Love of the Land: What the Obama White House has condemned

What the Obama White House has condemned

Elder of Ziyon
25 April '10

One of the strongest terms in the diplomatic arsenal is the word "condemn." It is used sparingly, to show extreme displeasure, usually for heinous acts of terror and mass murder.

Elder Brother of Ziyon asked me what international incidents the Obama White House has condemned since taking office.

Here's what I could find:

Terrorist bombings on the Moscow Metro
May 2009 fatal terror attacks in Iran
Murder of three employees of US Consulate in Mexico
Violence against civilians in Iran
Terrorist bombings in Iraq
Terrorist bombings in Jakarta
Nobel Peace Prize winner Aung San Suu Kyi's house arrest in Burma
Al Qaeda attack on Saudi Arabia’s Assistant Minister of Interior
Brutal murders and rapes in Guinea
Iran's executions of pro-democracy advocates
North Korean nuclear test

and, of course...

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: What the Obama White House has condemned

Love of the Land: Lacking an Iran Policy, The White House Seeks Scapegoat

Lacking an Iran Policy, The White House Seeks Scapegoat

JINSA Report #: 980
19 April '10

According to The New York Times, "Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has warned in a secret three-page memorandum to top White House officials that the United States does not have an effective long-range policy for dealing with Iran's steady progress toward nuclear capability."

A journalist wrote to JINSA, "It seems to me the Jewish community has contributed to that (lack of policy) by making the very mention of 'containment' politically toxic-as if even planning for that contingency, however much it is unwanted, is an act of appeasement. Where's the error in my reasoning?"

The short answer is that the Obama Administration has not taken seriously Jewish concerns regarding any foreign policy area. It is an error to think he gave credence to what "the Jews" said about Iran.

The longer answer is the reason we don't have a policy for containing a nuclear Iran, if indeed we don't, is because President Obama appears not to have believed we might have to do it. As a candidate and as President he said a nuclear Iran was "unacceptable." And because it was unacceptable, it wouldn't happen. He would engage the regime, he said, and then be prepared for "crippling sanctions" with international support he said, and then leave "all options" on the table.

He appears not to have anticipated the failure of his first two options.

(Read full report)

Love of the Land: Lacking an Iran Policy, The White House Seeks Scapegoat

Love of the Land: Stop Worshipping the False “Peace Process” Religion

Stop Worshipping the False “Peace Process” Religion

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
19 April '10

There have been few more dogged proponents of and participants in the “peace process” than Aaron David Miller. So when he now hops off the bandwagon and declares the “peace process” to be the equivalent of a false religion, it’s worth taking note. He explains:

Like all religions, the peace process has developed a dogmatic creed, with immutable first principles. Over the last two decades, I wrote them hundreds of times to my bosses in the upper echelons of the State Department and the White House; they were a catechism we all could recite by heart. First, pursuit of a comprehensive peace was a core, if not the core, U.S. interest in the region, and achieving it offered the only sure way to protect U.S. interests; second, peace could be achieved, but only through a serious negotiating process based on trading land for peace; and third, only America could help the Arabs and Israelis bring that peace to fruition.

He notes that he wrote his share of memos reciting the same catechism, but he couldn’t do it again today:

(Read full post)

Please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.

Love of the Land: Stop Worshipping the False “Peace Process” Religion

Love of the Land: It Is Not A Capital Offense For Israel To Disagree With An American Administration Regarding Policy

It Is Not A Capital Offense For Israel To Disagree With An American Administration Regarding Policy

Dr. Aaron Lerner
IMRA
Commentary
28 March '10

It is not a capital offence for Israel to disagree with an American administration regarding policy.

I can appreciate that President Obama thinks that our leaving the Golan, dividing Jerusalem, etc. will bring us utopian peace and that not taking his advice may even have a negative impact on America in the Moslem world, thus he has every reason to use "tough love" to force us to do what is in our own best interest - and that he has an Amen chorus of Jews supporting this view.

However, it is not a capital offense for a democratically elected Israeli government to reject American policy recommendations.

President Obama has a broad range of instruments available to promote his views other than giving our enemies the impression that if we don't march to his drum that America may opt to turn its back on us at a time of crisis.

That such ideas are being allowed to float around without being explicitly and clearly denied and denounced by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton could very well invite disaster.

