Saturday 6 June 2009

Israel Matzav: Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal feels the love from Obama

Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal feels the love from Obama

On Friday, the day after The One spoke in Cairo, Newsweek interviewed Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal, who very obviously felt the love from President Obama on Thursday.

You've seen presidents–and promises for peace–come and go. Is there anything different about Obama?
We haven't tested this yet, but he showed sincerity in his talk. Different people came away with different impressions, but for me it was positive, balanced, comprehensive and many parts of it were very personal and touching. It hit the right tone from the opening salutation, Assalaamu alaykum, to the quote from the Qur'an at the end.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Saudi foreign minister Saud al-Faisal feels the love from Obama

Israel Matzav: Hope and change on Jerusalem?

Hope and change on Jerusalem?

No, this is not the kind of hope and change that most of my readers are hoping for.

Late on Friday, the Obama administration issued Presidential determination 2009-19, which is the semi-annual waiver required since May 31, 1999 for the American government to avoid moving its Israeli embassy to Israel's capital city of Jerusalem.

While this waiver was given every six months by the Clinton and Bush administrations, James Robbins points out in the Corner that the Obama administration did something slightly different.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Hope and change on Jerusalem?

Israel Matzav: Arab journalists refuse to sit with Jew for Obama interview

Arab journalists refuse to sit with Jew for Obama interview

So much for hope and change.

Yediot Aharonot reports that after basking in the light of President Obama for an hour in Cairo on Thursday, two Arab journalists out of seven didn't show up for an interview with The One because an Israeli Jew (Nahum Barnea of Yediot) was also invited (translation from The Weekly Standard via Memeorandum).

After Obama’s speech yesterday at Cairo University, we gathered, six senior journalists from all over the Muslim world and I, the reporter for Yedioth Ahronoth, around a circular table in a side room. The president wanted to give us an interview.

Read All at :


Israel Matzav: Arab journalists refuse to sit with Jew for Obama interview

Israel Matzav: Buchenwald: Obama ties Israel's existence to the Holcaust again

Buchenwald: Obama ties Israel's existence to the Holcaust again

President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp in Weimar, Germany on Friday. Here's a videotape with highlights.

video

Please note that once again, Obama is attributing the 'justification' for Israel's existence to the Holocaust. As I noted yesterday:
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Buchenwald: Obama ties Israel's existence to the Holcaust again

Israel Matzav: 60% of Israelis and 75% of Israeli Jews don't trust Obama

60% of Israelis and 75% of Israeli Jews don't trust Obama

Lefty blog Mondoweiss - written by a fellow Jerusalemite - posts a profanity-laden video of drunk college kids, and tries to present the sentiments of these drunken kids as "the sentiments shared by many people in this country and this city. These people and their families are the core of the opposition to meaningful peace between Israel and her neighbors." I won't embed the video, but those who want to watch it can find it here (Hat Tip: Memeorandum).

Mondoweiss is trying to paint the opposition to President Obama's plans as a vulgar self-absorbed group of college kids. That's wrong.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: 60% of Israelis and 75% of Israeli Jews don't trust Obama

Israel Matzav: The end of the American strategic alliance with Israel?

The end of the American strategic alliance with Israel?

In The Corner, Caroline Glick views President Obama's speech in Cairo on Thursday as the end of the American strategic alliance with Israel.

Both rhetorically and programmatically, Obama’s speech was a renunciation of America’s strategic alliance with Israel.

Rhetorically, Obama’s sugar coated the pathologies of the Islamic world — from the tyranny that characterizes its regimes, to the misogyny, xenophobia, Jew hatred, and general intolerance that characterizes its societies. In so doing he made clear that his idea of pressing the restart button with the Islamic world involves erasing the moral distinctions between the Islamic world and the free world.

In contrast, Obama’s perverse characterization of Israel — of the sources of its legitimacy and of its behavior — made clear that he shares the Arab world’s view that there is something basically illegitimate about the Jewish state.

...

In addition to his morally outrageous characterization of Israel and factually inaccurate account of its foundations, Obama struck out at the Jewish state through the two policies he outlined in his address. His first policy involves coercing Israel into barring all Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria (otherwise known as the West Bank), and Jerusalem.

...

Even more strategically devastating than his castigation of Israel as the villain in the Arab-Israel conflict is Obama’s stated policy towards Iran. In Cairo, Obama offered Iran nuclear energy in exchange for its nuclear-weapons program. This offer has been on the table since 2003 and has been repeatedly rejected by the Iranians. Indeed, they rejected it yet again last week.

Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The end of the American strategic alliance with Israel?

Israel Matzav: Oops! Did I say that?

Oops! Did I say that?

For those of you who live in Florida, this story ought to show you that your Congressman is so busy shilling for Barack Obama that he doesn't even think through his positions.

The Weekly Standard reports (Hat Tip: Danny A) that Wexler told Greg Sargent that when his master said in Cairo on Thursday that "America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and we will say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs,” he meant that "it is no longer acceptable to say in private, `Go Israelis, take on Hezbollah,’ or `Go Israelis, take on Iran.”
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: Oops! Did I say that?

