Showing posts with label Barack Hussein Obama. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Barack Hussein Obama. Show all posts

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Jews: What does Obama say behind YOUR back?

What Obama says behind our backs...
French President Nicolas Sarkozy reportedly told US President Barack Obama that he could not "stand" Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and that he thinks the Israeli premier "is a liar."

According to a Monday report in the French website "Arret sur Images," after facing reporters for a G20 press conference on Thursday, the two presidents retired to a private room, to further discuss the matters of the day.

The conversation apparently began with President Obama criticizing Sarkozy for not having warned him that France would be voting in favor of the Palestinian membership bid in UNESCO despite Washington's strong objection to the move.

The conversation then drifted to Netanyahu, at which time Sarkozy declared: "I cannot stand him. He is a liar." According to the report, Obama replied: "You're fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!" (YNET)
Hey Jewish voters in the USA - guess what Obama says behind your backs, every single day?


Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at
Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!


Follow the Muqata on Twitter.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Wednesday, December 08, 2010

ObamaFreeze Falls, but...

More than anything else, it would appear to me that Israel's (smart) demands to have President Obama's post-Freeze related promises in writing were the real reason the latest ObamaFreeze failed to launch.

Even as Prime Minister Netanyahu tried to push through the latest ObamaFreeze with it dubious and questionable carrots, the Cabinet pushed back and demanded that everything told to Netanyahu verbally be put in writing.

And as Israel waited and waited for the promised letter, none proved to be forthcoming.

After all, there was simply no way that the US (and certainly the Obama administration) would ever put in writing, even a tacit understanding that building in Jerusalem would be allowed or approved, or any construction would be allowed or approved in Judea and Samaria after the retroactive 3 months.

That, more than the typical complete lack of any progress from the PA side, cut this idea down.


US administration officials are trying to save face and are saying that ObamaFreeze wouldn't have worked anyway.

Great. I guess it's good they realized that at some point, but it's a shame they couldn't realize that before their zig, their zag, and simply trying to place all the onus and responsibility on Israel.


Netanyahu is now demanding that issues important to Israel be placed at the forefront of talks - such as Israeli presence in the Jordan Valley for security reasons, and that discussions no longer revolve around only what is singularly important to the PA - for them to unilaterally declare their state (again).


But just because the Obama administration is down, does not mean it is out.

Israeli officials are saying that the Obama administration is already floating new unilateral demands (only) of Israel.


Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at
Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Wednesday, December 01, 2010

Video: Netanyahu and Obama discuss the settlement freeze


Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at
Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Monday, March 22, 2010

Haaretz Misleads with Obama Poll

The JPost has the scoop today -- though its not really a scoop.

Last week Haaretz deceived the Israeli public with their article about US Vice President Joe Biden's comments at a satire event, took his comments out of context, implied that his comments were serious, and used them as a pretext to further their agenda of discrediting Jewish building in Jerusalem.

Then...Haaretz's Friday headline was Haaretz poll: Most Israelis see Obama as fair and friendly

And the article opens with a gushing review of President Obama:

U.S. President Barack Obama's popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week.

The poll also found that most Israelis don't believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is "striving to topple Netanyahu."

However, the JPost reports:

Haaretz misled readers to give the impression that an overwhelming majority of Israelis see US President Barack Obama as “fair and friendly” toward the country, the newspaper’s pollster, Tel Aviv University professor Camil Fuchs, said on Sunday.

The English edition elaborated near a picture of Obama that “69% say Obama is fair and friendly.”

The story itself gives no numbers, but the lead says “A sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair.”

The English edition contains no graphic distributing the actual numbers, either online or in print.

The print and online versions of the newspaper’s Hebrew edition included a graphic indicating that just 18 percent of respondents considered Obama “friendly” toward Israel, 3 percentage points fewer than the 21% who called the president “hostile” to the Jewish state.

Read the rest of the JPost expose here.

Haaretz bills itself as the "Newspaper for Thinking People" -- the reality is more like "Haaretz: The newspaper where we do the thinking for you, distort poll data to fit our agenda, attempt to discredit the Jewish State, and ensure you follow our paper's ideology through lies and deception."


Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at
Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Thursday, March 18, 2010

Biden the Bastard VP.

Updated (see below)

Today, the Vice President of the United States said the following:

"I just got back from five days in the Middle East," Biden said. "I love to travel, but it's great to be back to a place where a boom in housing construction is actually a good thing," he said. Israel announced during Biden's visit that it had approved construction of 1,600 homes in East Jerusalem, a move which the U.S. called an "insult" due to its timing. (Haaretz)

I'm glad that Joe Biden, who considers Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem to be a bad thing is back in D.C.

