Obama's Nuclear Policy - Prof Paul Eidelberg

Concerning Obama’s announced policy not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear armed state:
1)      Isn’t this an invitation for non-nuclear armed states to attack the US?
2)      Doesn’t this policy undermine Israel, whose concentration of people on the country’s coastal plain make it extremely vulnerable to conventional bombardment?
3)      Doesn’t this policy encourage state-sponsored terrorists?
4)      Is this policy intended to persuade Iran (as well as other Arab states) not to go nuclear?
5)      Did Brzezinski have anything to do with this policy?
6)      Is this policy merely a logical spin-off of Obama’s campaign oratory?
7)      Does this policy increase the potential role of the UN?
8)      Are there any serious arms experts or organizations or congressmen that have voiced criticism of this policy?

Must Read - Obamas Ominous Storm Clouds FOR Israel....

Boy was Caroline right..and so were we.Obama is no friend of Israel.
He is of course the one, who wants to destroy  Israel.

--------------------------------------------------------------

Column One: The perils ahead  Nov. 14, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

US President-elect Barack Obama has properly sought to maintain a low profile in foreign affairs in this transition period ahead of his January inauguration. But while Obama has stipulated that the US can have only one president at a time, his aides and advisers are signaling that he intends to move US foreign policy in a sharply different direction from its current trajectory once he assumes office. And they are signaling that this new direction will be applied most immediately and directly to US policy toward the Middle East.

Early in the Democratic Party's primary season, the Obama campaign released a list of the now-president-elect's foreign policy advisers to The Washington Post. The list raised a great deal of concern in policy circles, particularly among supporters of the US-Israel alliance. It included outspoken critics of Israel such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as national security adviser under president Jimmy Carter, and Robert Malley, who served as a junior Middle East aide to president Bill Clinton.

Both men are deeply hostile to Israel and both have called repeatedly for the US to end its strategic alliance with Israel.
In the months that followed the list's publication, the Obama campaign sought to distance itself from both men as the president-elect's advisers worked to position Obama as a centrist candidate.
Brzezinski was cast aside in February when he headed a delegation to Syria to meet with President Bashar Assad. The purpose of his "fact-finding" mission was to castigate the Bush administration for its refusal to pursue Syria as an ally, and to decry Damascus's international isolation caused by its support for the insurgency in Iraq, its strategic alliance with Iran, its support for Hizbullah as well as Hamas and al-Qaida, its illicit nuclear program and its subversion of the pro-Western Lebanese government.

To Brzezinski's dismay, his mission was overtaken by events. The depth of Syria's support for terror was graphically displayed during his visit when arch-Iranian/Lebanese terrorist Imad Mughniyeh was killed in Damascus the day after he called on Assad.

Although he was a junior staffer in Clinton's National Security Council,
since 2000 Malley has used his Clinton administration credentials to pave his emergence as one of America's most outspoken apologists for Palestinian terrorism against Israel. Immediately after the failed July 2000 Camp David peace summit, Malley invented the Palestinian "narrative" of the summit's proceedings. While Clinton, then-prime minister Ehud Barak, and Ambassador Dennis Ross, who served as Clinton's chief negotiator, have all concurred that Yasser Arafat torpedoed the prospects of peace when he refused Barak's offer of Palestinian statehood, Malley claimed falsely that Israel was to
blame for the failure of the talks. 

In succeeding years, he has expanded his condemnation of Israel. He insists that not only Palestinian aggression, but Syrian, Lebanese and Iranian attacks against Israel are all Israel's fault. The Obama campaign distanced itself from Malley in May after the Times of London reported that he was meeting regularly with Hamas terror leaders. As the election drew closer, the Obama campaign expanded its efforts to present its candidate as a foreign policy moderate. Moderate foreign policy advisers such as Ross were paraded before reporters. Both Obama and his surrogates insisted that he supports a strong American alliance with Israel.

Obama abandoned his earlier pledge to withdraw all US forces from Iraq by 2010. He attempted to temper and later deny his public pledge to hold direct negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions.
Due in large part to media credulousness, Obama's new image as a centrist was widely accepted by the public. And it is likely that he owes a significant portion of his support in the American Jewish community to the campaign's success in distancing Obama from men like Brzezinski and Malley. BUT NOW that the campaign is over, it appears that as his critics warned, Obama's moves toward the center on issues relating to the Middle East were little more than campaign tactics to obscure his true policy preferences. Two days after his election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius gave a
sense of the direction in which Obama will likely take US foreign policy. And, apparently directed by Obama's campaign staff, Ignatius based much of his column on his belief that Obama's foreign policy views have been shaped by his "informal" adviser, Brzezinski.
Based on what Brzezinski and Obama's "official" campaign told him, Ignatius wrote that the two major issues where Obama's foreign policy is likely to diverge from Bush's right off the bat are Israel and Iran. Obama, he claimed, will want to push hard to force Israel to come to an agreement with the Palestinians as soon as he comes into office. As for Iran, Obama plans to move immediately to improve US relations with the nuclear-weapons-building ayatollahs.

As for Malley, an aide of his told Frontpage magazine this week that acting on Obama's instructions, Malley traveled to Cairo and Damascus after Obama's electoral victory to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Assad that "the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and Syrian interests."

In a related story, Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the
London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his election, Obama's advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in order not to harm Obama's chances of being elected.

Both Obama's transition team and Hamas leaders were quick to deny Youssef's statements. Yet, together with the earlier Times of London story about Malley's contacts with Hamas and the new revelations about Malley serving as Obama's unofficial Middle East envoy, the Al-Hayat report has the ring of truth.
Even more foreboding than these reports are statements by Obama's foreign policy advisers regarding his plans to open direct contacts with Iran. On Wednesday The Washington Post reported that Obama intends to move quickly to seek an accommodation with Iran regarding Afghanistan. Obama's advisers assert that such a deal is possible because as far as they are concerned, the Shi'ite Iranians oppose Sunni jihadists just as much as the US does.

But the facts do not support this view. Top US and British military
commanders have asserted repeatedly that Iran is a major sponsor of the Taliban and al-Qaida in their war against the Afghan government and NATO forces in the country. Since 2006, Iran has provided advanced weapons, money and political support to the Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents in the country.

The Obama team's rejection of the demonstrated reality of Iran's support for the Taliban and al-Qaida in favor of a policy based on the fantasy that it is possible to cut a deal with the ayatollahs will undoubtedly not be his last move in the mullahs' direction. It will likely be quickly followed by an offer to conduct direct, high level talks with Iran's leaders about their nuclear weapons program.
What is most disturbing about Obama's emerging foreign policy is not simply that it ignores the reality on the ground - a reality that clearly
demonstrates that Iran and its Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese surrogates are implacable foes of Israel and America and therefore not interested in being appeased. It is also not just the fact that it sends a signal of American weakness to Iran and its proxies just as Iran reaches the nuclear threshold. And Obama's emerging foreign policy is not merely disconcerting because by speaking with Iran and its proxies, Obama will be legitimizing the genocidal regime in Teheran. 

WHAT IS most alarming about Obama's emerging foreign policy toward Iran and its proxies on the one hand and Israel on the other is that it will cause actual harm to the Jewish state.

By pressuring Israel to cede land to Syria and the Palestinians, Obama's apparent foreign policy will provide Iran with still more territory from which to attack Israel both through its terror proxies and with its expanding ballistic missile arsenal. By embracing the Syrian regime in spite of its support for terrorism, its nuclear proliferation activities and its subversion of Lebanon, the incoming Obama administration will embolden Syria to increase its subversion of Lebanon and Iraq, while strengthening its ties to Iran still further.
As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that Bush hasn't already offered?

What it can offer is Israel.

Over the past few years, Obama's top nuclear nonproliferation adviser, Joe Cirincione, has repeatedly advocated placing Israel's nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table and offering it up in exchange for an Iranian pledge to end its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert Gates - whom Obama is considering retaining - insinuated in his 2006 confirmation hearings that Iran is only building nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel. Gates, it should be recalled, has been instrumental in convincing Bush not
only not to attack Iran's nuclear installations, but not to support an
Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear installations. 

What is profoundly distressing about statements by men like Cirincione and Gates is what they tell us about the strategic reasoning informing the incoming Obama administration. Their views echo those voiced by advocates of American abandonment of Israel such as Professors Steve Walt and John Mearshimer. 

Walt and Mearshimer argue that Iran is not a threat to US
interests or to global security because in the event that the mullahs
acquire nuclear weapons, they are likely to view them merely as a deterrent against Iran's enemies. And as a result, Iran will respond as the Soviet Union did to a deterrent model based on mutually assured destruction. This view is contradicted by Iran's open advocacy of Israel's destruction, and its declared willingness to absorb a nuclear attack in return for destroying Israel. But assuming that this is how the Obama team views Iran, they should be the last ones advocating Israeli disarmament. Because if this is their view, then by their own reasoning, Israel's presumed nuclear arsenal is necessary to deter Teheran from attacking. And if as Cirincione advocates, Obama intends to place Israel's nuclear arsenal on the negotiating table, he will effectively be giving Iran a green light to attack Israel with nuclear weapons. 

