The wildest conspiracy theory of them all...

Yesterday in the Times, I read something that even I could not have dreamed up.

A group of HRH Obama's LEFT wing supporters postulated that the only reason Obama's Iran strategy is SO incompetent. So poorly planned and executed, so doomed to failure is that...............

He WANTS it to fail!!! WHY? So that he can than justify a military attack to the American people.

They went on to say that the dog and pony show with Netanyahu last week was a front, and that this is a conspiracy involving the Egyptians, Israelis, Saudis, Soviets and Chinese.

I shudder at just how far those that believe in this guy will go.

Someone FINALLY gets it right...

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

What memorial day really means - and some perspective...

On the op-ed page of the NY Times today were the following incredible sketches done by a POW of the Japanese during WWII. For those arguing about torture, it might serve them well to remember exactly what our enemies do.. (not advocating anything, but simply giving perspective).

But this is what so many Americans have experienced and to that we owe them our undying thanks. To anyone that complained about John McCain's service, this day should have made you ashamed (just as the Republican attacks on John Kerry sickened me).

I would have posted this earlier, but I left my house this morning before the paper was delivered to take a special Memorial day ride up to West Point, and stop to watch a small town parade where we got to applaud veterans from the last 65 years.

Herr Fuhrer Strikes Again

If you continue to doubt my contention that Obama wants nothing more than to be a dicatator, and that his expansion of the worst of the Bush detention/wiretapping/state secrecy doctrine/torture/ and rendition policies are part of the overall plan, with his socialist economic agenda; are simply covers for the most unprecedented expansion of Presidential authority in history, here is a story in today's NY Times.

Prepping the way for exactly what I have described, his desire to arrest any political enemy he wants. He even had the gall to have this discussion in front of Human Rights groups.

Obama Is Said to Consider Preventive Detention Plan

By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG
Published: May 20, 2009

WASHINGTON - President Obama told human rights advocates at the White House on Wednesday that he was mulling the need for a "preventive detention" system that would establish a legal basis for the United States to incarcerate terrorism suspects who are deemed a threat to national security but cannot be tried, two participants in the private session said.

The discussion, in a 90-minute meeting in the Cabinet Room that included Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. and other top administration officials, came on the eve of a much-anticipated speech Mr. Obama is to give Thursday on a number of thorny national security matters, including his promise to close the detention center at the naval base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.

Human rights advocates are growing deeply uneasy with Mr. Obama's stance on these issues, especially his recent move to block the release of photographs showing abuse of detainees, and his announcement that he is willing to try terrorism suspects in military commissions - a concept he criticized bitterly as a presidential candidate.

The two participants, outsiders who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was intended to be off the record, said they left the meeting dismayed.

They said Mr. Obama told them he was thinking about "the long game" - how to establish a legal system that would endure for future presidents. He raised the issue of preventive detention himself, but made clear that he had not made a decision on it. Several senior White House officials did not respond to requests for comment on the outsiders’ accounts.

"He was almost ruminating over the need for statutory change to the laws so that we can deal with individuals who we can’t charge and detain," one participant said. "We’ve known this is on the horizon for many years, but we were able to hold it off with George Bush. The idea that we might find ourselves fighting with the Obama administration over these powers is really stunning."

The other participant said Mr. Obama did not seem to be thinking about preventive detention for terrorism suspects now held at Guantánamo Bay, but rather for those captured in the future, in settings other than a legitimate battlefield like Afghanistan. "The issue is," the participant said, "What are the options left open to a future president?"

Mr. Obama did not specify how he intended to deal with Guantánamo detainees who posed a threat and could not be tried, nor did he share the contents of Thursday’s speech, the participants said.

He will deliver the speech at a site laden with symbolism - the National Archives, home to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Across town, his biggest Republican critic, former Vice President Dick Cheney, will deliver a speech at the American Enterprise Institute.

Mr. Cheney and other hawkish critics have sought to portray Mr. Obama as weak on terror, and their argument seems to be catching on with the public. On Tuesday, Senate Democrats, in a clear rebuke to the White House, blocked the $80 million Mr. Obama had requested in financing to close the Guantánamo prison.

The lawmakers say they want a detailed plan before releasing the money; there is deep opposition on Capitol Hill to housing terrorism suspects inside the United States.

"He needs to convince people that he’s got a game plan that will protect us as well as be fair to the detainees," said Senator Lindsey Graham, Republican of South Carolina, who agrees with Mr. Obama that the prison should be closed. "If he can do that, then we’re back on track. But if he doesn’t make that case, then we’ve lost control of this debate."

But Mr. Obama will not use the speech to provide the details lawmakers want.

"What it’s not going to be is a prescriptive speech," said David Axelrod, Mr. Obama’s senior adviser. "The president wants to take some time and put this whole issue in perspective to identify what the challenges are and how he will approach dealing with them

The Myth of Settlements

One of the things you always hear from administrations that are not favorable to Israel, is discussion of stopping "settlements".

Bet you didn't know that there hasn't been a "settlement" built in more than 15 years.

Did you also know that at it's widest, Israel is only about 10-12 miles?

That Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, it's two major cities, have become so overpopulated and expensive that a new city has been literally built from nothing, in between these two metropolis' (inside what anyone agrees is Israel proper), which were already only about 1/2 hour apart?

That the Hebrew word for "town" yishoov, is what is also translated as "settlement" and that is why this is so often mistaken.

So why talk of stopping new settlements?

