From Weasel Zippers:
“US Assistant Secretary of State Pressing Israel to Lose Its Nukes
And Make the Middle East a Nuke Free Zone…”
Assistant US Secretary of State for International Security and Nonproliferation, Thomas Countryman, recently visited Israel and held talks with senior Foreign Ministry officials, about the possibility of making the Middle East nuclear-free.
Washington seeks to advance the idea after reaching agreement with Russia about the matter.
The State Department confirmed Countryman’s visit and sources in the US Administration said that Israeli agreement to the idea would be a catalyst for bringing additional countries into discussions on the matter.
The Americans have been attempting to convene an international conference on the subject for some time, without success. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke about the idea with pessimism, and said it was “a very tough challenge.”
From Washington Free Beacon:
“Obama Warns Clinton Foundation Donor Not to Get Nukes”
President Obama told Saudi Arabia on Friday that if it chooses to covertly work to build up a nuclear program, it would “greatly strain the relationship they’ve got with the United States.”
“They understand that ultimately their own security and defense is much better served by working with us,” Obama said in an interview with The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg. “Their covert—presumably—pursuit of a nuclear program would greatly strain the relationship they’ve got with the United States.”
The remark came in response to a question from Goldberg regarding the fear that others in the Middle East would attempt to match the nuclear infrastructure that Obama’s deal with Iran would allow it to keep.
“The protection that we provide as [Saudi Arabia’s] partner is a far greater deterrent than they could ever hope to achieve by developing their own nuclear stockpile or trying to achieve breakout capacity when it comes to nuclear weapons, and they understand that,” said Obama.
Hard to comment seriously on that one.
Filed under: Capitalism, Domestic Policy, Foreign Policy, History, Iran, Islam, Israel, National Security, Politics, Terrorism, The United States | Tags: Barack Obama, Israel, Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu
Democrats are up to their old tricks. The New York Times, with their usual accuracy, accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of breaking diplomatic protocol by going behind the administration’s back to accept an invitation to speak to Congress before receiving approval from the White House.
The paper of record was quickly forced to issue one of their frequent corrections, as Netanyahu did not accept the invitation until after the White House was informed.
Mr. Obama has reportedly asked the Congressional Black Caucus to boycott the speech, and Nancy Pelosi, the ranking Democrat in the House, said she was concerned that if Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the U.S, Congress in March, it might result in negative ramifications for the ongoing nuclear talks with Iran.
She added that it was “not appropriate ” that Netanyahu will speak “only two weeks before an election”, but she did not mention the fact that high-ranking Obama administration campaign operatives are currently on the ground in Israel attempting to sabotage Netanyahu’s chances at reelection. The Israelis are offended at Obama’s interference in their elections. Obama may not have sent his campaign operatives, but he surely could have prevented their participation. It seems highly unethical to interfere in another country’s politics, but Obama has done this before.
We are not getting straight talk from the administration about their negotiations with Iran. The Iranian regime “agrees” to certain principles regarding nuclear enrichment, and has been caught time and again violating their own agreement. The regime has built an 89-foot missile which may have the capability of striking the United States.
In an interview with Mathew Yglesias from the Vox.com website, the president was asked about terrorism. He responded that the terrorism threat is overrated, and referred to the jihadists who committed the mass murders in Paris last month as “a bunch of violent vicious zealots” who “randomly shot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.” The Jews who were shopping for Shabbat” were just a bunch of folks in a deli, not a kosher delicatessen. The media, needing an audience, inflates the significance of these acts of random violence.
President Obama seems remarkably comfortable embracing our enemies and distancing himself from our long time allies. I don’t think this has ever happened in the United States before. Presidents have made mistakes, as they are only human, but this is something different. Obama’s statement was intentional, not accidental, for White House spokesman Josh Earnest and State Department spokesgirl Jen Psaki not only repeated the denial of the anti-Semitic nature of the kosher deli murders, but doubled down on it.
