The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Politics & RKBA => Topic started by: Teresa Heilevang on June 02, 2009, 04:53:25 PM
-
THE DEATH OF ISRAEL
By Dick Morris And Eileen McGann
From Caroline Glick, deputy editor and op-ed writer for the Jerusalem Post, comes alarming news. An expert on Arab-Israeli relations with excellent sources deep inside Netanyahu’s government, she reports that CIA chief Leon Panetta, who recently took time out from his day job (feuding with Nancy Pelosi) to travel to Israel “read the riot act” to the government warning against an attack on Iran.
More ominously, Glick reports (likely from sources high up in the Israeli government) that the Obama administration has all but accepted as irreversible and unavoidable fact that Iran will soon develop nuclear weapons. She writes, “…we have learned that the [Obama] administration has made its peace with Iran’s nuclear aspirations. Senior administration officials acknowledge as much in off-record briefings. It is true, they say, that Iran may exploit its future talks with the US to run down the clock before they test a nuclear weapon. But, they add, if that happens, the US will simply have to live with a nuclear-armed mullocracy.”
She goes on to write that the Obama administration is desperate to stop Israel from attacking Iran writing that “as far as the [Obama] administration is concerned, if Israel could just leave Iran’s nuclear installations alone, Iran would behave itself.” She notes that American officials would regard any harm to American interests that flowed from an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities as Israel’s doing, not Iran’s.
In classic Stockholm Syndrome fashion, the Obama administration is empathizing more with the Iranian leaders who are holding Israel hostage than with the nation that may be wiped off the map if Iran acquires the bomb.
Obama’s end-of-the-year deadline for Iranian talks aimed at stopping its progress toward nuclear weapons is just window dressing without the threat of military action. As Metternich wrote “diplomacy without force is like music without instruments.” By warning only of possible strengthening of economic sanctions if the talks do not progress, Obama is making an empty threat. The sanctions will likely have no effect because Russia and China will not let the United Nations act as it must if it is to deter Iranian nuclear weapons.
All this means is that Israel’s life is in danger. If Iran gets the bomb, it will use it to kill six million Jews. No threat of retaliation will make the slightest difference. One cannot deter a suicide bomber with the threat of death. Nor can one deter a theocracy bent on meriting admission to heaven and its virgins by one glorious act of violence. Iran would probably not launch the bomb itself, anyway, but would give it to its puppet terrorists to send to Israel so it could deny responsibility. Obama, bent on appeasement, would likely not retaliate with nuclear weapons. And Israel will be dead and gone.
Those sunshine Jewish patriots who voted for Obama must realize that we, as Jews, are witnessing the possible end of Israel. We are in the same moral position as our ancestors were as they watched Hitler rise but did nothing to pressure their favorite liberal Democratic president, FDR, to take any real action to save them or even to let Jewish refugees into the country. If we remain complacent, we will have the same anguish at watching the destruction of Israel that our forebears had in witnessing the Holocaust.
Because one thing is increasingly clear: Barack Obama is not about to lift a finger to stop Iran from developing the bomb. And neither is Hillary Clinton.
Obama may have held the first White House seder, but he’s not planning to spend next year in Jerusalem.
Obama is the most dangerous enemy the United States is faced with!
-
Commentary: Does Obama want to change Israeli government?
By Aaron David Miller
Special to CNN
(Editor's note: Aaron David Miller, a public policy scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars in Washington since 2006, served in the State Department as senior adviser for Arab-Israeli negotiations and in other roles under six secretaries of state. He is working on a book about presidential greatness.)
* Aaron David Miller: U.S. has shied away from confronting Israeli prime ministers
* He says Barack Obama has shown signs of confronting Netanyahu
* Miller: The tough stance on settlements is a risky move
* He says U.S. may have decided there's no chance of peace with Netanyahu in office
WASHINGTON (CNN - June 2, 2009) -- President Obama has embarked on what could represent a radical departure in America's Mideast policy, at least on settlements.
Having worked for Republican and Democratic administrations, I took it for granted that the current president and secretary of state would first try to invest in Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu before publicly confronting him.