Because it is a canard. The only thing that has happened at settlements since the Oslo accords of the early 1990's is the natural population growth. Of which Israel's is the lowest in the region.

The only action on settlements in the last two decades has been the DISMANTLING of ALL OF THE GAZA SETTLEMENTS. And the relocation of the entire Israeli population of Gaza. Most of whom, like the Katrina victims, are still homeless.

In addition, several so called settlements in the West Bank have been dismantled.

However, Gaza is instructive. It took 60,000 Israeli troops to relocate several thousand Gazans.

How much of a disruption would it be to relocate everyone living in the Jerusalem suburbs - which is what they mean when they say settlements?

The brilliance of Obama...

One of the most difficult thing for me to teach my students when I am teaching them how to brief a case, or simply read a popular article, is how to parse opinion.

They struggle with questions that ask about whether or not two parties fully disagree, or reluctantly disagree, etc. What scale is the difference of opinion?

The better writers, like the best lawyers, always acknowledge the opposing opinion. Why? Two main reasons. You reduce the level of attentiveness of your opponents by doing so, and you disarm the best arguments against your position.

The natural inclination for anyone upon hearing you acknowledge the weaker parts of your argument is to feel that "well, they can't be that bad if he is discussing them".

What we saw from HRH Obama yesterday was exactly that. By talking about how anti abortionists and pro choice supporters 'agree on so much' he masks what he is really saying.

Now, I am un abashedly pro choice, so this is one of the rare places I agree with the king. But, here's the point.

As he does with all of his policies, he had an audience unaware of his real message.

And his message was clear. "I am pro choice. I don't care what you say."

But because he says it with a smile, and the true sophistry of a Harvard trained attorney, no one notices.

Now, regardless of what you think about abortion, his policy is pro choice. And what he did, was take those opponents and, for that day at least, make them take down their guard.

Combined with the right policies, this can be wonderful. But when you are stealing a country from it's people (us, folks) it is truly frightening.

Wake up folks. This is what he does every day. "I'm not running Chrysler, GM, AIG, The Banking system, the derivatives market". "I don't want a nuclear Iran" "I'm ending the Iraq conflict." "No more torture, rendition, wire tapping, secrecy..."

These are all lies, masked in what is brilliant sophistry.

What can we learn from Sri Lanka?

Most have probably not been following the events in Sri Lanka over the last month or so.

Good reason for that. The Sri Lankan government has not allowed any press coverage.

Coverage of what, you ask?

Well, the Tamil separatists have been waging a war for much of the last half century against the recognized government.

There have been various levels of conflict, appeasement, and even signed agreements.

The Tamil leader however, told his followers to boycott the last Sri Lankan election. What happened was that a new government, (ironically with the brother of the President becoming Defense Minister - the irony? He's an AMERICAN CITIZEN!!) was elected on a platform of ending the conflict.

So, for the last 3-4 weeks, refusing UN intervention, mediation from neighboring India, with bombings of civilian areas, hospitals, etc;

in other words, a full out assault, yesterday, the separatists gave up.

Where is the international outrage? The calls for war crimes tribunals?

Well, they're not Jews so no such thing.

But, as Israel learned after the second intifada, if you crush the terrorists, they are like bullies and will go away.

Maybe you don't remember the daily announcements of suicide bombings in Israel only 8 years ago. No more.

Will the Sri Lankan government continue to suffer from the same sort of random bombings, and terrorist acts? Of course! But the war is over.

Maybe our government can learn something? Nah, that would mean observing history and going against the appeasement/internationalist/progressive movement.

Obama Takes Iran off the Table.

The administration has informed Prime Minister Netanyahu that when he comes for his meeting with President, er, HRH Obama next week, that there will be no discussion of the Iranian issue.

I wonder how this will be viewed in Riyadh and Cairo, where Bibi has spent the past week frantically working with the Saudis and Egyptians coming up with a tripartide approach to this most dangerously naive of American dictato... er, leaders.

Perhaps, Obama does not want to talk about Iran because he knows Prime Minister Netanyahu opposes Obama's kid gloves treatment of the repressive Iranian regime. Netanyahu understands that if Iran attains nuclear capabilities it will threaten everyone. It's clear that the Obama Administration has reached the conclusion that we can live in a world with a nuclear Iran. It is clear that Obama does not want to debate these sharp differences of opinion. He does not want to be told that he is wrong. So instead of talking about this issue he is going to try and bully Israel into a failed Palestinian policy and try to deter Israel from attacking Iran's nuclear facilities.

Obama makes it official, part II... Israel is no longer an ally.

From this weeks "Eye on the UN"

Obama's U.N. Mistake
America is now on a collision course with Israel.
Anne Bayefsky

In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States on Monday, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn't fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.

It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously — meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: “The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009.”

This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January — which said only that “The Security Council welcomes the Quartet's consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.” Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League — most of whom don't recognize the right of Israel to exist — and one Jewish state. A great idea — if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.

The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab “Peace” Initiative. That's a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that “we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach.”

Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel's wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.'s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel's position: “Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States. . . . Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council.”

By contrast, Rice told reporters: “We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov's initiative to convene the Council, and we're very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council's behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we're pleased with the outcome.”

The Obama administration's total disregard of Israel's obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious — that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international “solution” down the throat of the only democracy at the table — Rice told the Council: “The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries . . . must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts.” In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop — for a price.

On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council's Western European and Others Group — it was a three-state contest for three spaces.

The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:

# adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;

# entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might "require the Council's attention"

# held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;

# insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;

# spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.


Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states — and even observers like the Palestinians — get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.

Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council's constant anti-Israel barrage.

Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora's box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.

Obama makes it official.. he has lied yet again.

As reported here last week, His highness Obama has reinstated the military tribunals that he spent so much time decrying during the campaign.

It is clear that he did this because of the rebuke he received by the ninth circuit court in San Francisco in attempting to expand the secrecy doctrine.

Palestinian Ambassador: Two-State Solution Will Lead to the Collapse of Israel

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Criticism in the Arab Press of U.S. Administration's Initiative to Reach Out to 'Moderates in the Taliban'

Shortly after taking office, U.S. President Barack Obama announced his government's new policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and Pakistan. In a March 6, 2009 interview with The New York Times, President Obama stated that the U.S. was open to reaching out to "moderate elements within the Taliban." Several weeks later, he announced that his government's policy vis-à-vis Afghanistan and Pakistan would be focused on increasing the defense capabilities of the Afghan police and military forces; this would be done in conjunction with increasing humanitarian and material aid to Pakistan and establishing a "liaison team" in cooperation with the U.N. which would include Iran and Gulf states. Obama warned that should Afghanistan once more fall into the hands of the Taliban, it would again become a base for terrorists and for attacks against the U.S., Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. In late March 2009, during the International Afghan summit in The Hague on Afghanistan, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated the U.S.'s new policy towards the Taliban.

Following these statements, articles were published in the Arab press criticizing the Obama administration's willingness to pursue dialogue with "moderate elements within the Taliban." The articles included claims that the West in general, and the Obama administration in particular, had misunderstood the ideology and strategies of the extremist Islamic movements; that the Obama administration lacked a clear strategy except for an eagerness to conduct dialogue; and that such an approach would only encourage extremism even among moderate elements – which might conclude that it is only extremism that attracts the U.S. administration. They claimed further that such a step would be counterproductive, as it would ultimately strengthen the Taliban. They also asserted that ultimately Obama would understand that there is no alternative but to treat extremists with a strong hand.

The following are articles published by the Saudi London dailies Al-Sharq Al-Awsat and Al-Hayat:


Al-Sharq Al-Awsat Editor: "Excessive Leniency Is a Mistake No Less Dangerous than Extremism"

Tareq Al-Homayed, editor-in-chief of the London daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote that the West did not realize that excessive leniency constitutes a grave danger – one no less serious than that posed by extremism itself: "In light of the talk in the U.S. regarding the need to open up to the 'moderates' within the Taliban, and claims that there is no choice but to coexist with Islamic radicals, and in light of British declarations [that Britain must] show openness to the 'political' [branch] of Hizbullah, we can now expect openness towards Al-Qaeda [as well].

"This is not sarcasm… After igniting fighting in our region in response to Al-Qaeda's extremist terrorism of 9/11, the West has now decided to treat extremism and extremists hastily. Just as Bush erred in tackling every problem using conflict and weapons, the West now wants to deal with every problem involving extremism and extremists with leniency and a call for openness. They forget that excessive leniency is a grave mistake, no less dangerous than extremism...

"Dialogue is necessary... However openness for the sake of openness makes the situation more complicated and sends the wrong message."(1)


Al-Hayat Columnist: The Message of a Policy of Dialogue "Is That Extremism is the Most Effective Way to Attract the U.S.’s Attention"

Khalil Al-'Anani wrote in the London daily Al-Hayat that the Obama administration's pragmatism knew no bounds: "The message that others can infer from the 'diplomacy of dialogue' pursued by the Obama administration is that extremism is the most effective way to attract the U.S.'s attention, and to compel them to conduct dialogue. [But] this message spells an unhappy outcome for the U.S.

"On the one hand, [America's] foe will incur no loss by consenting to dialogue with the U.S. government on their own conditions – because the dialogue will begin with American weakness and an urgent need to cooperate with its foes. [In such circumstances,] it would be only natural for them to raise the price of the dialogue – which the U.S. United States will be forced to pay – as is indeed happening with Iran, Syria, and the Taliban...

"The Taliban sees Obama's call for dialogue with moderates as proof of the U.S. failure in Afghanistan, and emphasizes [their resolve] not to retreat until 'the U.S. is defeated' – as did the Afghani Mujahideen to the former Soviet Union...

"Obama's desire to appease his foes, especially the radical Islamists, will be construed by the moderates as an incentive to radicalize, since this is the most effective way of getting Obama's attention...

"[Right now, it might seem] extremely farfetched that the Obama administration would seek a dialogue with Osama bin Laden and Ayman Al-Zawahiri, even through a third party – today the most usual way of dealing with Hamas and Hizbullah. But Obama's pragmatism knows no bounds: Be it with the devil himself, there will be dialogue – in line with the principle of 'the more extreme you are, the more [willing we are] to talk to you.'"(2)


Al-Hayat Columnist: Extremist Groups View Openness Towards Them As The West's Defeat

In an article titled "Are There Any Moderates in Taliban?" in the London daily Al-Hayat, columnist Elias Harfoush contended that the West's view of the Islamist groups is mistaken, since the West does not realize that these groups see Obama's attempts at openness towards them as defeat:

"President Barack Obama says that he wants to open dialogue channels with the 'moderates' inside the Taliban movement, as did General David Petraeus, who set up the tribal awakening councils in Iraq. These councils have eventually proved their ability to confront Al-Qaeda there and to weaken their hegemony in the Al-Anbar Sunni areas…

"There is no more obvious proof of the failure of any attempt to lure moderates from the Taliban into a political settlement than what the Zardari government in Pakistan did recently. The Pakistani regime released the members of the Pakistani branch of the Taliban, as it believed that they can be dealt with, in an attempt to regain control of the Swat province.

