozen When Defense Secretary Robert Gates hosted visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak this week, the Obama administration appeared to be pulling out all the stops in lavishing honor and warm attention on the visiting Israeli official, who has come to Washington numerous times in the past few months without so much grand ceremony. The administration seems to be making a concerted effort to put to rest any impression that the top U.S. military brass was in any way questioning the value of the U.S.-Israeli military and strategic relationship. The White House is engaged in an aggressive public relations and outreach effort to the Hill and Jewish groups to assure them of its commitment to Israel's security. (Politico)****The more the WH protests, at this point, the less it can be believed. Appeasement never works; appeasing an appeaser would be double folly. ****
Obama Spreads the Love - For Now - Ron Kampeas
The Obama administration is projecting a new attitude when it comes to Israel, and is selling it hard: unbreakable, unshakeable bond. "It's a positive development," Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said of the recent Jewish outreach blitz by the administration. "There are two questions, though, that will only be answered over time: Will the outreach be sustained, and will the policy be consistent with the positions being expressed in the outreach?" (JTA)****Is the whole effort sincere or just due to the alarming petition by 76 Senators and the waning of funding support for the Dems?***
Rejectionism by Palestinians Key to Mideast Standoff - David Harris
...ignoring the conflict's core issue - Palestinian rejectionism. Four consecutive prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have endorsed a two-state accord, but to no avail. Withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza has led to increased, not reduced, tension. Virulent incitement against Israel continues apace both in the West Bank and Gaza...the historical record. Previous talks with the Palestinians, prior to the Obama administration, were held without any preconditions. Those negotiations, in fact, led to breakthrough proposals by Israel, in 2000 and again in 2008, to create a viable Palestinian state. The conflict's root remains what it has been for more than 60 years - namely, the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel's very legitimacy. When that hurdle is overcome, peace will become not just possible but inevitable. The writer is executive director of the American Jewish Committee. (Financial Times-UK)//
Palestinians Expect Obama to Do All the Work - Eytan Gilboa Ever since President Obama entered the White House, the Palestinians are the ones refusing to renew negotiations with Israel. However, the image created by Obama's policy is that Israel alone is responsible for the impasse, and that construction in Jerusalem is the main obstacle to securing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Somehow, no American policymaker or commentator is asking how Fatah, which cannot engage in talks with its Hamas "brethren" and secure a deal with them, can finalize an agreement with Israel.
Obama started off by presenting requests and demands to Israel, the Palestinians, and pro-American Arab states for mutual gestures in order to renew the talks. Netanyahu was the only leader who did something. In his Bar-Ilan speech he endorsed the two-state principle, and he even declared a construction freeze in the territories. All the others rejected the American requests. The Palestinians wholly disregard Obama and expect him to do all the work for them and elicit unilateral concessions out of Israel. The writer is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. (Ynet News)
America's Big Middle East Game - Tony Badran
* Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, testifying last week before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, outlined the administration's conceptual framework for its Syria policy as follows: The U.S. is working to mitigate Iran's regional influence, which Syria facilitates. But Syria is not Iran, and there's a basic policy difference between them - unlike Iran, Syria has an interest in negotiating a peace agreement with Israel.****Why, pray tell, does Syria have "an interest"? Syria is interested in gaining the Golan Heights (for the purposes of war) and that's it's only interest in "agreements."**** Therefore, the peace process is, in Feltman's words, the "big game."
* This toxic viewpoint was echoed by National Security Adviser Jim Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict....Advancing this peace would...help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations." * The sought-after model for Syria is Anwar Sadat's Egypt. But that model is totally inapplicable. Egypt made the leap into the pro-American camp before signing the peace treaty.
* The Obama administration might lean on the Israelis to resume peace talks with Syria. But even if the Netanyahu government agrees, it's highly unlikely that the talks will lead anywhere, especially since Assad has repeatedly rejected putting his ties to Hizbullah and Iran on the table - a sine qua non for Israel. And so, the "grand idea" will come crashing down, as it already has in its Palestinian version.