Claims from the White House that the Obama-Netanyahu meetings were not insulting do not address this critical point. In particular since the entire policy dictat (it is not a discussion or debate because the Obama team is unwilling to even entertain the possibility that they could be wrong) is presented as an American initiative to force Israel to do what "we all know" is in Israel's best interest.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: It Is Not A Capital Offense For Israel To Disagree With An American Administration Regarding Policy

Love of the Land: Obama’s message

Obama’s message

Fresnozionism.org
27 March '10

When Binyamin Netanyahu visited the White House last Tuesday, he was not treated like the Prime Minister of just any banana republic. He was treated like Manuel Noriega. No interviews, no photo-ops, no dinner, and a whole pile of demands. He and Defense Minister Ehud Barak were lucky not to have been locked in a room and forced to listen to heavy metal at top volume.

As a citizen of Israel and of the US, I was insulted and embarrassed in turn. As a Jew and a Zionist who believes that the survival of the Jewish people depends on the state of Israel I was horrified. Even Barry Rubin, who has been saying for the last couple of weeks that the crisis in US-Israeli relations has been blown out of proportion, admitted today that

…now it has become reasonable to ask whether the Obama White House is running amuck on Israel, whether it is pushing friction so far out of proportion that it is starting to seem a vendetta based on hostility and ideology.

Ehud Ya’ari, one of Israel’s most respected commentators, said,

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Obama’s message

Love of the Land: Obama’s Humiliation of Israel May Only Be Getting Started

Obama’s Humiliation of Israel May Only Be Getting Started

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
26 March '10
Posted before Shabbat

After days of a news blackout about the details of the meeting on Tuesday between President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Britain’s Telegraph has broken a story with details about what can only be described as an attempt to humiliate the Israeli.

According to the Telegraph’s account, the meeting began with the president presenting a list of 13 demands to Netanyahu. These included a complete freeze on Jewish building in eastern Jerusalem. When Netanyahu did not immediately accede to this diktat, Obama left him saying he was going to go eat dinner with his wife and daughters. Netanyahu and his party were left to wait for over an hour for Obama’s return. The paper claims that as Obama left, he told the prime minister to consider “the error of his ways.” Yediot Ahronot reported that Obama merely said, “I’m still around. Let me know if there is anything new.” A second brief meeting followed, which apparently consisted of the president restating his demands. As a punishment for Netanyahu’s failure to immediately bend to Obama’s ultimatum, there was no joint statement issued about the meeting and no press coverage of the visit. Friday’s Ma’ariv describes the scene thusly: “There is no humiliation exercise that the Americans did not try on the prime minister and his entourage. Bibi received in the White House the treatment reserved for the president of Equatorial Guinea.”

The Jerusalem Post is reporting that Obama wants an answer to his demands by Saturday so he can then present them to a meeting of the Arab League going on in Libya so that ineffectual body can endorse the so-called proximity talks in which the Palestinian Authority refuses to directly negotiate with Israel.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Obama’s Humiliation of Israel May Only Be Getting Started

Love of the Land: No Denying White House Animus Toward Israel

No Denying White House Animus Toward Israel

Jonathan Tobin
Contentions/Commentary
25 March '10

This White House likes symbolism. After Barack Obama moved in, one of the first things his staff did was to unceremoniously remove the bronze bust of Winston Churchill that had been in the Oval Office and return it to Great Britain, thus signaling that this president no longer valued the special relationship with the UK, which had been a cornerstone of American diplomacy from the days of FDR to those of George W. Bush. And when Obama finally met with the Dalai Lama last month, the visit was kept low key, with no official welcome and no media allowed to witness the event for fear of offending China. The one picture that was released of the meeting appeared to show the president lecturing the exiled Tibetan so no one might think that a former editor of the Harvard Law Review had anything to learn from a legendary spiritual leader.

But the cold reception of the Dalai Lama now seems like a wild party compared to the way Obama received Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House this week. Oh, I know, Bibi is in the doghouse because we’re all supposed to think that Israel gravely insulted Vice President Joe Biden by allowing the announcement of a housing-project start in an existing Jewish neighborhood of Jerusalem to coincide with his recent visit there. But the reason this is such a “big f@!%ing deal,” as the vice president might put it, is not because it was a real insult but because it was an excuse for the administration to renew its war on Netanyahu.

