A BRIBE TOO MANY: Obama to Netanyahu on peace: 'If not now, when?' WHAT A CHEEK

This is a disgusting example of how the world has ended up. The US Administrstion is basically BRIBING Israel and 'assuming' that it just must be Israel's fault if the peace talks fail. And even if it's obvious it isn't Israel's fault , Israel will still take the blame and have to concide if it is to be 'accepted' 

Ahead of meeting with Netanyahu, Obama hints US will be unable to protect Israel from "international fallout" if peace process fails, settlement building continues.

America’s ability to “manage the international fallout is going to be limited” if Israel does not strike a peace deal with the Palestinians and there is “continued aggressive settlement construction,” US President Barack Obama said in an interview published on the eve of hisMonday meeting with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.

Washington’s inability to manage this fallout will have consequences, Obama said in the interview with Bloomberg’s Jeffrey Goldberg that appeared Sunday.

Asked whether Israel’s settlement policy will impact on the way the US will deal with Israel and Palestinian-related questions at the UN, or on US aid to Israel, Obama said that America’s commitment to Israel’s security “is not subject to periodic policy differences. That’s a rock-solid commitment and it’s one that I’ve upheld proudly throughout my tenure.”“In today’s world, where power is much more diffuse, where the threats that any state or peoples face can come from non-state actors and asymmetrical threats, and where international cooperation is needed in order to deal with those threats, the absence of international goodwill makes you less safe,” Obama said. “The condemnation of the international community can translate into a lack of cooperation when it comes to key security interests. It means reduced influence for us, the United States, in issues that are of interest to Israel. It’s survivable, but it is not preferable.”

He said that the “affection that Americans feel for Israel,” as well as the bond and bipartisan support will not be affected. “So it is not realistic nor is it my desire or expectation that the core commitments we have with Israel change during the remainder of my administration or the next administration.”

Obama, who said US Secretary of State John Kerry reports to him almost weekly about the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and occasionally asks for direction, stopped short of saying that the current diplomatic efforts were “the last chance” for a peace deal.

But, he said, “with each successive year, the window is closing for a peace deal that both the Israelis can accept and the Palestinians can accept.”

He said this was partly because of changes in demographics, partly because of the settlement policy and partly because of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas’s age.

“We do not know what a successor to Abbas will look like,” Obama said.

Obama, who has had a famously rocky relationship with Netanyahu, said the prime minister was smart, tough, a great communicator and a “very skilled politician.”

“And I take him at his word when he says that he sees the necessity of resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I think he genuinely believes that,” Obama said, adding that he believes Netanyahu needed to “seize the moment.”

“When I have a conversation with Bibi, that’s the essence of my conversation: If not now, when? And if not you, Mr. Prime Minister, then who? How does this get resolved?” he said.

More so than Obama, Kerry – in an interview Sunday with NBC’s Meet the Press – placed more of the burden for moving the process forward on Abbas.

He said that the Netanyahu- Obama meeting was not going to be a “showdown or anything.”

Responding to a question about whether this was “a moment of truth” for Netanyahu, Kerry replied that “everybody has to act.”

“He’s been very courageous,” Kerry said of Netanyahu, whom he will meet Monday morning before Netanyahu meets Obama. “And he’s made tough decisions with respect to entering into these negotiations and some of the things that he’s indicated he’s willing to do in the negotiations.

“It’s also up to Abbas. The Palestinians need to decide whether or not they’re prepared to compromise,” he said, “whether or not they’re willing to do some of the things necessary.”

Kerry, who had what has been widely reported as two difficult meeting with Abbas in Paris two weeks ago, said “this is not a burden exclusive to one party or the other.”

In addition to meeting Obama and Kerry on Monday, Netanyahu is scheduled to meet Vice President Joe Biden as well as the House and Senate leadership.

Before leaving for his five-day trip to the US, during which he will speak to the annualAmerican Israel Public Affairs Committee conference and spend two days in California, Netanyahu said that Israel has successfully withstood strong pressure over the last few years, and will continue to do so.

“I am leaving for an important trip to the US,” Netanyahu said before boarding the plane. “I will meet President Obama, and we will discuss Iran and the diplomatic process. I will stand firm on Israel’s vital interests, first and foremost security.”

In recent years, Netanyahu said, “Israel has come under various pressures, and we deflected them in the face of the unprecedented storm and unrest in the region. We maintained stability and security. That is what has been and what will be.”

Jerusalem post

OBAMA PUTS LIVES AT RISK : Obama “De-Escalation” Policy Requires Soldiers To Carry Weapons Unloaded In Afghanistan

THIS IS INSANE! 

