The kings of the earth take their stand and the rulers gather together against the LORD and against his Anointed One. Psalms 2 v2
Wildolive is not qualified to judge the President of the United States, the most powerful man on earth, and as Malcolm Hedding explained in Biblical Christian Zionism, it is not for us to tell Israel’s leaders what they should be doing; so it is even less our business (those of us who are not Americans) to lecture the president of the USA.
However, we need to put President Obama’s agenda in perspective in order to understand what is happening to Israel and what to expect and what to pray about.
Can we understand how President Obama's leadership will frame Foreign Policy, as it applies to Israel?
There is much concern about President Obama's enthusiasm for Islam. Does his background hold any clues?
The Obama administration appears to have a disporoportionate number of Muslims and sympathisers
How justified are the fears that President Obama will throw Israel to the wolves?
President Obama has made statements at the UN which place him firmly on side with the Palestinians and their narrative of the situation.
The president's negotiation of a nuclear deal with Iran appears reckless; to say the least.
The American efforts to combat ISIS show very little commitment
Barak Obama's second term victory might hold worthwhile lessons about western democracy and the future.
Since this page was produced, events have moved forwards but the basic facts about President Obama's position on Israel appear not to have drastically changed. He has said that he supports Israel (especially to Jewish audiences) but his policies, and those of Hilary Clinton, appear to confirm fears that he will ultimately sell out Israel. He says he will veto the creation of a Palestinian state at the UN (bypassing peace negotiations) but he continues to not understand Israel's concerns and the Palestinian plan to destroy Israel rather than agree peace. At home, many are noting that nothing was achieved in his first term to live up to the vague promises made to the electorate but there have been enormous steps to undermine democratic processes and expand government control. And yet he was elected for a second term
First impressions of Obama’s approach to “Middle East Peace” were of arrogance and confidence that he can easily achieve what several US presidents before him have attempted but failed to achieve. Certainly, the early days of Obama’s presidency were marked by many overtures to the Muslim world and hardening of attitude towards Israel. Remember the disasters that previous presidents have brought upon America.
Obama has made several serious errors / promises
His overtures to the Muslims has encouraged their leaders to believe they are more important and influential than they really are. His strategy included throwing a carrot to the Palestinians during his Cairo speech by demanding serious concessions from Israel and nothing from the Palestinians. "The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements." This has been accepted as concrete promise number 1 by the Palestinians so that a settlement freeze became a precondition to negotiations.
At Obama's annual UN speech of 2010 he spoke of coming back next year, "with a new member of the United Nations - an independent and sovereign state of Palestine. - Promise number 2.
May 2010 - Obama said Israel must come to the negitiating table with the precondition of a return to the "1967 borders" with some land swaps. - Promise number 3 . This fails to take account of the fact that the "1967 borders" (actually the 1967 armisitice line - see Land) are indefensible and that "defensible borders" were specified in the UN recommendation.
Obama and the leaders of the democratic nations have failed to demand that the Palestinians cease their devastating torrent of hate propaganda against Israel. Promise 1a ? It does not matter if the Palestinians fail to take peace seriously, the creation of their state remains the priority.
By March 2010 Obama and his administration appeared to be getting more and more unreasonable and hostile towards Israel. Perhaps caroline Glick has the best answers. From Jewish World Review. www.jewishworldreview.com/signup/
March 2012 - Daylight - analysis of Obama's attitude towards Israel - Please share this video.
By Caroline B. Glick - (condensed by wildolive)
Why has US President Barak Obama decided to foment a crisis in US relations with Israel?
Some commentators have claimed that it is Israel's fault, because Israel would not ban Jewish construction in Jerusalem and drove Obama into a fit of uncontrolled rage. While popular, this claim makes no sense. Obama didn't come to be called "No drama Obama" for nothing.
Obama himself claims that he has launched a political war against Israel in the interest of promoting peace. But he is actually loading unreasonable demands upon Israel.
First, Israel must cancel the approval of the housing units in Ramat Shlomo.
Second, Israel must prohibit all construction for Jews in Jerusalem neighborhoods built since 1967.
Third, Israel must make a gesture to the Palestinians to show them we want peace. The US suggests releasing hundreds of Palestinian terrorists from Israeli prisons.
Fourth, Israel must agree to negotiate all substantive issues.. To date, Israel has maintained that substantive discussions can only be conducted in direct negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian officials.
Obama's ultimatum makes clear that mediating peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not a goal he is interested in achieving.