All of the Obama team's post-election/pre-inaugural foreign policy signals place Israel's next government - which will only be elected on February 10 - in an extraordinarily difficult position.

It is not just that their positions make clear that the Obama administration will do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. 

The Obama team's pre-inaugural signals indicate strongly that Israel's next government will need to strike Iran's nuclear installations before two rapidly approaching deadlines.

The strike will have to occur before the mullahs enrich sufficient
quantities of highly enriched uranium to produce nuclear bombs. And Israel will need to neutralize Iran's nuclear program before the Obama administration begins implementing America's new foreign policy.

Zbig Brzezinski: Shoot Down Israeli Planes if They Attack Iran

Watch Mika on Morning Joe?
This is her DAD....guess I know where stands ......

Former Carter security advisor (makes him Trash)  and Obama backer Zbig Brzezinski has urged Obama to shoot at Israeli planes if they attack Iran (means he advocates murdering Jews..Surpise)

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who enthusiastically campaigned for U.S. President Barack Obama, has called on the president to shoot down Israeli planes if they attack Iran. “They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?” said the former national security advisor to former U.S. President Jimmy Carter in an interview with the Daily Beast. Brzezinski, who served in the Carter administration from 1977 to 1981, is currently a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University's School of Advanced International Studies in Maryland.

Read More:

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/133515#.UIAoVWeJTL0

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me - (Barack Hussein Obama)-

Fool Me Twice, Shame on Me
by Naomi Ragen on July 28th, 2012


I have never felt more challenged than I did four years ago when I did my
best to enlighten my American list-members to some of the dangers of hopping
on presidential candidate Barack Hussein Obama’s bandwagon. But nothing
swayed his Jewish supporters: not the fact that he had radical left-wing
political mentors, nor his Islamic heritage and education, nor even his
close 20-year relationship with the virulently anti-Semitic Reverend
Jeremiah Wright. They weren’t even worried about his anti-Israel advisers,
like Zbigniew Brzezinski, Simon Malley and Samantha Power, who once
suggested the US invade Israel.
In fact, the response of my staunchly pro-Israel list to these revelations
astounded me: “As a Jew, I am offended by what you have written about Barack
Obama… You are tedious and unwelcome in the lives of Americans who are
hopeful for the change that is due us,” wrote Susan.
“We wish no harm to our homeland, but we live in another country,” wrote
Judi. “We too have issues of importance. I cannot believe for a moment that
Senator Obama would place Israel in a position of harm.”
“This is my home first, and if I don’t protect my back yard I will lose my
ability to further support Israel. You need to do a reality check,” wrote
Robert.
“Obama knows how important Israel is and will most likely be more a champion
to Israel than McCain,” wrote Samuel. Over a thousand of my American
list-members wrote nothing at all, simply unsubscribing to my list in silent
protest to my anti- Obama stance.
I tried to understand them. During his campaign, Obama promised an
“unshakeable commitment to Israel’s security” and “support for secure,
recognized, defensible borders.” “Israel’s security,” he told numerous
Jewish groups, “is sacrosanct.”
Unlike some of my Jewish list members, Hamas spokesman Ahmed Yousef wasn’t
convinced: “If Obama wins the election… I do believe he will change the
American foreign policy in the way they are handling the Middle East,” he
told WABC radio host John Batchelor and World Net Daily’s Aaron Klein. It
turns out that he was right and the Jews who voted for him were wrong.
Obama is hoping that this time around his Jewish voters won’t remember that.
“If during the political season you hear some question of my
administration’s support for Israel, remember, it’s not backed up by the
facts,” Obama, as president, told the 71st General Assembly of the Union of
Reform Judaism on December 16, 2011.
Really? Well, let’s review the facts, especially given the short memories of
most voters.
Obama began his administration by reaching out to Muslims, giving his first
formal interview to Al-Arabiya. Next, he bowed deeply to the King of Saudi
Arabia and visited Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Egypt, skipping Israel. He used
fulfilling his promise of giving his first foreign policy address in an Arab
capital to distance America from Israel: “The US does not accept the
legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements.
It is time for these settlements to stop,” he told cheering crowds in Cairo.
But worse was still to come. “The aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted
in a tragic history that cannot be denied. It is also undeniable that the
Palestinian people, Muslims and Christians, have suffered.”
By adopting the rhetoric of Arab anti-Semites that the desire of the Jews to
live in their homeland started with the Holocaust and has no other roots,
Obama, in the words of Charles Krauthammer, “In three minutes… did more to
delegitimize the existence of Israel than any president in American
history.”
Worse, comparing what the Jews suffered in the Holocaust to the treatment of
Palestinians under Israeli rule was downright despicable. Or “outrageous and
embarrassing,” according to Oklahoma’s Senator James Inhofe.
Obama followed up with an incessant campaign questioning Israel’s desire for
peace. We, who lived through two intifadas, who saw our families and friends
and neighbors blown to bits to satisfy the world’s desire to see Israel
“make sacrifices” for a fake peace, were horrified. Obama lectured Israeli
leaders that they “must engage in serious self-reflection on their
commitment to peace.”
The absolute gall!
Obama went one further, adopting the old Arab demand that Israel cease
building on any land claimed by Palestinians, refusing to understand that if
Israel did that, there would be nothing left to negotiate.
“Settlements have to be stopped,” Obama said, and Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton relentlessly echoed: “He wants to see a stop in settlements, not
some settlements, not outposts, not natural growth exceptions.”
Under Obama, American foreign policy adopted the nonsensical idea that all
Middle East conflicts would be solved if only Israel gave in to Palestinian
demands. In this fantasy, the incessant brainwashing of Palestinian children
to hate and kill, the atom bomb in Iran, the murderous control of Gaza by
Hamas, which denies any solution short of pushing Jews into the sea, were
not allowed in, nor was the fact that the disengagement from Gaza resulted
not in peace, but in terrorist bomb-launchers replacing Jewish lettuce
growers.
The incessant demands of the Obama administration on Israel were never
balanced by equal demands on Palestinians. This carte blanche led not to
peace, but to increasing Palestinian intransigence.
After all, how could President Mahmoud Abbas allow himself to be seen as
less hawkish than Obama? Indeed, Netanyahu’s capitulation to American
demands by declaring a 10-month settlement freeze did not bring Abbas to the
negotiating table.
It simply whetted his appetite. The sky, it seemed, was the limit.
Abbas was proven right during the March 2010 visit of Vice President Joe
Biden. When building plans for Ramat Shlomo, already a large neighborhood in
northern Jerusalem, were announced, the Americans inexplicably exploded.
Hillary Clinton called it “insulting,” even though Jerusalem had never been
under a settlement freeze. The Israeli envoy to the US said that US-Israel
ties were the worst they’d been in 35 years. At the very time Israel was
being lambasted as an obstacle to peace, Mahmoud Abbas was publicly honoring
the terrorists of the 1978 coastal road massacre which took 37 Israeli
lives, with never a peep out of the White House – a fact not lost on Abbas,
who continued to refuse to negotiate with Israel during the entire 10-month
settlement freeze.
No matter. While Netanyahu got shuffled into side doors at the White House
and Obama refused to dine with him, Abbas was an honored guest with photo
ops and a smiling president gifting him with an extra hundred million
dollars to build “environmental housing” for Palestinians.
This attitude of the US administration had a domino effect on other Arab
countries. Turkey, with whom Israel had always had warm relations, thousands
of Israeli tourists filling Antalya hotels, suddenly turned hostile. Headed
by its new Islamist Prime Minister Recep Erdogan, called affectionately by
Obama his “closest friend in the Middle East,” it sent six ships to break
Israel’s legitimate sea blockade of terrorist Gaza, including one with armed
terrorists who met Israeli soldiers with knives and clubs, stabbing, beating
and throwing them overboard.
Yet even before investigating, the US refused to veto the Turkish resolution
condemning Israel. A furious US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta demanded
Israel “restore good relations with Egypt and Turkey,” while former defense
secretary Robert Gates called Israel “an ungrateful ally harming American
interests.”
In the spring of 2011, Obama said: “We believe in borders based on the 1967
lines,” finally breaking all precedents of previous US administrations,
which recognized that the 1967 lines were not defensible borders but simply
armistice lines where the guns had stopped.
Obama’s support for indefensible borders, sometimes called “the lines of
Auschwitz,” is yet another open wound, as is the attempt of Abbas to bypass
negotiations with Israel, unite with Hamas and bring his case for statehood
directly to the terror-friendly UN. Moreover, Obama’s timid pussyfooting
with Iran has given it the time to purify enough fuel for five atom bombs,
all proof positive that the Obama administration has pushed the Middle East
further from peace than ever.
As summed up by Liz Cheney: “There is no president who has done more to
delegitimize and undermine the State of Israel than President Barack Obama.”
And for those American Jews who say they have an obligation to put America
first, how’s that working for you so far with Obama heading the nation? In
this coming election, Israeli and American interests seem to coincide. Obama
managed to do so much harm while taking more vacations and playing more golf
than any other president in US history.
I shudder to think what another four years might bring.