YOUNG LIVES PUT AT RISK TO PLEASE THE APPEASER IN CHEIF 

” First they want to give medals for “courageous restraint.” Now they want to tie both hands behinds our soldiers’ backs. This isn’t suicide, it’s negligent homicide, in my book.

  Commanders have ordered a U.S. military unit in Afghanistan to patrol with unloaded weapons, according to a source in Afghanistan. American soldiers in at least one unit have been ordered to conduct patrols without a round chambered in their weapons, an anonymous source stationed at a forward operating base in Afghanistan said in an interview.

“The idea that any combat unit would conduct any operation, including patrolling and even manning a security post—in which direct action may or may not take place—and not having weapons loaded, borders on being criminally negligent in my opinion,” says Lt. Col. W. Thomas Smith Jr., a recognized expert on terrorism and military issues. “This is nothing more than infusing politically correct restrictions into already overly restrictive rules of engagement. And this PC nonsense is going to get people killed.” 

According to Smith, “American soldiers are highly skilled in the use of ‘loaded’ weapons, and so should be trusted to operate with ‘loaded’ weapons. If someone overseeing decisions on ROE [rules of engagement] thinks not, then ratchet up training. But don’t put a man on the street and force him to go through multiple prompts when a gunfight breaks out. Remember, the situation can go from quiet to kinetic in half the time it takes to breathe.”

In an ambush situation, just how long does it take to engage a target when your weapon isn’t already loaded? “Too long,” states Sandy Daniel, military veteran and deputy director of the Victory Institute. “The first couple of seconds in an ambush are critical, and when that block of time is used to load a weapon instead of firing, you are losing the time you need to stay alive. Patrolling without a chambered round is suicide.”

You viewed.com

 

Op-Ed: Obama is Burnishing His Legacy

Obama is planning a visit to Iran

Unlike most re-elected presidents, Barack Hussein Obama is deftly exploiting foreign affairs at the expense of Israel and his own country's national security to burnish his legacy.

And while it is not surprising anymore, this president's manic delusions of grandeur and 'shameless' power grabs are intentional and not merely coincidence.

Obama's cynicism, deception, pathological lying, betrayal and broken promises to "fundamentally transform the United States of America" are not surprising because his Third World philosophy, vision, dreams and plans are irreconcilably at odds with our Constitution.

For Obama to remake our country into what he wants it to be, he must subvert the Supreme Law of the Land and build an imperial presidency.

That could explain the repetitive trends of impressive White House directives emanating from a government in cahoots with a compliant Congress.

Since Obama assured Israel that "you are not alone" less than a year ago, escalating sectarian strife and intractable conflicts in the Middle East presented Jerusalem with an enormous challenge to protect and defend itself from Islamic extremists intent on attacking the Jewish state.

Speculation aside, the Arabic language Kuwaiti news outlet Al-Jarida has learned from a US diplomat that 'Obama is seeking to visit Tehran  this year and was expecting for the invitation to devote his new administration's policy in the region based on the principle of non-military involvement and harmony'.
The source pointed out that the most significant detail remaining to be decided is 'whether there will be a meeting between Obama and Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, or whether that meeting won't be held'.
According to unknown diplomat, "Obama wants to be the first US president to visit Iran since the Khomeini revolution in order to show that he is an advocate of peace and dialogue even with those who chant death to America."

Similar to how it reacted during secret US backchannel talks with Tehran, already a "violation of the special relationship with Israel”; the White House categorically denied the report.

Although the improved ties with Tehran seem to be in America’s national security interests, Obama's desperation to  reach a comprehensive nuclear accord in exchange for Iran's recognition as a nuclear threshold state effectively betrays Israel and US Arab allies.

Under prevailing circumstances, Obama will not lift a finger to destroy Iran's nuclear program. But, we should also bear in mind that despite Obama's capitulation to the Iranians, Israel's ability to strike Iran's illicit nuclear program remains undiminished.

Regardless of the reasons for betraying Israel, the imprudent Obama administration's naive foreign policy demonstrates an astounding diplomatic incompetence:

The  two-state framework is going nowhere and in danger of collapse; and the interim deal, castigated by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu  as an "historic mistake" was a grand deception that has nothing to do with dismantling Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

For these reasons, wary and assertive critics are 'casting Obama as a sucker for an Iranian charm offensive.' With regards to the Israeli-Palestinian talks, Israeli Defense Minister, Moshe Ya’alon denounced Secretary of State John  Kerry's project “obsessive and messianic.”

Other Israeli officials are quite unforgiving and slammed Kerry for threats onboycott and  implied incitement for Palestinians to pursue a "Third Intifada" should talks fail.

Quite frankly, something is terribly amiss with Israeli leaders apologizing for their truthful, frank and outspoken assessments of emerging frontline threats to Israel. It was a terrible mistake, unfair and unnecessary gesture of appeasement.  