Maybe he should have said, "I'm glad to be back in D.C. where the criminals aren't as bad as those Palestinian terrorists over in Ramallah."

Bastard.

I find myself honestly shocked at how slanted Haaretz reporting is -- and left the following comment on their website.
Haartez: I dare you to post this comment.

I was at first deeply offended by Biden's remark, which was the point of the way Haaretz reported it. Get people all riled up by Biden's comments, criticize Israel's government, push the peace process, etc.

What is not mentioned in the entire article is that the evening where Biden spoke was a satire event.

Instead, Haaretz took Biden's comment out of context, and used it to make a serious article criticizing the Netanyahu government and Eli Yishai for intentionally announcing building construction in Jerusalem.

Haaretz's agenda-driven propaganda reporting, slants any and all news events to the point that its impossible to determine what the facts are and what the real story is.

Goebbels would be proud of you guys.
Having seen the context (which I had no clue of, because I mistakenly took anything that Haaretz writes at face-value, instead of remembering that every single article they write is anti-Zionist in nature) I am retracting my overt criticism of VP Joe Biden.

And if Haaretz claims "they didn't know it was a roast/satire event" -- then they don't deserve to report the news.

As a side note, he never would have made a joke about the Palestinians, because you can never make a joke about the Palestinians, but that's the way it is with the Obama administration.

You can make fun of Israel and criticize them, but those tones are never used with the Palestinians, Chinese, Syrians, Iranians, etc. Hillary Clinton's scolding of Netanyahu for our building announcement of 1600 homes in Jerusalem (which Israel apologized for over and over again) is far more than the reserved diplomacy used with the PA, Chinese or Iran.

The US State Department and White House were aghast at the Congressional resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide committed by Turkey. Yet the Obama administration had no problem raking Israel over the coals for a milestone in a municipal building approval process.

And read Haaretz with a metric-ton of grains of salt.

Last Update on this Post

How did Joe Biden ever get to be Vice President?
Speaking to ABC News, Biden called the announcement "provocative," but added that the US and Israel need to "get over" the latest flare-up in tensions and insisted that the essential elements of the relationship between the two countries remain the same.

"Israel's security is undeniably in our interest to make sure it is absolutely secure," the vice president was quoted by ABC News as saying.

"And so the message is: We've got to get over this," Biden said. "Granted, I condemn the announcement made by that planning council. ... The irony is even that planning council acknowledging not a single new unit can be built at least for a year and maybe never will be built, it was provocative." (ynet)

If we "have to get over this", why does he keep rehashing this message of Israel's Jerusalem Ramat Shlomo building project as a "provocation" over and over again?

Maybe he should just close his mouth for a change?

Visiting Israel?
Learn to Shoot at
Caliber-3 with top Israeli Anti-Terror Experts!


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Monday, December 28, 2009

Michael Oren: "I haven't been waterboarded yet"

by Lurker

Oren: Obama hasn't exerted 'physical' pressure on Israel
US President Barack Obama has not, during his first year in office, exerted any real "physical" pressure on Israel, nor does he see that as a goal, Israel's Ambassador to the US Michael Oren told The Jerusalem Post on Sunday.
I guess Oren's lucky that Obama decided to outlaw it...


Going to Israel?
Now get 2 phones for the price of 1 (and free calls too) with Talk'n'Save.


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Sunday, August 23, 2009

How often does Obama talk about Israel?

Although Jameel said there should be a moratorium on anti-Obama posts, we put up some satirical pictures last week - because they were funny, related to current events, and newsworthy.

But one upset anonymous commentor believes we are obsessing about Obama, to which I responded, "I'd be happy to ignore Obama - if only Obama would ignore us."

But the ObamaCommentator then said that, "Obama is not obsessed with Israel. Israel is obsessed with Obama. The number of times he has given speeches about Israel is relatively small."

So I decided to check on that, using the White House Press section as my source.

This is what I found:

I present the Obama-Israel Checklist for last week.

Aug. 21 Ramadan Kareeem speech. Obama mentions Israel.
Check.

Aug. 20 White House Press Briefing. Gibbs said that Obama just spoke with the King of Jordan about... Israel.
Check.

Aug. 19 White House Blog. Obama's blog talks all about Israel and Obama's talking all about Israel.
Check.

Aug. 18 Obama spoke with Mubarak about... Israel.
Check.

