Is the US (gov’t) a friend or enemy of Israel?
This article has gotten a lot of attention. It has been posted on AT, CFP, INN and many others. The title is misleading. The question really should be, is it a net asset or liability to Israel just as the question is put, is Israel a net asset or liability to US. In both cases the answer is a net asset. Ted Belman
By Ted Belman
This question always elicits different opinions. Obviously, in part, the answers depend on one’s definition of “friend” or of “enemy.”
The most famous articulation of U.S. policy vis-à-vis Israel was made by Henry Kissinger in 1975 when talking to an Iraqi diplomat. To wit:
-
“We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world[.]
“… We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel but we can reduce its size to historical proportions”[.]
Before the ’67 War, U.S. policy was mostly hostile in that the U.S. imposed an embargo on arms to Israel for 20 years, from ’47 to ’67; was passive during the War of Independence, expecting Israel to be defeated in short order; and ordered Israel out of Sinai after Israel conquered it in the Sinai Campaign.
This policy was ameliorated in the aftermath of the ’67 War as reflected in Res. 242 of the UNSC, which established the principle that Israel was entitled to secure and recognized borders before withdrawing from the conquered territories. By that resolution, the U.S. recognized that an agreement on borders had to be negotiated and that of necessity, Israel would be retaining some of the land. Of course, a friend should have taken the position that Israel was entitled to keep all the land it had acquired in the defensive war. But the U.S. was committed to being friends with the Arabs, particularly Saudi Arabia, and this commitment excluded it. That has always been U.S. policy, right up until today.
The Arabs totally objected to this resolution and set out their rejection at the Khartoum Conference in 1968, which reiterated the three “nos”: no negotiations, no recognition, and no peace. President Nixon, who subsequently hired Kissinger, assumed office shortly thereafter and tried to move the U.S. position closer to that of the Arabs. He presented the Rogers Plan, which required full withdrawal. This plan never got traction but always reflected the opinion of the Arabists in the State Department.
Kissinger’s statement, above quoted, begged the issue and merely referred to the reduction of Israel’s size to “historic proportions.”
When Israel negotiated the Oslo Accords without the knowledge of the U.S., the reference point was Res. 242, and nothing was said about the creation of a state, settlement construction, or Jerusalem except that it would be a final status issue.
Shortly thereafter, the U.S. quietly negotiated an agreement with Israel limiting Israeli construction in Judea and Samaria to infilling for natural growth. I am sure Israel didn’t ask for such an agreement.
During the intifada II, Sen. Mitchell was sent to study the Arab violence. On April 30, 2001, he submitted the Mitchell Report, which rewarded the violence by demanding that settlement construction cease.
As part of the lead-up to the Iraq War, President Bush openly announced his support for a Palestinian state in 2002 and entertained the Saudi Plan which the Saudis presented in 2002. He agreed to set up the Roadmap for negotiations and agreed to include a reference in it to the Saudi Plan and the Mitchell Report. The U.S. obviously hadn’t given up on the Rogers Plan and the demand for full withdrawal. PM Sharon was given no choice in the matter. The Roadmap was launched one week after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.
President Bush recanted a bit in his letter to Sharon in ’04 in which he referred to Res. 242 but not the Saudi Plan, which was then called the Arab Initiative, as the basis for negotiations.
Upon taking office, President Obama disavowed Res. 242, the longstanding agreement permitting infilling, and disavowed the Bush letter as binding. He openly has embraced the Saudi Plan and has called for negotiations based on the ’67 armistice lines with swaps. In doing so, he has pulled the rug out from under Israel — or, in today’s parlance, has thrown Israel under the bus.
Of course, the U.S. would be a real enemy were it to declare Israel has no right to exist. The fact that the U.S. is committed to Israel’s existence, or so we are told, and has extensive military cooperation with Israel, suggests that she is a friend. But, given this history, requiring Israel to return to the ’67 lines, even with swaps, suggests that she is really an enemy.
You decide.
Yamit, 45% of American Jews and every Palestinian terrorist organization, are all hoping for Obama’s election. They dream and fantacize that Obama will be re-elected, the destruction of the US economy and foreign policy will continue, the US will weaken and Israel will lose a powerful ally.