Netanyahu was led to believe that in return for these concessions Obama would begin behaving like the credible mediator his predecessors were. But instead of acting like his predecessors, Obama has behaved like the Palestinians. Rather than reward Netanyahu for taking a risk for peace, Obama has pocketed Netanyahu's concessions and escalated his demands. This is not the behavior of a mediator. This is the behavior of an adversary, and with the US President treating Israel like an enemy, the Palestinians have no reason to agree to sit down and negotiate.
But if his campaign against Israel wasn't driven by a presidential temper tantrum, and it isn't aimed at promoting peace what explains it? What is Obama trying to accomplish?
There are five explanations for Obama's behavior. And they are not mutually exclusive.
Obama's assault on Israel is likely related to the failure of his Iran policy. He may be attacking Israel in a bid to coerce Netanyahu into agreeing to give Obama veto power over any Israeli military strike against Iran's nuclear installations.
Obama's advisors told friendly reporters that Obama wants to bring down Netanyahu's government.
Obama's seeks to realign US foreign policy away from Israel and develop relations with Israel's anti-American neighbours, whose leaders have all demanded that in exchange for better relations Obama abandon Israel as a US ally
Administration officials are considering having Obama present his own "peace plan." Given the administration's denial of Israel's right to Jerusalem, an "Obama plan," would doubtless require Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and expel some 700,000 Jews from their homes.
Likewise, the crisis Obama has manufactured with Israel could pave the way for him to recognize a Palestinian state if the Palestinians follow through on their threat to unilaterally declare statehood. Such a US move could in turn lead to the deployment of US forces in Judea and Samaria to "protect" the unilaterally declared Palestinian state from Israel.
The other front in Obama's war is the American public. By blaming Israel for the state of the Middle East and launching personal barbs against Netanyahu, Obama seeks to drive down popular American support for Israel.
Caroline B. Glick is the senior Middle East Fellow at the Center for Security Policy in Washington, DC and the deputy managing editor of The Jerusalem Post.
Another observer, " someone who moves in high circles in Israel, has made the following alarming observations about how Obama is working against Israel.
Tonight I heard very disturbing information – we heard it from a consultant to the United States who meets once a month with the President in the White house. He is in the know. This is what actually has happened with the relationship with Israel and the USA and it is not pretty:
1. Israel during the Bush and Clinton Administrations – had landing rights in Turkey and in the USA bases in the middle east and more recently under George Bush, in Iraq , or Saudi or any other Arab country. Obama has withdrawn those landing rights. Israel now has nowhere to refuel in the middle east.
2. Netanyahu was instructed to come to the white house for a meeting. He was brought in through a servants entrance – the only head of state ever in US history to be given that disgraceful treatment. He was not offered even a cup of tea – but was lectured to by Obama who told him that he is not permitted to attack Iran and that he has to withdraw all forces from the West bank and may not build any more settlements ( neighbourhoods) in East Jerusalem.
3. Israel found out that there were four terrorists meeting in Dubai. As they have done for the past 62 years, they informed the US of that and said that these terrorists had to be dealt with. Obama said under no circumstances. Israel decided to go ahead. They killed the one terrorist who showed up. However the CIA was sent there to film the entire event by Obama – and then a concerted PR campaign was waged by the White house to discredit Israel and what they did – this kind of action has taken place with US support for the past 62 years since we have common enemies.
4. Obama has refused to oppose re arming of Hezbollah and Hamas – Israel now sits in imminent danger from the amounts of missiles that can be sent into her territory.
5. Israel will never tell the US again of its plans – since they cannot trust us.
6. Israel intends to attack Iran – there are over 30 installations of which 4 have underground bunkers that contain nuclear weapons. cannot wait any longer. The Israel ’s self defence.
7. This is the same man that gave the White House a full file on the 9.11 attack – his warnings and proof were laughed at.
8. He believes that the next attacks in the USA will be mass transportation – subways and malls – especially the largest malls where the most people can be killed - and that Vegas and wherever there are conventions of employees will be a huge target. We are not prepared and are naïve in our lack thereof.
9. Once Israel attacks Iran, every Jew and Jewish institution will be at risk – temples, religious schools etc. We must be prepared.
10. This kept a room of 200 people spellbound. It is not fiction. It is fact.
What can be done?