Aug. 17 No mention of Israel!
No Check

Conclusion.

In 4 out of 5 workdays last week, Obama spoke about Israel.


Correction: (thanks Lurker)

Aug. 17 Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, held talks with Hosni Mubarak about... Israel.
Check.

Conclusion:

In 5 out of 5 workdays last week, Obama spoke about Israel.

I think only Healthcare was mentioned (a lot) more.

That's not obsessed?

This is not an anti-Obama blog. It's a pro-Israel, pro-Settlement blog. If Obama is constantly mentioning Israel in a negative light, then we certainly reserve the right to respond in kind from time to time.

If he stops, we'll stop.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Thursday, August 20, 2009

Please don't miss the many levels of irony

This poster is now all over America...and the Web. But who's responsible for it? The absolute definition of irony coming up below...


Was it a "GOP Jew"? An angry, gun-toting, radical right winger?

No and no. Haaretz provides the answer (which in itself is also ironic...)
A Palestinian-American has been revealed as the creator of the "socialist joker" image, a doctored poster of President Barack Obama found on highways and in cities across the United States this summer.

Many initially took the portrait - featuring the president with the carved-in smile of Heath Ledgers's character in the Dark Knight - to be the work of a conservative opposed to Obama's liberal ways.

But it turns out that Firas Alkhateeb, 20, is actually a liberal himself from Obama's hometown of Chicago, who would have preferred to see Dennis Kucinich elected.

Alkhateeb told the Los Angeles Times - which unmasked his identity - that the poster had been meant more as a joke than as a political statement. The original draft of the image was meant to satirize, or in this case "jokerize," Obama's picture on the October cover of Time Magazine.

Regardless of his intentions, the iconic image has turned into a political statement. An Obama critic downloaded Alkhateeb's image off of the photo Web site Flickr, printed it out as a poster, and tacked on the word "socialism" before pasting it up across Los Angeles.

The image has sparked debate among Americans of whether its message is racist, if it is related to the ongoing conversation of reforming health care, and of just how liberal the new U.S. president may be.

But for Alkhateeb, none of this seems to matter. "After Obama was elected, you had all of these people who basically saw him as the second coming of Christ," he told the Los Angeles Times. "From my perspective, there wasn't much substance to him.
Reminder: "The Joker [poster] has been called 'mean-spirited and dangerous' by the U.S. President's supporters." (source)

Dangerous...dangerous...oh, it was made by a liberal Palestinian American? I guess it can't be that bad...

[Hattip: JoeSettler]


Additional Update for the google-challenged:

For the benefit of those criticizing your chosen source regarding the reaction of the American left to the Obama/Joker poster, here are some more links (the "well read" commenter is looking dumber by he minute)

· Washington Post:
Obama as The Joker: Racial Fear's Ugly Face: 'Political' Poster Turns On Violent Symbolism
"[The poster is] subtly coded, highly effective racial and political argument. Forget socialism, this poster is another attempt to accomplish an association between Obama and the unpredictable, seeming danger of urban life.... Obama, like the Joker and like the racial stereotype of the black man, carries within him an unknowable, volatile and dangerous marker of urban violence, which could erupt at any time. The charge of socialism is secondary to the basic message that Obama can't be trusted, not because he is a politician, but because he's black."

· Daily Kos:
This Pic Will Make You Sick
"There are two ways to view this image. (1) a reference to the 'Joker' in the Batman movie, and (2) as Obama in whiteface as a minstrel show clown. This is dogwhistle racism.... These are Scary Sick People who must not be allowed to 'win'.

· Huffington Post:
Obama as Joker? Dead Heath Ledger? Vampire? ...Or Just Wingnut's Enigma?
"As part of the hate offensive, wingnut blogs… are trying to build buzz around this Obama poster.... [In] this chilling Obama as Joker... 'the only thing missing is a noose'.... Besides the allusion to the President as a psychopath and more insidiously, a man behind a mask, does the chalk exploit race by suggesting the man is playing at being white?"

hat-tip: Lurker.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Monday, August 17, 2009

DovBear: Nations don't have friends, they have interests

Jameel: Senior member of the JBlogosphere, DovBear is guest posting. He posits -- it's not US pressure, it's a weak PM Netanyanu...

A Guest Post by DovBear.