Israel Matzav: The Arab boycott is alive and well

The Arab boycott is alive and well

Gulf News is reporting that the 'Palestinian Authority' is trying 'quietly' to get the Saudi government to withdraw a contract that was recently awarded to the French company Alstom to build a railroad from Mecca to Medina. The reason is that Alstom is part of the consortium that is constructing the Jerusalem tram project (map at left). The tram will include stops in the eastern half of Jerusalem, and the 'Palestinians' fear that it might result in Arab residents of Jerusalem being more integrated into the city.
Read All at :

Israel Matzav: The Arab boycott is alive and well

OBAMA'S SPEECH - "DISINGENUOUS & FRAUDULENT"

OBAMA'S SPEECH - "DISINGENUOUS & FRAUDULENT"

Obama's Arabian dreams
By Caroline B. Glick


Jewish World Review June 5, 2009 / 13 Sivan 5769















http://www.JewishWorldReview.com

US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths. Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected political convenience.
Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions.

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.
He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.
So too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

On the surface Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America's ties to Israel are "unbreakable."

Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign — and therefore unjustifiable — intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.

The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.

This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the "reconstitution" — not the creation -- of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.

But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history." He then explicitly tied Israel's establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal, and moral justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, "resistance."

But as disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama's rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program.
Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be.

The administration's policy towards Jewish building in Israel's heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility towards Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments not to embarrass each other.

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah's projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region.

As Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his interview last week with the Washington Post, in light of the administration's hostility towards Israel, the Palestinian Authority no longer feels it is necessary to make any concessions whatsoever to Israel. It needn't accept Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It needn't minimize in any way its demand that Israel commit demographic suicide by accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as full citizens. And it needn't curtail its territorial demand that Israel contract to within indefensible borders.

In short, by attacking Israel and claiming that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace, the administration is encouraging the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole to continue to reject Israel and to refuse to make peace with the Jewish state.
The Netanyahu government reportedly fears that Obama and his advisors have made such an issue of settlements because they seek to overthrow Israel's government and replace it with the more pliable Kadima party. Government sources note that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel played a central role in destabilizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's first government in 1999, when he served as an advisor to then president Bill Clinton. They also note that Emmanuel is currently working with leftist Israelis and American Jews associated with Kadima and the Democratic Party to discredit the government.

While there is little reason to doubt that the Obama administration would prefer a leftist government in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the White House is attacking Israel primarily to advance this aim. This is first of all the case because today there is little danger that Netanyahu's coalition partners will abandon him.

Moreover, the Americans have no reason to believe that prospects for a peace deal would improve with a leftist government at the helm in Jerusalem. After all, despite its best efforts, the Kadima government was unable to make peace with the Palestinians as was the Labor government before it. What the Palestinians have shown consistently since the failed 2000 Camp David summit is that there is no deal that Israel can offer them that they are willing to accept.

So if the aim of the administration in attacking Israel is neither to foster peace nor to bring down the Netanyahu government, what can explain its behavior?

The only reasonable explanation is that the administration is baiting Israel because it wishes to abandon the Jewish state as an ally in favor of warmer ties with the Arabs. It has chosen to attack Israel on the issue of Jewish construction because it believes that by concentrating on this issue, it will minimize the political price it will be forced to pay at home for jettisoning America's alliance with Israel. By claiming that he is only pressuring Israel in order to enable a peaceful "two-state solution," Obama assumes that he will be able to maintain his support base among American Jews who will overlook the underlying hostility his "pro-peace" stance papers over.

Obama's policy towards Iran is a logical complement of his policy towards Israel. Just as there is no chance that he will bring Middle East peace closer by attacking Israel, so he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by offering the mullahs nuclear energy. The deal Obama is now proposing has been on the table since 2003 when Iran's nuclear program was first exposed. Over the past six years, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected it. Indeed, just last week they again announced that they reject it.

Here too, to understand the President's actual goal it is necessary to search for the answers closer to home. Since Obama's policy has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is apparent that he has come to terms with the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. In light of this, the most rational explanation for his policy of engaging Iran is that he wishes to avoid being blamed when Iran emerges as a nuclear power in the coming months.

In reckoning with the Obama administration, it is imperative that the Netanyahu government and the public alike understand what the true goals of its current policies are. Happily, consistent polling data show that the overwhelming majority of Israelis realize that the White House is deeply hostile towards Israel. The data also show that the public approves of Netanyahu's handling of our relations with Washington.

Moving forward, the government must sustain this public awareness and support. By his words as well as by his deeds, not only has Obama shown that he is not a friend of Israel. He has shown that there is nothing that Israel can do to make him change his mind.

Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in Washington and in the media consider "must reading." Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click

here.
JWR contributor Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.
taken from B'NAI ELIM (http://bnaielim.blogspot.com/)

A LONG TIME AGO, TODAY

A Long Time Ago, Today

David Brooks at the NYT does a better job than I did yesterday in explaining how Obama's Cairo speech wasn't about history, rather about a political attempt to influence reality. Of course, history will probably win. It often does.