The Black Congressional Caucus, obediently, has announced that they will not be attending the Netanyahu speech because Bibi “disrespected” the president. Both Obama and V.P. Biden have announced they will refuse to meet with the leader of our closest ally in the Middle East during his stay in Washington.
The consequences of Mr. Obama’s denial of the nature of the targeting of the Jewish state by Islamic jihadists may be grave indeed. Obama is assisting Iran to emerge as a nuclear power, thinking that it will have no unpleasant consequences, because everyone is reasonable and agreements can be reached by well-meaning people.
Well-meaning people who know their history and can remember our previous engagements with Iran and the mullahs, are deeply dubious about the president’s intent — and worried.
Elie Wiesel, Holocaust survivor, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, will attend the speech. Orthodox Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has placed a full page ad in the New York Times and the Washington Post urging Congress to put partisanship aside and listen to what Prime Minister Netanyahu has to say about the catastrophic danger of a nuclear Iran.
Filed under: Freedom, Israel, Military, National Security, Terrorism | Tags: Israel, Limits to Tolerance, Rockets from Gaza
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu repeated a line that he used in the prepared statement he read at his Friday news conference on Fox News Sunday this morning. It warrants repetition. Israel and Hamas conduct in the current hostilities can be explained:
The difference between us is simple. We develop defensive systems against missiles in order to protect our civilians and they use their civilians to protect their missiles.
Here’s a brief cell phone video of “Summer Vacation In Israel” It conveys a sense of what it is like to live under constant threat of rocket attack, with only seconds to get to shelter.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Israel, Middle East, Politics, Terrorism | Tags: "Peace Process", Israel, Obama's Middle East Speech
President Obama’s much heralded speech on the Middle East exhibited nothing so much as his failure to grasp the nature of the office of the presidency. He has never understood that he represents, not his own prejudices and ideology, but the American people—all of them. His personal interests must be subsumed in what is best for the country, its national security and its national interests.
The president clearly is consumed by the idea that the World hated us because of George W. Bush and the Iraq War, and Obama wants to make them like us again. Democrats hated George W, Bush, and assume that everyone else must hate him too. Obama was sure that he could succeed in creating peace in the Middle East when he managed the “peace process.” Liking each other is not the point. Nations have their own interests, and try to find ways to cooperate while securing those interests. America doesn’t need to be liked, we need to be respected. Trying to be “liked” is an exercise in futility. Trying to be liked is childish.
The “peace process” is complicated by the fact that the Palestinians are “Refugees.” Being refugees means they are underdogs, and that seems to mean that any amount of rockets, killings, suicide bombers, attacks and lies before the United Nations must be accepted as the natural protests of underdogs. The Israelis, of course, are in the wrong because they insist on defending themselves. Besides, the Israelis are rich and don’t live in refugee camps. That they have become a successful society due to their own hard work is beside the point.
There has never, in the history of the world, been a nation called “Palestine.” When Israel became a nation, their Muslim neighbors were invited to become citizens of Israel. Many did, and they are free Israeli Muslims who vote and fully participate in Israeli society. When the Arab nations of the Middle East expelled their Jewish citizens, Israel took them in. The Arab nations didn’t want the Palestinians, and have helped to keep them in refugee camps and urged them to blame Israel for all their problems.
If Israel’s Arab neighbors wanted peace, there would be peace. They don’t. They want Israel eliminated. President Obama doesn’t seem to know this complicated history, and assumes that the “Peace Process” depends on how much Israel is willing to give up. Israel has the ability to destroy any and all of its large neighbors, and in spite of constant provocation, has never attempted to do anything except defend itself. Hamas has it in its charter to destroy Israel.
The Arab states were unimpressed with Obama’s nice words about self-determination. Uprisings against dictatorial governments have been going on since January, and the “Freedom Agenda” has largely been nowhere to be seen. Months later, after all the dithering, they are not particularly interested. There’s a big gap between protesting in the street and wanting a despot overthrown— and democracy and self-determination. These are people who have never in history had any experience of democracy.