While touring Israel today, Governor Mike Hukabee, putative
front-runner for the GOP nominee in 2012 asked the dumb question
“My question is how would the government of the United States feel if
Prime Minister Netanyahu began to dictate which people could live in
the Bronx, which ones could live in Manhattan, which could live in
Queens, and say, ‘We only allow certain people to live in those
neighborhoods,’” he said. “How would that go over?
This man wants to be president of the United States, and he's not sure
how the Obama administration would react if Israel tried to boss it
around? Really? Here's a hint, Huckabee. If Netanyahu started telling
Americans where they could or could not live, our president and
Congress would laugh so hard they'd wet their collective pants. Then,
they'd ignore him.

Not incidentally, this is precisely what I've been advising Mister
Netanyahu to do in response to the so-called Obama demands (which
aren't that much different from Bush II, Clinton, or Bush I demands.)

If Netanyahu believes it is not in Israel's interests to accept the
so-called Obama demands he should ignore them (just as his
predecessors all ignored various demands made by Bush II, Clinton, and
Bush I). In other words, Netanyahu should act like the Prime Minister
of a strong, independent sovereign state, and do whatever he thinks is
in his country's best interests. He should stop casting himself, or
allowing himself to be cast by the Israeli media, as Obama's
subordinate vassal. Should Netanyahu choose to accept Obama's
so-called demands, he will have done so because he's either (a) a
creme puff or (b) of the opinion that doing what Obama wants advances
Israeli interests.

In either case, no blame should be deposited on the door step of the
American president. His job is to advance our interests (as he best
understands them) and though American Jews pray it will always be so,
there are no guarantees that Israeli and American interests will
forever coincide.

Arutz Sheva: Huckabee: Would Israel Tell Obama Who Can Live in the Bronx?

Buy DovBear on the Parsha


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

Obama and Pharoah -- Seperated at Birth?

The following comparison photos are flying all over Israel's internet.



Do you see the comparison?



Its there...






Strange, huh?


















Michelle too...






Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

Obama’s Wishful Thinking

“I think that the United States and the West generally, we have to educate ourselves more effectively on Islam.

And one of the points I want to make is, is that if you actually took the number of Muslims Americans, we'd be one of the largest Muslim countries in the world. “

- Barack Hussein Obama


Exactly what alternative reality does the President of the United States live in?

Perhaps it’s time he learns how to Google on his Blackberry.

A quick look on Wiki provides a very different picture that the one the President is fantasizing about.

In terms of population size, the US doesn’t even make the Top-50 when it comes to either the total number of Moslems, nor when it comes to number of Moslems as a percentage of the population.

Note: The most commonly accepted figure from census data and multiple research studies on Muslims in America is approximately 1.8 million (out of 300 million Americans). CAIR and other militant Islamic groups make the unsupported claim of 8 million, but they have no data to back that up other than their own wild claims.

One chart in the Wiki mentioned above places the US at an impossible 38, but that is only by claiming 4.5 million Muslims in America - which directly contradicts the chart on top (and all the research) that places the number between 1.8-3 million!


Now, even if Obama is basing his statements on unfounded statements by militant Islamic groups with their clear agendas, as opposed to research from multiple, independent and unbiased research studies – that would still place the US only somewhere around the low 30s on the list.

Either way, quite far from being “one of the largest Muslim Countries in the World”.

Could this just be wishful thinking on the President’s part?

On another related issue, the President said, "And I think there have been times where we are not as honest as we should be about the fact...".

Now it could be that Obama has a problem with his honesty (ya think?), or perhaps he has simply aligned himself with the Muslim sector, and honesty be damned.

Or maybe it is time Obama educates himself more effectively on Islam - before creating policies that are bad for America (and of course, bad for Israel).

Or perhaps he actually meant to say, "The most powerful country in the world is led by a Muslim - Barack Hussein Obama" - that I could believe.


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Netanyahu Bows to Obama's Decree

The White House has declared that contrary to previous reports, President Obama will not force the internationalization of the old city of Jerusalem.
MR. GIBBS: The goal is to be -- I guess, partly to clear some of this up, this is a -- this will be a broader speech about our relationship with Muslims around the world. I know there has been some conjecture that included in this speech will be some detailed comprehensive Mideast peace plan, and that is not the intention nor was it ever the intention of this speech. As I said a few days ago, I mean, obviously it would be difficult to give a speech and not touch on this subject -- I think that would be -- that wouldn't work -- but the notion that it will be the sole focus of the speech is not the case.