This is not the first president to dislike an Israeli prime minister or even Israel itself. The elder George Bush and his secretary of state, James “f@!% the Jews” Baker despised Yitzhak Shamir. But never has the leader of America’s ally Israel been treated with such open contempt as shown by Obama to Netanyahu. The Israeli’s visit to the White House was closed to the press — with not even one photo released of their encounter. The fact is that Obama didn’t even want his picture taken with Netanyahu. That’s particularly strange since the president has never any qualms about getting snapped next to a wide variety of international leaders on his travels.

In yesterday’s press briefing, spokesman Robert Gibbs was quizzed on this startling behavior by Jake Tapper. In response to repeated questions as to why the White House chose to treat a democratically elected head of the government of a close U.S. ally in this manner, Gibbs did not try very hard to pretend that it was anything but an indication of Obama’s dislike for the Israeli and the country he represents. Coming from a president that has spent his time in office making non-stop efforts to reach out to and engage America’s enemies around the world, this open hostility to Israel is breathtaking in its brazenness.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: No Denying White House Animus Toward Israel

Love of the Land: The question that the White House should answer

The question that the White House should answer

Elder of Ziyon
29 December 09

The White House announced:

The United States opposes new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem. The status of Jerusalem is a permanent status issue that must be resolved by the parties through negotiations and supported by the international community. Neither party should engage in efforts or take actions that could unilaterally pre-empt, or appear to pre-empt, negotiations.

Earlier today:

Housing and Construction Minister Ariel Atias said Monday that 500 housing units have recently been authorized in Jerusalem's Silwan neighborhood. According to Atias, Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat gave the go ahead for the building in order to address the lack of housing in the city, for Jews and Arabs alike.

Atias made these statements on the heels of Palestinian accusations that Israel is not allowing Arabs to build in the city outside of some isolated cases.

According to details gathered so far, out of the 500 housing units authorized in Silwan, only two of them are for Jewish residents living in the neighborhood. Minister Atias presented this figure in response to allegations that Israel is only allowing construction for Jewish housing after 692 housing units were authorized in Jerusalem outskirt neighborhoods Neve Yaakov, Har Homa, and Pisgat Ze'ev.

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: The question that the White House should answer

Love of the Land: White House Priorities

White House Priorities

Michael Goldfarb
The Weekly Standard
28 December 09

After three days of radio silence from our Nobel laureate president on al Qaeda's attempted Christmas Day Massacre, President Obama finally felt compelled to get off the beach and make a statement. Nearly two hours before that, the White House issued a statement responding to an hours old news report that the Israeli government had authorized the construction of 700 new apartments in East Jerusalem. So now we know what the administration's priorities are.

The statement from the White House on Jerusalem construction explained flatly that this United States government "opposes new Israeli construction in East Jerusalem." Candidate Obama once memorably declared that "Jerusalem must remain undivided," now his administration opposes the construction of even a single Jewish apartment anywhere in the eastern half of that city (which American law recognizes as the capital of Israel).

It's an odd statement -- and given the track record of loosely worded and later corrected statements on this issue, it's hard to know what to make of it. Last month the White House expressed "dismay" at Israeli "settlement" construction in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Gilo, only to correct that statement hours laterand remove the word "settlement" in recognition of the fact that no previous administration had ever described Gilo as any such thing. Maybe they've again made the mistake of using sloppy, hastily prepared language on a sensitive issue -- a problem that has plagued this administration's approach to the Middle East in general.

But at least Obama once again took his time before weighing in on the protests in Iran, and then showed that regime the appropriate level of deference and "mutual respect" in addressing it by its official (and self-aggrandizing) title, the Islamic Republic.

Love of the Land: White House Priorities

Love of the Land: Fairies in the White House

Fairies in the White House

Ira Sharkansky
Shark Blog
18 December 09

An American friend, who some time ago showed his disappointment with Israel, has sent another note that includes:

"I scan three Israeli newspapers every day (well, actually, their web sites, in English). It's less like visiting a foreign country than like visiting a foreign planet. The obsession with Iran's supposed nuclear weapons development is incessant - as if the Iranians were going to drop the big one on Tel Aviv any day now."

Should one also wonder that Americans are concerned with health care?

Must Israelis justify their concern with Iran? Not only is the Persian president continuing his denial of the Holocaust and asserting that Israel has no right to exist. He is arming the Hezbollah of Lebanon and getting some weapons to Gaza despite Israeli and Egyptian blockades. And the trendy lefties of the world are singing in the chorus that he leads.