Fortunately, likely American voters disagree:
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
Someone needs to bring Yamit up to date on Obama’s close relationship with white collar Wall Street fat cats and green energy grifters.
We have already heard Yamit the other Democrat hacks talk about the economy Obama inherited ostensibly from Bush – and we will continue to hear more of that during the next 12 months until it will begin to sound true because the biased mainstream media perpetuates these Democrat falsehoods.
If you have taken the time to read Reckless Endangerment by Pulitzer Prize winning investigative journalist, Gretchen Morgenson, you already know that it was the Democrats starting with Bill Clinton that created, protected and defended the growing house of cards built on sand that finally collapsed as the financial crisis in 2008.
Bush and McCain actually tried to stop the madness in sub prime lending and were blocked by the Democrats who took control of both houses of the Legislature during his last two years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cMnSp4qEXNM
For those who have not read the book, here are some facts to keep in mind the next time you hear any Democrat blame the economy on what Obama inherited from Bush:
The day the Democrats took over the Legislature was not January 22nd 2009, when Barack Obama was sworn in as President, it was actually January 3rd 2007, the day the Democrats took over the House of Representatives and the Senate, at the very start of the 110th Congress.
The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995.
Barack Obama was a member of that Senate.
For those who are listening to the liberals propagating the fallacy that everything is “Bush’s Fault”, think about this:
January 3rd, 2007, the day the Democrats took over the Senate and the Congress:
The DOW Jones closed at 12,621.77
The GDP grew 3.5% during the previous quarter.
The Unemployment rate was 4.6%
George Bush’s Economic policies had SET A RECORD of 52 STRAIGHT MONTHS of JOB CREATION!
Remember that day…
January 3rd, 2007 was the day that Barney Frank took over the House Financial Services Committee and Chris Dodd took over the Senate Banking Committee.
The economic meltdown that happened 15 months later was in what part of the economy?
BANKING AND FINANCIAL SERVICES!
THANK YOU DEMOCRATS (especially Barney Frank) for taking us from a 13,000 DOW, 3.5 GDP growth and 4.6% Unemployment……to this CRISIS by (among MANY other things) dumping 5-6 TRILLION Dollars of toxic loans on the economy from YOUR Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac FIASCOES!
(BTW: Bush asked Congress 17 TIMES to stop Fannie & Freddie – starting in 2001 because it was financially risky for the US economy).
Barney blocked it and called it a “Chicken Little Philosophy” (and the sky did fall!)
Who received the THIRD highest pay-off from Fannie Mae AND Freddie Mac in campaign contributions in 2008? BARACK OBAMA
Who fought against reform of Fannie and Freddie? OBAMA and the Democrat Congress, especially BARNEY FRANK!!!!
So when someone tries to blame Bush…
REMEMBER JANUARY 3rd, 2007…. THE DAY THE DEMOCRATS TOOK OVER!”
Bush may have been in the car but the Democrats were driving it into the ditch.
Budgets do not come from the White House. They come from Congress and the party that controlled Congress since January 2007 is the Democratic Party.
Furthermore, the Democrats controlled the budget process for 2008 & 2009 as well as 2010 & 2011.
In that first year, they had to contend with George Bush, which caused them to compromise on spending, when Bush somewhat belatedly got tough on spending increases.
For 2009 though, Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid bypassed George Bush entirely, passing continuing resolutions to keep government running until Barack Obama could take office. At that time, they passed a massive omnibus spending bill to complete the 2009 budget.
And where was Barack Obama during this time?
He was a member of that very Congress that passed all of these massive spending bills, and he signed the omnibus bill as President to complete 2009.
Let’s remember what the deficits looked like during that period:
If the Democrats inherited any deficit, it was the 2007 deficit, the last of the Republican budgets. That deficit was the lowest in five years, and the fourth straight decline in deficit spending. After that, Democrats in Congress took control of spending, and that includes Barack Obama, who voted for the budgets.
If Obama inherited anything, he inherited it from himself.