Q: Just to clarify, are you also ruling out -- forget out sole focus, but within the broader speech he is not going to say, "and here is what I want to do with the city of Jerusalem, and here is what I want" --

MR. GIBBS: No. As you know, Margaret, those are final status issues that the parties themselves have agreed to work out in whatever negotiation would be had. That's not something for the President to intone. (source, hat-tip to DovBear)
The bad news is that President Obama's is ratcheting up the pressure on Israel's Prime Minister, by sending US Sec. of State, Hillary Clinton to demand that Israel destroy caravans, trailer homes, and evict men, women and children from their homes in settlement outposts.

Kowtowing to Obama's decree, Israel's Defense Minister ordered Border Police shock troops to storm 2 outposts last night at 3 AM, evict people from their homes, and destroy these frail structures -- the most dangerous threat to Middle East Peace and global harmony.

Global Threat Hilltop 18 (Mitzpe Avichai) before Obama's decree.


Global Threat Hilltop 18 (Mitzpe Avichai) after Israel Border Police shock troops destroy it.



(photos, courtesy of the Hilltop Outpost Website)
Prime Minister Netanyahu hinted this week during a Likud faction meeting that there would be no escape from evacuating the outposts, as demanded by US President Barack Obama, in order to focus the attention on the Iranian threat. (YNETNEWS)
President Obama: Why not worry about something serious like North Korea's nuclear tests and restarting their nuclear reactor, instead of sending Hillary Clinton to impose upon Israel to destroy a bunch of trailers and evict their Jewish residents?


Stay tuned for next week; exclusive Muqata video interview with hilltop residents -- whose homes are slated for destruction in the coming weeks.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Hillary Clinton -- Get out of my bedroom!

Since my last post drew the ire from commenters on the veracity of an IDF radio report I'll have to put some of this in quotes with a look-up-able hyperlink. [It's all from Haaretz today]

US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has adopted the hardest line to date against Jewish settlement growth of any US government.

Speaking on "Al Jazeera" (how convenient and sycophantic) she firmly stated US President Obama's policy:
"We want to see a stop to settlement construction - additions, natural growth, any kind of settlement activity - that is what the president has called for"
Natural Growth?

Since when does one country interfere with another's natural growth? Who does Obama and Hillary think they are?

I'm reminded of the decrees of Pharaoh in Egypt millennia ago, who demanded the cessation of Jewish births, and decreed that all Jewish male babies had to be thrown into the Nile River.

Even Israel's President Shimon Peres (who I am not a great fan of) told Obama when they met 2 weeks ago, that "these [natural growth settler] children are not going to live on the roofs"

We need to expand our communities!


Israel's embassy stated in response to Clinton's decree: Israel would stand by its pledge not to establish new settlements but as Israel sees it, this clearly does not include construction of housing to accommodate natural increases.

In the words of the commenter on the previous thread:
"Im appaled and disgusted the Jameel put this baseless garbage on his blog and embaressed that the predictable Barak Bashers jumped on board without any self reflection. Im also disgusted to see so many of you acting like weak ghetto Jews. Obama is the president of America, not Israel. He has neither the power not the authority to "make" Israel do anything."
Well then Mr. Anonymous Commenter, if Obama and Hillary don't have the "authority" to do anything, why are they demanding that Jews to stop natural settlement growth?

I guess Obama didn't pay that much attention when he celebrated the "Passover seder" this year, because he missed the line from Shmot/Exodus 1:12: "But the more they [the Jews] were oppressed, the more they multiplied."

When I moved to the Shomron 16 years ago, there were 120,000 Jews in the West Bank and Gaza. We're not in Gaza anymore (for the time being), but we're now at 250,000 and growing strong.

With or without Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama.

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Wednesday, May 20, 2009

Obama's Plan to Divide Jerusalem

I was rather surprised this morning on my way to work this morning, as I heard the radio reports on Galei Tzahal, Israel Radio (now also reported in the JPost)

They reported that a new Obama Middle East Peace Initiative was going to be announced within the next few weeks. Obama's plan was drawn up in coordination with the Arab League and without any input from Israel -- which shocked Israel's Foreign Ministry.

The details of the plan released so far as reported on IDF radio:

1. Removal of all Israeli communities in the West Bank
2. Creation of a demilitarized Palestinian State within the 1967 borders of the West Bank.
3. Right of Return for all Palestinian refugees to this new state.
4. Removal of Israel's sovereignty over East Jerusalem, and its transferal to the Palestinians to be the capital of their state.
5. Removal of Israel's sovereignty over the Old City of Jerusalem -- and it will be run by the international community.

Tomorrow, Thursday is "Yom Yerushalayim", Jerusalem Day -- where Israel celebrates the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967.