"But what was the result? More murders and torture of those opposed to the movement and more suffering for the people who returned after the truce assuming that stability was restored. More decapitated bodies of singers and artists and people whom the Taliban accuse of 'indecent' activities; more attacks on female school teachers, including throwing acid in their faces on their way to work or threatening them with murder if they persist in their professions. As a result, many schools had to close down, while the whole Pakistani province [of Swat] relived the worst days of Taliban rule in Afghanistan before 9/11 and the American invasion…

"The way in which these organizations perceive the West's new approach towards them also highlights the lack of understanding that the West has of these Islamic movements, as it classifies them into 'moderate,' and 'radical,' and into ‘political wings’ and 'military wings.' In the eyes of these movements, their actions and ideas are completely correct. Hence, they view the West's openness as a 'defeat' of the Western forces that are now seeking dialogue…

"Taliban leaders… responded to Obama's attempt to lure the 'moderates' by urging him to declare his defeat in Afghanistan and to withdraw.

"If political decisions are built more on wishes than on facts on the ground, they will often backfire… It is true that the Obama administration wants to solve the Afghan problem… but this solution [i.e. dialogue with the Taliban 'moderates'] might be counterproductive, in that it could strengthen the Taliban …"(3)


Al-Hayat Columnist: The Obama Administration Lacks Consensus and Strategy – Except for One Issue: Dialogue

Al-Hayat reporter and columnist Raghida Dergham, who resides in New York, also criticized the Obama administration’s eagerness to conduct dialogue at any cost, claiming that it has no clear strategy:

"The Obama administration is preoccupied with 'divorcing' the Bush administration – and in its eagerness to do so, it is blind to the dangers inherent in its foreign policy…

"The ideas held by the U.S. administration and by the circle of well-wishers who surround it are truly odd… Everyone interprets things as he pleases. This is very dangerous, [since as a result] the Obama administration lacks consensus, determination, and strategy – except for dialogue.

"They speak about a dialogue with the moderates within the Taliban, with a view of segregating the radicals, as if the Taliban were some kind of philosophy or research institute rather than a group of lunatics – ideologically, politically, and as rulers…"

"These ideas may be a natural part of the transition in Obama administration's policies, reflecting temporary tactics until comprehensive strategies are consolidated. Thus, it may be too early for the moderate forces in the Arab and Muslim world to put up their hands and surrender in the face of this American partnership with radicalism."(4)


Al-Arabiya TV Director: "I Expect Obama to Return to the Policy of Bush" vis-à-vis Al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea

Al-Arabiya TV director-general 'Abd Al-Rahman Al-Rashed, who is also the former editor of Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, wrote that he believed Obama would wise up and realize that there is no other way than treating extremists with a heavy hand:

"In addressing his people in his last speech, the U.S. president said that some had believed that electing 'Barack Hussein Obama' – that is what he said – would in itself solve the country's problems. Obama himself must have thought that things would be simpler if he would only distance himself from his predecessor George W. Bush. However, he [now] sees with his own eyes that the situation is more critical...

"The problem is [indeed] serious… Obama has done a lot of good things, but to no avail. He began his term by releasing Muslim prisoners from Guantanamo, and preventing military tribunals; he spoke to Muslims as if they were the top nation in the world; he appealed to the Iranians with a conciliatory message; he committed to withdrawing from Iraq sooner than [was stipulated by] George W. Bush's plan; and his secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, announced that there was no such thing as the 'war on terror' in U.S. foreign policy. Despite all this, violence has increased…

"I expect Obama to return to the policy of Bush [despite the latter's] notoriety – because in the war against Al-Qaeda, in the struggle against Iran, and in restricting North Korea he will find no other option.

"I reiterate that there is no other option, since none of these [extreme] elements have changed their positions – despite everything Obama has done since assuming the presidency. Every step that [Obama] takes towards [his foes] will only prompt them to challenge him to continue taking steps, without any reciprocation."(5)

Who was that sneaking into the White House back door the other day?

Typically, or rather always, when a visiting head of state comes to the White House, the press coverage is extensive. In addition to the usual enormous White House press corps, there are the members of the home country's press.

There is the ubiquitous photo of the two leaders sitting in those famous White House chairs, and of course the joint press conference.

When it is an ally of ours, there is usually the typical "we're even closer than ever" and "This is a new dawn in an historic friendship" type of statements.

Well, apparently Israel no longer qualifies for ANY Level of apparent friendship.

Did you know that Israeli President Shimon Peres visited the White House last week?

Of course not. Why? Simple, because the White House did not want you, or more specifically, did not want the Arab and Persian (Iran) world to know.

Thus Peres was literally shushed into the back door of the White House, with no press, and no official announcement.

When was the last time a Nobel Peace Prize winner came to visit the President with no press?

Well, let me correct that. There was coverage in Israel. And if you can find pictures you will note that they are Israeli press copyrighted (or Reuters the international agency that much of the Middle East Press uses).

Why coverage there, but not here? Because Israel is wagging the tail of the Obama dog, trying to paint a picture to the Arab world that it is still a US ally. To maintain some sense of security. Just as Bibi Netanyahu will paint a pretty picture on the fractious meeting that will occur in two weeks in NY.