Yamit,
OWS is losing traction. Support is down to the 30% to 40% range. Mostly because of rape and theft reported in the camps.
And the pain of poor kids in America is caused by obesity. Probably the first time in history that the poor were not troubled by an inadequate diet. Look at the poor from past ages. Thin. Painfully thin. In America they are painfully fat. The poor own houses (aprox 50% before the real estate meltdown), TVs – I think 90% own 1 and 50% 2. Hot and cold running water. Air conditioning. Computers. About 80% own an auto. etc. Anywhere else in most of the world our poor would be rich beyond most people’s dreams.
And the malefactors in our current mess? Crony capitalists (who can hire lobbyists) in collusion with government. So who is protesting government? The TEA Party. You know. Them mean old Republicans.
Yamit82..”The notional value of derivative contracts held by US financial institutions is $216.5 trillion, or more than 15 times US GDP. Most of it Junk.”
I’m hopeing to to escape the stagering $216.5 trill. scare figure. My try. Aren’t
these derivatives in the end a “wash” with half on one side and half on the other?
eg.they do not constitute an real dept or liability. Any looser is offset by a winner, less transaction fees? Please agree, so that this incomprehensible figure
can be RETIRED, as misleading.
Only if the counter party does not fail. The problem is that the counter parties ARE failing. Yamit has got you there. Now is the whole $200 trillion bad? No. Maybe only $50 or $60 trillion (my guess). Which could go higher if market conditions deteriorate further.
The US government had a chance during the Bush years (and Clinton before him) to bring CDSs under regulation. Neither the President nor the Congress did anything. Rs and Ds alike. And Yamit – both parties are in bed with the cronies. Probably the Ds even more so. The Democrat polity these days is bifurcated. It is the party of the very rich and the very poor. The Rs are more generally middle class. I know it goes against the common stereotypes. So why the two modalities among the Ds? The very rich get to steal from everyone in the name of the poor. Quite a racket. And the government takes its cut so you have government workers mostly supporting Ds. An even bigger racket.
Yamit. You see only part of the picture and have fallen for the con. You think evil Republicans. I think: evil both parties. We have a one party state with two factions. The tell? Neither Party repeals the work of the other.
So why do I support the Rs? It is not because of their politicians. It is because the rank and file generally understand that the stealing can’t go on. And the rank and file are staunch supporters of Israel. Unlike the D party which is riddled with Jew haters (mostly Blacks and Hispanics- i.e. the poor you are so sentimental about). Although we do have our Ron Paul and his followers.
I didn’t need to do the techie stuff that’s why I employed EE’s and technicians. I owned a boutique bakery but I wasn’t a baker, I did employ 18.
Didn’t say or imply that. You said it not me.
I did say that free trade is not free. It has cost America over 80% of her manufacturing base, enriched other countries, enriched large corporations who pay taxes abroad but not in America. Cost millions of American jobs that are gone for ever. In the depression of the 30′s America had almost no debt, Americans personally had almost no debt and the trade bal. was still positive in favor of America along with a strong manufacturing base. Today none of this is true and America will not weather the coming debacle.
The Founding Fathers of Constitutional Subversion
I disagree America will weather the coming debacle, yes it will be hard but America will weather it
As for Ron Paul, hes a nut and a crackpot u couldnt pay me to vote for him
And I dont like the tea party, although I do like Mitt Romney and Sarah Palin, and they are the only Republicans I would vote for President, and an earlier post was bashing the poor, bashing the poor is wrong and uncalled for
Yamit,
Free trade has not cost America its manufacturing base. Manufacturing as a % of the economy hasn’t changed much in 60 years. So who is doing the work? Machines.
You seem to believe everything the union bosses tell you without checking.
And what speeds up the change? Strong unions. The higher the wage the more incentive to automate.
Poppycock. It was government regulations under the Community Reinvestment Act that forced the banks to lend to low income borrowers by reducing their credit standards – and then getting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy the crap that they had to create – that built the house of cards that collapsed as the financial crisis.
For Yamit, and his Hamas handlers, anyone who supports Israel unconditionally is evil.