This plan helps clear the dust in Israel:

Any person who advocates the removal of Israel's sovereignty over Jerusalem, and its internationalization is simply, not a Zionist.

The Jewish people waited 2000 years to return to Israel and Jerusalem -- we are not leaving again.

Not by a Roman Titus, and not by Barak Hussein Obama.

Update: To the idiot anonymous commenter who said this was all a pack of lies:

Globes, the most respected Financial Publication in Israel reported the following (almost verbatim as I did):
Obama plan to include Jerusalem Old City international zone
Media reports: The new plan is basically an upgrade of the Saudi peace initiative.

Globes' correspondent 20 May 09 12:16

“IDF Radio" (Galei Zahal) said that international and Arab media sources are reporting developing parts of US President Barack Obama's speech scheduled for early July, in which he will lay out his peace plan for the Middle East.

The plan will be based on the two states for two nations formula, and that it will also adopt items from the Arab peace initiative.

The reports say that the new plan is basically an upgrade of the Saudi peace initiative, about which both Israel and the US have reservations in its current formulation.

Obama's plan will reportedly include the establishment of a demilitarized sovereign Palestinian state with east Jerusalem as its capital.

The plan will also call for the Old City of Jerusalem to become an international zone under UN control.
Additional Update: Israel's Deputy Foreign Minister refutes this story as follows:
"I don't know of any Obama plan that has been finalized," said Ayalon, who has been briefed on the closed-door meetings between Netanyahu and Obama. "Don't believe the headlines. What was in the papers was mere speculation, and there is no substance to it," he said. (JPost)
Was the story a trial balloon by Obama?
Is Ayalon in the dark?
Is Ayalon part of the story to "keep things quiet?"
Was the story made up as a news scoop?

Time will tell....


Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Thursday, April 23, 2009

Israeli Intelligence: Obama considers Israel an obstacle

This report from the World Tribune isn't surprising, but it is a somber wake-up call for what Israel can expect during the current administration. Normally, I wouldn't post the entire text, but its crucial that Israel's supporters see what Obama's administration has in store for us.
TEL AVIV — A classified assessment relayed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Obama and his senior advisers would incrementally diminish U.S. strategic cooperation with Israel developed over the last 20 years.

"Obama wants to make friends with our worst enemies and until now the worst enemies of the United States," an Israeli source familiar with the intelligence assessment said.

"Under this policy, we are more than irrelevant. We have become an obstacle."

Israeli sources said the administration would reject Israel intelligence on such threats as Iran and Syria while advancing the Obama agenda to reconcile with the two states, both listed as state sponsor of terrorism by the U.S. State Dept.

On April 20, Israeli military intelligence commander Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin warned the Cabinet that Obama was prepared to allow Iran to retain its capability to assemble nuclear weapons and support Hamas and Hizbullah.

"Obama wants to advance the peace process in the direction of realistic discussions with extremist elements," Yadlin said.

The Israeli intelligence assessment envisioned that Obama would maintain his reconciliation policy with Iran and Syria through at least 2010. The sources said the assessment determined that Obama was convinced that such a policy would enable a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan.

"Obama will want to show Iran, Syria and radical Muslims that the United States could pressure Israel on a strategic level," the source said. "The pressure has already begun and will intensify throughout the next year or two."

The military intelligence chief said Obama was also courting the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad. Yadlin said both Damascus and Teheran have not significantly reduced their support for insurgency groups throughout the region.

"President Bashar Assad hopes to turn over a new leaf with U.S. President Barack Obama," Yadlin said. "However, while Western powers are being hosted at the palace in Damascus, Syria is continuing to be used as the back yard of the axis of evil. Assad is letting Hizbullah and Iranian forces freely conduct their affairs in Syria and use its territory for Hizbullah deployment."

Yadlin said Obama's policies have generated dismay among Arab allies of the United States. He said Arab countries such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia were concerned that U.S. reconciliation efforts would merely encourage Teheran and its proxies to intensify destabilization efforts. In April 2009, Egypt reported a Hizbullah network that operated in Cairo and the Sinai Peninsula.

"The Arab world is starting to understand that Iranian proxies are a threat to the region," Yadlin said. "The Hizbullah activity in Egypt is not an isolated incident. Iran has infrastructures across the world seeking to perpetrate terror attacks against Israel."