It is essential that everyone who doesn’t know yet, now understands that the protection and survival of Israel is not on Obama’s list – and he is now taking ACTUAL steps to move all protections away – no more landing rights, negotiating with Iran and Syria, making nice to the Moslem World in the face of allies of long standing and he is no friend of the Jewish people and Israel.
danielpipes.org on Kerry's first moves in post
The Zionist Organization of America has pointed to troubling positions adopted by Senator John Kerry, President Barack Obama’s replacement for Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.
According to a leaked diplomatic cable reproduced in the British Guardian newspaper, during a February 2010 visit to Middle East, Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, went to Qatar and told Qatari Prime Minister and the Emir of Qatar that he believes Syrian president Bashar al-Assad “wants change ..."
Senator Kerry also agreed with the Emir “that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin needs to compromise and work the return of the Golan Heights into a formula for peace ..."
Senator Kerry also said “we know for the Palestinians that control of Al-Aqsa mosque and the establishment of some kind of capital for the Palestinians in East Jerusalem are not negotiable …"
Bill Koenig observed, Kerry, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has visited Israel several times, but his stance on Israeli policy — particularly that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — is ambivalent.
Considered a friend of Israel, Kerry is also a staunch critic of Israel's settlement policy. In 2009, he embarrassed Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he came out against Israeli settlement construction during the latter's visit in Washington.
"Historically, the State Department is less supportive of Israel, and it remains to be seen what Kerry's influence will be." The biggest question troubling Israeli officials is whether Kerry will seek to make a mark on the Palestinian issue as Secretary of State. "If he wants to leave a mark and influence the peace process, he will increase pressure on Israel," a Foreign Ministry official estimated. "His status allows him freedom of action. He's old enough, rich enough and respected enough. It's now a question of history."
President Obama nominated former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel to be the next Secretary of Defense. It's a terrible choice and will send the wrong message at precisely the wrong time to Iran, Hamas and Radical Islamic enemies of the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East, because of his weak and ineffectual approach to dealing Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. "Mr. Hagel has long been an opponent of unilateral American sanctions against Iran — among other American adversaries — viewing them as counterproductive," notes the New York Times.
Mr. Hagel’s stated positions on critical issues, ranging from defense spending to Iran, fall well to the left of those pursued by Mr. Obama during his first term. "Hagel repeatedly voted against sanctions, opposing even those aimed at the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, which at the time was orchestrating devastating bomb attacks against U.S. troops in Iraq. Mr. Hagel argued that direct negotiations, rather than sanctions, were the best means to alter Iran’s behavior.
Ira Forman’s NJDC released a comprehensive fact sheet outlining the former Senator’s 'questionable Israel record.' Hagel, for instance, was one of four senators who refused to sign a Senate letter supporting Israel in October 2000, the NJDC reported. Hagel has been seen by many in Washington as sharply critical of Israel . Critics have focused on his calls for direct negotiations with Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that the U.S. and Israel refuse to deal with directly. Extracted from a blog by Joel C Rosenberg
The nominee for Director of Central Intelligence Agency, John Brennan recently said, " And in all my travels, the city I have come to love most is Al Quds...Jerusalem, where three great faiths come together..."
Brennan sympathized with a questioner who was an officer of an Islamic organization affiliated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The questioner complained that Muslims are under attack since 9/11, at Ft. Hood, and the attempted Times Square bombing. Brennan sympathized with the speaker, saying that public reaction is indeed, "excessive...this is going to be tough." Brennan continued: "Let's face it, a lot of people will have very ignorant feelings and will have prejudices and discriminations that we have to erode..." Extracted from a report by One Jerusalem
On Tom Trento’s radio show, former FBI agent John Guandolo, who wrote the first Muslim Brotherhood training manual for the FBI, outs John Brennan as having converted to Islam while working in Saudi Arabia. There is no secondary confirmation on this claim. It can’t be confirmed, but here’s what we know so far: www.therightscoop.com/shocking-new-claim-john-brennan-converted-to-islam/
Muslim Brotherhood operatives
An Egyptian magazine has claimed that six American Islamist activists who work with the Obama administration are Muslim Brotherhood operatives who enjoy strong influence over U.S. policy. The December 22 2012 story was published in Egypt's Rose El-Youssef magazine and was translated into English for the Investigative Project on Terrorism (IPT). The story suggests the six turned the White House "from a position hostile to Islamic groups and organizations in the world to the largest and most important supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood." - www.israelnationalnews.com
President Obama's 'intelligence agencies' have prepared a report on a 'post-Israel Middle East' , an 82-page analysis that concludes that the American national interest in fundamentally at odds with that of Zionist Israel. The authors conclude that Israel is currently the greatest threat to US national interests because its nature and actions prevent normal US relations with Arab and Muslim countries and, to a growing degree, the wider international community.