Netanyahu's next meeting with Obama in March should serve a stern warning to Washington that 'enough is enough' and that Israel's determination of "denying Tehran an atomic bomb capability" is sacrosanct.
First and foremost, "diplomacy is about taking excuses, not giving them".

Overwhelming pessimism abounds, but the resolution of the faltering US-sponsored peace process with the Palestinian Arabs should depend on the successful final outcome of nuclear diplomacy with Iran.
The US failure to address Syria’s dangerous disintegration and threat of terrorism from Hezbollah will not prevent Iran from building atomic weapons.

And that leaves Israel with no option but to act on its own. It will come to pass soon. Israel has the undeniable advantage to deliver a swift military-cyber-strategic blow to Iran's controversial nuclear program. In reality, the 'genocidal Islamic fundamentalists ruling Iran are contemporary Nazis reinforced with messianic beliefs'. Annihilation of the Jewish people and global hegemony are the only reasons why Iran would not stop from seeking nuclear weapons.

Iran giving up its nuclear weapons ambition is untenable and the potential for a comprehensive nuclear deal unattainable for the following reasons:

The Iran Sanctions Act (ISA) which is an “extra-territorial sanction” recognizes the fact that Iran's illicit nuclear activities, combined with its unconventional and ballistic missile production and support for international terrorism represents a threat to the security of Israel, the US and its allies around the world.
For one, it may not be politically correct to argue that Iran will not be free from the grip of sanctions until the Islamic regime first improves its human rights record and cease its support for international terrorism.
Over time, ongoing talks on a comprehensive nuclear agreement between Iran and six world powers is impossible- without dismantling Iran's nuclear infrastructure .

Iran's ultimate goal is to become a nuclear-weapon state. In his presentation of “Worldwide Threat Assessment” to Congress in January 2014, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper testified that, "Iran’s ultimate nuclear intentions remain"

Although Iran claimed its nuclear program a symbol of national pride, Tehran's  deployment of an ancient "armada of two" warships closer to the US maritime borders was a desperate  bravado and a necessary appeasement of hardliners in Iran. But then again, 'enemy warships on one’s very doorstep are not exactly foreign policy, but more a matter of national security'.

The real threat continues to rest on their ability to disrupt maritime traffic in the Persian Gulf, especially the strategic Strait of Hormuz. If anything, Iran’s entire armada consists of outdated warships with antiquated weapons systems and they cannot hope to compete in blue-water operations against the US Navy, so the Islamic regime's provocation against Israeli and American interests is a symbolic "act of foolishness" that may trigger false flag attacks.

Given the ongoing nuclear negotiations between Iran and the world powers -- the Iranian navy's operation takes place in a politically sensitive context. For the US, this rhetoric translates as continued assurances of the effectiveness of current sanctions.

Absent serious doubt about what to do, the Iranians have yet to answer the International Atomic Energy Agency's (IAEA) questions about the "possible military dimensions" of their nuclear program. In addition, they have now built nearly 20,000 centrifuges and accumulated approximately 5-6 bombs' worth of enriched uranium.

Unless Ayatollah Khamenei miraculously reverses his relentless xenophobia, Obama's legacy will be that of an American president who appeased the most barbaric Islamic fundamentalist regime in the world.

Arutz 7
-------
 

Iranians Simulate What Attack on Israel and US Would Look Like

Ironic......Obama pussyfooting around Iran doing everything he can to please them....and this is the thanks, video from Iranian TV showing their real intentions, bragging and shouting about attacking Israel and blowing up America.. How ironic, way to mess up Obama, what a joke.

WELL NO SUPRISES THOUGH.

Iranians Simulate What Attack on Israel and US Would Look Like

In a video released on Iranian state television on Friday, it is possible to see how the Iranians imagine attacking Israel and the United States with drones and missiles, a hypothetical response to the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities by one or both of the countries.

In a video released on Iranian state television on Friday, it is possible to envision a hypothetical attack of Iran on Israel and the United States, if the latter two countries were to destroy the former’s nuclear facilities. The video is computerized, showing an attack on Israel’s Azreali Towers in Tel Aviv, and the U.S. aircraft carrier the USS Abraham Lincoln.

The video also contains clips of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warning Iran’s enemies that they should not intervene in the country’s affairs. “Anybody who thinks of attacking the Islamic Republic of Iran should be prepared to receive strong slaps and iron fists from the Armed Forces”, he says in the film. Another clip of one of his speeches is also added to the video, “And America, its regional puppets and its guard dog—the Zionist regime—should know that the response of the Iranian nation to any kind of aggression, attacks, or even threats will be a response that will make them collapse from within”. 