As to that - frantic meetings continue in Cairo over how the Saudi's, Egyptians and Israeli's can make Obama understand just how serious the threat from Iran is.

Obama's Plan to Destroy Israel

If there's one thing that the Carter Administration can be given credit for, it's creating the new wave of Islamist terrorism, both Sunni, operating out of Afghanistan, and Shiite, operating out of Iran. The Carter Administration cracked down on Israel and put its "faith" in Muslim terrorists, who then went on to wage war on America, even while Carter was in office.

28 years after Carter was removed from office, we're in reruns again with the Obama Administration, which is not only following the Carter line, but whose plans greatly exceed it. 28 years ago, Wahhabi Sunni and Shiite terrorists were generally an afterthought when compared to the standard USSR backed Marxist terrorist groups, such as the PLO.

Today, thanks in part to the Carter Administration, they control several countries and have designs on several more. From Pakistan to Afghanistan, from Gaza to Lebanon, from the Middle East to Southeast Asia, the threat is very real and bigger than ever particularly as the race by both Sunni and Shiite groups to build and deploy nuclear weapons continues.

Like Carter before him, Obama has chosen to cut backdoor deals with the Mullahs in Iran, offering them power over Iraq and Afghanistan, in exchange for quieting things down enough to let him hang up a Mission Accomplished banner and pull the troops out. "Peace with honor", preferably before the next election. The rape law for Shiites in Afghanistan, the push for a US funded Hamas/Fatah Unity government in the territories and the rising expansion of the Taliban are all fruits of this arrangement.

If Iran is to be our new best friend under this arrangement, Israel is to be our new best enemy.

Obama stacked the deck by deploying Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State in a position that gave her an important title, but absolutely no power to go with it, while stacking the National Security Council and even the Pentagon with oil appointees in the pockets of the Saudis or his own left wing radical friends.

Israel electing a conservative government really put the ball into play, freeing up even more resources for attacking Israel. The strategy runs something like this.

The Obama Administration has broken down the Israel problem into two subsections, Israel itself, and American Jews.

Obama's people have studied the problem and understand where Carter went wrong. Obama does not want to have the same image problems as Carter in the Jewish community. Should that happen, the Beloved Leader and his lapdog press are fully prepared to unleash a Chavez style hate-on targeting American Jews. But that would be inconvenient and messy. Even with the changing face of America, there are significant differences between the average American and European or Venezuelan, and what kind of ugliness they are willing to tolerate. So Obama's people have split their attention in handling the two factors as two different problems.

American Jews - Obama has been clever about putting his Jewish appointees front and center. Like many minorities, some American Jews suffer from self-esteem problems that are soothed when they see a seeming acceptance. Of course what they fail to realize is that exploitation is not acceptance. And that Obama's appointees are creatures of his backers, Nazi collaborators like Soros, who have nothing but contempt for Jews, individually or collectively.

While outwardly courting Jews, Obama's people have also been quietly shoving Jewish organizations and their leaders into a corner. Within the Jewish organizational world there has been a silent but deadly takeover of major Jewish groups by left wing radicals. Former alumni of the far left wing and anti-Israel groups like Breira or Coname in the 70's have been elevated to key positions in such organizations as the UJA Federation. Behind the scenes any Jewish leaders who expressed even doubts about Obama during the primaries were intimidated and silenced.

Much as with conservatives, a list has been drawn up of those figures who can be won over, and those who cannot. The ones who can be won over are described as "moderates", the ones who cannot be won over are described as "extremists".

Meanwhile a bevvy of left wing Jewish In Name Only groups have been organized to play their part. Key among them is the Soros funded J Street, a group created as an anti-Israel lobby meant to eventually replace AIPAC. Meanwhile AIPAC itself has been kept on the ropes with such things as the well timed Harman leak. The message once again is fairly clear, cooperate and keep quiet, or we'll destroy you.

The multi-layered approach to American Jews can then be summed up as follows;

1.) Co-opt existing Jewish organizations and swing them to the left using old school 70's leftists.

2.) Create new "progressive" organizations to appeal to a younger generation of ethnically Jewish youth detached from any actual identity. Have these organizations generate attacks on the Israeli government and pro-Israel Jews, while creating phony polls indicating that most American Jews are behind them and Obama.

3.) Silence and intimidate remaining Jewish organizations and leaders behind the scenes.

The overall idea is to keep a happy face pasted on American Jewry while the knives are out in the dark.

Israel - The basic understanding in the Obama Administration is that Israel Must Go. In the worldview of the more moderate Obama appointees, Israel is a destabilizing factor in the Middle East. To the more left wing Obama advisors, Israel is a Western imperialist colonialist state that must be destroyed in the name of revolutionary justice. To the Islamist mindset, Israel is a Kufir state that has no right to exist in the Dar Al Islam.

While intractably hostile to Israel, the Obama Administration wants to avoid the kind of public confrontations that marked the Carter and Bush Sr administrations. Instead they would much rather model the way that the Clinton Administration waged a quiet war against Israel, removing one government, and forcing extensive concessions to terrorists, all the while keeping a happy face pasted on the whole affair.

On the one hand that means avoiding harsh public attacks on Israel, but keeping the pressure up for Israel to make extensive far reaching one sided concessions, to accept Saudi and Arab League "peace plans", to legitimize Hamas as the new government of the Palestinian Authority, and to insure that Israel does not reply to any rocket or terrorist attacks.

There are two forms of quiet leverage that the United States has on Israel, the first is financial and the second is military.