Barack Obama is a nice man who is not singing in Ahmadinejad's chorus, but he has expressed his belief in fairies. Or the functional equivalent of them, which he believes can be brought forth by what he calls engagement.

So what should Israel do, in the presence of an Iranian leader who gives evidence of severe animosity, and leads even the Egyptian outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency to conclude that Iran may be intent on producing nuclear weapons? There are also Iranian tests of its missiles, which international headlines link with the nuclear program and say could reach anywhere in Israel.

Whenever the Obama led international coalition has sought to offer the Iranians a face saving alternative to amassing materials for nuclear weapons, the Iranians have responded by saying "Maybe, but not quite good enough," and the deadline for deciding on sanctions is pushed further ahead. Although the Russians and Chinese have given signs that they will support sanctions, no one should expect the sanctions agreed upon to the kinds that really bite.

Those fairies conceived in the White House are not doing their job. The world is in danger, and the Iranian finger is pointed at Israel.

So what should Israelis do, when few of us believe in fairies?

(Read full post)

Love of the Land: Fairies in the White House

Love of the Land: Yad Vashem with an air force

Yad Vashem with an air force

Sarah Honig
"Another Tack"
JPost
19 November 09

One of this country's prominent professional talking heads, who also happens to be a longtime friend, opined in all earnestness when we met the other day that "the most pivotal recent political development" was Tom Friedman's op-ed in The New York Times (November 7) entitled "Call White House, ask for Barack." The broadcaster positively glowed and gloated. From his ultra-leftist standpoint this was a devastating blow to Binyamin Netanyahu and he lustily savored the triumph.

I had to confess my abysmal failure to be wowed. I gave Friedman's supposedly seminal column less than passing attention and couldn't see what the hoopla was about. Friedman is a veteran Jewish Israel-basher, whose career was constructed on his "personal crisis" of disillusionment with the Jewish state. Trashing Israel, after all, is his proven stock-in-trade. So what if Friedman figures there's "no romance, no sex, no excitement, no urgency" to our peace process, "not even a sense of importance anymore"? Big deal. Whoopty-do!

"The Americans are fed up with Bibi. They'll hang him out to dry and ditch the peace process," the media-hotshot retorted with noticeable exasperation.

"What peace process?" I snapped back. "It's a sham. There never was any process to achieve real coexistence, only a pretext to weaken Israel. Some 'useful-fool' Israelis play along for political expedience and others are intimidated to adopt the agenda," I argued. "Please let Washington quit trying to make us more vulnerable. By all means let them leave us alone."

That said, I wasn't optimistic: "It's too good to be true. What have we got to go on? Friedman? Since when does he call the shots?"

My influential colleague was flabbergasted: "Friedman reflects Obama's mood. This is a stern warning for us. At the very least Friedman will sway Obama and then we'll see where that gets us."

I ached to ask which side my famous interlocutor rooted for and whether he gave voice to left-wing wishful thinking, but I controlled myself.

(Read full article)

Love of the Land: Yad Vashem with an air force

Love of the Land: Fatah cools on Obama and Mitchell

Fatah cools on Obama and Mitchell

Ben Smith
Politico
13 October 09

Peace process prospects seem to be getting grimmer, as an internal memo of Fatah -- the favored Palestinian leadership -- leaks to the AP:

An internal document circulated among members of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' political party says all hopes placed in the Obama administration "have evaporated" because of alleged White House backtracking on key issues to the Palestinians.

The Fatah Party memorandum, obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press, accuses the United States of backing off from its demands that Israel freeze settlement construction and failing to set a clear agenda for new Mideast peace talks.

It wasn't immediately clear whether the Oct. 12 document reflected Abbas' views or was intended to be leaked as Fatah's attempt to pressure President Barack Obama to bear down harder on Israel.

The document said the Palestinians have lost hope in Obama and accused the American leader of caving in to pressure from pro-Israel lobbyists in Washington.

"All hopes placed in the new U.S. administration and President Obama have evaporated," said the document issued by Fatah's Office of Mobilization and Organization. The department is headed Fatah's No. 2, Mohammed Ghneim.

Obama, it claimed, "couldn't withstand the pressure of the Zionist lobby, which led to a retreat from his previous positions on halting settlement construction and defining an agenda for the negotiations and peace."