Obama’s Nuclear Policy - Paul Eidelberg

Concerning Obama’s announced policy not to use nuclear weapons against any non-nuclear armed state:
1)      Isn’t this an invitation for non-nuclear armed states to attack the US?
2)      Doesn’t this policy undermine Israel, whose concentration of people on the country’s coastal plain make it extremely vulnerable to conventional bombardment?
3)      Doesn’t this policy encourage state-sponsored terrorists?
4)      Is this policy intended to persuade Iran (as well as other Arab states) not to go nuclear?
5)      Did Brzezinski have anything to do with this policy?
6)      Is this policy merely a logical spin-off of Obama’s campaign oratory?
7)      Does this policy increase the potential role of the UN?
8)      Are there any serious arms experts or organizations or congressmen that have voiced criticism of this policy?

Obama's Ominous Storm Clouds For Israel...

Column One: The perils ahead
Nov. 14, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

US President-elect Barack Obama has properly sought to maintain a low
profile in foreign affairs in this transition period ahead of his January
inauguration. But while Obama has stipulated that the US can have only one
president at a time, his aides and advisers are signaling that he intends to
move US foreign policy in a sharply different direction from its current
trajectory once he assumes office.
And they are signaling that this new direction will be applied most
immediately and directly to US policy toward the Middle East.
Early in the Democratic Party's primary season, the Obama campaign released
a list of the now-president-elect's foreign policy advisers to The
Washington Post. The list raised a great deal of concern in policy circles,
particularly among supporters of the US-Israel alliance. It included
outspoken critics of Israel such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who served as
national security adviser under president Jimmy Carter, and Robert Malley,
who served as a junior Middle East aide to president Bill Clinton. Both men
are deeply hostile to Israel and both have called repeatedly for the US to
end its strategic alliance with Israel.
In the months that followed the list's publication, the Obama campaign
sought to distance itself from both men as the president-elect's advisers
worked to position Obama as a centrist candidate.
Brzezinski was cast aside in February when he headed a delegation to Syria
to meet with President Bashar Assad. The purpose of his "fact-finding"
mission was to castigate the Bush administration for its refusal to pursue
Syria as an ally, and to decry Damascus's international isolation caused by
its support for the insurgency in Iraq, its strategic alliance with Iran,
its support for Hizbullah as well as Hamas and al-Qaida, its illicit nuclear
program and its subversion of the pro-Western Lebanese government.
To Brzezinski's dismay, his mission was overtaken by events. The depth of
Syria's support for terror was graphically displayed during his visit when
arch-Iranian/Lebanese terrorist Imad Mughniyeh was killed in Damascus the
day after he called on Assad.
Although he was a junior staffer in Clinton's National Security Council,
since 2000 Malley has used his Clinton administration credentials to pave
his emergence as one of America's most outspoken apologists for Palestinian
terrorism against Israel. Immediately after the failed July 2000 Camp David
peace summit, Malley invented the Palestinian "narrative" of the summit's
proceedings. While Clinton, then-prime minister Ehud Barak, and Ambassador
Dennis Ross, who served as Clinton's chief negotiator, have all concurred
that Yasser Arafat torpedoed the prospects of peace when he refused Barak's
offer of Palestinian statehood, Malley claimed falsely that Israel was to
blame for the failure of the talks.
In succeeding years, he has expanded his condemnation of Israel. He insists
that not only Palestinian aggression, but Syrian, Lebanese and Iranian
attacks against Israel are all Israel's fault. The Obama campaign distanced
itself from Malley in May after the Times of London reported that he was
meeting regularly with Hamas terror leaders.
As the election drew closer, the Obama campaign expanded its efforts to
present its candidate as a foreign policy moderate. Moderate foreign policy
advisers such as Ross were paraded before reporters. Both Obama and his
surrogates insisted that he supports a strong American alliance with Israel.
Obama abandoned his earlier pledge to withdraw all US forces from Iraq by
2010. He attempted to temper and later deny his public pledge to hold direct
negotiations with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without
preconditions.
Due in large part to media credulousness, Obama's new image as a centrist
was widely accepted by the public. And it is likely that he owes a
significant portion of his support in the American Jewish community to the
campaign's success in distancing Obama from men like Brzezinski and Malley.
BUT NOW that the campaign is over, it appears that as his critics warned,
Obama's moves toward the center on issues relating to the Middle East were
little more than campaign tactics to obscure his true policy preferences.
Two days after his election, Washington Post columnist David Ignatius gave a
sense of the direction in which Obama will likely take US foreign policy.
And, apparently directed by Obama's campaign staff, Ignatius based much of
his column on his belief that Obama's foreign policy views have been shaped
by his "informal" adviser, Brzezinski.
Based on what Brzezinski and Obama's "official" campaign told him, Ignatius
wrote that the two major issues where Obama's foreign policy is likely to
diverge from Bush's right off the bat are Israel and Iran. Obama, he
claimed, will want to push hard to force Israel to come to an agreement with
the Palestinians as soon as he comes into office. As for Iran, Obama plans
to move immediately to improve US relations with the
nuclear-weapons-building ayatollahs.
As for Malley, an aide of his told Frontpage magazine this week that acting
on Obama's instructions, Malley traveled to Cairo and Damascus after Obama's
electoral victory to tell Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Assad that
"the Obama administration would take into greater account Egyptian and
Syrian interests."
In a related story, Hamas terror operative Ahmad Youssef told the
London-based Al-Hayat newspaper that in the months leading up to his
election, Obama's advisers held steady contacts with the leaders of the
terror group in Gaza, and had asked that Hamas keep the meetings secret in
order not to harm Obama's chances of being elected.
Both Obama's transition team and Hamas leaders were quick to deny Youssef's
statements. Yet, together with the earlier Times of London story about
Malley's contacts with Hamas and the new revelations about Malley serving as
Obama's unofficial Middle East envoy, the Al-Hayat report has the ring of
truth.
Even more foreboding than these reports are statements by Obama's foreign
policy advisers regarding his plans to open direct contacts with Iran. On
Wednesday The Washington Post reported that Obama intends to move quickly to
seek an accommodation with Iran regarding Afghanistan. Obama's advisers
assert that such a deal is possible because as far as they are concerned,
the Shi'ite Iranians oppose Sunni jihadists just as much as the US does.
But the facts do not support this view. Top US and British military
commanders have asserted repeatedly that Iran is a major sponsor of the
Taliban and al-Qaida in their war against the Afghan government and NATO
forces in the country. Since 2006, Iran has provided advanced weapons, money
and political support to the Taliban and al-Qaida insurgents in the country.

The Obama team's rejection of the demonstrated reality of Iran's support for
the Taliban and al-Qaida in favor of a policy based on the fantasy that it
is possible to cut a deal with the ayatollahs will undoubtedly not be his
last move in the mullahs' direction. It will likely be quickly followed by
an offer to conduct direct, high level talks with Iran's leaders about their
nuclear weapons program.
What is most disturbing about Obama's emerging foreign policy is not simply
that it ignores the reality on the ground - a reality that clearly
demonstrates that Iran and its Syrian, Palestinian and Lebanese surrogates
are implacable foes of Israel and America and therefore not interested in
being appeased. It is also not just the fact that it sends a signal of
American weakness to Iran and its proxies just as Iran reaches the nuclear
threshold. And Obama's emerging foreign policy is not merely disconcerting
because by speaking with Iran and its proxies, Obama will be legitimizing
the genocidal regime in Teheran.
WHAT IS most alarming about Obama's emerging foreign policy toward Iran and
its proxies on the one hand and Israel on the other is that it will cause
actual harm to the Jewish state.
By pressuring Israel to cede land to Syria and the Palestinians, Obama's
apparent foreign policy will provide Iran with still more territory from
which to attack Israel both through its terror proxies and with its
expanding ballistic missile arsenal. By embracing the Syrian regime in spite
of its support for terrorism, its nuclear proliferation activities and its
subversion of Lebanon, the incoming Obama administration will embolden Syria
to increase its subversion of Lebanon and Iraq, while strengthening its ties
to Iran still further.
As for direct talks with Iran itself, the question immediately arises, what
could Obama offer Teheran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program that
Bush hasn't already offered?
What it can offer is Israel.
Over the past few years, Obama's top nuclear nonproliferation adviser, Joe
Cirincione, has repeatedly advocated placing Israel's nuclear arsenal on the
negotiating table and offering it up in exchange for an Iranian pledge to
end its nuclear program. Defense Secretary Robert Gates - whom Obama is
considering retaining - insinuated in his 2006 confirmation hearings that
Iran is only building nuclear weapons to defend itself against Israel.
Gates, it should be recalled, has been instrumental in convincing Bush not
only not to attack Iran's nuclear installations, but not to support an
Israeli attack against Iran's nuclear installations.
What is profoundly distressing about statements by men like Cirincione and
Gates is what they tell us about the strategic reasoning informing the
incoming Obama administration. Their views echo those voiced by advocates of
American abandonment of Israel such as Professors Steve Walt and John
Mearshimer. Walt and Mearshimer argue that Iran is not a threat to US
interests or to global security because in the event that the mullahs
acquire nuclear weapons, they are likely to view them merely as a deterrent
against Iran's enemies. And as a result, Iran will respond as the Soviet
Union did to a deterrent model based on mutually assured destruction.
This view is contradicted by Iran's open advocacy of Israel's destruction,
and its declared willingness to absorb a nuclear attack in return for
destroying Israel. But assuming that this is how the Obama team views Iran,
they should be the last ones advocating Israeli disarmament. Because if this
is their view, then by their own reasoning, Israel's presumed nuclear
arsenal is necessary to deter Teheran from attacking. And if as Cirincione
advocates, Obama intends to place Israel's nuclear arsenal on the
negotiating table, he will effectively be giving Iran a green light to
attack Israel with nuclear weapons.
All of the Obama team's post-election/pre-inaugural foreign policy signals
place Israel's next government - which will only be elected on February 10 -
in an extraordinarily difficult position.
It is not just that their positions make clear that the Obama administration
will do nothing to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The Obama
team's pre-inaugural signals indicate strongly that Israel's next government
will need to strike Iran's nuclear installations before two rapidly
approaching deadlines.
The strike will have to occur before the mullahs enrich sufficient
quantities of highly enriched uranium to produce nuclear bombs. And Israel
will need to neutralize Iran's nuclear program before the Obama
administration begins implementing America's new foreign policy.