On the financial side, the goal will be to bring down the Netanyahu government coalition by destabilizing Israel economically. This is the surest and most direct path to bringing down Israel's conservative government and replacing it with a left of center coalition. The Obama Administration has a wide variety of tactics at its disposal for doing so, from the overt, such as targeting Israeli exports and imports, to the covert, that would involve targeting the Shekel. Additionally fundraising in the US could be investigated and groups such as the Jewish National Fund, prevented from raising money in the US. All of these have been in play before at one time or another.

On the military side, Obama's people will make their non-existent efforts to stop Iran's nukes conditional on more concessions to terrorists. Since Israel will never be able to make enough concessions and since Obama is working with Iran, rather than working to stop Iran's nukes, this is a hollow charade.

Furthermore while Israel has already been locked out of the military technology pipeline for anything cutting edge, it still remains dependent on US military equipment for parts and supplies. The decades of US foreign aid have also served to create dependency. Unlike many other countries, including even Sweden, Israel does not have its own jet fighter. Israel's Air Force is heavily dependent on US weapons, parts and equipment. Cutting Israel off, would leave the Israeli military dangerously vulnerable in the case of a war. This is an effective chokehold that has been used before to prevent Israel from attacking Saddam Hussein during the Gulf War, as well as preventing Israel from carrying out a preemptive strike against its enemies before the Yom Kippur War.

The overall Obama policy will be to push Israel to the brink, using financial and military blackmail against the Netanyahu government, while maintaining control over American Jews to prevent any protests or backtalk.

The more Israel will offer, the more the Obama Administration will tighten the screws. No offer will be good enough, and Israel will be blamed for every breakdown in talks and every bit of violence that takes place. The media will portray Israel and particularly Netanyahu as extremist and intransigent. Hamas will be slowly whitewashed in the media, the same way that Arafat's goons were, (assuming that they prove more willing to cooperate in creating a positive media image of themselves than Ahmadinejad is.)

The plan is to destroy Israel, and to do it by pushing Israel to the edge of the cliff and then over the cliff. Israel's enemies will be getting top of the line US military equipment. Israel will not. Israel will be squeezed economically until the Netanyahu government collapses, leaving a weak left wing leader like Livni in charge of Israel, and in charge of acceding to the new Pharaoh's demands.

Meanwhile so-called American Jewish groups will support Obama all the way, some because they were created precisely for that purpose, e.g. J-Street, and others because they have been hijacked, cowed or subverted.

That is the game plan and some of it's coming. The rest is

Obama prepares to throw Israel under the bus

From Melanie Phillips in Britain's "The Spectator"

As predicted here repeatedly – Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus, and he’s getting American Jews to do his dirty work for him. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel reportedly told the Israel lobbying group AIPAC on Sunday that efforts to stop Iran hinged on peace talks with the Palestinians. General James Jones, National Security Adviser to Obama, reportedly told a European foreign minister a week ago that unlike the Bush administration, Obama will be ‘forceful’ with Israel. Ha’aretz reports:

Jones is quoted in the telegram as saying that the United States, European Union and moderate Arab states must redefine ‘a satisfactory endgame solution.’ The U.S. national security adviser did not mention Israel as party to these consultations.

Of course not. If you are going to throw a country under the bus, you don’t invite it to discuss the manner of its destruction with the assassins who are co-ordinating the crime. As I said here months ago, the appointment of Jones and the elevation of his post of National Security Adviser at the expense of the Secretary of State was all part of the strategy to centralise power in the hands of those who want to do Israel harm.

Yesterday Vice-President Joe Biden and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry turned the thumbscrews tighter, telling Israel to stop building more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement.

This is all not only evil but exceptionally stupid. The idea that a Palestine state will help build a coalition against Iran is demonstrably absurd. The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran.

The idea that if a Palestine state comes into being it will be easier to handle Iran is the opposite of the case: a Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel’s security is ludicrous.

It is of course, by any sane standard, quite fantastic that America is behaving as if it is Israel which is holding up a peace settlement when Israel has made concession after concession – giving up Sinai, giving up Gaza, offering all the territories to the Arabs in return for peace in 1967, offering more than 90 per cent of them ditto in 2000, ditto again to Mahmoud Abbas in the past year -- only to be attacked in return by a Palestinian terrorist entity, backed in its continued aggression, let us not forget, by the countries of the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, which has made no concessions at all and is not being pressured to do so.

It is not the aggressor here but the victim of aggression that America is now choosing to beat up. In any sane world, one might think the Americans would be piling the pressure on the Palestinians to renounce their genocidal ambitions against Israel, to stop teaching and training their children to hate and kill Jews, to adhere to the primary requirement in the Road Map that they must dismantle their infrastructure of violence as the first step in the peace process; one might think, indeed, that they would view Mahmoud Abbas’s repeated statements that the Palestinians will never accept Israel as a Jewish state to be the main impediment to peace.

But no. The repeated professions that America will never jeopardise Israel’s security are stomach churning when Obama is actually blaming Israel for measures it has taken to safeguard its security – the settlements were always first and foremost a security measure, and the travel restrictions are there solely to prevent more Israelis being murdered – and trying to force it to abandon them. Today comes further news that Obama will also try to force Israel to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which would force it to dismantle its nuclear arsenal – which it only has as a last ditch insurance against the attempt to annihilate it to which more than a billion Arabs and Muslims remain pledged.