October 2011 - In a legal brief filed with the US Supreme Court, Hillary Clinton urged the justices not to call Jerusalem part of Israel. At issue is the birthplace designation on passports given to US citizens born in Israel. The Administration’s policy is to require those born in the Jewish capital to have their place of birth listed as Jerusalem rather than Israel. This rule applies to no other capital city on earth; its only purpose is to refuse to acknowledge that Jerusalem is the capital of the Jewish state. (from a report by Mike Evans)
March 2012 - From a piece by Mark Langfan in Arutz Sheva -
full text here www.israelnationalnews.com
US President Obama has artfully and silently pivoted US Middle East Policy from a Pro-Saudi, Anti-Iran paradigm to a Pro-Iran, Anti-Saudi imperative.
The Dubai Police Chief Dahi Khalfan Tamim, attending at a recent Gulf security conference with US diplomats,stated, in essence:Why did President Obama, support the overthrow of President Hosni Mubarak, stalwart Sunni American ally and the sole-substantial Sunni Arab counterweight to Iran?
1) “US Policy is the Number One threat” to the Gulf States;
2) America “has realized the dreams of Iran in Iraq;”
3) the US has “adopted the path and ideology of Khomeini;”
4) the US “is no longer an ally” of the Gulf States.
Why does Obama allow Assad, a Shiite/Alawite, confirmed state-sponsor of terror, a stalwart ally of Shiite Iran, massacre thousands Sunni Muslims?
Why did Obama anoint the pro-Iranian Shiite Al Maliki as the new-Shiite leader of Iraq, sideline the Iraqi Sunnis? (leaving the Sunni Gulf states to fend for themselves against the a combined Iraq/Iran Shi'ite colossus from the North and East)
The answer can be found in Obama’ first documented foreign "policy" speech in 2002 dubbed the "Iraq War Speech" where Obama unambiguously declared:
“You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality. . . .” - Barack Obama’s Iraq Speech dated Oct. 2, 2002
From Obama’s very first recorded words on US foreign policy, Saudi Arabia, and not Iran, was America’s Number one enemy.
President Obama’s inimical abhorrence of the House of Saud was further codified in US President Obama’s May 19, 2011 major Foreign Policy speech where he repeatedly explicitly attacked Bahrain, Saudi’s key ally, as well as again clearly targeting the “elite” Saud Family when he stated:
Prosperity also requires tearing down walls that stand in the way of progress -– the corruption of elites who steal from their people; the red tape that stops an idea from becoming a business; the patronage that distributes wealth based on tribe or sect. – NY Times, 5/19/11 “Obama’s Mideast Speech”
But Obama’s one act which symbolically crystallizes the essence of what has been, is, and will be the Obama Doctrine is Obama’s very first act as US President. Obama’s first act was he formally and publically returned the bust of Winston Churchill to Great Britain that had long adorned the Bush Oval Office.
Obama viscerally rejected Churchill’s White House presence because it was Winston Churchill and his “Lawrence of Arabia” generation of British foreign establishment that, in effect, had “divided and conquered” the Muslim Ummah, and empowered the Sunni “elite” kingdoms at the expense of the Shi’ites and the Ottoman Empire.
While empowering the local Sunni Kingdoms, Churchill disempowered a possible unified Muslim Caliphate, and the Shi’ites. At core, to Obama, Lawrence of Arabia wasn’t a heroic liberator of Arabia, but a villainous enslaver of the Ummah. To Obama, the Middle East “borders” themselves are colonial vestiges which divide and enshackle the Muslim Ummah and prevent it from achieving its true greatness and superpower status on a par with the EU, the US, China, and Russia.
Consequently, Obama, from day one of his US Presidency, has been the first anti-Winston Churchill US President. The Obama Doctrine is “Whatever Churchill did, Obama would, and will, undo.” Churchill empowered the Sunnis, Obama will dispossess the Sunnis. Churchill created Israel, Obama will dismember Israel.
Within this tightly focused foreign policy imperative, Obama sees the total empowerment of Iran as the quickest and surest route to obliterate the shackles of the Churchill’s vestigial enslaving pro-Sunni “elite” localized fiefdoms that practically prevent the unification of the Muslim Global Ummah.