The convenient war against the Jews

Oct. 6, 2008
Caroline Glick , THE JERUSALEM POST

In the end, the global jihad, and the West's fickle response to radical
Islam's assault on its civilization, is about hating Jews. This truth, never
wholly hidden from view, was exposed in all its ugliness in recent months
with startling disclosures by former Italian president and Senator-for-life
Francesco Cossiga.

In a letter to Italy's Corriere della Serra in August, Cossiga acknowledged
that during the early 1970s, then Italian prime minister Aldo Moro signed an
agreement with Yassir Arafat's PLO and affiliated organizations that enabled
the Palestinians to field terrorists, operate bases and store weapons in
Italy in exchange for immunity from attack for Italy and Italian interests
worldwide. Cossiga also acknowledged that even when the Palestinians
murdered Italians, the government still protected them. Indeed, he admitted
for the first time that the largest terror attack ever to take place on
Italian soil - the bombing of the Bologna train station in July 1980 which
killed 85 people - was the work of PLO-affiliated terrorists from George
Habash's Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

At the time of the bombing, Cossiga was Italy's prime minister. Right after
it occurred, he blamed the atrocity on neo-fascists. In his words at the
time, "Unlike leftist terrorism, which strikes at the heart of the state
through its representatives, black terrorism prefers the massacre because it
promotes panic and impulsive reactions."

In August, he claimed that it was the work of the PFLP and asserted that the
bomb exploded inadvertently. That is, the Palestinians hadn't meant to kill
non-Jews - so Italian authorities protected them.

On Friday, Cossiga expanded on his disclosures to Corriere della Serra in an
interview with Yediot Aharonot's Rome correspondent Menachem Ganz. Cossiga
admitted that it wasn't just Israeli targets that Italy permitted the
Palestinians to attack with impunity, but Jewish targets as well. Indeed, in
at least one and probably two incidents, the Italians colluded with the
Palestinians in their attacks against Jews. On October 9, 1982, six
terrorists opened fire on worshippers leaving Rome's Great Synagogue. Dozens
of Jews were wounded and two-year-old Stefano Tache was murdered. Hours
before the attack the Italian police detail charged with securing the
synagogue was withdrawn.

Then too, in December 1985, Palestinian terrorists opened fire on the El Al
ticket counter at the Rome airport. Ten people were killed. Another seven
people were murdered in a simultaneous attack against the El Al ticket
counter at the Vienna airport. According to Cossiga, Italian intelligence
agencies received prior warning of the attack but didn't bother to share the
information with Israel.

Cossiga explained to Yediot, "No Italian targets were hit. They attacked the
Israeli airline at the airport. The murdered were all Israelis, Jews, and
Americans."

Then there was the hijacking of the Italian cruise liner Achille Lauro off
the Egyptian coast in October 1985. Palestinian terrorists led by Abu Abbas
commandeered the ship. They shot wheelchair-bound American Jewish passenger
Leon Klinghoffer and threw him overboard while he was still alive. The
Egyptians freed the hijackers and sent them off on a flight to Libya.
American jets forced a plane to land at a NATO base in Sicily. The Italians
refused to permit the Americans to take the hijackers into custody and freed
Abbas. The Italians cast the standoff as a victory against American bullies.
But it really amounted to a surrender to Palestinian murderers. As Cossiga
explained, "Since the Arabs were capable of harming Italy more than the
Americans, Italy surrendered to them."

COSSIGA ALLEGES that his country's agreement with the Palestinians has
recently been expanded to include Hizbullah. After the Second Lebanon War,
Italy agreed to command the UNIFIL force charged with preventing Hizbullah
from reasserting control over southern Lebanon and blocking its re-armament
efforts. Yet Cossiga asserts, "I can state with absolute certainty that.
Italy has a deal with Hizbullah according to which UNIFIL forces turn a
blind eye to Hizbullah's rearmament so long as no attacks are carried out
against soldiers in the force."

Ganz notes ruefully that although Cossiga's statements provoked the Italian
Jewish community to demand that Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi investigate
the government's collusion with Palestinian terrorists, no such
investigation is likely to be forthcoming. Ganz explains that Berlusconi
himself is not immune to the anti-Semitism that caused his predecessors to
abstain from protecting Italy's Jewish citizens. When he addresses Italian
Jews, Berlusconi often calls the Israeli government "your government," and
so exposes his adherence to the view that Jews are not true citizens of any
country other than Israel.

The anti-Semitic belief that all Jews are Zionists and therefore all Jews
are fair game in the war against Israel - itself simply another round of the
age-old war against the Jews - allows anti-Semites to obfuscate the fact
that their anti-Israel rhetoric is simply warmed over Jew-hatred. People
like Iranian leaders Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei, and Palestinian
terrorists from the PLO and their progeny in Hamas and Hizbullah nearly
always limit their threats to "Zionists," and so pretend that they aren't
actually anti-Semites.

Their razor-thin deception is eagerly embraced by their fellow travelers in
the West - from university professors like Juan Cole, Steven Walt and John
Mearshimer, to policymakers like Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski, to
Western decision-makers and European heads of state, and an alarming number
of American politicians.

This deception is par for the course of anti-Semitism. Throughout history
anti-Semites have used Jew-hatred as a way to rally their troops. By
attacking Jews as the collective enemy, tyrants have given their people a
convenient, weak culprit to attack to deflect criticism away from their own
failures or to hide real enemies from pacifistic publics uninterested in
fighting. Anti-Semitism appeals to people's basest instinct. But people
don't like to acknowledge how much they hate Jews, and Jews have always
preferred to deny that they are hated.

So anti-Semitic leaders have disguised their appeal to base instinct by
pretending that they are actually appealing to sublime aspirations. In the
case of the Nazis for instance, Adolf Hitler and Josef Goebbels appealed to
Germanic pride and love for the Fatherland. Today, the Left appeals to
people's aspirations for peace and justice. It is only by permitting and
indeed enabling Jews to die and the Jewish state to be destroyed that
"peace" can be secured and the Palestinians can receive "justice."

THIS STRATEGY appeals to European - and to greater and lesser degrees
American - policymakers for two reasons. First, as French Foreign Minister
Bernard Kouchner made clear in an interview with Ha'aretz on Friday, while
the West understands that Islamic jihadists seek the destruction of Europe
and the US, they believe - in part because their own anti-Semitism leads
them to exaggerate Jewish power - that they will get away with coddling the
Arabs and Iran because Israel will protect them.

Referring to Iran's nuclear weapons program, Kouchner said that no one is
particularly worried about Iran's nuclear threat because everyone believes
that Israel will attack Iran for them. In his words, "I honestly don't
believe that [a nuclear arsenal] will give any immunity to Iran. First, you
[Israel] will hit them before [they acquire nuclear weapons]. Because Israel
has always said that it will not wait for the bomb to be ready. I think that
they [the Iranians] know. Everybody knows."

What is ironic about this view is that it exposes the inversion of
anti-Semitic rhetoric. Five years ago, former Malaysian prime minister
Mahathir Mohamed told an approving audience of Islamic heads of state, "The
Jews rule the world by proxy. They get others to fight and die for them."

But the West's belief that Israel will protect it from Iran shows that the
opposite is true. The West is absolutely certain that Israel is its proxy,
and that Jews will fight and die protecting it from the forces of global
terror and jihad.