After all, even the toughest secretary of state, James Baker, who initially had no confidence in the hard-line Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir, found common ground with him in an effort to pull off the Madrid Peace Conference in 1991.
Unlike his two immediate predecessors (Bill Clinton and George W. Bush), the president has decided to draw the line with Israel and push for a comprehensive freeze on settlements on the West Bank. The president seems unwilling to yield ground and to allow the Israelis any of the traditional loopholes that would have permitted some settlement construction. If the U.S.-Israeli brouhaha leads to a real confrontation, even the fall of the Netanyahu government, President Obama may not feel too bad about it.
Fighting with Israel is a normal occupational hazard if you want to be an effective mediator. Henry Kissinger, Jimmy Carter and James Baker knew this. But tension with Israel was designed with a purpose under prior administrations. You didn't pick fights with an Israeli prime minister because you were frustrated or to make nice with the Arabs, but to achieve a breakthrough in negotiations that made you, America and the peace process look good.
As President Obama heads to Saudi Arabia and Egypt this week, his strategy is not altogether clear. The logic appears to be to get Israel to freeze settlements, the Arab states to offer up partial normalization and together this will somehow get Israel and the Palestinians into a successful negotiation on the toughest issues -- Jerusalem, borders and refugees. The president would presumably be prepared to lay out his own peace plan if necessary.
To make this work, the sun, moon and the stars would need to align almost perfectly. Netanyahu has already rejected an airtight freeze on settlements; the prospect of the Arabs, already scared of Iran, giving visas to Israeli entrepreneurs is unlikely. And the idea that a conflict-ending agreement can be reached between a Palestinian national movement so broken that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Hamas share control over the guns, people and legitimacy of Palestine, and a right-wing Israeli government almost seems fantastical.
I can only conclude that the administration -- filled with talented and experienced people -- understands the long odds, too. In fact, both White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have seen the Netanyahu movie before (he was prime minister from 1996-1999) and may well have advised the president that getting an agreement with him will be almost impossible.
If the prime minister gave in on a freeze, he would be too weakened in his own country (without stunning concessions from the Arabs) that he couldn't go on to do an accord that divides Jerusalem and has Israel returning to borders very close to those of June 4, 1967.
So what's the administration's real objective? Certainly, to improve American credibility and demonstrate its commitment to peace. But there is a backstory here that points strongly in the direction of pressing Netanyahu either to change his behavior or his government. The president and secretary of state have come out early and tough on settlements, and they're denying Israel any wiggle room.
President Obama may be banking on the fact that no Israeli prime minister can afford a confrontation with America, particularly with a popular president at a time when Israel needs America to deal with Iran. And the president may also have concluded that if the prime minister decides to hang tough, well, we'll let the chips and his government fall where they may. The problem is the next Israeli government may be no more willing or able to do what the president and a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict would demand.
It's a risky play so early in his administration. I hope the president has thought through the consequences, because what's left of the peace process depends on it.
The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Aaron David Miller.
-
Who would have thunk it a person with a the middle name of Hussein being anti-Israel?
As long as there are Muslims there will be no peace in the middle East. Their purpose is to destroy Israel, it is integral to their culture.
-
"He says U.S. may have decided there's no chance of peace with Netanyahu in office"
They would be correct if they DID make that decision, Netanyahu is a hardliner and along with Sharon was one of the sponsors of the West bank settlements.
This of course is beside the fact that there will be no peace with out him either because the Palestinian leadership has no other way to distract their f*%#ked over population than by blaming everything on the evil Zionists, even though it's their own leaders who have been screwing them and mismanaging the area for centuries.
-
The death of Israel is coming no matter what. As long as the Jewish population there continues in it's adoption of "modern" family life i.e. 1. something kids per family, while the average Arab Muslim family in the region is above 3. something. The numbers don't lie and there are no prospects for mass immigration of any more Jews coming into Israel as happpened after the Soviet Union "collapsed."
-
Israel will not go down quietly, in fact, the country that has the mountain named for Armageddon, will just flat out make powdered glass out of most of the region, if threatened and pushed far enough.
They have held back, been more "politically correct" in fighting Hamas, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Muslim mercenaries, and one day the line in the sand will be crossed, BHO and the UN are going to get a big F-You from Israel, and they will do like they always have, kick ass by themselves.