As a consequence, of the "Obama Doctrine", Obama’s Iranian Nuclear policy can be summed up as “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.” As a result, Obama’s overall Iranian political empowerment policy in Iraq and Afghanistan and Lebanon isn’t weakness, “naivete,” or “vacillation,” but Obama’s central overarching, immutable goal.
With the Obama Doctrine, Obama’s entire foreign policy makes sense: It explains why Obama toppled Egypt, Saudi Arabia’s key Sunni ally. In a heartbeat, Obama rendered Egypt permanently paralyzed to assist the Saudis against Iran.
Obama made the Saudis feel warm and fuzzy after the Mubarak betrayal by “selling” them 50 gazillion dollars of US weapons - that will be delivered a decade after Iran gets and uses its nukes, and successfully attacks Saudi Arabia’s Eastern/Persian Gulf oil fields that hold 95% of Saudi’s oil.
In accordance with this doctrine, Obama obliterated the Sunni Qaddafi with hundreds of million dollar Tomahawk missiles, deleting the precious cache of Tomahawks (for possible use against Iran) where there was a truly heavily armed Libyan opposition who could fight for themselves and instead left an absolute Islamist maelstrom wrapped in chaos enveloped in bedlam and mayhem.
Daniel Greenfield, FRONTPAGE - SATURDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2012
2013 Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney took President Obama to task for his administration’s disastrous handling of American foreign policy, which has had catastrophic consequences — most recently in the form of the heinous attacks against our embassies in Libya and Egypt. To understand what happened in Benghazi or in Cairo requires more than poking around the rubble, wiping off some of the ashes and pronouncing the whole thing a tragedy. The German invasion of Poland wasn’t the tragedy; the Munich Agreement was. Similarly the tragedy wasn’t the consulate and embassy attacks, but the foreign policy that caused them to happen.
The underlying philosophy Romney pointed to, the Obama Doctrine, has often been described as appeasement, but that’s a vague and general criticism. The Munich Agreement was appeasement, but the Obama Doctrine goes beyond anything as simple as appeasing as a single nation’s territorial ambitions.
The Obama Doctrine sought to resolve the War on Terror by dividing Islamists into two camps: the moderate political Islamists and the extremist violent Islamists. These categorizations were wholly artificial and everyone from Obama on down knew how artificial the differences between the so-called extremists and moderates were.
In Libya, the Muslim Brotherhood had transitioned the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group from the status of violent extremists allied with Al Qaeda to political Islamists committed to political reforms. That did not actually make the LIFG, which exploited its new found moderate status and the freedom that came with it to go on fighting Gaddafi as part of the civil war, non-violent. The difference between the Al Qaeda-affiliated LIFG and the Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated LIFG was a few pieces of paper. But the gruesome absurdity of the whole thing was laid out plainly for all to see in Afghanistan. The plan for Afghanistan was not to defeat the Taliban, though that was how it was sold to the American people, it was to divide the Taliban into moderates willing to engage in a democratic political process and extremists who would be defeated and isolated.
The Afghanistan surge, which cost nearly 1,500 American lives, was a brute force mechanism for engineering a divide that was supposed to result in the military defeat of the Taliban and their transformation into a political party. The Taliban would be free to lock up Afghan girls again, so long as they did it after winning a democratic election.
The Muslim Brotherhood was called in to oversee negotiations between the United States and the Taliban, as it had between Gaddafi and the LIFG, but unlike the LIFG, the Taliban showed no interest in following the Muslim Brotherhood’s devious route to political power.
The difference between Afghanistan and the Arab Spring countries is that those countries had strong governments capable of suppressing Islamist groups and forcing them to resort to the political process to accomplish what they could not manage through violence. However Obama’s withdrawal timetable made it clear to the Taliban that all they had to do to win in Afghanistan was wait him out.
“Our enemies are little worms. I saw them at Munich,” Hitler told his generals. The Taliban commanders have likely shared a similar opinion of Obama’s coterie of amateur peacemakers and of the great man himself.
1,500 American soldiers died in Afghanistan to improve Obama’s leverage in his failed bid to transform the Taliban into a political party. It is hard to think of any aspect of his foreign policy more hideously repulsive than this simple fact.
The greatest error of the Obama Doctrine lay in assuming that the political path and the military path represented a fundamental and irreconcilable parting of the ways between moderates and extremists, when they were actually just two approaches for seizing power. Hitler used the political process to come to power, but then went back to the same old tactics to stay in power and to expand his power base.