Disingenuous rot, AE.
You call your assertions & assessments “facts” — but that does not make them facts.
And when you continually repeat your assessments — WITHOUT backing them up with acknowledged facts — you only make those assessments more BORING, not more true.
I gave you clear, cold, unembroidered facts (e.g., the Begin/Sadat decisions on the configuration of Camp David, notwithstanding US “suggestions”) — which clearly REFUTE your claim that “America has not suggested anything that Israeli leaders have not previously agreed to…”
That refutation was NOT ‘irrelevant’ to your ignorant and/or thoughtless claim. What’s more, I showed you that it was only Sadat’s agreement with Begin that kept US pressure from forcing Begin’s hand. If you can’t see the significance of that, then all I can say is, it’s a pity that you’ve never been in the position of the small having to deal with the large; your sense of empathy leaves a lot to be desired.
I showed you Shamir’s having had to attend the Madrid Conference, a participation which was NOT based in what he thought best for Israel.
I showed you King Hussein’s “Black September” 1970 crushing of the PLO in Jordan — where Israel’s “running interference” (at the US’ behest) to keep Damascus out of it — was NOT in Israel’s best interest.
All you’ve given me, by way of a counter, is “whiny, cry-baby, waa-waa, up is down & black is white” platitudes — and NO facts.
If you have facts to refute (or to correct) mine, then let’s see them.
Put up, or shut up.
In these matters, AE, you’ve got nothing — and anybody can see that.
No.
I have nothing but CONTEMPT for the shallowness of your perception
– and that’s putting it gently, AE –
because it’s quite possible that your perception is not shallow at all:
It’s entirely possible that your whole line of discussion is disingenuous rot intended as cover for your support of Fatah & the (laughably-designated) Pali “moderates.”
FACT: Most of the Pali attacks on Jews during the 2000-06 Oslo-CampDavid War [the "Al-Aqsa Intifada"] — the overwhelming majority of those attacks — were perpetrated not by Hamas but by the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigade, an arm of Fatah.
The difference between Fatah & Hamas is that the latter tells you, quite frankly, what they want to do to you — while the former tells you what they think you want to hear
– but they BOTH have the same intentions. . . . the style is different, the substance is identical.
The difference between Fatah & Hamas is the difference between what the cat leaves behind the couch
– and what the neighbor’s dog leaves on your front lawn.
As I said, where matters of this nature are concerned, “[Y]our diatribes are EXTRAORDINARILY short on facts, relentlessly long on fantasy — and at their CORE, invariably emotional.”
Where Israel is concerned, you have yet to demonstrate anything to the contrary.
AE
Waaah! Polls said BA is winning! Waaah! Jews voted for this or that! Waaah! AE says, woe is me! Waaah, it’s those damn Jews fault!!! Say it ain’t so, Joe?
Blast From The Past.
Jan.18, 2008. Read article and especially all of the comments.
Quite so — but only as a by-product, not a direct intention, of the Unions.
At any rate, Yamit, this is no longer the case in “closed-shop” states; i.e., states in which unions hold a monopoly on who may & may not work in a given industry or sector of the state’s economy.
I belong to a union myself
– but NOT because I want to.
Granted as to every particular, Yamit.
The Rabbis were/are, nonetheless, finite & fallible creatures. Their responsa, their expositions, their ponderings, their discernings are, at day’s end, matters of OPINION.
No. The Oral Law is USEFUL to explain how existing Commandments must be kept.
– Whether it IS (present tense) ‘needed’ for that, or any other, purpose is a matter for debate & exploration.
Lay it on the line, boychik:
If it were up to you, would YOU, Yamit, order somebody’s death for desecrating Shabbat? — yes or no.
As in any legal system, the VENERATION of rabbinically-constituted, judicial practitioners and/or their judicially-determined findings can EASILY lapse into idolatry. In fact, in the absence — among the people — of direct perception of the same sources of Guidance as those under which the Law was originally received (and absent as well the encouragement of the people, by those very practitioners, to render themselves similarly receptive to that Guidance), this monopoly on understanding will invariably and INEVITABLY become a ‘demigod’ all unto itself.