The video was broadcast following anti-American statements made by the Ayatollah Khamenei yesterday, calling the United States Iran’s ‘archenemy’. A senior commander in the Iranian navy also said that Iranian warships had been sent across the Atlantic Ocean. This is despite the nuclear deal made between President Rouhani and the world powers to decrease Iran’s enrichment of uranium to acceptable international levels.

Feb 09, 2014, 11:02AM | Maya Yarowsky

Jerusalem Online

For more on the turn in Iran-US relations—click here.

----------

Obama’s War on Israel

If the left’s foreign policy these days had a slogan, it would be, “Boycott Israel, not Iran.” The double standard, dishonest as it is ugly, is also the motto of Obama’s foreign policy, which benevolently blesses Iran’s nuclear program with one outstretched hand in the name of peace and chokes concessions out of Israel to the terrorists with the other also in the name of peace.

Both peace plans are going disastrously according to plan.

Iran has made it clear that it will dismantle nothing and that it will go on developing ballistic missiles and nuclear technology. Its military commanders threaten to attack the United States and boast that their ships are encroaching on America’s maritime borders.

The Palestinian Authority has shed the last vestiges of democracy as its leader begins the tenth year of a four-year term and its elected legislature has been discarded in favor of the PLO Council. Instead of a representative government, the Palestinian Authority has reverted back to what it always was; the PLO.

A Palestinian state has receded into the figment of a dream as elections have become a distant memory and Hamas continues to hold Gaza, leaving a PLO mafia in the West Bank to maintain its monopoly on cigarettes and other commodities while passing around Western aid money to its terrorist militias.

The more Kerry pressures Israel, the more bellicose PLO leaders have become. Fatah officials have accused Kerry of threatening to poison Abbas, the Palestinian Authority’s current President-for-Life. The accusation is ridiculous, but the PLO, like Iran, is feeling emboldened by American weakness.

The softer American power gets, the harder its enemies hit.

Obama Inc. however has eyes only for Israel. Its officials and its allied media apparatus in New York and Washington have decided to hold Israel’s Prime Minister personally accountable for any criticism of Kerry and Obama not only by Israeli Jews … but also by American Jews.

An Obama Inc. official said that Obama and Kerry were disturbed over “Jewish activism in Congress” and that the administration had informed Israel of its displeasure over criticism of them by American Jews.  Holding Netanyahu accountable for the comments of American Jewish leaders is an ugly Alinskyite tactic in which Obama uses Israel as a hostage in order to silence domestic Jewish criticism.

“Shut up or the Jewish State gets it.”

The constant monitoring and suppression of Israeli criticism was so pervasive that Kerry’s handler

Jen Psaki, denounced a comedy video mocking his disastrous diplomacy put out by an Israeli political group, sight unseen, while discussing expectations that Israeli leaders would rein in criticism of Kerry.

Psaki described criticism of Kerry as “not an attack on him; that’s an attack on the process. And of course that kind of rhetoric we find unacceptable.” John Forbes Kerry had become the living embodiment of peace. The peace process, whether in Iran or Israel, had become reducible to peace. Opposing it meant opposing peace and supporting war. And Kerry had become reducible to the process and therefore to peace. Louis XIV had only claimed to embody the State. Kerry claims to embody peace.

Meanwhile Kerry makes poorly coded threats about international boycotts and intifadas to Israel while promising Jerusalem to the PLO.

The lack of options is the theme of both peace plans. Sanctions on Iran mean war, claims Obama. A failure to reach a deal that will let Iran keep its nuclear program also means war. And so, in true Chamberlainian fashion, the only alternative to war is to accept any offer that the enemy makes.

The willingness to accept any deal is the traditional negotiating posture of the losers of a war, but when any alternative to a peace deal is considered unacceptable, the peace negotiators come to the table as the losers of a war that was never even fought because they had already surrendered in all but name.

When the Senate attempted a little bit of bipartisan pressure on Iran, MSNBC’s Chris Hayes began denouncing the vast Jewish war conspiracy and the left-wing of an already left-wing media shrieked that we were about to be plunged into a war by the Zionist warmongerers. The same outlets that give a hearing to proposals to boycott Israel, chant in angry unison that any boycott of Iran is an act of war.

Every good progressive in Obama Inc. and in its media corps knows that Iran, which took American hostages and murdered hundreds of Americans, is a victim of American foreign policy, while Israel, which is being cut up into a completely indefensible, broken territory for a peace that will never come, is its beneficiary. The terrorist peace processes are unworkable, but they were never supposed to work.

The peace process with the Palestinian Authority has always failed because it was always meant to fail. Peace was the brass ring that Israel was supposed to reach for, but never actually get close enough to reach, carving itself to pieces under the bloody knives of the negotiators in the hopes of proving its moral worth to the world. Dying so that it might be allowed to live. The Iranian deal is more of the same.