THE SECOND reason the Western champions of "peace" have opted to sell Israel
and the Jews out to the jihadists is because as anti-Semites, Western
"anti-Zionists" fear Jewish power and therefore want us to be weak. So it is
that for the past 40 years, European governments and the US State Department
have bankrolled anti-Zionist groups in Israel like Peace Now, B'tselem and
Four Mothers. So it is that they have blamed Israel for Palestinian
terrorism. And even when Israel succumbs to all their demands for
territorial withdrawals, they always manage to demand still more.

In the same interview with Ha'aretz for instance, Kouchner on the one hand
praised Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for
their willingness to surrender Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria to the
Palestinians, but argued that this is still not enough. Israel must also
accept the free immigration of the hostile descendants of the Arabs who left
Israel in 1948. That is, Israel must also agree to its own destruction in
order to pave the way for "peace." In his words, "The main problem is the
refugees and Jerusalem, but more the refugees. Olmert and Livni do not have
the perception of this."

Kouchner for one is certain that Livni will come around to recognizing the
need to allow hostile foreign-born Arabs to move here. "I think she will
change. This is always the case for people that are in charge for politics
and for life," he claimed.

Kouchner soothed the reporters' fears of national destruction by claiming
that he's probably not talking about more than 100,000 hostile Arabs
immigrants. But that's today.

If Livni does form a government and comes around to this view, leave it to
the West to explain that placing "arbitrary" limits on Arab immigration is a
human rights abuse, and that Israel's Zionist racism is compelling the Arabs
and Iran to kill Jews and Westerners around the world.

AND THIS brings us to perhaps the greatest irony of the West's collusion
with the Arabs and Iran in their war against the Jews. The logical outcome
of the twin delusions of anti-Semitism - that Jews are all powerful and that
the Jews must be cut down to size - is the destruction of Israel. And if
that happens, the West will find itself in jaws of the Islamic jihadists
they have been feeding the Jews to for four decades.

The West's subversion of the Israeli elite has fomented a situation where
many Israeli leaders have embraced their anti-Semitic views of Israel.
Leaders like Livni and Olmert, and the media and academia in Israel, have
largely accepted the notion that Israel is to blame for the global jihad.
Today these leaders uphold Jewish weakness as an ideal. The longer these
Western-supported elites remain in power, the larger the chance that Israel
won't attack Iran and that Israel will allow itself to be destroyed in the
interest of pursuing "peace" with Palestinian terrorists.

And if Israel is destroyed, the West won't be able to depend on us Jews to
fight and die for them anymore. They will be all alone.

Obama or not to Obama

Obama and the future of the US:

Is Obama up to the (new) threat posed by the 21st Century version of the Cold War and the threat by Islamic imperialism.

Obama has zero experience in international affairs, His "audacity" means he is more inclined to negotiate with and appease tyrants and terrorists.

Obama has Brzezinski. You remember he persuaded Carter to reduce the U.S. defense budget. Obama has promised to reduce the defense budget also when elected. When Brzezinski was his national security adviser, Carter contributed to the removal of the Iranian Shah and in essance helped install Ayatollah Khomeini. Nuclear weapons anyone?

Brzezinski is a globalist. He believes that the nation-state system is historically obsolete. Obama must be close to this postion to deal with Brzezinski. Obama call for a change, what change is available? Does he want the US number one in anything we are not currently number1? No, the only changes available to him are capitulation of the United States to the United Nations. The less the US becomes the more the Ruassians and Islamofascists become.

The question is what would McCain do? I guess you can't keep business as usual leadership at this point. The stakes are to high and the timetables to short.

We will soon not be talking Euro...but Eurabia.

The Jewish Left wants the US to pressure Israel

By Ted Belman

Following up on my article Liberal Jews support Obama in part because they blame the Jews too in which I pointed out that “progressive Jews” were naturally allies of Obama, I came upon this Prospect Magazine article by Gershom Gorenberg entitled A Liberal Jewish Lobby

The power of the “Israel Lobby” in the US is hard to measure exactly. But its hawkish positions do conflict with the views, and interests, of most American Jews. So why isn’t there a more dovish lobby to counter it? One is, finally, about to be unveiled.


For a long time now the Jewish Left have been trying to break the “stranglehold” AIPAC has on the US Congress and Senate. And so have Carter, Mearsheimer and Walt.

The problem as Gershom Gorenberg sees it,

Lobbyists can only bend foreign relations so far. America’s basic interests constrain its policy towards the middle east, yet those interests are neither self-evident nor consistent with one another. The problem was stated over 40 years ago by McGeorge Bundy, who was President Johnson’s national security adviser until 1966. When the six-day war broke out in June 1967, Bundy was called back to the White House. A month later, he wrote a nine-page “framework of policy” for US relations with the middle east.

The Bundy doctrine’s bottom line is that US interests contradict each other: the US is committed to Israel’s survival, but also to good relations with pro-western Arab states that would like America to tilt against Israel. The war showed that US influence is limited; Washington could not even “dissuade some of our best friends among the Arabs from joining in the gang-up” against Israel. Even when Washington disagrees with Israeli policy, Bundy says, it should provide enough arms for Israel to defend itself. For if Israel faced defeat, the US “would confront the… painful and unattractive choices” of whether to send its own troops into battle.

Forty years on, much of Bundy’s description remains valid. It is easier, even cheaper, for America to keep Israel strong than to defend it directly. But Washington must also accommodate Arab allies. The Bundy doctrine implies that getting Arabs and Israelis to agree a peace deal would resolve the contradictions in US policy—and would be the best guarantee of Israeli security. The question then becomes one of how much the US should lean towards providing for Israel’s immediate security needs, and how much it should be pushing Israel towards a peace agreement as a strategic solution.

The Jewish left favours pushing Israel harder in the interests of the US. They argue though it is in the interests of Israel.

AIPAC is not the slightest bit hawkish. It merely supports the policies of the Government of Israel and never goes against it. It is a convenient scapegoat for the Left. Otherwise the Jewish Left would have to convince the US to go against Israel.

The Jewish Left know that it doesn’t have the democratic power to get Israel to support its policies so it looks to the US to exert its “influence”.

As far back as 2005 N.Y. Jewish leaders lobbied Rice on Gaza border deal

Following the meeting, the forum also sent her a policy paper in which it urged the U.S. to take “aggressive” action on three issues.

“The three steps that should be implemented in tandem, rather than in sequence, are as follows: Unambiguous and effective efforts by the PA to control terror and prevent attacks on Israelis; an Israeli freeze on extending existing settlements, including roads and other associated infrastructure, and removal of unauthorized settlement outposts; and efforts to help grow the Palestinian economy so the Palestinian Authority can provide jobs and basic services for Palestinians. This effort would help strengthen the PA’s position among the various Palestinian factions, including Hamas.”

Sound familiar?

Abraham Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League, said it was not uncommon for Jewish organizations to lobby the administration to exert pressure on Israel. Foxman himself opposes such activity, but said the IPF, Americans for Peace Now and sometimes the Reform Movement all engage in it.

Just prior to Annapolis, they offered Rice Constructive ideas for the November Conference

The “guide” suggests that the administration be ready with its own bridging proposals for the substance of a November Declaration: “the Bush administration cannot remain on the sidelines for long.” Their “illustrative” proposals for a successful statement make sense and are based on the Ayalon-Nusseibah plan with a little Geneva Initiative thrown in. One novel piece of framing that the IPF guide proposes is what they call a ‘facilitating agreement’ that would also be produced for November and would sit along side the substantive declaration. This facilitating agreement seems to essentially be a new way to reintroduce Roadmap phase I issues, such as security, settlement freeze, outpost removal, closure and prisoner release. Indeed, the former officials do not mention the Roadmap - not even once - in their guide paper. I think they are right. One of the more useful outcomes in November would be to finally bury the farce known as the Roadmap.

More recently Haaretz Editor Asked US Secretary of State to “Rape” Israel
Obama and all his advisers (McPeak, Power, Brzezinski, and so on) believe that Mearsheimer and Walt are correct in believing that, but for the power of the Israel Lobby, the US would be free to tilt more in favour of the Arabs. They see that in the interests of the US and so does the Jewish Left.

ALAN DERSHOWITZ CALLS JIMMY CARTER AN "ANTI-ISRAEL BIGOT"

March 3, 2008

ALAN DERSHOWITZ CALLS JIMMY CARTER AN "ANTI-ISRAEL BIGOT,"
SAYING THAT HE HAS NO SYMPATHY FOR THE JEWISH PEOPLE

"If you're an Israeli, Carter doesn't like you. If you're an Arab or a Muslim, he likes you."

Also dismisses Brzezinski-Obama connection and tackles religion in politics and Haredi Jews in a wide-ranging interview
March 3, 2008 (Fort Lee, NJ) -- In an exclusive cable television interview, Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz blasts President Jimmy Carter's lack of understanding of the Jewish people, saying that there's "a special place in hell reserved for somebody [who] has literally become such an anti-Israel bigot.