Furthermore, any counsel to obedience which is grounded exclusively in scholarly parsing — of the words of those who, in turn, wrote them after much scholarly parsing of other words (etc, etc.) — should make any searching soul INSTANTLY suspicious of what lies ahead.
It is an ominous prospect.
It is true that Jews (and, presumably, those who join themselves to the Jewish people thru formal conversion) are eligible for citizenship via the Law of Return.
But the Law of Return is not the only avenue for acquiring Israel citizenship.
The following is from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs website:
That’s because it DOESN’T apply to Iran, HCQ.
It isn’t Iran’s citizenry that’s threatened with annihilation. . . .
NOBODY objects to Tehran’s use of nuclear power for energy
– though they’ve got natural gas up-the-wazoo, and though they’re sitting on a lake of petroleum to die for.
Iran has 9-10 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves, making her the world’s fourth largest oil producer — and OPEC’s second-largest producer after Saudi Arabia.
(She may be short on oil refineries, but not on energy resources.)
Kinda makes it hard to believe that ‘cheap, efficient energy’ is the reason Tehran wants to go nuclear. . . .
“Conflict”? — only in those with no sense of perspective
– and no INTEREST in acquiring one.
Under the circumstances, then
– screw them.
His brand of isolationism was already losing its spunk as of December 6, 1941.
After December 7, it became a charming museum piece
– its marketability having died just shortly after the buggy whip and the daguerrotype.
Dweller:
Oh, you are just so cute when you give outright rabid anti-Semites the benefit of the doubt.
Just like the so-called “isolationists” of the 1930s, the Ron Paul types are informed by a great big heaping helping of anti-Semitism. Remember Chuck Lindbergh’s visit to Nazi Germany, the medal he got from Goering – which he refused to give up during the war even when it cost him his commission – and his admonishment of American Jews to “shut up”.
They are for “isolationism” mostly if it means screwing the Jews. Notice Ron Paul doesn’t say anything one way or the other about our concerns of North Korean nukes. He only talks about not interfering with IRAN.
Sure, he’s for “staying out of the Middle East”….but I’ll bet if he ever became president, he’d happily sell Saudi Arabia and their clients and friends all the weapons they wanted. You know, for “American jobs”…but you can bet your last shekel that he’d embargo Israel, because first, he wouldn’t want to “insult” our “Arab friends”, and second, he wouldn’t want to contribute to an “arms race”.
Or, maybe he’d align with Iran against the rest of the region. “Isolationists” are logically driven to appeasement, since appeasing regional aggressors is the surest and shortest line to staying out of any sort of conflict, until they attack us. Which they won’t, because they’ll like us because we don’t intefere with them, dontcha know. And best of all, THEY’LL GO AFTER THE JOOOS. Gotta keep those Joos in line, baby.
Ron Paul is Saudia’s “plan B” in case Obama does not succeed in screwing over Israel to the degree they’d like, and/or he can’t get re-elected. Or, perhaps he’s an Iranian stooge.
An Israeli expat friend of mine in upstate New York has argued all along to me that Obama is not a Saudi stooge, as I’ve maintained, but is instead an Iranian mole. The way he treats Iran with kid gloves, I’m beginning to wonder whether or not he may be right….
I give ‘em enough rope
– then I watch to see what they do with it.
So I’m watching him.
So he leans to the Shia over the Sunni? — Why?
Don’t think there’s enough substance to him to have that grand(iose) a vision on either score.
Things might look different, of course, if we could lay hands on his paper trail.
Seems more like he’s just George Soros’ poodle.
(Ever wonder why, when the above changed his name from Schwartz, he changed it to “Soros”? — so much like tsuris. . . .)
There is much talk now of Israel attacking Iran. Why now, why at all. I THINK WE NEED TO BECOME ALERT AS TO WHAT DIRECTION WE ARE ALL BEING PUSHED TOWARD. We should NOT be just debating, speculating, rationalizing. The stakes are too high This is not a game.