Iraq had a lot of help in founding a government, holding free elections and writing a constitution. They have an unbelievable number of political parties, and General Petraeus laughingly said it wasn’t exactly democracy, but “Iraqracy”— their beginning efforts to do it their way. And that is good. The administration has sanctioned Syria, but still believes that Assad is a potential reformer in spite of all evidence to the contrary. The Arab Middle East erupted beginning in January. A statement that the United States supports self-determination in late May is more than a little late.
It is not up to the President of the United States to determine the borders of other nations. In the 62 years since Israel became a nation, the Palestinians have never offered a single concession in the interests of peace in the Middle East. They are not interested in peace, they are interested in the destruction of Israel and its people.
For the President of the United States to side with the Palestinians is shameful step, and breaks with the policy of every president since 1949, and disdains a long-standing friendship in return for — nothing, nothing at all. He has created a weak and unreliable United States that is earning the contempt of the world.
A video of Bibi Netanyahu’s meeting with Barack Obama is available here.
Filed under: Israel, Middle East, Terrorism | Tags: Iran, Islamist Turkey, Israel
(click to enlarge)
What’s going on with Israel? World governments are busily condemning Israel over the flotilla incident in which Israeli soldiers, boarding a ship attempting to breach the completely legal blockade of Gaza, were attacked, beaten, and in danger of their lives.
The lead ship of the flotilla, a Turkish ship — the Mavi Marmara — manned by “peace activists” who advertised themselves as “adhering to nonviolence and nonviolent resistance on word and deed at all times.” The “peace activists” were waiting with knives, metal clubs, slingshots with steel balls and fire bombs. All the usual people were shocked! shocked! A deliberate provocation, staged with all sorts of planning by the phony peace activist pals of Hamas, turned into the hysterical headlines the organizers were looking for.
As Victor Davis Hanson said:
Turkey thought that the Gaza flotilla would be yet another clever way of confronting Israel: They would hype the hoped-for “overreaction,” then posture as regional defender of the faith to the world’s outraged Muslims. However, as more details of the incident emerge, more and more suspicion is falling on Turkish interests that seem to have gone out of their way to stage a violent encounter in order to showcase Turkey’s new Mideast role.
At the Wall Street Journal, Daniel Henninger added:
The world’s peoples may pay soon for their leaders’ display of such a disproportionate double standard. Recall that the other, recent instance when the world’s governments deployed their collective authority and wrath was last June, against Lilliputian Honduras. The conclusion is inescapable: The smaller the problem, the larger the world powers’ output of hot air. But if a problem is large or difficult—especially if the problem is nuclear—they blink and deflate, and will do so repeatedly. Example: It emerged this week that the International Atomic Energy Agency believes Iran is pursuing higher-enriched uranium and “the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.” The world yawns. Or hides.
Now Iran is threatening to send their Revolutionary Guard navy to safeguard another flotilla attempting to break the blockade. The completely legal blockade conducted by Israel and Egypt. Egypt too is threatened by Hamas. The United States appears weak and indecisive, and enemies are always ready to take advantage of weakness. Obama sort of said he would stand with Israel, while offering undeserved condolences to Turkey and insisting on an investigation. This is what other nations understand as weakness. And belligerents often overestimate weakness.
The present government of Turkey, led by Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, is attempting a new Mideast role, reestablishing its long ago role as leader of the Ottoman empire. The world’s powers feel free to pile on relatively small isolated nations. They “find it easier to be blowhards than statesmen,” said Dan Henninger. “And that means we have a problem.”
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Israel, Middle East, Terrorism | Tags: Gaza Incident, Hamas Terrorists, Israel
According to Jake Tapper of ABC News Service:
I’m told there won’t be any daylight between the US and Israel in the aftermath of the incident on the flotilla yesterday, which resulted in the deaths of 10 activists.