"He has no sympathy or understanding for the suffering of the Jewish people--for the plight of the Jewish people," Dershowitz tells Shalom TV's Mark S. Golub. "He loves every Muslim extremist he can find. He thought the former president of Syria--Assad--was a wonderful man. He bounced Yasser Arafat's children on his knee and loved Yasser Arafat and his crooked wife who stole three billion dollars from the Palestinian people, but he never had a kind word to say about almost any Israeli, except a few on the hard left who maybe tended to agree with him.


"If you're an Israeli, Carter doesn't like you. If you're an Arab or a Muslim, he likes you."

And while Dershowitz describes Jimmy Carter as a "terrible president," he does not link Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, with presidential primary candidate Barack Obama.

Brzezinski is "not an advisor to Barack Obama. I've checked that our very very carefully. [Brzezinski] himself volunteered to meet with Barack Obama over the issue of Iraq, and Barak Obama, through one of his major surrogates, indicated that he would never take advice from Brzezinski on Israel. So, he satisfied me."

However, Dershowitz remains troubled by the injection of religion and faith into primary campaigns, blaming Republicans and Democrats alike.

"They had a debate one night where each [candidate] described in detail how important Jesus was in their life," relays Dershowitz. And "I love what Romney said when he was running--'In America, anybody can run for President. We don't care about their religious views as long as they accept Jesus as their personal savior.'

"Thomas Jefferson would be turning over in his grave. Jefferson was personally a religious man, but he never would allow his religion to be, in any way, part of his public life."

Regarding the current Democratic hopefuls, Dershowitz feels "Barack Obama has way way way overdone religion. He's trying to overcome the false notion that he has some sort of sympathy with Islam, and therefore he is more Christian than the Christians." And while he was somewhat proud of Hillary Clinton for stating "as a Methodist, we don't wear our religion on our sleeve," he has no tolerance for comments on how her faith helped "during times of crisis."

"I don't want to hear that," protests Dershowitz. "I want to hear what your policies are."

On the issue of church and state, Dershowitz directs his broadest salvo for members of the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community who are willing to trade out first-class citizenship for government subsidies.

"When the government starts giving out money, it has a big influence," explains Dershowitz. "When I was growing up, Orthodox Jews didn't get any money from the government. Today, [through] faith-based initiatives, some money has trickled down to the Jewish community, and some--particularly in the Haredi community--see dollar bills.

"I'm appalled at some of the Orthodox Jewish organizations having such a short-sited view of the history of the separation of church and state. I would hope they would see the bigger picture."

Shalom TV [www.shalomtv.com], the nation's first Jewish cable television network, is available coast-to-coast on Comcast, as well as on Time Warner Cable in New York and New Jersey, and on Blue Ridge Communications. More than 15 million homes now have access to the free network.

“Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.”

By Ted Belman

I thought I would begin with a prediction. “Obama will win the nomination but lose the election.”

Fox News are on to him and all the arguments our “smear” camping is making and for the most part it is running with them. Sean Hannity is the best.

Slowly, but surely Obama, is doing himself in. It is not just the company he keeps but also what he is now saying.

Ed Lasky, the News Editor of The American Thinker, reports on Senator Obama’s Coming Out Party in Cleveland. Ed does a brilliant job of ferreting out the true meaning of Obama’s remarks. But in my opinion he mis-states two things which I want to address first.

“Most supporters of Israel now understand there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions.”
Recent polls disclose that 2/3 of Israelis are against dividing Jerusalem and retreating from Judea and Samaria and that is despite the fact the the entire world including the Government of Israel and its media have been embracing the two state solution.


“Senator Obama also sought to dispel rumors of anti-Semitism within his church (American Thinker has never made this accusation; nor do we support this allegation).”
I submit that The American Thinker is wrong in taking this position. Organizations and individuals who take positions critical of Israel, which Obama’s church does, often cross the line into antisemitism. Lasky knows the difference between legitimate criticism and antisemitic criticism. Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ sure fits the later category.

Bill Levinson posted to very important articles on Israpundit which can’t be ignored; Obama’s Church Connected to Sabeel, Naim Ateek and Obama’s Church and Black Liberation Theology

The respected NGO Monitor had this to say about SABEEL’s Ecumenical Facade

Reflecting its mission statement, Sabeel is active in promoting an extreme anti-Israel agenda in Protestant churches in both North America and Europe. Sabeel’s efforts have promoted the campaign to isolate and delegitimize Israel through the divestment campaign, which have recently been adopted by the World Council of Churches, the Anglican Church in Britain, the Presbyterian Church, and others.
What could be clearer? Now here is part of Lasky’s article.

Nevertheless, other parts of his speech were far from reassuring, and once again cast substantial doubt on his views not just toward Israel but also specifically toward supporters of the America-Israel relationship here at home. Senator Obama believes words matter; it is a mantra of his candidacy. Therefore, it is only fair to look at the words he used in Cleveland to divine his views.

He seems to be addressing many supporters of Israel in America who have questions regarding his views and his plans. He finds fault with them:

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel”.
Senator Obama characterizes those who have concerns about policies he might follow as President as being Likud-supporters. This has been a charge propagated by the fiercest opponents of Israel, who have often slipped into conspiracy theories regarding American supporters of Israel. (Try googling Likudnik and “dual loyalty” or “conspiracy theory”; Likudnik has become a term of opprobrium. As David Berstein notes, “Likudnik has gradually become a general anti-Semitic term for Jews whose opinions one does not like.”

One wishes Senator Obama would be bit more sensitive going forward when he uses such a term. After all, the Likud Party has not been in power for years, and Americans should feel free to express their concerns without being characterized as that party’s supporters, with its suggestion of dual loyalty. The suggestion that supporters of Israel who express their concerns are subscribers to the view of the Likud Party of Israel is simply not grounded. After all, supporters of Hillary Clinton have also expressed qualms regarding Senator Obama’s views of Israel. Are they supporters of Likud, too?

Haaretz columnist Shmuel Rosner raises an additional reason to have qualms. Will a President Obama be supportive of an Israel headed by a Prime Minster who hails from the Likud party? Does this statement by Senator Obama risk interfering with Israeli politics?

It is important to note that Likud did give up the Sinai and that Ariel Sharon — a former Likud leader — did remove all the settlements from the Gaza Strip. So one wonders why Senator Obama is so anti-Likud to begin with? Does he not know the history of this volatile region? Who has he been his counsel when he chooses to use such a term?

Senator Obama also sought to distance himself from Zbigniew Brzezinski, whose anti-Israel views are well known. However, he made no mention of two other advisors with a long record of hostility toward Israel: Robert Malley and Samantha Power. Power, in particular, is very close to the Senator and is a key foreign policy adviser . Why the omission of any mention of both?

But in trying to disentangle himself from Brzezinski, Senator Obama engaged in some rhetoric that is unsettling:

“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”
Senator Obama apparently views Israel as a “belligerent” and perhaps wants to see America’s support for Israel’s military reduced. This is hardly reassuring. Israel is not a belligerent, it only defends itself. It is a tiny sliver of a nation of a few million people surrounded by 300 million people who have made quite clear over the past 60 years that they desire its destruction. Few supporters of Israel indeed think that the only way to bring peace to the region is for Israel to crush all the opposition. Israel herself, since her founding, sought — and sometimes fought — for peace. These steps did not involve crushing all the opposition. Israel has taken great risks in it steps towards peace (leaving Lebanon — which led to the rise of Hezbollah; leaving Gaza — which led to the rise of Hamas; allowing Yasser Arafat to come to the West bank, where he set up a terrorist regime and brainwashed Palestinian children to hate. A leading Presidential candidate all but accuses Israel of being “belligerent” — is that unsettling to anyone?

Also unsettling is the implication that may lie behind his statement that we are going to have “problems moving forward” if critics raise questions about his views. Is this a statement meant to forestall discussion? If so, it would be similar to the views expressed by Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, who abhor the role that pro-Israel Americans (including Christians) sometimes play in the foreign policy discussion.

These statements are difficult to square with his position that he has a long record of support for Israel. If he is perturbed by critics and indicates questions may cause problems in the future regarding his policies and actions, then perhaps people have legitimate reasons to be concerned about the depth of his support for the America-Israel relationship and the role of Americans in the foreign policy discussion.

Senator Obama also said that supporting the view that only by defeating its Islamic foes can Israel enjoy any semblance of peace and security “can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.”. This is disconcerting. How firm and deep will President Obama’s support for Israel be when it comes to dealing with terrorists? Israel needs to defeat its Islamic foes who seek its destruction and who celebrate martyrdom for peace to reign. Even Palestinian moderates will feel constrained in making peace deals with Israel until these Islamic extremists are defeated. Wouldn’t Israel be justified in stopping Islamic foes that are calling for another Holocaust?

Would President Obama feel the same towards Islamic foes who target America?

Senator Obama also indicated that siding with those who seek the dividing of Israel does not make him anti-Israel. This is true. Most supporters of Israel now understand there will need to be a viable Palestinian state and that Israel will need to make territorial concessions. He stated that backing the Jews’ biblical, historical and legal claim to all of the land in question also can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. Of course, Israel has already made such concessions: the result is Hamasstan in the Gaza, which has become a center for terror directed daily against Israel. As Israel moved its forces out of the West Bank, those areas became centers of terrorist activity.