The writer is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Why Gates Rolled Out the Red Carpet for Ehud Barak - Laura Rozen When Defense Secretary Robert Gates hosted visiting Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak this week, the Obama administration appeared to be pulling out all the stops in lavishing honor and warm attention on the visiting Israeli official, who has come to Washington numerous times in the past few months without so much grand ceremony. The administration seems to be making a concerted effort to put to rest any impression that the top U.S. military brass was in any way questioning the value of the U.S.-Israeli military and strategic relationship. The White House is engaged in an aggressive public relations and outreach effort to the Hill and Jewish groups to assure them of its commitment to Israel's security. (Politico)****The more the WH protests, at this point, the less it can be believed. Appeasement never works; appeasing an appeaser would be double folly. ****
Obama Spreads the Love - For Now - Ron Kampeas
The Obama administration is projecting a new attitude when it comes to Israel, and is selling it hard: unbreakable, unshakeable bond. "It's a positive development," Alan Solow, chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, said of the recent Jewish outreach blitz by the administration. "There are two questions, though, that will only be answered over time: Will the outreach be sustained, and will the policy be consistent with the positions being expressed in the outreach?" (JTA)****Is the whole effort sincere or just due to the alarming petition by 76 Senators and the waning of funding support for the Dems?***
Rejectionism by Palestinians Key to Mideast Standoff - David Harris
...ignoring the conflict's core issue - Palestinian rejectionism. Four consecutive prime ministers, including Benjamin Netanyahu, have endorsed a two-state accord, but to no avail. Withdrawal from southern Lebanon and Gaza has led to increased, not reduced, tension. Virulent incitement against Israel continues apace both in the West Bank and Gaza...the historical record. Previous talks with the Palestinians, prior to the Obama administration, were held without any preconditions. Those negotiations, in fact, led to breakthrough proposals by Israel, in 2000 and again in 2008, to create a viable Palestinian state. The conflict's root remains what it has been for more than 60 years - namely, the Palestinian refusal to recognize Israel's very legitimacy. When that hurdle is overcome, peace will become not just possible but inevitable. The writer is executive director of the American Jewish Committee. (Financial Times-UK)//
Palestinians Expect Obama to Do All the Work - Eytan Gilboa Ever since President Obama entered the White House, the Palestinians are the ones refusing to renew negotiations with Israel. However, the image created by Obama's policy is that Israel alone is responsible for the impasse, and that construction in Jerusalem is the main obstacle to securing an agreement between Israel and the Palestinians. Somehow, no American policymaker or commentator is asking how Fatah, which cannot engage in talks with its Hamas "brethren" and secure a deal with them, can finalize an agreement with Israel.
Obama started off by presenting requests and demands to Israel, the Palestinians, and pro-American Arab states for mutual gestures in order to renew the talks. Netanyahu was the only leader who did something. In his Bar-Ilan speech he endorsed the two-state principle, and he even declared a construction freeze in the territories. All the others rejected the American requests. The Palestinians wholly disregard Obama and expect him to do all the work for them and elicit unilateral concessions out of Israel. The writer is a senior research associate at the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar-Ilan University. (Ynet News)
America's Big Middle East Game - Tony Badran
* Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey Feltman, testifying last week before the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, outlined the administration's conceptual framework for its Syria policy as follows: The U.S. is working to mitigate Iran's regional influence, which Syria facilitates. But Syria is not Iran, and there's a basic policy difference between them - unlike Iran, Syria has an interest in negotiating a peace agreement with Israel.****Why, pray tell, does Syria have "an interest"? Syria is interested in gaining the Golan Heights (for the purposes of war) and that's it's only interest in "agreements."**** Therefore, the peace process is, in Feltman's words, the "big game."