Perhaps there is enough tie dye in Obama’s blood for him to genuinely want a world without nukes, but if the US is to retain its nuclear capability, then like Oppenheimer and the other scientists who helped the USSR get the bomb in the name of world peace, he wants Iran to have the bomb for world peace.

Prime Minister Netanyahu thought that he might be able to trade one peace process for another, but he hasn’t even been able to trade concessions to terrorists for sanctions on Iran. Instead he has made the worst possible bargain, trading a self-inflicted punch in the face for an enemy’s kick in the teeth. Israel has once again ended up with the worst of both worlds in the name of peace.

Obama’s dual peace processes have the same agenda. They are both meant to destroy Israel. If the PLO can’t get the job done with intermittent terrorism and negotiations, maybe a nuclear Iran will. The goal is to create enough threats to Israel that it either ceases to be a viable state or simply ceases to exist.

The destruction of Israel flows naturally from the destruction of American power. Israel has to be undone, just as Mubarak was undone, just as the United States military was undone, to heal the humiliations of the Muslim world. The United States had to lose in Afghanistan and Iraq, it had to destroy its allies in the Middle East, to make Muslims feel good about finally defeating the United States.

http://www.frontpagemag.com

Selling Out Israel: The Obama-Kerry Plan

Israel is being urged to give up major portions of the West Bank of the Jordan River to the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).  That outfit is now known in Western media as the Palestinian Authority (PA), but it comprises the major terrorist group Fatah. 

That's the Arabic word for conquest.  And conquestof all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea has been the goal of the PLO since its inception.  Its founding charter calls for the destruction of Israel.  And its logo shows a map of the region with no Israel indicated.

The goals of Fatah could not be clearer.  And yet, successive U.S. administrations have heeded the siren song of peace in our time in a futile attempt to persuade a terrorist group to mend its ways.  It's as if our own State Department thinks a tiger can be turned into a tabby cat if only we feed it enough American cream.  U.S. taxpayers have been forced to spoon out billions in aid to the PLO since 1989 -- with no discernible move toward freedom or democracy by this rejectionist group.  (A "rejectionist" is one who rejects any role in the Mideast for the Jewish state.)

Now, the Obama administration is fully engaged in applying pressure to the Israelis to give in and give way.  President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry are committed to a so-called "two-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict.  (This is a conflict, by the way, that has been raging since at least the 1920s, when Arab riots against Jewish settlers in what was then called the Palestine Mandate, supervised by Great Britain, claimed hundreds of lives.)

At issue today is an emerging Obama-Kerry technical fix that would presumably use drones and electronic sensors to monitor Israel's border security. Thus, this administration will pledge to "have Israel's back."

Other countries have relied on such guarantees in the past.  In 1919, President Woodrow Wilson promised French Premier Georges Clemenceau U.S. military intervention if Germany -- defeated in World War I -- ever arose to threaten exhausted France again.  The French Guaranty Treaty, signed by Wilson and Britain's Prime Minister David Lloyd George, pledged the Western democracies to defend France if Germany ever violated the 35-mile de-militarized zone in the Rhineland.  Wilson cared little or nothing about the French Guaranty Treaty, instead concentrating all his energies on the Versailles Treaty, which established his beloved League of Nations.  When Wilson refused any compromise -- even compromises that France and Britain fully backed -- the Senate rejected that treaty.  The French Guaranty Treaty was a casualty of the Executive-Legislative clash over the Versailles Treaty.

Seventeen years later, in 1936, Adolf Hitler ordered Nazi troops into the Rhineland, and Britain and France did nothing.  Within four short years, Nazi troops were marching down the Champs-Elysées in Paris.  France lost her independence trusting the word of a discredited U.S. administration.

Sixty years later, in the 1970s, South Vietnam was pressured by the Nixon administration into signing peace accords in Paris with the Communist regime in North Vietnam.  President Nixon hailed the peace agreement, under which the U.S. would guarantee South Vietnam's independence and freedom.  Nixon never abandoned South Vietnam, but when he faced mounting demands for his resignation over the Watergate scandal, he lost any clout he had on Capitol Hill.  Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass)  and Rep. Don Fraser (DFL-Minn.) led a successful push in Congress to repudiate Nixon and cut off all aid to South Vietnam.  That unfortunate nation soon fell under the tank tracks of a North Vietnamese invasion.  Communists laughed at U.S. weakness as they overran Saigon in April 1975.  They consigned millions of South Vietnamese to enslavement and thousands to death

What in the record of President Obama's administration should give the Israelis confidence that he will truly "have their back"?  As Moshe Ya'alon, a leading Israeli defense spokesman in Israel's parliament, the Knesset, noted, "[s]ensors and drones are no substitute for the physical presence of Israel Defense Force soldiers.  The Jordan Valley is vital to the security of Israel, and we cannot assent to third parties being there in our stead."