Hamas fired rockets into Israel everyday. Israel responds with an ass whoopin', what do the terrorists and the world (UN) do?
Make em' stop (say it like a 5 year old), make 'em stop.....
I say let em' rip.
Oh and BTW, the Middle Eastern Apology Tour continues this week with BHO going over there to spread apologies for American Arrogance..
(Decorum prohibits my response to this on this forum)
-
Israel will not go down quietly, in fact, the country that has the mountain named for Armageddon, will just flat out make powdered glass out of most of the region, if threatened and pushed far enough.
I hope that's right, but Israel is a socialist country and has a huge anti-war and pro-peace movement. One can only hope that there are no atheists in foxholes, and if Iran looses a missile - or one of its minions sets off a bomb - the peaceniks will finally see the light.
One can only hope. And pray . . . . for all of us at this point.
-
I hope that's right, but Israel is a socialist country and has a huge anti-war and pro-peace movement. One can only hope that there are no atheists in foxholes, and if Iran looses a missile - or one of its minions sets off a bomb - the peaceniks will finally see the light.
One can only hope. And pray . . . . for all of us at this point.
Your wrong, if Israel gets hit like that it will unleash hell. Syria will get a couple nukes Iran will get the rest, Lebanon will be over run and the Palestinians will be massacred while the Egyptians and Jordanians try to remain invisible.
-
There has been fighting in the middle east, since the start of civilization... until there is no more middle east, thats never going to stop.
-
And pray for the day of energy independence. Mock "green" power all you want, object to drilling all you want, but the day we can meet our energy needs here at home is the day we can wash our hands of the whole mess. I look forward to the day when we can summon the ambassadors of Saudi Arbia, Egypt, Dubai, Israel and the rest and say "Good Luck, send us a post card, and let us know how it all works out because its no longer our problem".
FQ13
-
Israel will not go down quietly, in fact, the country that has the mountain named for Armageddon, will just flat out make powdered glass out of most of the region, if threatened and pushed far enough.
They have held back, been more "politically correct" in fighting Hamas, Syrian, Lebanese, Egyptian, and Muslim mercenaries, and one day the line in the sand will be crossed, BHO and the UN are going to get a big F-You from Israel, and they will do like they always have, kick ass by themselves.
Hamas fired rockets into Israel everyday. Israel responds with an ass whoopin', what do the terrorists and the world (UN) do?
Make em' stop (say it like a 5 year old), make 'em stop.....
I say let em' rip.
Oh and BTW, the Middle Eastern Apology Tour continues this week with BHO going over there to spread apologies for American Arrogance..
(Decorum prohibits my response to this on this forum)
Decorum? I'm thinking you wanted to say something like let's all hold hands and smile whilst holding a coca-cola and chanting BHO the magnificent, BHO the brave, BHO the all wise, BHO the wonderful..... Surely you love the BHO, right?
-
This is a very interesting piece from Prof. Eidelberg:
A METAPOLITICAL VIEW OF USEFUL IDIOTS
by Professor Paul Eidelberg
http://www.foundation1.org/
Vladimir Lenin is credited with having coined the term "useful idiots." He had in mind capitalists who would sell the Soviet Union the rope with which to hang them.
Israel's useful idiots have gone much further. They have released, armed, and even paid Arab terrorists whose prestige soars by killing Jews. Alas, I must be frank and say that Israel's useful idiots have also yielded Jewish land to Arabs dedicated to Israel's annihilation.
Ever since 1993, one Israeli prime minister after another — beginning with Yitzhak Rabin — has pursued the inane policy of "land for peace." These prime ministers have not only sacrificed their intellects to this suicidal policy; in the process, they have also sacrificed the lives and well-being of countless Jews.
Driving their stupidity is timidity. Thus, back in June 2005, when Ariel Sharon was at the helm, Jerusalem Post analyst Caroline Glick wrote an article entitled "A Coward For A Prime Minister."