* This toxic viewpoint was echoed by National Security Adviser Jim Jones at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy: "One of the ways that Iran exerts influence in the Middle East is by exploiting the ongoing Arab-Israeli conflict....Advancing this peace would...help prevent Iran from cynically shifting attention away from its failures to meet its obligations." * The sought-after model for Syria is Anwar Sadat's Egypt. But that model is totally inapplicable. Egypt made the leap into the pro-American camp before signing the peace treaty.
* The Obama administration might lean on the Israelis to resume peace talks with Syria. But even if the Netanyahu government agrees, it's highly unlikely that the talks will lead anywhere, especially since Assad has repeatedly rejected putting his ties to Hizbullah and Iran on the table - a sine qua non for Israel. And so, the "grand idea" will come crashing down, as it already has in its Palestinian version.
The writer is a research fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies.
Amazing tip for eating: six popular restaurant fish are bad for you.
http://tinyurl.com/28vlzfy
***Fish to AVOID: bluefin tuna, Chilean Sea Bass, Grouper, Monkfish, Orange Roughy, FARMED Salmon.***
***Fish to AVOID: bluefin tuna, Chilean Sea Bass, Grouper, Monkfish, Orange Roughy, FARMED Salmon.***
Bill Clinton explained his actions "Because I could."
Henninger remonstrates that Obama shouldn't do his own dirty work, except that he LIKES IT and because he can. If he comes across as a jerk, perhaps it's because he is a jerk.
http://tinyurl.com/2btlanw
Smart Aleck-in-Chief? There may be good reasons for Obama to go negative, but doing so could wreck his presidency.By DANIEL HENNINGER
...which of the following reasons is the 44th president of the United States bad-mouthing Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, bankers, mine operators, insurers, Glenn Beck, the tea party, the Supreme Court and whoever he hammers as we go to press: a) He's rallying his base. b) He's rallying the Democrats' base (one overlaps but does not equal the other). c) He's changing the subject from 9% unemployment. d) To reverse his sinking approval ratings. e) It's what Saul Alinsky would do. f) It's what Barack Obama likes to do....the answer is, all of the above....Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, a target of Obamian invective, are calling it conduct unbecoming a president. They are right. Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Ford didn't do it. People assume the hyperpolitical Bill Clinton did it, but if memory serves, his public persona was presidential to a fault, even as he brimmed with Vesuvian anger....Mr. Obama has decided to take down the opposition himself....: Will it work?...There may be any number of good, political reasons for Mr. Obama to let it rip. But let's cut to the real reason this is happening. The answer is (f): It's what Barack Obama likes to do.
,,,Even Achilles had a heel, and Mr. Obama's may be his decision to be his own Saul Alinsky. Defining, demonizing and making a mockery of one's opponents was one of Alinsky's main rules for community organizers. But community organizers, though often charismatic, can also be annoying jerks. ...
http://tinyurl.com/2btlanw
Smart Aleck-in-Chief? There may be good reasons for Obama to go negative, but doing so could wreck his presidency.By DANIEL HENNINGER
...which of the following reasons is the 44th president of the United States bad-mouthing Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, bankers, mine operators, insurers, Glenn Beck, the tea party, the Supreme Court and whoever he hammers as we go to press: a) He's rallying his base. b) He's rallying the Democrats' base (one overlaps but does not equal the other). c) He's changing the subject from 9% unemployment. d) To reverse his sinking approval ratings. e) It's what Saul Alinsky would do. f) It's what Barack Obama likes to do....the answer is, all of the above....Republicans such as Mitch McConnell, a target of Obamian invective, are calling it conduct unbecoming a president. They are right. Carter, Reagan, both Bushes and Ford didn't do it. People assume the hyperpolitical Bill Clinton did it, but if memory serves, his public persona was presidential to a fault, even as he brimmed with Vesuvian anger....Mr. Obama has decided to take down the opposition himself....: Will it work?...There may be any number of good, political reasons for Mr. Obama to let it rip. But let's cut to the real reason this is happening. The answer is (f): It's what Barack Obama likes to do.