Senator Obama has already telegraphed his views regarding land, which seemed to prejudge the final outcome. But it might be wiser from a diplomatic point of view if he does not signal to opponents of negotiations his position if he becomes President. Also, violence has ensued when Israel voluntarily withdrew from lands; the world has remained silent and expresses very little sympathy for Israeli victims. Is counseling the division of land now something a friend would do?

Notably, the word “Jerusalem” is entirely absent from Senator Obama’s remarks. Surely that is not inadvertent. Does Senator Obama support or oppose the division of Jerusalem? Is Senator Obama aware of the destruction of Jewish and Christian religious sites when Jerusalem had been divided previously? Is he aware of how Jews were denied access to their religious sites when the city was divided? If Senator Obama does support the division of Jerusalem, how would it be divided? American Jews certainly cannot evaluate the Senator’s views on Israel when in a lengthy speech to Jewish leaders he keeps his views on Jerusalem to himself.

Senator Obama also stated that a full withdrawal from Iraq would strengthen America’s ability to deal with Iran. This logic is difficult to see. How would that happen? A precipitous withdrawal would embolden Iran. There would be no fear of American forces near its borders and its Shiite allies within Iraq would be strengthened. If anything, Iran would be empowered by such a retreat. How leaving would help us deal with Iran is opaque.

Senator Obama also sought to dispel rumors of anti-Semitism within his church (American Thinker has never made this accusation; nor do we support this allegation). Within the speech was this nugget:

“But I have never heard an anti-Semitic comment made inside of our church.”
And I suspect there are some of the people in this room who have heard relatives say some things that they don’t agree with. Including, on occasion, directed at African-Americans — that’s maybe a possibility that’s just, I am not suggesting that’s definitive.”

This is a Clintonesque statement if there ever were one. Senator Obama has never heard anti-Semitic statements “inside his church.” How about members who may have made such comments outside the church? How about his pastor’s relatively recent written anti-Israel statements that he excuses on the ground of Israel’s former relationship with South Africa. This also conveniently elides the fact that his Church’s magazine very recently gave an award to Louis Farrakhan, one of the most infamous anti-Semites in America.

In an attempt at self-justification, Senator Obama relegates his pastor, who is his spiritual mentor, and who inspired the title of his book The Audacity of Hope, as something like a crazy old uncle in the attic. Worse, he suggests that Jewish leaders may themselves have relatives who have made remarks that might be considered anti-African American. That is entirely irrelevant. There is a substantial difference between relatives who make private (or even public) comments that are disagreeable, and a relationship with a pastor that was sought out and supported, praised, and regarded as a mentor for two decades. Although one can distance oneself from relatives, it’s not so easy to resign from them. The same is not true of a pastoral affiliation.

Undoubtedly, the Jewish community would expect a presidential candidate to resign from a church whose pastor publicly supported David Duke and whose magazine gave him an award. The community would hope that Senator Obama would have taken such a step many years ago. Some may consider it disingenuous of the Senator to excuse his own voluntary association on the ground those Jewish listeners might have family members who harbor private prejudices.

Senator Obama’s speech occurred in the wake of comments made by Ralph Nader on Meet The Press. Nader claims that Senator Obama is too pro-Israel these days and remarked that the Senator was pro-Palestinian for years before he began his campaign for higher office. While some may view this as a reflection of Senator Obama’s evolving views (certainly his supporters will), others might question the coincidence of changing his views when he sought to garner support for his campaign.

Now that he has racked up a string of victories and vast amounts of financial support, he apparently feels comfortable in articulating some views regarding Israel and supporters of Israel in America that may give comfort to Ralph Nader but might leave others with even more questions than before.

Finally we can’t forget this quote from Obama’s book Audacity of Hope

“I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.”
Whatever did he mean by that?

Obama is not legally African-American as he claims but Arab-American and Islam still considers him to be a Muslim. Surely Americans are entitled to take this into account when they are voting for the next President of America.

No, Obama is going down and rightly so.



Ted Belman

The Brzezinski/Obama Axis By Paul Eidelberg

I. Who is Zbigniew Brzezinski?

It was reported in the New York Sun on February 15 that Barack Hussain Obama has chosen Zbigniew Brzezinski to advise him on Middle East policy.

Back in 1985, I wrote an article on Brzezinski for The Intercollegiate Review. Before citing some of the more relevant passages of that article, it should be borne in mind that Brzezinski, a political scientist, served as President Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser. One does not have to read Carter’s Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid to know that Carter is an anti-Semite. Brzezinski has earned the same reputation.

Not only has Brzezinski publicly defended the anti-Semitic canard that the relationship between America and Israel is the result of Jewish pressure, but he also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas, whose charter calls for Israel’s destruction. It behooves us to understand the mentality of Obama’s Middle East adviser—and more deeply than our so-called experts.

Long before he became Mr. Carter’s national security adviser, Brzezinski rejected what he and most political scientists term the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet political systems. “This image,” he says, “is held by traditional anti-Communists.” Brzezinski thus affirmed he is not quite an anti-Communist. In fact, he deplores anti-Communism as “a relic of the Cold War, of the age of ideology.”

Not only did Brzezinski reject the “black-and-white” image of the American and Soviet forms of government, he rejects the very notion of good and bad regimes! If you are shocked by Brzezinski’s moral relativism, ponder Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s confession in an interview with Ha’aretz in 2002 that his son Omri taught him “not to think in terms of black and white”—a statement uttered while suicide bombers were reducing Jews to body parts.

The influence of political scientists like Brzezinski is wide and deep. His moral relativism or neutrality prompts politicians to negotiate with and appease terrorist regimes. Mr. Obama may not be a moral relativist, but with Brzezinski as his adviser, he will be more disposed than other presidential candidates to appease Iran. Nor is this all.

With Brzezinski advising him, Obama’s chant about CHANGE may be more serious and insidious than Hillary’s silly utterances. He may have in mind changing the fundamental character of the American regime. That would fit well with the designs of one of his backers, billionaire George Soros, a globalist committed to the termination of the nation-state and the ascendancy of world government.

Since Brzezinski is a moral or historical relativism, he denies the existence of objective or transhistorical standards for determining whether the way of life of one nation, group, or individual is morally superior to that of another. (The members of the UN General Assembly would be pleased to hear this, despite the UN’s notorious record of condemning Israel without having ever condemned an Arab or Islamic terrorist state.)

Brzezinski’s relativism makes him a “weather-vane” political scientist. He urns with the winds of power; he is nothing if not “politically correct.” Working in a pluralistic and egalitarian country like America—a secular society—he conveniently adopts tolerance as his operational principle on the one hand, and equality as his primary value on the other. He is quite at home with the moral equivalency that has shaped US foreign policy toward Israel and Islamic dictatorships.

Brzezinski views history through the lens of Marxism, which, despite its atheism, has much in common with Islam. Both Communism and Islam are universalistic ideologies that reject the idea of the nation-state. Both do not regard adherence to treaties between nations as obligatory. Both Communism and Islam are militaristic and expansionist creeds that do not recognize international borders. Brzezinski’s globalism has become evident in Jimmy Carter. Under Brzezinski’s influence, Carter lowered the defense budget and pursued a soft line toward the Soviet Union. We can expect an Obama White House to pursue a very soft line toward Islam.

II. Iran’s Vision: A World Without Israel and the United States

With Zbigniew Brzezinski as his national security adviser, it was Jimmy Carter who facilitated the return of Ayatollah Khomeini to Iran. The Carter-Brzezinski axis is very much responsible for the Islamic revolution—the most dangerous revolution that has occurred in human history, a revolution that threatens the existence of every nation-state.

As a crypto-Marxist, Brzezinski deplores the nation-state. His book Between Two Ages: America’s Role in the Technetronic Era, declares that “With the splitting and eclipse of Christianity man began to worship a new deity: the nation. The nation became a mystical object claiming man’s love and loyalty. The nation-state along with the doctrine of national sovereignty fragmented humanity. It could not provide a rational framework within which the relations between nations could develop.” Brzezinski sees the nation-state as having only partly increased man’s social consciousness and only partially alleviated the human condition.

“That is why Marxism,” he contends, “represents a further vital and creative stage in the maturing and man’s universal vision.” Marxism, he says, “was the most powerful doctrine for generating a universal and secular human consciousness.” Embodied in the Soviet Union, however, Communism became the dogma of a party and, under Stalin, “was wedded to Russian nationalism.”

Although Brzezinski poses as a humanist, he makes a most inhumane statement by saying that: “although Stalinism may have been a needless tragedy, for both the Russian people and Communism as an ideal, there is the intellectually tantalizing possibility that for the world at large it was … a blessing in disguise.” Ponder this shocking statement about Islam or of Islamic imperialism. Yes, it slaughtered more than 200 million people, but Islam brought hundreds of Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Hindu, and Buddhist communities under a single universal vision, that of the Quran.