Israel's ruling elites simply lack the moral and intellectual probity to pursue a Jewish — or let us merely say a more independent — foreign policy. Israel has the strategic means of doing so. Bear in mind that U.S. military aid amounts to less than 1.5 percent of Israel's Gross Domestic Product. It cost Israel more than that to erect security fences, redeploy IDF forces, and compensate Jews expelled from their homes.
It should be obvious to the people of Israel that, regardless of their political and religious convictions, the Netanyahu government will pave the road to an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria, Israel's heartland. This retreat or treachery will be facilitated by Netanyahu's Defense Minister, Labor leader Ehud Barak, who, as we shall now see, is unsurpassed as a useful idiot.
When Barak was Israel's Prime Minister, he concocted, without cabinet approval, the Sharm e-Sheikh Memorandum of September 4, 1999, in which he offered Yasser Arafat a Palestinian state consisting of 96% of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza (including the Jordan Valley), eastern Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, 4% of the Negev, and the entry of perhaps 150,000 Arab refugees! Yet Arafat said "No."
Arafat's rejection of Barak's offer is amazing! It utterly contradicts the PLO's strategy of phases whose goal is Israel's destruction. Arafat himself admitted that the Palestinians are fighting for a "political objective, namely, the liberation of the Palestinian soil and the establishment of a Palestinian state over every part of it" (March 6, 1989, Qatar News Agency).
George Habash was equally unambiguous when he vowed: "The Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza will be the beginning of the downfall of the Zionist enterprise. We will be able to rely on this defeat in order to complete the struggle to realize our entire goal, which is the complete liberation of the national Palestinian soil" (June 9, 1989, "Voice of the Mountain" Radio, Lebanon).
But Arafat was only following the phased peace-and-war strategy of Anwar Sadat, who, in an interview with al-Anwar on June 22, 1975, said that "The effort of our generation is to return to the 1967 borders. Afterward the next generation will carry the responsibility." (Emphasis added)
Weighed against this strategy, there is no commensurate political explanation for Arafat's rejection of Barak's offer. The PLO would have had control of the Judean-Samarian hills overlooking most of Israel's population. Add Arab control of the Jordan valley and Israel would have been indefensible — the conclusion reached by the American Joint Chiefs of Staff after the Six-Day War. Arafat knew this. Perhaps Arafat's rejection of Barak's offer can only be explained in metapolitical terms.
The mantra of "two states for two peoples" is a manifestation of the atheistic doctrine of moral relativism or indifference widespread in the democratic world. Any sensible Jew or Christian would admit that the people of Sodom and Gomorra were evil, which can be said of any people whose beliefs and behavior contradict the Torah's conception of man's creation in the image of God. Alas, it is incontrovertible, that Islam's attitude and behavior toward non-Muslims contradicts the idea that man is created in the image of God — and that is why peace is impossible between Israel and the so-called Palestinians.
This simple and palpable truth is too much for Benjamin Netanyahu, who, in a speech before a joint session of the American Congress, gratuitously denied the obvious clash of civilizations between Israel and her Arab-Islamic neighbors. Mr. Netanyahu is too modest to think he can overcome a clash of civilizations by diplomacy. But this does not prevent him from proposing an economic development plan that will transform the Palestinians into peace-loving bourgeois democrats.
Leaving aside the question of whether the Palestinians constitute a people rather than a assortment of Arab clans and tribes, Daniel Pipes said it would take one or two generations for these Arabs to overcome their savage hatred of Jews and Israel and become worthy of independent statehood. Between 1918 and 1933, four American administrations refused to recognize the Soviet Union for moral and legal reasons: its aggressive intentions and failure to abide by international law
Israel's annihilation remains the goal of the PLO, stipulated in its Constitution. This goal has not been rescinded by the Palestinian Authority under Fatah leader of Mahmoud Abbas. The same goal is proclaimed in the Hamas Covenant, to which Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh is committed. Abbas and Haniyeh seems to be playing the "soft-cop/hard-cop" routine vis-à-vis Israel and the West. This enables Abbas to obtain enormous sums of money from the useful idiots in Washington and Europe, money shared with Hamas.
The Obama administration is flooded with useful idiots. Suffice to mention George Mitchell, Brent Scowcroft, and Zbigniew Brzezinski who want the U.S. to deal with, hence finance Hamas. These "see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil" bent-Americans are oblivious of the territorial and demographic absurdity of the "two-state solution."