President Obama's habit of grand pronouncements -- followed up by less than grand actions -- is catching up with him.  He announced with great fanfare the closure of the U.S. detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.  He flaunted his now-famous Executive Order-signing pen and affixed his left-handed signature.  It would be closed in just one year.  That closure would be accomplished by presidential order by January 2010.  Gitmo remains open.

Last summer, President Obama announced to the world that any use of chemical weapons by Syria's embattled ruler, Bashar al-Assad, constituted a "red line" that would demand U.S. action.  But when reports stated that Assad had used such weapons -- and when the Obama administration loudly endorsed those reports -- no action was forthcoming.  Today, the administration blames Assad's forces for "foot-dragging" on its agreements to dismantle chemical weapons.  Barely 1% of these have been destroyed.

Is the Obama administration, like those of Woodrow Wilson and Richard Nixon, a discredited administration that cannot keep its pledges even if it wants to?  That is not clear.  President Obama was rather handily re-elected in 2012, even after taking a "shellacking" in the 2010 mid-term elections.  Whether the voters will be paying strict attention to the Obama-Kerry attempts to arm-twist Israelis is also not clear.

Israelis have long memories.  Back in 1967, they trusted to U.N. observers to "have their back" -- literally their back door -- with a peacekeeping force in the Sinai desert.  Egypt's dictator Gamal Abdel Nasser ordered those peacekeepers out of the Sinai and proceeded to blockade Israel's only port on the critical Gulf of Aqaba.  That act of war precipitated the Six-Day War of June 1967.

Israel has learned that when the fate of the Jewish people is at stake -- as it is now, with Iran racing toward nuclear weapons -- the Israelis cannot "outsource" their vital security.  The U.S. should not be trying to force Israel to make dangerous concessions to the PLO -- or any others among their homicidal neighbors.

Ken Blackwell and Bob Morrison are senior fellows at the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C.

http://www.americanthinker.com/

US Secretary of State labelled anti Semite:

•US Secretary of State has been labelled an 'anti Semite' for warning of a possible economic boycott if Israel failed to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians.

• US accused of holding a gun to Israel's head as a threat

John Kerry, the US secretary of state, triggered an angry backlash from Israeli leaders on Sunday after warning Israel faces economic boycott if it failed to reach a peace accord with the Palestinians.

The uproar came as Mr Kerry held cordial talks with his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif in Munich at which the pair vowed to intensify nuclear diplomacy.

Ministers in Benjamin Netanyahu's cabinet accused Mr Kerry of effectively endorsing "anti-Semitic" efforts to impose sanctions on Israel by issuing the warning.

"The risks are very high for Israel," Mr Kerry told the conference. "People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure.

"Do they want a failure that then begs whatever may come in the form of a response from disappointed Palestinians and the Arab community?"

While the US secretary of state's remarks were made against a backdrop of new US drawn up, negotiated and approved EU regulations barring deals with Israeli businesses based in West Bank settlements, they provoked accusations that he was threatening Israel in on-going peace talks with the Palestinians.

Yuval Steinitz, the intelligence and strategic affairs minister and a close ally of Mr Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, said America's top diplomat was "holding a gun to [Israel's] head".

"The things Kerry said are hurtful, they are unfair and they are intolerable," Mr Steinitz told reporters.

"Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a gun to its head when we are discussing the matters which are most critical to our national interests."

Naftali Bennett, the industry minister and leader of the Jewish Home party, said: "We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece."

His comments were echoed by Adi Mintz, a senior official in the Settler's Council, who accused Mr Kerry of "an anti-Semitic initiative".

"The anti-Semites have always resorted to a very simple method - hit the Jews in their pockets," he told Israel's Channel 10 TV station.

Mr Netanyahu was more restrained, telling Sunday's cabinet meeting that efforts to impose a boycott were "immoral and unjust" and doomed to fail.

The row overshadowed a meeting on Sunday between Mr Kerry and Mr Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, to discuss forthcoming talks on Tehran's nuclear programme, scheduled to resume in Vienna this month.

Telegragh

Obama has made it possible for Israel to strike Iran

I called a hardheaded realist, a Harvard trained PhD who has been watching the Middle East professionally for decades, to ask him about Obama's Iran deal.  This is what he told me.

It's done.  Iran will get a bomb.