At the same time, the Obama administration was expected to restrict U.S. arms exports to Israel in an effort to deny systems that could be used in any attack against Iran or Syria. The intelligence sources said this policy was implemented during the last year of the Bush administration and would intensify under Obama. (World Tribune)

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Friday, November 21, 2008

Shas: Yes we can.


translation; With G-d's Help. Yes. We can! Shas [party]

Is this really the new billboard sign for Israel's "Shas" Ultra-Orthodox Sephardi political party?

Its been flying around the web...




Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Sunday, November 09, 2008

Today's Non-Racist Obama Roundup

Its unfortunate that one can't criticize President-elect Obama's policies any more without being labeled a racist.

(Cartoon on left, hat-tip to Yisrael Medad, via Elder of Zion. If you don't "get it", no explanation will help)

Is satire even permitted?

What will Saturday Night Live do?

Israeli Orthodox Jewish, kippa wearing, settler-supporting columnist, lays it out for us.
I am very sorry to disappoint you, but only two days have passed since Barack Obama's victory, and I still do not have firm conclusions. I haven't had the time to come up with them yet.

Moreover, even though a whole 48 hours have passed since Obama's victory, I still do not know whether his election triumph is good or bad for Israel. And it gets even worse: Not only have I failed to formulate an opinion in the past 48 hours, I am not even certain that in the past 48 years I have been able to form an opinion in respect to what is good or bad for Israel, which makes the situation even more complex. (rest is here)

Here's a great video clip of Barack Obama roasting Rahm Emmanuel in 2005 for a charity fundraiser of Epilepsy. If he can make fun of his future Chief of Staff, I don't think he would have a problem accepting honest policy criticism (or satire).

In fact, I don't think Obama's the problem at all -- its those that accuse everyone else of being a racist if you don't fall in line and say "Amen."






Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

The Audacity of Aliyah

A guest post by Lurker:

The other day, JoeSettler posted an ad for Nefesh B'Nefesh, noting (with his tongue planted in his cheek, by my reading) that there are some American Jews who will be looking to make aliyah now that Barack Obama has been elected President.

This prompted a spate of indignant comments. One commenter declared that any American Jew who wishes to make aliyah for such a reason (or perhaps any Jew who disagrees with Obama at all) is simply a racist. Another one acknowledged that there are some opponents of Obama who are not motivated by racism, but insisted that because some Orthodox Jews are racist, the entire Orthodox community has "no credibility" regarding an election where one of the candidates happens to be black. Here are some excerpts:

  • "Sorry, but racist right-wing was the first explanation that came to mind after the opening line - that Obama winning would be a big push for aliyah.
    Why otherwise would anyone flee America just as we're finally starting to get hope again?"
Note that this commenter states flat out that she didn't imagine any possible reason why anybody might want to get away from Obama, other than racism. Even more frightening than this knee-jerk reaction is the reasoning she gives for it: Now that Barack Obama has been elected, it is unimaginable that anybody would not want to stay, since, as we've all been told, "we're finally starting to get hope again". (One is reminded of the famous Soviet question to refuseniks: "Why would you possibly want to leave this worker's paradise?") Clearly, it has not occurred to this commenter that there might be some people who don't feel this "hope". Or, if such people do exist, then the only possible excuse for their lack of "hope" is that they are "racist".

From another comment:

  • "The point is, a substantial number of Orthodox Jews are racists. That is undeniable. Therefore, the Orthodox Jewish community as a whole has no credibility on the question of an election between a white man and a black man."
Now, it is true that there are many Orthodox Jews who are racists (more on this below) -- just as every ethnic group in America has its racists. But does this justify the blanket delegitimization of the entire OJ community, as this commenter declares? What would he say to the following copy-and-replace job:

"The point is, a substantial number of blacks are racists. That is undeniable. Therefore, the black community as a whole has no credibility on the question of an election between a white man and a black man."
Or perhaps even this:

"The point is, a substantial number of Americans are racists. That is undeniable. Therefore, the American people as a whole has no credibility on the question of an election between a white man and a black man."
Would our commenter agree with this statement as well? And if so, then what does this say about the election of Barack Obama?

This same commenter goes on to tell us that even though not every Obama supporter is necessarily a racist, anybody who criticizes Obama in a manner that he regards as "inaccurate" probably is a racist:
Simply claiming not to be a racist does little to reassure skeptics, especially if you follow your reassurance with some inflammatory and inaccurate statement like that Obama is a "socialist."
Now, I'm not going to address the question here of whether Obama's policies can be regarded as "socialist" in nature. (See the comments if you're interested in that.) What's really incredible is how, according to this commenter, "socialist" has now become an ethnic slur! Someone should tell that to the government of Sweden. (One can't help but wonder -- if someone refers to a white person as a "socialist", does that mean the speaker is racist against whites? Or does it mean that the speaker thinks the person in question is black?)