Is it because, God Forbid, it is impossible for Israel to survive this action. What are the consequences or taking AND not taking action, and why ONLY Israel. Is it that the Western nations want to be protected in order to carry on their profitable connections to the Arabs. What is the soon to be denied promise to Israel.
The French president has made a public statement that his country will stand beside Israel should Israel attack Iran’s nuclear facilities. Does that mean that tiny in land and population, militarily weak but on-the-side-of-the-angels France will temporarily allow large in land mass, hugely populated, and militarily powerful Israel to do the dirty deed.
The American president has made a statement that he will privately not oppose Israel’s actions. Does that mean that the American administration will privately allow Israel to risk whilst warning that Israel that it must not hurt one hair of the innocent Iranians, and God forbid, anyone else’s in the process. Will the American state department take the pretext of the moral high road about spoils of war to continue ramping up its demands for Israel to deny its rights to its historic lands, retreat to pre-1961 suicidal borders, take in 5 million Arabs, pay billions to its enemies, and not respond whilst its citizens are slaughtered. Should Israel refuse, will the Obligation to Protect kick in, and all bets against Israel.
We can certainly, at some time soon, expect the carrot of returning a by now old and ill Pollard, for what further concession, from our friend, the U.S. president, the state department, etc. There is talk about it, so, something is afoot..
Lily
Dweller,
Obviously, Soros plays a role with Obama, but I think it is more on the domestic policy arena than foreign policy.
I still maintain the “Saudi Manchurian Candidate” theory on Obama. There is just so much evidence of this, from the Khalid Al Mansour relationship, to his connections with Palestinians – who have almost certainly been supported here by Saudi money – such as Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, plus Obama’s enthusiastic and unconditional past support of the so-called Saudi peace initiative.
When I say “Saudi Manchurian Candidate”, I don’t mean someone picks up the phone in Riyadh every week to issue the latest instructions. Rather, I mean “Manchurian Candidate” in the very same sense as the old movie. He doesn’t see himself as the robot that he is; he – Obama – genuinely believes himself to be a patriotic American, doing what is best for the country, even if he really is in fact a programmed, anti-Israel political cruise missile.
To the point where….
You see, the key to Obama is that he’s part of a “crop”, if you will, of academics who were targeted by the Saudi pro-Palestinian anti-Israel propaganda effort that began in earnest on college campuses in the early eighties, when they realized that they were not going to defeat Israel militarily. I know; I was at U Michigan Ann Arbor when Obama was at Columbia, and I saw the beginnings of this campaign.
Obama, given his background and upbringing, was a particularly apt and receptive pupil. The idea of this campaign was to brainwash legions of ‘Obamas’ who would then go on from elite schools to get plum jobs in the media, the government, and of course, in academia, to perpetuate this crap. I believe Obama was identified relatvily early in his academic career as someone with particular “promise”, and when he ran for the Senate, was given special attention. Rashid Khalidi raised $70,000 for his Senate campaign; I somehow don’t think this was done because Rashid thought he was a swell guy, or wanted socialized medicine for the U.S.
Now, we all know, that from the Saudi point of view, this whole Palestinian sob story is a made up line of crap being used merely as leverage with which to smear Israel. It is just a cynical ploy. They don’t care about the Palestinian Arabs at all; for the Saudis and Friends, they are only cannon fodder.
But in the case of Obama, his head stuffed with all manner of nonsense by the long list of cretins on the Saudi payroll, well, he’s a “true believer”. He actually cares about the Palis. Addressing their needs is a great and honorable cause to him. This really has priority for him, above pretty much every other foreign policy objective (maybe above all policy objectives, period). At this point, the Saudis can’t very well call him up and say, “Barack, we were really just kidding about thie Palestinian bit. I mean, yeah, it is important, but it isn’t that important..SO CAN YOU DO SOMETHING ABOUT IRAN??!!”
Obama needs the threat of not cooperating on Iran, you see, as his main source of leverage in extorting Israeli surrender to the Palestinian agenda. This was made very clear early in his administration. Obama is Saudia’s out of control Frankenstein monster, careening out of control in the village below, letting Iran go nuclear, just so make Israel say “uncle” on the Palestinian issue. Must drive the Saudis nuts……the best laid plans….