One of the more significant historical mistakes in the speech was the idea that Israel is because of the Holocuast. This isn't exactly what Obama said, but he explained to the Arabs the centrality of the Holocaust in informing Israelis' understanding of the world (and he forcefully rejected Holocaust denial). By doing it this way, however, he implied rather clearly that the Holocaust is, if not the justification for the State of Israel, at the very least a central part of its story.

This is not true. Israel wasn't created because of the Holocaust, the Jews aren't here because of the Holocaust, the international community did not "give Palestine" to the Jews because of the Holocaust. I wrote about all this extensively in Right to Exist; I also spent some 25 years of my professional life dealing with the Holocaust and am not trying to belittle its significance. The Jews, however, are in Israel because it's their homeland; because for the past 3,200 years there has not been a single day in which Jews have not lived in the land of Israel; and because in that entire time, but especialy in the past 2,000 years, not a generation has gone by in which Jews didn't write about some aspect of their homeland.

That's a long time, 3,200 years, and it's a very large body of literature, which unfortunately many modern Jews are not well versed in and most of the rest of humanity knows not of its existance; not many groups in the world can point to an uninterrupted engagement with a homeland that has been running strong since before the Illiad was written.

By coincidence, the entire editorial board of this blog participated this morning in a tour of the City of David, the tiny hillock south of Jerusalem's Old City where the original village was situated. Archeologists have recently uncovered part of a palace there from about 1000 BCE, immediately above the layer of Jebusite settlement. Yes: King David's palace. Really! We spent a few hours clambering around, Bible in hand (well, in the guide's hand), reading various stories written 2,500 years ago and more, in the language they were written in which is the language we speak everyday, and tried to decipher which recent archeological finding fits which story.

One place, a sealed room on the edge of the scene in this photo, apparently contained the royal archives until it was burned by the Babylonians and the ashes remained in place until they were excavated a few years ago. Among them the excavators found 51 pottery seals that would have been attached to copies of important documents. One bears the name of Gemaryahu son of Shafan, which is pretty impressive if you keep in mind the story of how Jeremaih tried to warn the king of the impending doom of the city, and was not assisted by Gemaryahu, one of the top royal aides. All of which happened precisely at this spot, or a stone's throw from it. (Jeremiah chapter 36). (I have a son named after Gemaryahu's brother Achikam, who played a more admirable role in the story).

taken from :Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

WAR IN PERSPECTIVE

War in Perspective

On their way to destroy Nazi Germany, the Allies killed a lot of innocent French civilians who happened to be in the wrong places. How many? I always thought the number exceeded 12,000.
It did indeed. By a factor of five and then some.

Mr Beevor moves on to even more delicate ground when he explores the disregard
of the allies for the property and lives of French civilians. In the Normandy
campaign the Americans and British sought to minimise their casualties by
bombing places to smithereens before their soldiers went in. Asked how it felt
under the bombardment, one elderly survivor in the town of Caen replied:
“Imagine a rat sewn up inside a football during an international match.” As a
consequence of this tactic, 70,000 French civilians were killed by allied action
in the war, more than the number of British killed by German bombing.

WWII really was the most just of all wars. But it wasn't any less a war, for all that.
taken from : Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

Parshat Naso: Inner Unity

Parshat Naso: Inner Unity

unity

In Chapter 6 of this weeks parshah, we learn about the laws of the Nazirite; the case of an individual who wishes to take upon himself extra stringencies, most probably with the intention of strengthening his commitment to God. For thirty days, this individual is prohibited from drinking wine, cutting his/her hair, and coming in contact with a corpse. At the end of the thirty-day period, he/she brings a special offering marking the completion of the entire Nazirite process.

Immediately after, the Torah then speaks about the three-part priestly blessing that the Kohanim (the priests of the Temple) bestow upon the Jewish nation daily. The juxtaposition of these sections seems odd at first and the obvious question that comes to mind is what is the connection between these two? How is the Nazirite related to the priestly blessing?


Read All at :

Tzipiyah.com - Parshat Naso: Inner Unity

Posted using ShareThis

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: NASO: GIVING YOUR A.L.L.

NASO: GIVING YOUR A.L.L.

By Rabbi Baruch Binyamin HaKohen Melman

In this week's parsha, Naso, we have two seemingly unconnected ideas. One, the priestly blessing, is the age-old formula for the kohanim to bestow blessings upon the people. The other is the trial by ordeal of the "sota," the accused adulteress. We will see that they are not so far apart, that everything in Torah deeply connects in an organic, integrated whole.

Children, in order to become healthy adults, need Attention, Love, and Limits. If they don't receive healthy attention, they will seek out unhealthy attention. If we don't praise them for all the good things that they do, they will surely seek out attention for all the bad things that they are certainly capable of doing.

We must give them love. We must give our children unconditional love, a love that is not tied to anything except to their being who they are. They must know that even if they fail at something, we will always be there for them, cheering them on just for trying.
Read All at :

Sefer Chabibi Deepest Torah: NASO: GIVING YOUR A.L.L.