The Obama Doctrine depended on moving as many Islamists as possible from the military camp to the political camp, assuming that they could not then go back or would not want to. But just as there was no barrier preventing violent Islamists from turning political, there was no barrier preventing political Islamists from turning violent. A totalitarian ideology need not turn its back on violence to participate in the political process.
The Muslim Brotherhood’s credo, “Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations” made its ends clear without specifying how they had to be achieved. The political revolution or the suicide bombing were two means to the same end. Obama attempted to use the Muslim Brotherhood to achieve his objective of ending the War on Terror by isolating the violent Islamists and bringing them over into the ranks of the political Islamists. But the rise of Salafist violence in countries taken over by political Islamists has rekindled the War on Terror. North Africa is burning and the Islamists are the ones holding the torch.
The attacks of September 11, 2012, showed that not only had Al Qaeda not been defeated, but that the Islamist takeovers of Benghazi, Tunisia and Egypt had actually given it more freedom to operate. The overthrows of Gaddafi and Mubarak had left the security of the Benghazi consulate and the Cairo embassy in the hands of the Muslim Brotherhood. And the Muslim Brotherhood has always been at war with the United States. Obama had taken credit for the Arab Spring and the defeat of Al Qaeda, but the attacks were a reminder that Al Qaeda was not defeated and that the governments of the Arab Spring now had him at their mercy. The plan to divide the Muslim Brotherhood from the other Salafists had failed. Instead it had put the Muslim Brotherhood into the position of being the brokers of the Salafist violence, offering their protection against the “extremists” even while letting them do their worst.
In North Africa, the Obama Doctrine put the Muslim Brotherhood in power, and despite their current “moderate” political status, it will take a coup, a revolt or a war to get them out again. In Afghanistan, the Obama Doctrine squandered 1,500 lives to create a moderate Taliban while losing the war. In the Middle East it has destroyed every peace process that Israel has engaged in. All of these are the overlooked tragedies that will lead to true bloodshed.
Like Chamberlain, Obama’s appeasement has given an aggressive supremacist ideology a confidence boost and a deep foothold in vital strategic territories, while dismantling and demoralizing allies. The Islamist program has moved ahead a generation, far faster than its leaders ever dared to anticipate. Osama Bin Laden is dead, but his phase of terrorist attacks is outdated now that Islamist parties and militias control entire countries that are far richer and better armed than Afghanistan.
The Obama Doctrine has been implemented and its net result has been to accelerate an inevitable war by a generation, and as the two-thousandth soldier killed in Afghanistan returns home in a flag-draped coffin, that victim of Obama’s cynical politics of appeasement is one of a number that may one day fall into the millions.
Obama continues to press Netanyahu to move against settlements if he wants US to do something against the threat of a nuclear Iran. But he seems to be constantly redefining the word "Settlement." It is not clear how Obama defines a settlement; just the illegal outpost or new towns like Har Homa.
Jackson Diehl notes, based on an interview with Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority, that by publicly and repeatedly stressing the need for a without-exception freeze of Israeli building on the West Bank, Obama has revived a long-dormant Palestinian fantasy: that the United States will simply force Israel to make critical concessions, whether or not its democratic government agrees, while Arabs passively watch and applaud.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu flatly refused the American demand that Israel stop building apartments in east Jerusalem or stop Jews from buying apartments there, noting that Arabs are free to buy apartments in west Jerusalem.
At around the time of the annual "Israel Apartheid Week", when much of the world seeks to demonize Israel for allegedly apartheid policies, Washington was furious that Netanyahu would not stop Jews building in an area described in the Media as "Arab East Jerusalem." The very fact that Israel is not an apartheid state means that there is no prohibition on Jews or Arabs living in designated racial areas!
From a piece by Caroline Glick (August 2010)
..........But for Obama, there are some groups who must be denied the same civil rights he upholds as absolute in his defense of the plan to build a mosque at Ground Zero. As Obama has made clear since his first days in office, he believes that Jews should be denied the right to their property in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria simply because they are Jews.
OBAMA is so firm in his belief that Jews should be denied civil rights in Israel's capital and in the heartland of Jewish history that he has provoked multiple crises in his relations with Israel to advance this bigoted view. Almost from his first day in office Obama has struck out a radical position in which he has insisted that Jews must be prohibited from building anything - synagogues, homes, nurseries, schools - in Judea, Jerusalem and Samaria on land they own. Jews - Israeli and non-Israeli - should be barred from exercising their property rights even if their construction plans have already been approved "in accordance with local laws and ordinances." At the same time, Obama has insisted that Israel take no action to enforce its "local laws and ordinances" against illegal structures built by Arabs in Jerusalem, Judea, or Samaria.
HaAretz - Officials in Jerusalem told Israel Radio that there is no alternative but to ultimately agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.
Israel will be forced to acknowledge the necessity of a future Palestinian state because there are no signs that the Obama administration will yield on this issue, a diplomatic source told Israel Radio.
Government sources in Jerusalem also told Israel Radio that the quicker Israel adopts the road map for peace as the preferred diplomatic initiative, the more likely it will ward off American pressure to concede to a Palestinian state within the framework of an alternative plan that is less agreeable to Israel.
Reuters A day after President Barack Obama told Israel its key ally would no longer tolerate building settlements in the West Bank, the European Union was considering using its trade clout to bolster U.S. pressure, diplomats said. The EU is the Jewish state's biggest trading partner and one option it may have is to crack down on fruit, vegetables, olive oil and other farm produce grown by Israeli settlers on "occupied" Palestinian land.
Guysen.International.News - 09/11/09
Concerns are growing in Israel's government over the possibility of a unilateral Palestinian declaration of independence within the 1967 borders with US recognition, after Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad allegedly reached a secret understanding with the Obama administration. The reports were revealed in a scoop by Haaretz.
The move could potentially be recognized by the United Nations Security Council. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recently asked the administration of U.S. President Barack Obama to veto any such proposal, after reports reached Jerusalem of support for such a declaration from major European Union countries, and apparently also certain U.S. officials.
Such recognition would likely transform any Israeli presence across the Green Line, even in Jerusalem, into an illegal incursion to which the Palestinians would be entitled to engage in measures of self-defense.
The Bottom Line
Obama appears to be regarding Israel as just one small piece (pawn) on the global chessboard that he is playing to achieve his objectives for the good of America (of Islam?) and then of the world. By linking Israel and Iran as a simple issue of “solve Islam’s issues with Israel and we will solve the Nuclear Iran issue at the same time” he appears to be in denial of a whole raft of problems. At the same time he is pushing Israel into a position of being completely alone and having to take action without any international support to protect against the promised nuclear annihilation. Surely this is a scenario for World War III!
It appears to this observer that Obama is playing chess as if it were draughts / chequers; unaware that it is the God of Israel who is moving the pieces on the world’s chessboard and that the USA and its president are just one of the pieces. It also appears that Obama is hoping to save the world by continuing the brilliant electioneering that brought him success in the presidential elections. Winning elections and saving the world are not the same thing!
We Christian Zionists cannot influence the president of the United States (whatever our opponents believe) but Christians need to see the situation as it really is, from God’s point of view, and be watching, thinking and praying from that viewpoint rather than from the secular, human centred viewpoint.
Is Obama firm against terrorism?
Apart from distancing himself from the unfortunate abuses of prisoners in Iraq, his administration appears to be going to impossible lengths to be nice to Muslim terrorists.Gary Bauer - The Weekly Standard and Fox News are reporting today that the Obama Administration has “quietly” ordered the FBI to read highly-valued terrorist suspects their Miranda rights at U.S. military detention facilities in Afghanistan. If you have watched any television crime show you are probably familiar with the Miranda warning. When a suspect is arrested, police are required to tell him: “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.”
There is growing concern at President Obama's use of Executive Orders, according to Bill Wilson. Additional observations from wildolive.
In a wide-sweeping Executive Order issued Friday, March 16, the man who occupies the Oval Office under the guise of “Defense Resource Preparedness” has ordered the nationalization of all of America’s natural resources, energy, private industry, property, transportation, food resources, health supplies, farm equipment, and technology--even all potable water. .............
Authority for this action, according to the Executive Order, is derived from the Truman-era Defense Production Act of 1950 ..............
There is cause for great alarm in this Executive Order because it is unnecessary except to establish how new government agencies should coordinate defense preparedness under the 1950 DPA. This president, however, appears to have subtly expanded the depth of powers where every aspect of life, liberty, property and human sustenance are subservient to the federal government. If exercised in an authoritative manner, it appears that the White House could flip the switch from a free society to totalitarianism, using the homeland radicalization as a minimal justification. Every aspect of the Constitutional Bill of Rights could be suspended if this Executive Order is allowed to stand...........
Given the White House-directed 2009 Homeland Security assessment that conservative Christians are “right wing extremists”; that there have been requests for proposals on FEMA camp (concentration camps) activations; that the Defense Authorization Act opened the door for American citizens to be held without due process; ..............
(British citizens are being extradited to the USA for alleged offences, unrelated to security, under a UK government extradition treaty! - Perhaps criticizing him on a web site is not so prudent? - But, hey, the Tribulation is coming anyway!)
Executive Orders such as this are dictatorships in the making. Proverbs 29:2 says, “When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked bear rule, the people mourn.”............
Read the Executive Order here: http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/03/16/executive-order-national-defense-resources-preparedness
Read history of the Defense Production Act of 1950 here: http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a402217.pdf
Read another analysis provided by The Intel Hub: http://theintelhub.com/2012/03/18/executive-doomsday-order-obama-authorizes-gov-to-seize-farms-food-processing-plants-energy-resources-transportation-skilled-laborers-during-national-emergency/
Full text here - http://www.dailyjot.com/dailyjot/Home.html
Benghazi might have been the end of this presidency By Bill Wilson -
extracts - before the Nov. 6 election
(But it wasn't - he was re-elected.)
President Barack Obama will be embroiled in the Sept. 11 murders, in Benghazi, of the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans. This single event, if prosecuted by the appropriate authorities, has the potential to end this Administration or, at least, cripple it.
There could be ongoing criminal and civil proceedings linking this presidency to a myriad of charges of cover-ups, international intrigue, aiding terrorist organizations, conspiracy, high crimes and misdemeanors, perhaps even treason.
An Oct. 26 Fox News report said that CIA sources told reporter Jennifer Griffin that there was far more than a cover-up. Griffin reports there were three separate requests for outside military assistance to help the ambassador during the attack radioed to "higher headquarters." Each time, the CIA agents were told to "stand down."
As Obama sought re-election, what was the reality of his claims about his concern for Israel
From an article by Barry Rubin - Rubin Reports, June 1st, 2012
Many Americans, and particularly Jews, are starting to receive mailings encouraging them to vote for or donate to the re-election campaign of President Barack Obama by arguing that he is pro-Israel. The arguments are very thin and selective but are presented as if they represent the totality of Obama policy. The main arguments are:
Is Obama a Muslim? - What is that ring he wears?
What should we learn from his childhood history?
Daniel Pipes analyses - www.danielpipes.org/11952/obama-muslim-childhood
Joel Gilbert, director and writer of “Dreams from My Real Father" says the documentary now is available on the Netflix streaming service, giving another 27 million households across America access. “Dreams from My Real Father" - - DVD here)
Daily Mail (UK) 29 September 2012
Barack Obama and his family cost the taxpayer $1.4billion per year, according to a recently published book. By contrast, the British Royal Family costs less than $60million each year.
Two of the principal costs of the the Obama presidency - and any other presidency - are staffing and security, according to Robert Keith Gray's book Presidential Perks Gone Royal. This means paying for hundreds of Secret Service agents, travel in the secure space of Air Force One and funding a team of doctors to follow Mr Obama around.
But even this essential expense can be exploited to political ends, according to Mr Gray, a former staffer for Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush.
Air Force One: The presidential jet is one massive White House expense.
The biggest expense is President Barack Obama’s round trip flight to Hawaii via Air Force One. frontpagemag.com (twice, because he broke his holiday to return to Washington)
A Congressional Research Service report released in May 2012 said the plane typically used by the President, a Boeing 747, costs $179,750 per hour to operate. The U.S. Air Force has listed the cost of travel as high as $181,757 per flight hour. Travel time for Air Force One direct from Washington D.C. to Hawaii is about 9 hours or as high as $1,635,813 each way for a total of $3,271,622 for the round trip to Hawaii and back. The cost for USAF C-17 cargo aircraft that transports the Presidential limos, helicopters and other support equipment to Hawaii has never been disclosed in the years the President has traveled to Hawaii.
Much of the money spent on Mr Obama's family goes to perks such as entertainment and household expenses. For example, the White House contains a movie theatre which is manned by projectionists 24 hours a day in case one of the family feels like a trip to the cinema. And even the Obamas' dog Bo costs the taxpayer thousands of dollars - his handler is reportedly paid over $100,000 a year.
Another huge presidential outgoing, according to Mr Gray, comes in the form of staff members who can be appointed by the commander-in-chief at his own personal discretion. 226 members of Mr Obama's staff are apparently paid over $100,000 - and the President can increase their salaries at any time.
Click the banner below to go to the site map and choose another page