Lily,
Some others in this forum may have more specific knowledge, which I’d hope they’d keep to themselves so as not to tip anybody’s hands. However, from what I know of Israeli military capabilities, suffice it to say that while the effectiveness of a strike against Iran nuke facilities is an open question, if a regional war erupts as a consequence of this on Israel’s frontiers, knowing, ’67-style, that they can’t expect support from the “France” of today (the U.S. under Obama), they will smash their enemies in a manner that will astonish the world. Let off the leash, when the dust settles after the IDF is through with Hamas, Hezbollah, and even Egypt, Syria, or Turkey, if they are stupid enough to join the fight, there won’t be anyone left in the neighborhood for Israel to make “concessions” to, or at least, be in a position to threaten Israel for the withholding of said concessions.
The bad guys will inflict some serious pain – I’ve no illusions about that – but Israel will give WAY better than she gets. If the Obamas of the world think some cornered and desperate Israel is going to come begging for help in fending off the Islamist dogs at the door, and make the relevant concessions, I think they’re in for a very unpleasant surprise.
I C. I think th real plan is to try to hit 200 comments – and get rid of some pent up frustration in the process.
Why now indeed.
I can’t see how Israel would be contemplating a strike at this time.
If GOI truly had that in the works, they wouldn’t be (as they are) talking openly about it beforehand
– they’d simply DO it –
talk about it afterward.
All the same, the recent report (IAEA?) is disturbing.
Debka says Tehran has now passed the point of being stopped anyway.
The open talk may be intended as a means of smoking-out who is (& who isn’t) prepared to stand up & be counted
– FWIW.
A view to consider:
Source –The Moneybomb, Hour 3, 11-3-11, around the 27 minute mark—-Dr. Webster Tarpley
Tarpley
” — The Principles Committee consists of Leon Panetta, Hillary Clinton, Gen. Petraeus (the dominant personality of this clique), the head of the National Security Council, along with a couple of others—THEY ARE RUNNING THE GOVERNMENT.
— Obama, by most accounts is out of it. He retreats to the family living quarters of the White House and focuses on whatever sports event is on. Or insulting people in his entourage.”
This would not surprise me, but lacking any solid evidence beyond the claims made by this one fellow, I can’t accept this as fact.
I can offer one corroborating bit of evidence, though. When OBL was killed, an equally “unfounded” rumor began circulating that it was not Obama who ordered the op. It was a combination of Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton. They were trying to get him to sign off on the operation – it was mostly Panetta’s baby up to that point in terms of gathering the intel and coordinating the assets – but Valerie Jarrett kept getting in the way, and Obama would not make a decision. So, through some creative bureaucratic maneuvering, Leon and Hillary made it happen. Again, no solid evidence, but when I read the account, all I could think was, “Now, this is the Obama I know”. Of course, once it was carried out, Obama was hardly in a position to say he’d been outflanked, so he had no choice but to take the credit.
My rabbi is a retired full colonel in the USAF. He was one of the highest ranking – if not THE highest ranking – Jewish chaplain in the air force. In his position, he traveled to Washington a great deal and attended a lot of high-level briefings, rubbed elbows with a lot of powerful people. A while ago, I mentioned to him my “Saudi Manchurian Candidate” theory about Obama. He didn’t accept it outright, but he agreed that it was at least plausible. He assured me, however, that if it were true, Obama would not last long as president, that others in the power structure would not allow him to get very far as an agent of a foreign government.
What you say above, Yamit, might make sense in this context, although in this case it might involve a scenario in which Obama is not merely a passive, programmed “robot” as I suggest, but rather, an active stooge, which is also possible. Perhaps with an eye to both sparing the American public the trauma of having revealed to them the fact of the White House being penetrated in this fashion, and also, to preserve their own power as part of his administration, one might hypothesize that being “found out”, Obama was confronted by this little committee with the “choice” of either quietly stepping aside and letting them run things, or being exposed, impeached, and run out of office.