They want a bomb and they will not be denied unless somebody stops them.  Obama does not want to stop them.  He does not want a friendly regime in Iran.  He wants Iran as a counterforce to America and Israel.  Obama is not a Muslim, but he is a radical.  He sees the U.S. and Israel as imperialistic and oppressive.  He doesn't like the U.S. military.  He'd cut it to nothing if he could get away with it.

We'll have to pull our troops and our aircraft carriers out of the Persian Gulf.  We'll lose our ability to protect Middle Eastern oil.  The Gulf Arabs will have to cooperate with Iran.  So will Europe; they depend on that oil.

The Iranians want the ascendance of Shia Islam.  People don't remember, but when Ayatollah Khomeini took over, he sent Revolutionary Guards to Saudi Arabia and they seized Mecca.  French paratroopers had to go in secretly and get them out.  The Saudis couldn't do it themselves.

The Iranians want to take over Mecca and Medina.  They want to take over the Arab world.  With their nuclear weapons they will pressure Israel.  They don't need to bomb them.  They will test a nuclear bomb, they will send in missiles, they will issue threats, they will strangle them economically.  Israel's high tech people will leave.  They can do start-ups in Silicon Valley just as easily as in Israel; the weather is just as nice.  Investments in Israel will dry up.

The deal is indeed terrible. Obama has been changing the rules of the game - he went from Iran not having the ability to make a bomb, which had been our policy, to Iran not actually making a complete bomb. 

Once you've mastered enrichment, and Iran has, creating enough highly enriched uranium is just a choice; there are no technical hurdles left.  They have thousands of centrifuges that can enrich uranium in a few months, starting from zero.  Whether they have stocks on hand enriched to 5% or 20% is totally irrelevant. 

Iran will have an unarmed bomb on the shelf ready to go. Loading the bomb takes a short time - who will know when they do that?  Bombs are not that big, especially ones meant to be loaded on missiles. So who will even know where it is?...

http://www.americanthinker.com

Obama’s Brother joins Hamas, says ‘Jerusalem is ours; We are Coming’

No surprises here, but again the same question, how did Obama get to be President of America??

Walid Shoebat and Ben Barrack

While in Sanaa, Yemein in 2010, President Barack Obama’s brother Malik Obama was at an event billed as the Orphans Development Fund (ODF) Conference. It’s quite the ironic title considering a group photo Malik is in that he has posted to his website. In the photo, he can be seen wearing a Hamas scarf (keffiyeh) that bears a well-known Palestinian slogan – ‘Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE COMING!’ It also includes a map of Palestine that says, ‘From the River to the Sea!’ In other words, Malik is saying, THERE IS NO ISRAEL.

Scarf translated: Jerusalem is ours – WE ARE COMING!

Here is the full photo:

Malik: Expressing support for Hamas at an ‘orphan’ conference.

Here is Malik Obama’s boss (Malik works for him officially in his capacity as IDO Executive Secretary), Suar al-Dahab during a visit to Gaza last year at a Hamas event with the group’s Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader Yusuf al-Qaradawi. Notice he’s wearing a similar keffiyeh at a conference entitled, ‘Aiding Jerusalem and Gaza”:

Malik’s boss, Suar al-Dahab, wearing a similar keffiyeh in Gaza.

Here is Malik in 2010, with al-Dahab in Khartoum, Sudan during the Islamic Da’wa Organization (IDO) conference, presided over by Sudan’s terrorist leader Omar al-Bashir, who belongs to the Muslim Brotherhood and is wanted for crimes against humanity:

Malik Obama and Suar al-Dahab.

Like British politician George Galloway, Malik is comfortable associating with those who support the message emblazoned on these scarfs:

British politician George Galloway and Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh with similar scarfs.

Galloway and Haniyeh, wearing and surrounded by keffiyehs.

Just in case we’re told that Malik was conned into wearing such a hateful and racist symbol like Swedish King Carl Gustaf and his wife Queen Sylvia were, consider a few things. Carl and Sylvia quickly took the keffiyeh’s off after having them placed on them by an opportunist and distanced themselves from the message.

Malik is a much different story.

Swedish King Carl Gustaf and Queen Sylvia: deceived into wearing hateful keffiyehs.

Malik reads and speaks fluent Arabic as do many in his family, like cousin Musa Ismail Obama and uncle Sayyid, who’ve been to at least one prominent Wahhabist university in Saudi Arabia. Barack recited the opening lines of the Arabic call to prayer with a ‘first-rate accent’ according to the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof.

Musa Obama and Sayyid Obama at Umm al-Qura University.

The keffiyeh (or scarf) doesn’t just say, ‘Al Aqsa is ours and is not their temple’. It also says ‘Innana Qadimun’, which translates to mean ‘We are marching forward’. This famous battle command which is a reference to the prophecy that some day the Muslim world will march on Jerusalem and then the trees and stones will cry out, ‘here is a Jew hiding behind me… come O Muslim, come and kill him’.