Of course Obama doesn’t care that Hamas would run any Palestinian state. Of course he doesn’t care that Israel would be unable to defend itself against such a terrorist state. Because he regards Israel as at best totally expendable, and at worst as a running sore on the world's body politic that has to be purged altogether (see this bleak assessment by Sultan Knish). His administration is proceeding on the entirely false analysis that a state of Palestine is the solution to the Middle East impasse and the route to peace in the region. What that state will look like or do is something to which at best the administration's collective mind is shut and at worst makes it a potential cynical accomplice to the unconscionable. So Israel is to be forced out of the West Bank. Far from building a coalition against Iran, Obama is thus doing Iran’s work for it.

None of this, however, should come as the slightest surprise to anyone who paid any attention to Obama’s background, associations and friendships before he became President and to the cabal of Israel-bashers, appeasers and Jew-haters he appointed to his administration, with a few useful idiots thrown in for plausible deniability.

Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America’s elite.

But the ordinary American people are a different matter. They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and America’s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.

This is shaping up to be the biggest crisis in relations between Israel and America since the foundation of Israel six decades ago. Those who hate Israel and the Jews will be gloating. This after all is precisely what they hoped Obama would do. To any decent person looking on aghast, this is where the moral sickness of the west reaches the critical care ward.

Israel's Future Under Obama

A lot has been written about President Obama's first 100 days in office.Overall he has received high grades for sincerity. Americans disagree with him on several of his high profile policy decisions but these differences have not impacted on his personal appeal. Clearly Americans want him to succeed.

While most of President Obama's presidency has been been focused on domestic matters, he has made two high profile trips out of the country, he has made several foreign policy pronouncements, and he has made a dramatic rhetorical shift away from long-time tenets of American foreign policy.On more than one occasion Obama has distanced himself from the position of being America's chief cheerleader. In Europe he refused to state that America is an "exceptional" country. And in Latin America he did the unthinkable.

At a meeting of Latin American leaders, Obama warmly accepted a greeting and a book (which denounces the United States) from dictator Caesar Chavez of Venezuela.( Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal published a report on Chavez's anti-semitism forcing Jews to leave the country.) But the Chavez encounter pales in comparison to Obama's reaction (or lack thereof) to the anti-American tirade of Nicaraqua's Marxist dictator, Daniel Ortega. For nearly an hour, Ortega verbally attacked the United States and Obama never came to America's defense. When given the microphone he flippantly defended himself but not his country.

What are we to make of this?

The evidence is piling up that Obama does not see being an American as being very important.After all he sees nothing exceptional about the United States. On the other hand he does see himself as a citizen of the world -- in fact the world's number one citizen.

Obama appears intent on attempting to bring peace and harmony by turning his back on America's allies and even America's self interest. It is no accident that he made his first phone call as President to the head of the Palestinian Authority.It's by design that he publicly disagreed with France and Germany when he curried favor with Muslim Turkey. He has also used Israel as a whipping boy while bending over backwards to please Israel's enemies.

If Obama saw Israel as a special friend he would have extended the courtesy of consulting with Israel's new government before setting his Middle East policy, but he deliberately did not. He, Secretary of State Clinton and Middle East envoy Mitchell have all lectured and cajoled Israel before the President and the new Prime Minster have even met. This is not how friends treat friends.

Along with insisting on following the failed two state track, the Obama Administration has gone out its way to publicly warn Israel that bombing Iran's nuclear facilities is a bad idea. The latest deliverer of this message was Secretary of Defense Gates. One might have more confidence if the Obama Administration showed signs of understanding that Iran is an evil force that can not be defeated by engaging in endless conversations. One Jerusalem knows that The State of Israel has asked Obama to put a time limit on any negotiations with Iran. This request has been rebuffed.

One can only speculate what is motivating the Obama Administration to take this weak line with Iran. It seems to be partly driven by a secular ideology that is premised on the notion that all differences can settled by talking. History is littered with examples of how this idea has led to disaster. The most famous example is the United Kingdom talking to Hitler and believing Hitler when he said he had no intention of conquering Europe and the world. Like Hitler, the current rulers of Iran benefit from talking. It gives them time to develop their weapons of mass destruction.

The Obama Administration also appears to suffer from inexperience. In today's Wall Street Journal, former Ambassador John Bolton desperately tries to get the Obama Administration to take the right actions in Pakistan. He notes that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is wrong when she proclaims that Pakistan's nuclear arsenal is safe because it has been dispersed around the country. Bolton lays out a common sense plan to deal with a dangerous situation. Bolton is clearly more in touch with the reality on the ground then the Obama team.

In a few weeks, Israel's Prime Minister will come to the United States to meet with President Obama. All signs are signaling that on substance there will be a substantial divide between Israel and the United States.Prime Minister Netanyahu is determined to start a new track with the Palestinians. He believes that there must be economic and civil reforms in Palestinian territories before there can any lasting political progress. Meanwhile, Obama's team is lobbying Jewish leaders in America to get them to support the old two state push, even though there is no political entity to deal with on the Palestinian side.

All indicators are pointing toward a contentious set of meetings. Lets pray they are fruitful. By fruitful we mean that Netanyahu convinces Obama that Iran is the greatest threat to the United States and Israel and most be dealt with forcefully.

OBAMA'S ESCALATING WAR ON ISRAEL

Based on the growing body of evidence in the public domain one could make the case that Israel has gone from American ally to American problem in the eyes of the Obama Administration.