Brzezinski, a self-professed secularist, is an internationalist whose moral relativism contradicts the moral law or natural rights doctrine of America’s Declaration of Independence. His relativism and internationalism contradict the teachings of the America’s Founding Fathers, who endowed the United States with a national identity and character, the same that animated Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt. To put it more bluntly: Brzezinski’s mode of thought or political mentality — like that of countless other American academics — is anti-American. An Obama-Brzezinski axis has revolutionary significance. It might accelerate the de-Americanization and decline of the United States.

This development has its parallel in the de-Judaizing of Israel’s Third Commonwealth. Israel’s ruling elites, beginning with President Shimon Peres, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livini, Education Minister Yuli Tamir—and let’s not forget Israel’s erstwhile and still influential Supreme Court president Aaron Barak—have the same basic mentality as Brzezinski. The mere fact that they are multiculturalists committed to transforming Israel into “a state of its citizens” means that they are only nominal Jews, that just as Brzezinski is, in principle, anti-American, so they are, in principle, anti-Israel or anti-Jewish!

But let us not be misled by the term “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism means nothing less then the end of the nation-state system that has prevailed for almost four centuries. The nation-state obtained a monopoly of political power. Power abhors a vacuum. Terminate the nation-state and you are heading for world government. But a world government must also have a monopoly of power. Its agents must be everywhere, to make sure that no opposition group in any country secretly develops weapons of mass destruction. A world government must have the equivalent of the KGB in every country. A world government would be the greatest tyranny in human history.

Israel is the target of all those who oppose the nation-state if only because the Bible of Israel not only prescribes a multiplicity of nations, but a moral code that contradicts the moral relativism of the Brzezinskis and of Israel’s ruling elites.

Will Israel be the target of CHANGE — the mantra of the Democratic Party chanted most ominously by Barack Hussain Obama?

Israel's false friends

U.S. presidential candidates aren't doing the Jewish state any favors by offering unconditional support.

Once again, as the presidential campaign season gets underway, the leading candidates are going to enormous lengths to demonstrate their devotion to the state of Israel and their steadfast commitment to its "special relationship" with the United States.

Each of the main contenders emphatically favors giving Israel extraordinary material and diplomatic support -- continuing the more than $3 billion in foreign aid each year to a country whose per capita income is now 29th in the world. They also believe that this aid should be given unconditionally. None of them criticizes Israel's conduct, even when its actions threaten U.S. interests, are at odds with American values or even when they are harmful to Israel itself. In short, the candidates believe that the U.S. should support Israel no matter what it does.
Such pandering is hardly surprising, because contenders for high office routinely court special interest groups, and Israel's staunchest supporters -- the Israel lobby, as we have termed it -- expect it. Politicians do not want to offend Jewish Americans or "Christian Zionists," two groups that are deeply engaged in the political process. Candidates fear, with some justification, that even well-intentioned criticism of Israel's policies may lead these groups to turn against them and back their opponents instead.

If this happened, trouble would arise on many fronts. Israel's friends in the media would take aim at the candidate, and campaign contributions from pro-Israel individuals and political action committees would go elsewhere. Moreover, most Jewish voters live in states with many electoral votes, which increases their weight in close elections (remember Florida in 2000?), and a candidate seen as insufficiently committed to Israel would lose some of their support. And no Republican would want to alienate the pro-Israel subset of the Christian evangelical movement, which is a significant part of the GOP base.

Indeed, even suggesting that the U.S. adopt a more impartial stance toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict can get a candidate into serious trouble. When Howard Dean proposed during the 2004 campaign that the United States take a more "evenhanded" role in the peace process, he was severely criticized by prominent Democrats, and a rival for the nomination, Sen. Joe Lieberman, accused him of "selling Israel down the river" and said Dean's comments were "irresponsible."

Word quickly spread in the American Jewish community that Dean was hostile to Israel, even though his campaign co-chair was a former president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Dean had been strongly pro-Israel throughout his career. The candidates in the 2008 election surely want to avoid Dean's fate, so they are all trying to prove that they are Israel's best friend.

These candidates, however, are no friends of Israel. They are facilitating its pursuit of self-destructive policies that no true friend would favor.

The key issue here is the future of Gaza and the West Bank, which Israel conquered in 1967 and still controls. Israel faces a stark choice regarding these territories, which are home to roughly 3.8 million Palestinians. It can opt for a two-state solution, turning over almost all of the West Bank and Gaza to the Palestinians and allowing them to create a viable state on those lands in return for a comprehensive peace agreement designed to allow Israel to live securely within its pre-1967 borders (with some minor modifications). Or it can retain control of the territories it occupies or surrounds, building more settlements and bypass roads and confining the Palestinians to a handful of impoverished enclaves in Gaza and the West Bank. Israel would control the borders around those enclaves and the air above them, thus severely restricting the Palestinians' freedom of movement.

But if Israel chooses this second option, it will lead to an apartheid state. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said as much when he recently proclaimed that if "the two-state solution collapses," Israel will "face a South African-style struggle." He went so far as to argue that "as soon as that happens, the state of Israel is finished." Similarly, Israel's deputy prime minister, Haim Ramon, said earlier this month that "the occupation is a threat to the existence of the state of Israel." Other Israelis, as well as Jimmy Carter and Anglican Archbishop Desmond Tutu, have warned that continuing the occupation will turn Israel into an apartheid state. Nevertheless, Israel continues to expand its settlements on the West Bank while the plight of the Palestinians worsens.

Given this grim situation, one would expect the presidential candidates, who claim to care deeply about Israel, to be sounding the alarm and energetically championing a two-state solution. One would expect them to have encouraged President Bush to put significant pressure on both the Israelis and the Palestinians at the recent Annapolis conference and to keep the pressure on when he visits the region this week. As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice recently observed, settling this conflict is also in America's interest, not to mention the Palestinians'.
One would certainly expect Hillary Clinton to be leading the charge here. After all, she wisely and bravely called for establishing a Palestinian state "that is on the same footing as other states" in 1998, when it was still politically incorrect to use the words "Palestinian state" openly. Moreover, her husband not only championed a two-state solution as president but he laid out the famous "Clinton parameters" in December 2000, which outline the only realistic deal for ending the conflict.

But what is Clinton saying now that she is a candidate? She said hardly anything about pushing the peace process forward at Annapolis, and remained silent when Rice criticized Israel's subsequent announcement that it planned to build more than 300 new housing units in East Jerusalem. More important, both she and GOP aspirant Rudy Giuliani recently proclaimed that Jerusalem must remain undivided, a position that is at odds with the Clinton parameters and virtually guarantees that there will be no Palestinian state.
Sen. Clinton's behavior is hardly unusual among the candidates for president. Barack Obama, who expressed some sympathy for the Palestinians before he set his sights on the White House, now has little to say about their plight, and he too said little about what should have been done at Annapolis to facilitate peace. The other major contenders are ardent in their declarations of support for Israel, and none of them apparently sees a two-state solution as so urgent that they should press both sides to reach an agreement. As Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security advisor and now a senior advisor to Obama, noted, "The presidential candidates don't see any payoff in addressing the Israel-Palestinian issue." But they do see a significant political payoff in backing Israel to the hilt, even when it is pursuing a policy -- colonizing the West Bank -- that is morally and strategically bankrupt.

In short, the presidential candidates are no friends of Israel. They are like most U.S. politicians, who reflexively mouth pro-Israel platitudes while continuing to endorse and subsidize policies that are in fact harmful to the Jewish state. A genuine friend would tell Israel that it was acting foolishly, and would do whatever he or she could to get Israel to change its misguided behavior. And that will require challenging the special interest groups whose hard-line views have been obstacles to peace for many years.

As former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami argued in 2006, the American presidents who have made the greatest contribution to peace -- Carter and George H.W. Bush -- succeeded because they were "ready to confront Israel head-on and overlook the sensibilities of her friends in America." If the Democratic and Republican contenders were true friends of Israel, they would be warning it about the danger of becoming an apartheid state, just as Carter did.
Moreover, they would be calling for an end to the occupation and the creation of a viable Palestinian state. And they would be calling for the United States to act as an honest broker between Israel and the Palestinians so that Washington could pressure both sides to accept a solution based on the Clinton parameters. Implementing a final-status agreement will be difficult and take a number of years, but it is imperative that the two sides formally agree on the solution and then implement it in ways that protect each side.

But Israel's false friends cannot say any of these things, or even discuss the issue honestly. Why? Because they fear that speaking the truth would incur the wrath of the hard-liners who dominate the main organizations in the Israel lobby. So Israel will end up controlling Gaza and the West Bank for the foreseeable future, turning itself into an apartheid state in the process. And all of this will be done with the backing of its so-called friends, including the current presidential candidates. With friends like them, who needs enemies?

John J. Mearsheimer is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Stephen M. Walt is a professor of international affairs at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. They are the authors of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy," published last year by Farrar, Straus and Giroux.