More than two million Arabs restricted to 2,323 square miles of the West Bank, and another million Arabs squeezed into 141 square miles in Gaza, is a formula for economic stagnation and murderous discontent. The projected Arab state will be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by the leaders of one or another Arab clan or group of thugs parading under the banner of Allah.
The Netanyahu-Barak or Likud-Labor alliance will not only fail to establish peace with Israel's mortal enemies. The failure and its grievous consequences will lead to widespread disgust among the people of Israel. They will be utterly fed up with parties that talk peace when it will be obvious to all but imbeciles that peace is not possible with Israel's enemies.
The people will be more disgusted than ever with a political system that entrenches fools and scoundrels in office — those who make a "politics of peace," that is, of lies, to perpetuate their power.
The people will be utterly disgusted with any party that advocates the mindless policy of "territory for peace." They will see that the Likud, contrary to its reputation, is not a rightwing party, that the Likud and Labor are two peas in pod to which one may add Kadima. Another debacle with the Palestinians may very well lead to a major transformation of Israel's dysfunctional system of coalition cabinet government. Indeed, Israel may soon undergo "regime change."
Regime change would require fundamental reconstruction of Israel's political and judicial institutions in ways consistent with Jewish ideas and values. Post-Zionists will then be seen to have unwittingly served a positive purpose: to facilitate, through blood and tears, the ascendancy of an authentic Jewish commonwealth!
This ascendancy may be hastened by the regime in Washington! Its anti-Israel policy will put an end to the illusion that Israel's survival depends on the United States. This illusion has hindered Israel from gaining control of its own destiny. For as we learn in the Torah — and contrary to Netanyahu's book A Place Among the Nations, Israel must stand alone and not reckon itself among the nations!
-
Actually I'd rather be painting "Greetings from America on the nose of a Nuke tipped Cruise missile, but that's just me, others may prefer an ICBM.
-
Actually I'd rather be painting "Greetings from America on the nose of a Nuke tipped Cruise missile, but that's just me, others may prefer an ICBM.
Submarines, nice and close, too quick to form any response...
U.S.S. KissAssGdbye.
-
Marshal'ette, I would question the veracity of your source for that post, some of what is said doesn't make sense in view of historic facts.
The article states "Driving their stupidity is timidity. Thus, back in June 2005, when Ariel Sharon was at the helm, Jerusalem Post analyst Caroline Glick wrote an article entitled "A Coward For A Prime Minister."
While it is perfectly possible that Ms. Glick wrote that, I very much doubt that it was in the context this article insinuates.
Ariel Sharon, former IDF chief of staff and multi time prime minister is a noted hard liner who served during the Six day war and the October war, he Commanded "Operation Peace for Gallilee" the invasion that drove the PLO from Lebanon, as Prime minister he again ordered an invasion of southern Lebanon. Sharon was one of the powers behind the settlement movement, the primary aim of which was to displace arabs with Jews in the "Occupied Territories" this hardly gives credence to the depiction of an appeaser.
Benjamin Netanyahu is of the same type, with out the military credentials he was another facilitator of the settlement program.
As for Ehud Barak, all I know is that he is the former Mayor of Jerusalem, as to his offer to trade Arrafat land for peace I remember reading about it that while it sounds like a sweet deal for the PLO Isreal included some security requirements they knew would kill the deal but still left them in the position to tell a critical BJ Clinton "Look WE tried, they are the ones who are being a problem".
It is also suspicious that this article states " More than two million Arabs restricted to 2,323 square miles of the West Bank, and another million Arabs squeezed into 141 square miles in Gaza, is a formula for economic stagnation and murderous discontent. The projected Arab state will be a cauldron of envious hatred of Israel fueled by the leaders of one or another Arab clan or group of thugs parading under the banner of Allah." without mentioning that it was not the Jews who drove the arabs there in the first place but "the leaders of one or another Arab clan or group of thugs parading under the banner of Allah." To be specific the leaders of Syria, Egypt, Iraq, The Muslim Brotherhood, and to a lesser extent the King of Jordan and the Govt of Lebanon.