High level members of the Obama Administration, including Secretary of State Clinton, Vice President Biden, and Chief of Staff Emanuel, have taken to the airwaves to threaten, badger, and cajole the Jewish State. This endless barrage of criticism comes before the first meeting between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. Instead of trying to pave the way for a smooth working relationship, the Obama team seems determined to be seen as turning over a new page in the historically friendly relations between Israel and the United States. One could make the case that the Obama Administration is showing the Muslim world that Israel no longer has a special relationship with the United States.


Israel is not the only ally being used to placate the Muslim world. Not too long ago, President Obama interjected himself into the European debate over Turkey's desire for membership in the European Union. Without any prompting, the President came out four square on Muslim Turkey's side, placing the United States in opposition to France and Germany. France's President Sarkozy openly questioned why Obama entered this controversy and why he sided against his European allies.


It turns out that this episode appears to be the opening chapter in a strategy by Obama to win over the Muslim world. While the Turkey-EU debate is contentious, the controversies with Israel can have dire consequences.


In the weeks leading up to the coming meeting between Obama and Netanyahu the Obama Administration has ratcheted up the stakes by linking what it wants Israel to do with the Palestinians with policy toward Iran. The most forceful statement of this policy was made by Vice President Biden at the AIPAC convention. He emphatically stated that Israel must pursue the failed two state policy with the Palestinians if it wants the United States to cooperate with Israel on Iran policy.


This linkage of the Palestinian and Iranian issues is outrageous. The Obama Administration is in fact saying that the nuclear and terrorist threat from Iran is exclusively an Israeli problem, which the Obama Administration will help on if Israel behaves itself. The logical extension of this thought process is that Iran is not an American problem.


What is going on here? A European friend who has conversed with members of the Obama Administration has concluded that the Administration sees Israel as an obstacle that needs to be kicked down the road. It sure seems that way.


But the consequences of this policy can have catastrophic consequences if it is not checked - for Israel and the United States.


Obama's plan of pursuing open ended talks with Iran has given Iran even more time to develop its nuclear program. France's Sarkozy told a friend that the kid gloves approach of Obama has made it impossible to maintain let alone strengthen the economic sanctions against Iran. European countries are interpreting Obama's policies as a sign that sanctions will be lifted and they are not interested in continuing a policy that hurts their economies when the United States is letting Iran off the hook on the issue of its nuclear program.


Another informed source has told One Jerusalem that the Obama Administration has concluded that it can live and contain a nuclear Iran. They also believe that they can convince the Arab States that are threatened by Iran not to develop nuclear weapons. This why high Obama officials, first Dennis Ross and now Secretary of Defense Gates have been dispatched to the Gulf to try and calm the understandably agitated Arab States: After all Iran is a sworn enemy of these American allies.


Obama and his administration are making a monumental miscalculation based on false assumptions. They premise their conclusion that they can contain a nuclear Iran on the successful containment of the nuclear Soviet Union. This analogy is wrong on several fronts. The Soviet Union was not a messianic, radical Islamic regime bent on reestablishing the Persian Empire and killing all its adversaries.


Obama is also mistaken in thinking that neutralizing Israel will bring peace to the Middle East. The reality is that Israel is the only reliable ally the United States has in the region. The triumph of Iran or the Palestinians would be a setback for the United States.

Obama's Muslim Speech

My next few posts will give you the Israeli perspective of the current climate.

They come from "One Jerusalem" an organization headed by Natan Sharansky, author of the "The Case for Democracy" and former Soviet Refusenik.


Yesterday, White House Press Secretary Gibbs announced that President Obama will deliver a major address to the Muslim world, in June on a visit to Egypt.

Before Obama took office, One Jerusalem reported that he had plans to speak to the Muslim world from a major Muslim country. This plan is about to become reality.

The timing of the Gibbs announcement is interesting. It comes a week before President Obama has his first meeting with Israel's new Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Whether intended or not this will be interpreted by Israel's enemies as another slap in the face of the Jewish State. And given the precision with which the Obama team works it is likely it was intended to send one more signal that Israel's foes are as important to Obama as Israel.

In its short time in office, the Obama Administration has developed a long list of actions that effectively tells the Muslim world that Israel is no longer a special ally of the United States. The list begins with Obama's decision to place his first presidential phone call to Abbas. The list also includes, siding with Turkey over our European allies, making demands of Israel without consulting the government of Israel, allowing Iran to continue its development of nuclear capabilities, holding Israel responsible for Iran's nuclear program, meeting Arab leaders before meeting Netanyahu, allowing captured Arab terrorists more legal rights, closing the prison for Al-Qaeda terrorist on Guantanamo and demanding that Israel open its nuclear program to the United Nations.

This shift in favor of the Muslim world comes at the expense of Israel and to a lesser degree other allies. In fact, it is part of a pattern of downgrading America's allies to uplift America's adversaries. In Latin America, President Obama told the President of Colombia to make peace with the terrorist group FARC by giving them land and an autonomous region. FARC is a proxy for dictators Ortega and Chavez and is allied with Hamas and Hezzbolah.

Obama's foreign policy is emboldening our adversaries. Recently, the President of Iran announced that Iran's radicalism is winning the day -- and he cited the weak policies of Obama. By allowing Iran to go ahead and develop nuclear capabilities, Obma is undermining Israel and the free world and elevating Iran.

In the short term, Obama's strategy requires the public downgrading of Israel. Every senior member of Obama's foreign and defense team has lectured Israel from afar. And now Obama has canceled a stop in Israel on his June trip to Egypt.

It is becoming clear that Israel can not count on Obama to help defend the Jewish State. Israel and its allies need to prepare for a long four years.