Regardless of the details of the flotilla incident, sources say President Obama is focused on what he sees as the longer term issue here: a successful Mideast peace process.
“The president has always said that it will be much easier for Israel to make peace if it feels secure,” a senior administration official tells ABC News.
The suggestion is that US condemnation of Israel would further isolate that country, and make further peace negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians even more difficult.
The senior administration official says that President Obama spoke to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu three times on Monday. Mr. Obama pushed the notion that last night – as the United Nations Security Council met to issue a statement about the incident – was the moment when the US had maximum leverage, that the longer the statement was being debated the worse it would ultimately be for Israel.
Ultimately, as the statement was negotiated over night, the US succeeded in making it more neutral where other nations wanted it to criticize and condemn Israel.
What is important is for the U.S government to continue to support the Gaza blockade. If the blockade is legitimate, then Israelis have the right to board the ships of those who refuse to respect it. The Israelis have the right to defend themselves against attack. Hamas is a terrorist organization pledged to the elimination of Israel.
Most Palestinians live in the West Bank, and Israel is quietly working to create the peace that will never be created by the so-called “Peace Process.” Did you know that all this was going on? I didn’t. Perhaps it is best, going on quietly, without constant media attention.
ADDENDUM: Obama apparently called the Prime Minister (President?) of Turkey to offer condolences on the deaths of their terrorist thugs. Obama seems to clearly just not like Israel. An odd position for an American President.
Filed under: Foreign Policy, Islam, Israel, Middle East | Tags: International Relations, Israel, Russia, Syria, Turkey
President Obama has rolled out the red carpet for Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Mr. Obama has realized that he has offended Mr. Karzai, and is attempting to mend fences. It was widely publicized that the administration hoped to see Mr. Karzai replaced — not exactly the way to make friends among national leaders.
Obama’s success on the campaign trail, with enthusiastic crowds and an adoring press, may have given him the illusion that he could sway national interests with his charm and mellow baritone voice. But nations have interests, and the particular interests of the American president don’t trump the interests of other countries. Working together requires putting aside the arrogance and refraining from telling other people what to do. George W. Bush may have been unpopular in the streets, but his relations with national leaders were, for the most part, excellent.
Obama has told us over and over that talks are the ultimate goal. If he could just sit down and talk with the Mullahs of Iran, they surely would find areas of agreement. The Mullahs have no interest in talks, they have never had any interest in talks. It hasn’t worked.
President Obama’s relations with other national leaders are not good. He has made no friends. An exception was supposed to be President Dimitry Medvedev of Russia. They got along famously, we were told, the agreement enhanced by Obama’s willingness to give up our missile defense in Eastern Europe.
Now we learn that Medvedev has paid a state visit to Syrian President Assad in Damascus that resulted in Moscow’s full endorsement of the Arab agenda against Israel, plus a direct Kremlin challenge to American Mideast diplomacy.
In a joint communiqué with Assad, Medvedev added his own Middle East plan, including 1.) Putting the blame for Mideast tensions on Israel, 2.) Demanding a complete Israeli withdrawal to pre-1967 lines, 3.) Demanding that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a non-nuclear state, 4.) Endorsing Palestinian demands for a “right of return” — a formula for the demographic destruction of the Jewish state.
Medvedev also offered nuclear plants to Syria. His next stop — Turkey to whom he has also offered a nuclear plant.
Obama has placed all his bets on getting his Mideast envoy, George Mitchell, to mediate indirect peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians. The administration seems to be laboring under the illusion that the problems of the Middle East would go away, if Israel would just make peace with the Palestinians — whose stated goal is to “drive Israel into the sea.”
So much for the reset button, and so much for Obama’s role as the world historical figure who has brought peace to the troubled Middle East. The Russian bear has other ideas, and they clearly involve a larger role in the Middle East.