,,,Even Achilles had a heel, and Mr. Obama's may be his decision to be his own Saul Alinsky. Defining, demonizing and making a mockery of one's opponents was one of Alinsky's main rules for community organizers. But community organizers, though often charismatic, can also be annoying jerks. ...
Cal Thomas: Whence Obama's extreme Islamophilia? It's not for the benefit of the U.S. or its allies.
Cal Thomas
Economic Development for MuslimsBy Cal Thomas //
Israel's New Enemy: America? [Excerpts] By Cal Thomas
\"Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." —Dictionary.com
Despite Vice President Joe Biden's recent pledge of unswerving fidelity to Israel during his recent visit there, the rhetoric and pressure directed by the Obama administration against the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East more accurately resembles the behavior of an enemy. Increasingly under this administration — but also present in Republican administrations — America's policy toward Israel is full of "harmful designs" and "antagonistic activities." The intentions may not be deliberate, but the outcome would lead to the same injurious end.
The latest pretext for putting more pressure on Israel to do more in the "pursuit of peace" comes from a decision by Israel's Interior Ministry to construct 1,600 new housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which is located in "disputed territory." To the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim neighbors, most especially Iran and Syria, all of Israel is "disputed territory." It is difficult to understand why the U.S. State Department thinks not building a few houses is going to dissuade Israel's enemies from wanting less than they want now.
After apologizing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the "offense" of the housing announcement during Biden's visit, Netanyahu reminded the Israeli parliament that Israel has been building in east Jerusalem for four decades. He said, "The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."
Making demands of only one side before serious negotiations begin, especially on matters of Jerusalem, so-called "refugees" and borders, effectively pressures Israel into making concessions on all three, which would severely damage its prospects for continued existence.
How about first making these demands of the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side: (1) A pledge of no more war with Israel, or terrorism; 2) a declaration by a powerful Islamic cleric that their God no longer requires them to kill people who don't believe as they do; and 3) no more teaching in Palestinian textbooks and in their media that Jews created AIDS and descend from monkeys and pigs?
Economic Development for MuslimsBy Cal Thomas //
Israel's New Enemy: America? [Excerpts] By Cal Thomas
\"Enemy: "a person who feels hatred for, fosters harmful designs against, or engages in antagonistic activities against another; an adversary or opponent." —Dictionary.com
Despite Vice President Joe Biden's recent pledge of unswerving fidelity to Israel during his recent visit there, the rhetoric and pressure directed by the Obama administration against the only fully functioning democracy in the Middle East more accurately resembles the behavior of an enemy. Increasingly under this administration — but also present in Republican administrations — America's policy toward Israel is full of "harmful designs" and "antagonistic activities." The intentions may not be deliberate, but the outcome would lead to the same injurious end.
The latest pretext for putting more pressure on Israel to do more in the "pursuit of peace" comes from a decision by Israel's Interior Ministry to construct 1,600 new housing units in the east Jerusalem neighborhood of Ramat Shlomo, which is located in "disputed territory." To the Palestinians and their Arab and Muslim neighbors, most especially Iran and Syria, all of Israel is "disputed territory." It is difficult to understand why the U.S. State Department thinks not building a few houses is going to dissuade Israel's enemies from wanting less than they want now.
After apologizing to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for the "offense" of the housing announcement during Biden's visit, Netanyahu reminded the Israeli parliament that Israel has been building in east Jerusalem for four decades. He said, "The building of those Jewish neighborhoods in no way hurt the Arabs of East Jerusalem and did not come at their expense."
Making demands of only one side before serious negotiations begin, especially on matters of Jerusalem, so-called "refugees" and borders, effectively pressures Israel into making concessions on all three, which would severely damage its prospects for continued existence.
How about first making these demands of the Palestinian-Arab-Muslim side: (1) A pledge of no more war with Israel, or terrorism; 2) a declaration by a powerful Islamic cleric that their God no longer requires them to kill people who don't believe as they do; and 3) no more teaching in Palestinian textbooks and in their media that Jews created AIDS and descend from monkeys and pigs?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)