The memo seems to strengthen the argument that opening with a strong public stand on settlements -- voiced most firmly by Clinton -- was a tactical American mistake, hardening the Palestinian line even as Mitchell negotiated a compromise with the Israelis.

Related: What's the Point

Love of the Land: Fatah cools on Obama and Mitchell

Love of the Land: Whitehouse Blues

Whitehouse Blues

I am off on a speaking tour in the States until the end of October. I wrote, drew, and posted a set of cartoons to provide you with a daily chuckle while I'm away.

This is one of those cartoons.

Love of the Land: Whitehouse Blues

Love of the Land: In Case You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse

In Case You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse

Jennifer Rubin

Contentions/Commentary

24 September 09

The Goldstone report can’t even get a stamp of approval from Mary Robinson. (I bet it’ll make the Osama bin Laden reading list, however.) We noted last week the rather tepid response from Ambassador Susan Rice. Then it appeared that the U.S. was actually going to step in to block further action on the report—almost like it was defending an ally who had been unjustly accused by ideologically craven opponents. But that, it turns out, was a mistake, a misstatement, a gaffe. The Obama administration wouldn’t dream of such a thing. This report explains:

A White House official “misspoke” when he said the Obama administration would not allow the Goldstone report recommendations on Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war to reach the International Criminal Court. A top White House official told Jewish organizational leaders in an off-the-record phone call Wednesday that the U.S. strategy was to “quickly” bring the report—commissioned by the U.N. Human Rights Council and carried out by former South African Judge Richard Goldstone—to its “natural conclusion” within the Human Rights Council and not to allow it to go further, Jewish participants in the call told JTA.

Tommy Vietor, a White House spokesman, called JTA later to say the official “misspoke” and that administration policy on the Goldstone report remains as articulated last week by Susan Rice, the U.N. ambassador.

Rice described the UNHRC mandate as “unbalanced, one sided and basically unacceptable. We have very serious concerns about many of the recommendations in the report. We will expect and believe that the appropriate venue for this report to be considered is the Human Rights Council and that is our strong view.”

She did not mention what the United States would do were the report to be referred to the ICC.

Well this is pretty much par for the course in the hapless and comically inept Obama foreign-policy operation. It’s bad enough to pull out on missile defense, but then we call allies in the middle of the night and announce the news on the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland. It’s bad enough that we don’t put an end to the Goldstone travesty, but first we say we will—before we say we won’t.

Implementation and execution matter in foreign policy, as the Obama campaign reminded us continually. They assured us that they would be smart, adept, subtle, and sophisticated—and oh so worldly. The reality is a shocking display of amateurism and disdain for our allies. The Obama team was supposed to “restore” our place in the world; instead we are transforming friends into embittered former allies.

It makes one long for the “clumsy” cowboy diplomacy of George Bush. You remember—when Israel, Poland, the Czech Republic, Honduras, and human-rights activists felt they had a friend in the White House and when the administration’s pronouncements weren’t always popular but didn’t require an errata sheet.

Love of the Land: In Case You Thought It Couldn’t Get Any Worse

Love of the Land: the Tricky Part (1999)

the Tricky Part (1999)

Today's Golden Oldie is from September 6, 1999.

A cartoon from ten years ago that is as fresh as the latest pressure on us coming out of the Obama White House.

Love of the Land: the Tricky Part (1999)

Love of the Land: Robot Teacher

Robot Teacher

Another cartoon fantasizing about how the future will see us.

Love of the Land: Robot Teacher

Love of the Land: Wishing It Were So

Wishing It Were So

Noah Pollak

Contentions/Commentary

06 September 09

Sheera Frenkel is an American who works for the UK Times in its dubious Jerusalem bureau, which has a great deal of trouble distinguishing truth from fiction. Her current piece, linked on Drudge, provides a nice example of how Frenkel and her employer view the sensationalization of the Middle East as one of their main jobs. The report is entitled “US fury as Israel defies settlement freeze call,” and in case the point wasn’t made clear by the title, the piece goes on to declare that

Israeli plans to authorise the construction of hundreds of houses in the occupied West Bank sparked furious protests from American and Palestinian officials yesterday.

“Fury” and “furious protests” from the Obama administration? I hadn’t seen them mentioned anywhere else. The dictionary says that furious means “full of or characterized by extreme anger; raging.” What was the American reaction? Right there, a few paragraphs down in Frenkel’s own story, we read that:

Read All at :

Love of the Land: Wishing It Were So