Here is Khansa, the Mother of the Resistance movement, donning the keffiyeh:

Khansa, mother of the Resistance movement, dons the keffiyeh.

This is a photo of Khansa sandwiched between Haniyeh (L) and Hamas leader Khalid Mash’al, who is donning the keffiyeh in this picture:

Khansa between Hamas Prime Minister and Hamas leader Khalid Mash’al.

Those who see this as a matter of guilt by association run into some major problems. President Barack Obama and Malik are much closer than is being admitted publicly. In an interview published in GQ Magazinelast July, Malik took offense at the characterization of him and the president as being merely ‘half’ brothers:

“Everyone’s referring to us as half, quarter,…step, things like that,” he says, displeased even by the taste of those words. “I think that’s like weights and measures. This didn’t even occur to us until he became president, until he gained prominence. And now we’re sort of like celebrities.

“But this is a streak of ignorance,” he adds. “Here in Africa we don’t think of each other as ‘half’ this or that. In an extended family, someone is your brother even if he is just in your clan. So I…am Obama.”

A photo of Malik as best man at Barack’s wedding tends to back up the claim:

Malik best man at Barack’s wedding.

So do photos of Malik visiting Barack at the White House on more than one occasion:

Barack and Malik in the Oval Office.

In the same GQ interview, Malik insists that he and his brother (the word ‘half’ left out in deference to Malik) are indeed close:

Ask Malik how often he and his brother talk nowadays and he boasts that it’s about once a year, as though that’s proof of their intimate bond. “Of course we’re close!” Malik says, just a bit too loudly. “I’m the one who brought him here to Kogelo in 1988! I thought it was important for him to come home and see from whence his family came—you know, his roots.”

OBAMA LIED ABOUT HIS FAMILY
As for Barack’s take on the relationship with his brother, well, he doesn’t say much about it but Barack has a history of dishonesty when it comes to being forthcoming about how close he is to his family. Late last year, Barack had to admit that he’d stayed with his uncle Onyango during the former’s days at Harvard. Prior to the admission, the American public had been told that Barack never met his uncle. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney put forth a very unbelievable explanation for the inconsistency.

Onyango Obama: Barack lied about knowing him.

Another Obama brother – Mark Ndesanjo Obama – accused the President of lying about their relationship as well, after Barack said the two had only met one time,presumably during the President’s visit to China in late 2009. Ndesdanjo insists they met several times, dating back to the 1980′s, during an interview with Laura Ingraham, via National Review:

“I heard that after the meeting we had in Beijing and I can tell you I was floored by it — I don’t know why he said it,” Ndesandjo said to Laura Ingraham, adding that he had met the president several times over the years and still isn’t sure what his motivation was for making the claim. “I think he was being president and was not being my brother,” Ndesandjo said.

Ok, so according to Barack, he only met his brother Mark once and that meeting was in China, right?

Barack and brother Mark Ndesanjo Obama met in China in 2009.

If Barack only met Mark once (in China), how does he explain this photo of Mark in the White House ten months earlier, half-way around the world during Barack’s inauguration (Mark is circled and Malik is on the far left)?

Mark Ndesandjo Obama at White House for Barack’s inauguration in 2009.

The point here is that Barack cannot be trusted to issue a full disclosure when it comes to the relationships he has with his family members.

Once again, this leads us to his relationship with Malik. How is it that Malik received 501(c)(3) status for his Barack H. Obama Foundation in less than 30 days and had it illegally backdated 38 months by Lois Lerner? If Barack had anything to do with it, history says he might be lying if he denies it. In order to come full circle here, Malik’s foundation is tied to a State Sponsor of Terrorism in Sudan.

As we’ve said before, Lois Lerner should be granted immunity and compelled to testify about why she granted tax exempt status to a man who is tied to terrorism and just so happens to be the brother of the President of the United States.

Lerner: Granted Malik Obama’s foundation illegal tax exempt status.

If Osama bin Laden’s driver was convicted of material support for terrorism, shouldn’t Malik be brought up on charges of supporting Omar al-Bashir, a world-renowned terrorist? After all, the Egyptian government wants Malik Obama to appear for questioning about this.

Malik Obama’s Barack H. Obama Foundation (BHOF) raises money and likely provides material support to terrorists.PLEASE DONATE TO RESCUE CHRISTIANS TO SAVE CHRISTIAN LIVES from terrorists who are in solidarity with Hamas.

Lois Lerner: Signature at bottom of Malik Obama’s tax-exempt approval letter.

by Shoebat Foundation on January 28, 2014 in Blog,General

------