Finally, this commenter provides a long quote from conservative columnist and Orthodox Jew David Klinghoffer, in which Klinghoffer descibes his disturbing encounters with racism in the OJ community. In fact, I agree with, and strongly identify with, every word that Klinghoffer says on this subject. Yes, there is a lot of ugly racism in certain streams of American Orthodoxy. I have run up against quite a bit of it myself, and I am saddened and offended by it.

However: There are plenty of OJ Jews who are not racist at all. (I daresay most, but I don't have figures to prove it.) And knowing both Joe and Jameel personally, I am absolutely confident that their critical opinions of President Elect Obama are based upon their own (entirely legitimate) political views, and have nothing whatsoever to do with any sort of racist bias.

To suggest or imply that their criticisms of Obama are are based upon racism is completely unfounded, and nothing short of slanderous. It is also presumptuous in the extreme. And it is no less presumptuous to assume that a Jew who chooses to make aliyah because of Obama (as misguided as that may be; see afterthought below) is doing it because of "racism".

Furthermore, and most importantly: The attitude expressed by these commenters, and many others like them, represents nothing less than a frightening, illegitimate attempt to stifle political debate that is critical to our future as a free society. For many years, there have been those who attempted to paint any and all criticism of people who happened to be from racial minorities as "racism". This notion has become a powerful weapon in the hands of those who would curtail the free and open exchange of ideas and opinions, particularly on university campuses. But today, as never before, we cannot possibly afford to allow such an attitude to hold sway in America -- for one simple reason: The man who will be President of the United States for the next four years (at least) happens to be black. Now, regardless of one's political views, this is a historic first for a nation with a history of racism, and an achievement for which all Americans can rightfully be proud.

But along with that achievement, and because of it, comes new responsibility: It demands of us a new level of maturity and fair play in our public discourse: It is now completely unacceptable to play the race card on the American political field. People must be completely and unreservedly free to criticize President Obama and his Administration, just as they have been free to criticize President Bush and his. True democracy -- which America strives to exemplify -- thrives on free and unfettered debate, and open criticism -- sometimes harsh -- of our leaders. If people become intimidated against doing so for fear of being called "racists", then the fundamental underpinning of our free society will be gone. And that would be a tragedy for all of us who cherish liberty.

Afterthought:

Having said everything I said above, I feel it necessary to point out the following reservations regarding the idea of making aliyah to "run away" from Obama: I believe strongly that Jews should make aliyah -- but they ought to do it for the right reasons: They should come because Israel is our homeland, and it is where a Jew belongs. But if an American Jew makes aliyah on account of Obama's election as President, then he is a fool:


  • If the issue of concern is the expectation that Obama will be pressuring Israel into making dangerous concessions to her enemies, then I would point out that those policies -- even in the worst-case-scenarios predicted by some -- are more likely to endanger the lives and security of Jews in Israel, than those in the U.S. So that would be a reason for Israelis to make yerida, not for Americans to make aliyah. Of course, I would also point out (as I have in the past) that in the end, Obama's policies are unlikely to be a major factor in this arena: The self-destructive policies of Israeli governments since the onset of Oslo in 1993 have been primarily due to the irresponsiblity and foolishness of our own Israeli leaders right here, and not because of American pressure. And there's no reason to expect this to change significantly in the near future.


  • And if the issue of concern is fear of Obama's expected fiscal policies, then making aliyah on this account is even more foolish. During the election campaign, there was much heated debate over whether Obama's plan for the American economy -- which he said would be characterized by a program that would "spread the wealth" -- should be properly labelled as "socialism". Well, I don't know whether Obama's plans are radical enough to qualify as "socialism", but I can definitely tell you this: Israel's economy already is socialist! After all, the country was founded by a group of true-blue, ideologically orthodox, diehard European socialists and communists. And the economy remained solidly socialist for decades after its founding. Now, it is true that Israel has come a long way in the direction of privatization and capitalist reform (particular during Netanyahu's terms as Prime Minister and Finance Minister), but Israel is still worlds away from having a true free-market economy. The point is simply this: Israel is far more socialist right now that America can possibly become, even under eight years of an Obama Administration. So anyone making aliyah from America because they think they're running away from "socialism" is in for one heck of a shock when he gets here...

Wherever I am, my blog turns towards Eretz Yisrael טובה הארץ מאד מאד

Search the Muqata

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails