Posts Tagged ‘Hamas’
In Egypt, the Muslim Brotherhood government that Obama arms, funds and supports is violently persecuting religious minorities, using our tax money to do it:
Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood’s governing majority, is not actually crucifying the nation’s Christians. But they are nonetheless actively persecuting Coptic Christians who are said to be one-tenth of the population of the largest Arab country. A photograph of two young men set afire during recent demonstrations is pretty striking.
Demonstrations have turned into riots as Egypt’s police cracked down on the Copts. The Copts were protesting against increasing sectarian violence directed at the country’s Christian minority.
Typically, what has been happening is the Copts protest against Islamist violence directed at them and their churches. St. Mark’s Cathedral has been the target of Muslim extremists in recent week. When the Copts face police, they get tear gassed. And then they are the ones arrested. The Muslim Brotherhood authorities will pick up Coptic youth—hopefully the ones not yet set on fire—and jail them.
Then, the police grab some of the Islamists perpetrators and jail them. Later, following a much-ballyhooed “reconciliation,” the authorities release all—perpetrators and victims alike.
In Syria, the rebels that the U.S. is supporting – who are trying to overthrow Assad – are Islamic extremists who are threatening to exterminate any Christians left behind who don’t convert to Islam:
Syria’s Christians fear an Islamist takeover should the current government be overthrown. During the ongoing civil war there has been a well-documented rise in the number of salafi-jihadist groups operating in Syria that pose a direct threat to Syria’s Christian community. These militant opposition forces espouse an Islamist ideology, which incorporates elements of Wahhabism and Salafism and whose stated goals and objectives are by definition hostile towards Christians. Firsthand accounts from Syrian Christian refugees in Lebanon reported by award winning investigative journalist Nuri Kino detail the horror in which they described kidnappings, rapes, harassment, theft and other violent reprisals at the hands of Islamist groups.
Those who survived reported “just being Christian is enough to be a target,” disproving theories that violence and kidnapping directed towards Syrian Christians is purely incidental or for economic reasons.
Once again, our taxpayer money is going towards funding Islamic extremism and the suppression of religious liberty.
Obama came to Israel for the deliberate purpose of encouraging the radical left within the country to put pressure on Israel’s government to cave to his “solution” of returning Israel to its indefensible 1967 borders. He came to undermine and agitate, while spewing platitudes about how Israel should try to “walk in the shoes” of terrorists who fire rockets and suicide bombers at civilian targets.
According to our anti-Semitic Secretary of State, Israel is supposed to give up land and set terrorists free in exchange for, not cessation of hostilities, but the possibility of “talks” with an enemy that openly declares it wants to drive every last Jew into the sea.
Channel 10 News reported that Kerry is planning on offering Israel and the PA an outline which would see Israel releasing terrorists from its prisons and transferring areas from Area B, which is under joint PA-Israeli control under the Oslo Accords, to Area A which is under full PA control.
Kerry’s outline would have the PA undertaking a return to the negotiating table and promising not to file lawsuits against Israel with the International Criminal Court.
[…] Kerry will be Obama’s new pointman on the Middle East, as part of the renewed U.S. efforts to push the sides back to negotiations.
Abbas has continuously imposed preconditions on peace talks and has demanded that Israel freeze Jewish construction in Judea, Samaria, and eastern Jerusalem. When Israel froze construction for a ten-month period in 2010, however, he refused to come to the table.
Notice that the PA agreeing to end terrorism or calls for Israel’s destruction is not on the list. Israel will release terrorists and turn over territory and in exchange Abbas will agree to meet for negotiations.
Can’t we just get Carter back in the White House? It would be an improvement over what is now the most Anti-Israel Administration ever, regardless of that farce of a visit.
Obama has gone out of his way to insult Israel in every possible manner during this, his first trip to the Holy Land.
First, Obama refused to invite Israeli students who studied in the West Bank to attend his speech. In his mind, they are “occupiers.”
Then he made a point to deliver his speech under the glorious banner of the butcher of Gaza, Yasser Arafat, to a group of hand-picked leftist radical university students. He even quoted communist agitator Saul Alinsky to them, advising them to “see the world as it should be.” With Israel wiped into the sea, I suppose?
He compared the conflict between Israel and “Palestine” to the relationship between the U.S. and Canada (when was the last time Canada fired rockets at us or sent suicide bombers across our borders to kill women and children?).
He insisted that Israel has a “partner” for peace with Abbas, who is dedicated to following in Arafat’s bloody footsteps:
“But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority,” Obama continued, “I genuinely believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. I believe that. And they have a track record to prove it.”
Clearly, Abbas doesn’t see it that way:
On his side of the table, President Abbas told a Russian interviewer, “As far as I am concerned, there is no difference between our policies and those of Hamas. So why are they labeled as terrorists? In my opinion, [the EU] can remove Hamas [from the list], why not?”
That question needs to be asked of Obama who claims that Abbas is a “true partner” even while Abbas claims that he is just like Hamas.
Jihad Watch reviews Obama’s speech with the sarcastic headline, “Obama tells “Palestinians” to cut out the genocidal jihadist rhetoric and rocket attacks — no, wait…”:
Actually, he pretended that they have already done that. He spent his time hectoring the only side that really wants peace as if it were the only obstacle to that peace, and called upon it to take steps that would seriously imperil its survival. “Obama tells Israel: ‘Peace is the only path to true security,'” by Stephanie Condon for CBS News, March 21:
Speaking before a lively and receptive crowd of 600 Israeli students, President Obama today urged the youth of Israel to accept “the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.” A two-state solution, the president suggested, is the only viable path forward for Israel, given the political and technological changes underway.”Peace is necessary. I believe that,” Mr. Obama said, speaking at the Jerusalem International Convention Center on his second day in Israel. “I believe that peace is the only path to true security. You have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future.”
Yes, creating a new base for jihad attacks against Israel will certainly secure the Zionist dream.
With the fast-moving developments in the Middle East sparked by the Arab Spring and the spread of democratizing technology, Mr. Obama said, “This is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve and commitment for peace.”
That “wave of revolution” brought to power governments that are unanimously and indefatigably hostile to Israel. So apparently Obama wants Israel to respond to this new threat not by preparing itself for a war that appears to be inevitable, but by pretending that the developments are positive and doing nothing to protect itself.
[I]n Jerusalem, Obama continued to insist that negotiations would be the real solution, despite all evidence to the contrary.
He suggested that Israel would not be going anywhere, despite its enemies opposition to its existence. But he actually stated that Israel could not continue to exist unless it made concessions to the Palestinians: “Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine.”
He offered no real solutions on how Israel would stave off its enemies in the aftermath of a devastating Muslim Brotherhood sea change throughout the Middle East. Actually, he went further – he said that in the aftermath of a popular revolution bringing Israel’s direct enemies to power, Israel should cave: “This is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve for peace.”
But all that was prelude. His real agenda was hijacking the Jewish story to apply to Palestinian Arabs who largely support the outright destruction of the state of Israel. “I believe that Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea: the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own,” Obama said. He then stated, “the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination and justice must also be recognized.
“Put yourself in their shoes,” the President condescendingly urged, to a population assaulted with rockets and suicide bombs for decades. “Look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of her own, and lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements of her parents every single day.” Obama did not mention the basic fact that the Palestinian leadership has repeatedly denied every multilateral and Israeli offer for a state; that they have stolen hundreds of millions of dollars from economic development; that they have channeled cash toward funding a low-level terror war with Israel; that Israel has handed over vast swaths of land to Palestinian Authority control. And Obama didn’t bother to explain how justice requires the creation of a terror state that would murder gays and condemn women to second-class status. No, Obama said, it was Israel’s lack of understanding that was the chief barrier to peace.
So how did Gaza respond to his pandering? They fired rockets into Israel.
Jerusalem Post Editor Caroline Glick noticed some other extremely disturbing aspects to his visit:
The only revealing aspect of Obama’s itinerary is his decision to on the one hand bypass Israel’s elected representatives by spurning the invitation to speak before the Knesset; and on the other hand to address a handpicked audience of university students – an audience grossly overpopulated by unelectable, radical leftists.
In the past, US presidents have spoken before audiences of Israeli leftists in order to elevate and empower the political Left against the Right. But this is the first time that a US president has spurned not only the elected Right, but elected leftist politicians as well, by failing to speak to the Knesset, while actively courting the unelectable radical Left through his talk to a university audience.
[…] There are two possible policies Obama would want to empower Israel’s radical, unelectable Left in order to advance. First, he could be strengthening these forces to help them pressure the government to make concessions to the Palestinians in order to convince the Palestinian Authority to renew negotiations and accept an Israeli peace offer.
While Obama indicated in his interview with Channel 2 that this is his goal, it is absurd to believe it. Obama knows there is no chance that the Palestinians will accept a deal from Israel. PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor Yasser Arafat both rejected Israeli peace offers made by far more radical Israeli governments than the new Netanyahu government. Moreover, the Palestinians refused to meet with Israeli negotiators while Mubarak was still in power. With the Muslim Brotherhood now in charge in Cairo, there is absolutely no way they will agree to negotiate – let alone accept a deal.
This leaves another glaring possibility. Through the radical Left, Obama may intend to foment a pressure campaign to force the government to withdraw unilaterally from all or parts of Judea and Samaria, as Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005. If this is Obama’s actual policy goal, it would represent a complete Europeanization of US policy toward Israel. It was the EU that funded radical leftist groups that pushed for Israel’s unilateral withdrawals from Lebanon in 2000 and Gaza in 2005.
And in the past week, a number of commentators have spoken and written in favor of such a plan.
The is truth we don’t know why Obama is coming to Israel. The Obama administration has not indicated where its Israel policy is going. And Obama’s Republican opposition is in complete disarray on foreign policy and not in any position to push him to reveal his plans.
What we can say with certainty is that the administration that supports the “democratically elected” Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and did so much to clear all obstacles to its election, is snubbing the democratically elected Israeli government, and indeed, Israel’s elected officials in general. Obama’s transmission of this message in the lead-up to this visit, through symbols and action alike does not bode well for Israel’s relations with the US in the coming four years.
There is no question about it: Obama went to Israel for the express purpose of undermining their position, legitimizing their enemies, and empowering the radical left within their borders to push Israel into alignment with the demands of anti-Zionists.
He releases a video which shows this map just before flying over to Israel. So “diplomatic” of him.
The map of the Middle East displayed in an Obama administration video released days before President Barack Obama’s visit to Israel shows the Jewish state dispossessed of substantial parts of its current territory, including its capital.
The map of Israel, displayed repeatedly during the video, shows the Golan Heights, Jerusalem, northern Israel, and areas surrounding what is currently the West Bank as non-Israeli territory. The Golan Heights is shown as part of Syria; Jerusalem is shown as part of the West Bank; and northern Israel is shown as part of Lebanon.
The itinerary on the White House website also implies that Jerusalem is neither Israel’s capital nor even part of Israel.
Rest assured, the eyes of radical Muslims around the world are watching. They know this shift means they have Obama’s blessing to steal this land from Israel.
New CIA Director John Brennan was sworn in this week on a 1787 copy of the constitution from the national archives, instead of the Bible:
“Director Brennan told the president that he made the request to the archives because he wanted to reaffirm his commitment to the rule of law as he took the oath of office as director of the CIA,” Earnest said.
The Constitution itself went into effect in 1789. But troublemaking blogger Marcy Wheeler points outthat what was missing from the Constitution in 1787 is also quite symbolic: The Bill of Rights, which did not officially go into effect until December 1791 after ratification by states. (Caution: Marcy’s post has some strong language.)
That means: No freedom of speech and of the press, no right to bear arms, no Fourth Amendment ban on “unreasonable searches and seizures,” and no right to a jury trial.
How … symbolic?
There are two possible reasons for a new office holder to refuse to lay their hand on the Bible while swearing an oath, as has been the tradition in America for over two centuries.
On the one hand, he may refuse because he intends to break his oath, and therefore wants to avoid swearing on the Bible and the inescapable accountability to God that it would bring.
The other possibility is that he doesn’t respect the Bible as a sacred document and views it as too “religious” (or contrary to his own religion), and therefore seeks to publicly demonstrate that he is not accountable to the God of the Bible.
Either way, it shows what a dangerous radical Obama has chosen to lead the one organization in the U.S. that holds our most closely guarded secrets.
Don’t you feel safe, now?
The Republicans had the power to stop this, but they once again cowered and caved, allowing Obama to appoint the most radical, left-wing, anti-Israel Secretary of Defense in American history. This is what “bipartisanship” and “moderation” look like in reality: compromising with evil.
Chuck Hagel has been confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Defense, ending a long seesaw battle over his nomination. The Senate moments ago voted 58 to 41 in favor of confirming Hagel. Hagel now replaces Leon Panetta at America’s top defense spot. (A full roll call of the Senate vote is at the end of this article.)
[…] Despite this opposition, the Senate earlier today easily voted to end its filibuster on Hagel, with a 71 to 27 cloture vote in which 18 Republicans joined with the Democrats to bring Hagel’s bid to a vote. Although the Democrats have 53 seats in the Senate and caucus with two Independents, Sens. Frank Lautenberg (New Jersey) and Mark Udall (Colorado) missed the cloture vote.
If preventing the nomination from getting to the floor for a vote was the only way to stop it, that’s what the Republicans should have done. There is NO REASON why the Republicans should not use every strategy available to prevent radicals from gaining power. The GOP is continually cooperating the the cutting of their own throats, and the destruction of the nation they claim to love. The minority is under no obligation to compromise with the majority in an area that they know to be wrong and destructive.
Their willingness to allow Hagel to be confirmed has set the stage for a massive war in the Middle East, if not world-wide. The blood of the innocent will be on their hands.
Hagel’s qualifications and ideological views were the source of controversy. Though he had voted for the Iraq War in 2002, Hagel had spent much of the subsequent decade criticizing the war and the foreign policy doctrines he believes to be responsible for it. Along the way, Hagel adopted or reinforced views that came back to haunt him: his opposition to sanctions against Iran; his support for aggressive nuclear disarmament; and his belief in negotiating with anti-Israel terror groups such as Hamas.
[…] Aside from its effects on policy at the Pentagon, where Hagel will start his job with a diminished stature, the enduring legacy of the Hagel confirmation fight will likely be increased division between the two parties on Israel policy. Many of Hagel’s professed views about Israel would, until very recently, have been unacceptable to Democrats as well as Republicans. Yet during the Obama era, and under the influence of left-wing groups within the party, Democrats have shifted significantly on the issue.
Sentimentally, both parties are pro-Israel, but Democrats’ policy views place them sharply in opposition to the policies of most Israeli governments, and somewhat at odds with the strong pro-Israel policy preferences of the majority of Americans, as well as the preferences of the peace-seeking yet security-conscious Israeli public.
This is the same guy who in 2010 called jihad a “legitimate tenet of Islam.”
He’s also responsible for the White House leaks of secret information about the Osama Bin Laden raid to Hollywood producers, which put the lives of Navy Seals in jeopardy.
The man is a traitor who belongs in jail, not at the helm of our most important intelligence agency!
Just when you thought that Chuck Hagel was as bad as it was going to get, wait until you meet John Brennan. America, meet your new CIA Director.
Brennan gave a speech to Islamic law students at New York University, where he was introduced by Ingrid Mattson, president of the Islamic Society of North America. Mattson, who had been involved with the Obama inaugural prayer service, had come under fire then for her organization’s longstanding terrorist support.
During his NYU speech, Brennan defended the administration’s highly unpopular move to try al-Qaeda operations chief Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in federal court (which the administration eventually backed away from). He claimed that terrorists are the real victims of “political, economic and social forces,” said that Islamic terrorists were not jihadists, referenced “Al-Quds” instead of Jerusalem, and described the 20 percent of former Guantanamo detainees returning to terrorist activities as “not that bad” when compared to ordinary criminal recidivism.
During a talk at the Nixon Center in May 2010, Brennan said that the administration was looking for ways to build up “moderate elements” of the Lebanese terrorist organization Hezbollah.
Two weeks later, at a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), Brennan defended the Islamic doctrines of jihad as “a holy struggle” and “a legitimate tenet of Islam.”
And Brennan has had a great track record so far. A truly spectacular track record which makes him unambiguously qualified to replace Petraeus.
[A] known top U.S. Hamas official had been given a guided tour of the top-secret National Counterterrorism Center and FBI Academy at Quantico under Brennan’s watch, several former top intelligence and defense officials again called for his resignation.
Last month, it was revealed that Brennan was implicated in a serious intelligence breach detailing an ongoing counterterrorism operation led by British and Saudi intelligence agencies that had placed an operative deep inside the al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) organization. The White House leak forced the termination of the operation and the immediate withdrawal of the double agent, infuriating our foreign intelligence allies.
Just two weeks ago, internal White House documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a FOIA request revealed that Brennan and other White House officials had met twice with Hollywood filmmakers preparing a movie about the killing of Osama bin Laden, providing them unparalleled access including the identity of a SEAL Team 6 operator and commander along with other classified information. Amazingly, these high-level White House meetings between Brennan and the Hollywood filmmakers took place just weeks after the Pentagon and CIA had publicly warned of the dangers posed by leaks surrounding the successful SEAL raid killing bin Laden.
This is an absolute slap in the face to Israel, and they know it.
It is official: President Barack Obama will announce the nomination of former Senator Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense on Monday afternoon. In making his choice, the president has fulfilled the worst expectations of his foreign policy critics, while delighting anti-war activists and the anti-Israel left.
The Hagel nomination represents the return of the radical Barack Obama, hitherto hidden under an opportunistic anti-terror persona.
There is, as Bill Kristol observed last week, “no case for Hagel.” His supporters cannot cite any substantive reason he should be Secretary of Defense; instead, they argue that “Hagel must be appointed in order to spite many of his critics.” Peter Beinart of the Daily Beast confirms that assessment with his weak defense of Hagel this morning: he must be appointed, Beinart argues, to destroy “the Republican foreign policy establishment.”
Not to defend the country, not to strengthen our military, but to win a political argument.
Typical of this divisive, exploitative White House. They never miss an opportunity to go straight for the jugular.
Regardless of whether or not he wins, Arutz Sheva points out that this means that Israel will be forced to face Iran alone:
Amnon Lord, a leading political commentator at Makor Rishon andMaariv newspapers, opined Sunday that if President Barack Obama succeeds in appointing Chuck Hagel Secretary of Defense, Israel will have to face Iran on its own.
And yet, said Lord, “if AIPAC goes intoturbo front wheel drive in order to prevent the appointment, this would be a mistake. Hagel is bad news, not because of his attitude toward Israel but mostly because of his strong isolationist tendency and his being a defeatist dove on the matter of Iran.”
The will to appoint Hagel exposes Obama’s true world view, Lord explained. “The problem is, first and foremost, the United States’, not Israel’s.” In 45 or 50 years, he added, the United States has gone from believing the entire free world needs to be protected in order for the U.S. to be safe, to a point in which the United States seems to think there is nothing that requires its intervention beyond, perhaps, Venezuela andNicaragua.
Egypt is now officially under the tyranny of Sharia law. Human rights abuses, especially against women and religious minorities, will be swift and brutal. I never thought I’d see the day when our own president would be deliberately complicit in helping Islamic terrorists strip away people’s basic human rights.
Sharia is now Egypt’s law of the land. The Islamist-written draft constitution was approved by about 64% of voters. The Muslim Brotherhood believes its time has come. At long last, it has overtaken the land where the group was founded in 1928. For them, this is a blessing from Allah for their years of discipline and patience. And that blessing will continue as it erects a bloc to eliminate Israel, restore Islamic dominion in Europe and wage “civilization jihad” against the West.
The Egyptian opposition, consolidated into the National Salvation Front, cried foul at the results of the first round of voting. It claimed that 66% voted against it in the first round and the result was skewed by mismanagement, vote rigging and election violations. The Front is demanding a formal investigation into the irregularities. The Islamists run the Egyptian government, so that will go nowhere.
[…] This weekend’s passing of the constitution is a bigger victory for the Brotherhood than the sweeping of parliament and taking of the presidency. Elected offices are won and lost but the constitution is here to stay. And that means that Sharia law in Egypt is here to stay.
These missiles were capable of reaching Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Iran hopes to use Gaza to distract Israel and tie up its resources as they work on the final stretch towards acquiring a nuclear weapon to obliterate Israel entirely.
Hundreds of Iranian-made, long-range missiles already smuggled into Gaza provided a secret sense of urgency behind Israel’s recent campaign against Hamas, and the the Jewish state acted with the Obama administration’s full knowledge, intelligence experts told FoxNews.com.
Jonathan Schanzer, a former counter-terrorism analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury, said the real agenda behind Israel’s assault last month on Hamas’ munitions stockpiles and smuggling tunnels was not simply to end the daily barrage of relatively primitive rockets that have become part of daily life in Israel. The real mission was to eliminate as many as 100 Iranian-built Fajr5 missiles – with the power to reach Tel Aviv – that had been sneaked into Gaza through Egypt. The Obama administration knew in advance of the operation and agreed that the missiles, built in a Sudanese factory, had to be neutralized to protect millions of Israeli citizens who were now within range of the deadly Iranian weapons, according to Schanzer.
“The U.S. was fully aware of what was going to come in Gaza,” Schanzer, now vice president of research at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, told FoxNews.com. “They said nothing for the first few days of the operation; there was dead silence from [Obama].”
Israel essentially achieved its main aims within the first few days, said Schanzer, noting that Michael Oren, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., said as much when he remarked on Day Three of the campaign: “We have run out of good targets.”
Rocket attacks from Gaza were commonplace in Israel prior to the campaign, dubbed “Operation Pillar of Defense,” with at least 750 projectiles falling on the area close to the border since January. The attacks were ratcheted up in early November, which seemed to prompt Israel’s move and the deployment of its vaunted “Iron Dome” defense system. But behind the scenes, the Israel Defense Force (IDF) had a more pressing need to launch their intense bombardment on Hamas’ weapons stores.
Congratulations, Obama. The Egyptian people are now living under a new dictator who has sworn to impose Sharia law and break the peace with Israel. The human rights abuses and blood that is shed will be on your hands.
Yesterday, Obama-approved Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood president Mohammed Morsi declared that he would have a referendum on December 15 to greenlight the newly rammed-through draft constitution that enshrines Shariah law in Egypt. Morsi has bought the support of the military via the new constitution, which prevents the military from having any civilian oversight, and allows the military to prosecute civilians.
Now Muslim Brotherhood protesters have shut down the Egyptian Supreme Court, forcing them to postpone their ruling on the legitimacy of the constitutional assembly that originally ratified the new constitution.
So much for the Arab Spring. The Muslim Brotherhood has now reached a compromise solution with the army that makes both of them unanswerable within the country. And the Obama administration remains silent.
“President Obama is supporting a terrorist,” a man told me amid chants of “Leave! Leave!” in Tahrir Square and “Down, down with the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood’s spiritual leader.” Before, it was “Down, down with Mubarak.”
[…] Egypt was torn in half just over a week ago when Morsi made himself more powerful than Mubarak ever was, and the kings before him. Morsi declared himself above judicial oversight, his decisions final and unassailable. He made himself, according to critics, a new pharaoh on the Nile. Imagine if, after five months in office, an American president announced that he could pass any law he pleased regardless of Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court. Imagine if he said his decisions were final and inspired by God.
Morsi last night apologized for the power grab and said he didn’t want the extra authorities, but that they were necessary for the good of the people and to safeguard the revolution. Dictators always say stuff like that. Burn down the village to save it.
At first Egyptians were shocked that Morsi would make such an obvious and, according to Egyptian judges, blatantly illegal move. It’s clear now, as some analysts have long feared, that the brotherhood is making sure it doesn’t lose power again by taking control of Egypt’s constitution. The Brotherhood wants to write the rules of the game. Now they’ve done that too.
And Obama still supports his dictatorship, refusing to side with the freedom fighters he supported when they overthrew Mubarak, a peaceful American ally. Obviously it wasn’t freedom and democracy for Egypt that Obama was interested in. If it were, Obama would be challenging Morsi’s unconstitutional power grabs.
The UN is a corrupt organization dominated by dictators and radical Islamists. They have no right to give Israel’s land away. They should be immediately defunded and ejected from U.S. soil.
The U.N. General Assembly approved an implicit recognition of Palestinian statehood on Thursday despite threats by the United States and Israel to punish the Palestinian Authority by withholding funds for the West Bank government.
A resolution that would lift the Palestinian Authority’s U.N. observer status from “entity” to “non-member state,” like the Vatican, passed easily in the 193-nation General Assembly. The vote was 138 in favor, 9 against, 41 abstentions.
Here are the 9 nations that voted “no,” according to the AP:
Voting “no” Thursday were Israel, the United States and Canada, joined by the Czech Republic, Panama and several Pacific island nations: Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru and Palau.
My guess is that the only reason Obama supported a “no” vote is that he doesn’t want to lose the Jewish Democrat vote before the 2014 elections.
Individual governments are not required to comply with General Assembly resolutions. Thus, as a practical matter, the U.N. vote changes little about how other governments regard Palestinian statehood claims. The countries that already recognize “Palestine” as a state—roughly 130 countries—will continue to do so. Their support in the U.N. today for the upgrade in Palestinian status is a reflection of their position, not a new development.
Similarly, those states voting against or abstaining from the vote are unlikely to change their position because a majority of the General Assembly supported the resolution. Most notably, the U.S. and Israel do not recognize Palestinian statehood claims and see the vote as a deliberate attempt by the Palestinians to achieve their goals while circumventing negotiations with Israel.
As President Obama said when the Palestinians sought U.N. membership last year, “efforts to delegitimize Israel will end in failure. Symbolic actions to isolate Israel at the United Nations in September won’t create an independent state.” They remain insistent that recognition of “Palestine” can come only from a negotiated peace agreement with Israel.
The vote does, however, have significance in the U.N. system and for other international organizations. The Palestinian Authority will almost certainly exploit its upgrade to non-member state status to seek membership in U.N. specialized agencies, as it did last year with UNESCO. Their case will be strengthened by today’s vote. It will be particularly hard for those specialized agencies, like the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Telecommunication Union, that include the Vatican among their membership to deny the Palestinians membership because the Holy See is also a U.N. non-member state observer.
U.S. law currently prohibits funding U.N. organizations that grant membership to the Palestinians. The Palestinian effort to gain membership in other U.N. specialized agencies fizzled when the U.S. cut funding for UNESCO as required by U.S. law. The most significant impediment to Palestinian membership efforts in other specialized agencies is the threat of losing U.S. funding, which means that the U.S. must maintain and enforce current law.
Somehow I doubt Obama plans to withdraw funding, which means his actions will once again speak louder than his cheap rhetoric.
Trying to negotiate a “cease fire” with Hamas is like trying to negotiate one with Al Qaeda. If they agree to it, it’s only to give themselves time to get stronger and more lethal.
It’s unreasonable to expect Israel to try and negotiate with terrorists who think it’s Allah’s will that all Jews be exterminated and wiped from the face of the earth.
The ceasefire began the way that the war did; with a flight of rockets falling from the sky over Israel’s battered south where working class families wait to learn if they will have to spend the night in safe rooms and shelters.
There is no ceasefire, despite declarations from the international community to the contrary, just as there has been no peace for the past twenty years despite peace accords being signed.
In the language of diplomacy, ceasefire does not mean that the rockets will stop falling and peace does not mean an end to the violence. They mean only that Israel is not allowed to fight back when the rockets fall and the bombs go off. Peace does not mean an absence of killing; what it means is that the terrorists are the only ones allowed to kill.
The ceasefire means that diplomacy has succeeded and the goal of diplomacy in the Middle East is not to make it possible for Israeli children to sleep safely at night, but to pull back Israel from finishing a war.
Diplomacy salvaged Cairo and Damascus after their Arab Socialist regimes began and lost two wars. It saved Arafat in Lebanon and plenty of times afterward. Diplomacy has protected Hamas nearly as many times as it saved the greasy thug of Ramallah. And that same onslaught of diplomacy has made Israel’s existence perilous and unstable, as its armed forces gather to reply to an attack only to be pulled back when there is any danger of them actually winning.
[…] What Israel wants is not to be shot at. What the terrorists want is to shoot at Israel. And the peace negotiations always conclude with the terrorists getting what they want, while the Israelis get bullet holes in their cars, stab wounds in their necks and blast debris in their ceilings.
Israelis accepted Oslo because it was supposed to mean an end to the violence. Instead the violence became permanent. And now peace isn’t even on the table anymore, only temporary ceasefires that mean the enemy has taken enough damage that it would like an opportunity to rearm and regroup. After giving up its security, Israel has traded in the promise of permanent peace for the offer of a temporary ceasefire that does not even pretend to do anything except benefit the enemies who are determined to destroy it.
Any ceasefire with Hamas, even in the best of all possible worlds, is only a temporary affair, a lull in the fighting, not an ideal to strive for, and even the lull part will be missing here. Ceasefires do not bring peace; they only unnecessarily prolong the war. Israel has signed on to peace accords to show that it wants peace. Now it signs on to ceasefires in order to show that it would rather not fight.
Of course, it was the Obama White House that pressured Israelto accept a “cease fire” agreement with their terrorist neighbors who are dedicated to their annihilation even though he himself admits that the deal is “tenuous” at best.
Israeli soldiers are so frustrated by this capitulation that some took a pic of themselves spelling out the words “Bibi loser” in Hebrew:
As Wednesday night’s cease-fire went into effect–amidst continuing rocket fire from Hamas–many Israeli reservists returned home disappointed that the government had not launched the ground attack for which they had been called up. One soldier, quoted by Ynetnews, said that “as a resident of Beersheba [which was hit by several rocket attacks] there is a sense of disappointment. (The violence) will repeat itself and we’ll find ourselves back here again and again. They (government) should have let us complete the mission.”
Much of the Israeli public agrees that a ground war would have been preferable to no war at all, given the continued threat of attacks from Gaza–and given that Hamas is declaring victory. A new poll suggests that support for Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu has fallen sharply, by as much as 25 percent, since he accepted the cease-fire, likely after intense pressure from the Obama administration. A poll prior to the cease-fire indicated that 70% of Israelis opposed it, and wanted to fight to remove Hamas from Gaza altogether.
Hamas is declaring victory, bragging that “the occupation and its army were forced to accept our conditions for a cease-fire.” They’re demanding a Palestinian state that includes all the land the Arabs lost in the 1967 war, and a “right of return” for terrorists. Iran is celebrating what it sees as evidence of Israel’s weakness.
Still, William Jacobson points out that it wasn’t a total loss for Israel:
There is no way to spin this as an Israeli victory. But that doesn’t make it a loss. Think big picture.
Israel probably destroyed 80% of Hamas’ capabilities, and thereby destroyed 80% of Iran’s southern base to launch attacks against Israel in the even of a war over Iran’s nuclear program. To achieve the remaining 20% would have required efforts which may have damaged Israel’s ability to deal with Iran.
The fact is that Israel never has a free hand. When the President of the United States calls up and explicitly or implicitly says Stop, an Israeli Prime Minister needs to think through the consequences of saying No.
There may be times when No is the answer, but yesterday was not one of those times, when there are more existential threats to be dealt with in the coming year.
The world has a new radical Islamic dictator, courtesy of the Muslim Brotherhood Obama helped to overthrow our ally, Mubarak. The “Arab Spring” has become the “Islamic Winter.”
Egypt’s president on Thursday issued constitutional amendments that placed him above judicial oversight and ordered the retrial of Hosni Mubarak for the killing of protesters in last year’s uprising.
Mohammed Morsi also decreed immunity for the Islamist-dominated panel drafting a new constitution from any possible court decisions to dissolve it, a threat that had been hanging over the controversial assembly.
Liberal and Christian members withdrew from the assembly during the past week to protest what they say is the hijacking of the process by Morsi’s allies, who they saw are trying to push through a document that will have an Islamist slant marginalizing women and minority Christians and infringing on personal liberties. Several courts have been looking into cases demanding the dissolution of the panel.
The Egyptian leader also decreed that all decisions he has made since taking office in June and until a new constitution is adopted and a new parliament is elected — which is not expected before next spring — are not subject to appeal in court or by any other authority. He also barred any court from dissolving the Islamist-led upper house of parliament, a largely toothless body that has also faced court cases.
The moves effectively remove any oversight on Morsi, the longtime Muslim Brotherhood figure who became Egypt’s first freely elected president last summer after the Feb. 11, 2011 fall of autocrat Hosni Mubarak. They come as Morsi is riding high on lavish praise from President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton for mediating an end to eight days of fighting between Israel and Gaza’s Hamas rulers.
Morsi not only holds executive power, he also has legislative authority after a previous court ruling just before he took office on June 30 dissolved the powerful lower house of parliament, which was led by the Brotherhood. With two branches of power in his hands, Morsi has had repeated frictions with the third, the judiciary, over recent months.
“Morsi today usurped all state powers & appointed himself Egypt’s new pharaoh,” pro-reform leader Mohamed ElBaradei wrote on his Twitter account. “A major blow to the revolution that could have dire consequences.”
Even more ominously, it appears that Morsi’s power grab may have gotten the nod from the White House, in exchange for Egypt brokering a “cease fire” between Hamas and Israel:
As with so much else about this war, the timing is “intriguing”.
A day after the ceasefire, Morsi assumed near-dictatorial powers in Egypt. The timing of that is not likely to be a coincidence.
Either Morsi had cleared the assumption of such powers beforehand with Obama or assumed that he had demonstrated his importance to such an extent that Obama would not dare protest this action. It’s likely to be one or the other. And that raises one more troubling question.
Did Morsi give Hamas the go-ahead to launch a conflict with Israel in order to be able to broker a ceasefire and then use that as leverage for seizing domestic power?
Whenever you try to appease terrorists, it only makes them more aggressive.
Wall Street Journal columnist Bret Stephens confesses that he was wrong to promote Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza strip in 2005:
Sometimes it behooves even a pundit to acknowledge his mistakes. In 2004 as editor of the Jerusalem Post, and in 2006 in this column, I made the case that Israel was smart to withdraw its soldiers and settlers from the Gaza Strip. I was wrong.
My error was to confuse a good argument with good policy; to suppose that mere self-justification is a form of strategic prudence. It isn’t. Israel is obviously within its rights to defend itself now against a swarm of rockets and mortars from Gaza. But if it had maintained a military presence in the Strip, it would not now be living under this massive barrage.
Or, to put it another way: The diplomatic and public-relations benefit Israel derives from being able to defend itself from across a “border” and without having to get into an argument about settlements isn’t worth the price Israelis have had to pay in lives and terror.
That is not the way it seemed to me in 2004, when then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon decided to pull up stakes, reversing the very policy he had done so much to promote as a general and politician in the 1970s. Gaza, I argued, was vital neither to the Jewish state’s security nor to its identity. It was a drain on Israel’s moral, military, political and diplomatic resources. Getting out of the Strip meant shaving off nearly half of the Palestinian population (and the population with the highest birthrate), thereby largely solving Israel’s demographic challenge.
Withdrawal also meant putting the notion of land-for-peace to a real-world test. Would Gazans turn the Strip into a showcase Palestinian state, a Mediterranean Dubai, or into another Beirut circa 1982? If the former, then Israel could withdraw from the West Bank with some confidence. If the latter, it would put illusions to rest, both within Israel and throughout the Western world.
[…] Put simply, Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza yielded less security, greater diplomatic isolation, and a Palestinian regime even more radical and emboldened than it had been before. As strategic failures go, it was nearly perfect.
Now Israel has some difficult decisions to make. Will it try and maintain the current suicidal status quo? Or will it begin taking back territory needed to keep itself secure?
Terrorist militias serve an ideology, but function as a business. Al Qaeda, Hamas, Fatah or any other of the many groups blanketing the region, need money and weapons to be viable. They need state sponsors and the states that sponsor them want something in return. Terrorist groups find sponsors the way that Renaissance artists found patrons, they show off their skills and wait for someone to come calling with money and guns. And then they perform for their patrons.
Israel’s terrorist problem is unsolvable through any form of peace negotiations because there will always be sponsors. A terrorist group may sign a peace agreement, but then it quickly gets on the phone to its sponsors to assure them that it will go on committing acts of terror. Its militias are spun off into “separatist” or “splinter” groups that go on doing what they did before. And the group then asks its new friend American and Israeli friends for guns and money to fight these extremists. That way the terrorist groups get twice the money for terrorism and a farce of counter-terrorism.
Even if a terrorist leader is sincere, his movement is nothing but an umbrella group for terrorist militias. If the umbrella group stops funneling money from state sponsors to local militias, the militias go into business for themselves. And there is such a demand by sponsors for more and more “extreme” militias, that even the existing terrorist groups find themselves having to compete with newer and more violently Islamist militias.
Peace is useless and hopeless under these conditions. Fatah claimed that it could not control Hamas. Hamas claims it cannot control the men shooting rockets out of Gaza. The people shooting rockets out of Gaza will claim that they cannot control their fingers on the trigger. It’s plausible deniability all the way down when it’s convenient, but the real control is in the hands of regional regimes who feed coins into the slot and get out terrorism.
So what then is Israel fighting for? Peace with security. Which means slapping down Hamas hard enough that it will have to wait another 3-4 years before trying the same thing again, this time with bigger and better rockets. That was the policy six years ago and it’s the policy today.
[…] This is the status quo and it cannot be maintained indefinitely. The air raid sirens going off in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem warn that the war is heading into unsustainable territory. As Iran goes nuclear, Hizbullah is trying to become another Iran and Hamas is trying to become another Hizbullah. It is not a nuisance that can be ignored. Israel has no answer to the growing threat except to try and contain it through the same old methods that have now put Jerusalem and Tel Aviv into the line of fire.
Since 1992, Israel has been retreating and those retreats have replaced secure borders with borders of terror. Rather than reversing those withdrawals, the right has been satisfied with trying to stabilize them. But that has only created safe spaces for terror while setting the stage for the next round of retreats by the left which will create even broader territories of terror. These territories are staging areas for the next invasion, which will come not from Hamas, but a Muslim Brotherhood Egypt and an Islamist Turkey, once Israel has been sufficiently softened up.
The only way to end the threat of Hamas in Gaza is by retaking Gaza, but no such policy is on the table. Like America, Israel responds to terrorism not with the aim of achieving decisive victories, but with a policy of intimidating the terrorists into scaling down their attacks. This is a political policy of political generals and leads to terror becoming a permanent institution.
Israel has tried negotiating its way out of the terrorist trap. It has not tried fighting its way out. Israel has tried to escape the occupation, but in a region where you are either the occupier or the occupied, it may have no choice.
[…] Israel can retake Gaza once. Or it can retake Gaza every few years. It can have soldiers patrol Gaza or it can have rockets falling on Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. The options are as unfortunate as they are clear. The only hope for peace lies in driving out the terrorist militias who have turned Gaza and the West Bank into their own Somalia and Afghanistan and reclaiming the territory. Because after this fight is through, the next generation of rockets will go on being built and smuggled. And they will not fall in empty fields.
There can be farms and greenhouses on the hilltops of Gaza. Or there can be rockets.