I like and totally support the “no preconditions” stand of Bibi. However the PA wants preconditions imposed on Bibi (UN application is the sole purpose). The “US” is also claiming no preconditions” while trying its best to force Bibi (to emasculate Bibi) to give up any and all bargaining chips before the resumption of any discussion between the PA and Israel. Some in the US govt want Bibi naked and ready to be hanged (….by its own people!)!
People must make the effort of understanding what is written between the lines. For most of us who do not speak or read Arabic, try reading between the lines if you cannot even understand English!
This is all poppycock for public consumption because Israel already has placed conditions unacceptable to the Palestinians by annexing E. Jerusalem and rejecting the right of return. They might as well have gone all the way and annexed J&S and Gaza as well and deported all the hostiles, which would also have settled the settlements issue once and for all.
Having said that, I don’t think Israel should even consider wasting their time on any talks in the context of the charters of all the radical Palestinians which require them to wipe Israel off the map and kill Jews.
Why are Israeli leaders ignoring this fact which has been documented in the Palestinian charters?
Steven L.
Can you give some detail on “give up any and all bargaining chips”. This would be agreeing to arbitration, not negotiation.
Yamit82.
Were the Principles Committee to prove true, I would feel relieved, & in support.
Regretfully, they sound to be only concerned with foreign policy. Domestic policy
needs control and intelligence as well.
This is part of the negotiations that Bibi wants to discuss with Abbas who wants none of IT.
If they invite you to the talk you will know because they will not invite me.
The PA and the rest of the Muslim world dream of a Bibi with feet and hands tied behind his back.
Someone’s dream is some else nightmare.
I believe that the West and the left want to ignore…… The “BRIC” believes that Israel can defend itself and considering internal politics, sees no real harm in supporting the PA.
The real trouble maker is…………………………. Iran.
How many times has Netanyahu said words to the effect that “Everything is negotiable.”?
Perhaps so, perhaps no.
Remember that Soros has a history of taking down the govts of several countries by manipulating their markets &/or currencies. . . .
Still, what you say about the Mahatmabama is interesting. Sooner or later, some pieces of that paper trail are going to surface (nobody’s thorough enough to keep it ALL under wraps indefinitely) — and then the picture will come into sharper focus.
Nothing about that entire episode has ever smelled right.
I’ve never believed that the bullet that killed OBL (if indeed it was a bullet, and not, say, kidney failure) came from a SEAL weapon. More likely a bodyguard, with ongoing orders to see that he never be taken alive; he’d have been a treasure trove of intel. In fact BHO had made a campaign promise (yeah, yeah: FWTW) to take OBL alive.
The absurd haste to dispose of the body, without even the most rudimentary form of the usual procedures (autopsy, etc), struck me instantly as suspicious. That silly pretext about Islamic law/tradition requiring burial w/in 24 hours had me snorting from the get-go — this at a time when Arab spring had seen Arab capitals all over the M-E & Maghreb with undisposed bodies rotting in the streets for weeks. (And how long was Qaddafi’s body recently on display before the mobs decided they’d had their fill of it?)
I’ve never ceased to suspect that OBL was already dead — as late as minutes, as early as days – before the SEAL team reached his floor of the building.
BHO’s (apparently unrecorded) meeting with the Team-6 SEALs some weeks later, followed by the deaths of that entire team — who just happened to be together in the same chopper when it went down (leaving evidently not a single survivor) — did nothing to allay that suspicion.
My money says that the decision which Leon & Hillary ‘made happen’ (perhaps one of several) was the decision to take credit for the kill, once it was confirmed that the subject was dead & the body positively identified. (Probably a decision, as well, to take out any surviving bodyguards; loose ends.)
If what I’m positing is true, then the three of them (Panetta, Clinton, Obama — &, yes, maybe Petraeus too) share a secret that will bind them all together — and control much of their individual future actions — forever.
Then too, Vinnie, where SOROS is concerned, there is this, just in, from Aaron Klein [World Net Daily], “Is this next U.S.-NATO armed action?”:
Where has god been all these centuries?
Coffee break?
Mickey
SEE HERE FOR ANSWER:
yamit82′s answer is wonderful.
I am opening up my umbrella.
Mickey