Tuesday, February 23, 2016

Obama's Potential Third Term Undermining of Israel

Michael L.

In an article for Israel National News by Elad Benari, we read:
ClintonSpeaking Sunday to CNN, Clinton vowed to support Israel but also said she would insist on the “two-state solution”, that is the formation of a Palestinian state, in order to bring an end to the conflict.
I believe that we have seen this movie before and it does not end well.

In fact, I am pretty sure that we have seen it over and over and over again since Yitzak Rabin stood on the White House lawn shaking the hand of our friend Yassir Arafat as President of the United States, Bill Clinton, smiled aglow nearby.

Hillary Clinton will likely continue the counter-productive anti-Jewish / anti-Israel Oslo-policies of Barack Obama and who, as Obama's Secretary of State, threatened and browbeat the Jews of Israel on behalf of their Palestinian-Arab enemies. They did so, and do so, while claiming to be "friends" of the Jewish people and the Jewish State of Israel.

This, unfortunately, is false.

Those of us who care about the well-being of Israel, and the well-being of the Jewish people, understand that Barack Obama has been the least friendly president of the United States toward Israel, even surpassing the record of Jimmy Carter, both presidential and post-presidential.

Carter welcomed the ayatollahs to prominence and, to this day, likes to visit his friends in Hamas. Obama simply moved the United States aside, thereby enabling a muscular Iran, with a recent influx of 100 billion dollars, to develop its nuclear program undisturbed as it expands its presence throughout the Middle East and continues its violent operations against Jews and proxi-war against Sunni Arabs in that part of the world.

This has, not surprisingly, fomented a growing strategic relationship - if not alliance - between Israel and some of the Sunni Arab states, such as Jordan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia, in opposition to both a nuclear Iran and a US-EU-Iranian strategic and economic partnership.

It should also be remembered that it was Hillary Clinton who flew to Cairo to ensure a smooth transition into power of the Muslim Brotherhood, even as that organization - the parent of both Hamas and Qaeda - called for the conquest of Jerusalem. It was also Hillary Clinton, at the behest of the Obama administration, that flew to Jerusalem at the start of the Operation Protective Edge to protect Palestinian-Arabs from the foreseeable consequences of their attempts to kill Jews, via rocket-fire, from the Gaza Strip.
I also believe the Palestinians deserve to have a state of their own. That's why I support a two-state solution.
This is a strange argument and one that we have heard many times before.

The genocidal anti-Semitic Palestinian-Arabs deserve a state, while the peaceful and civilized Tibetan-Buddhists apparently do not. The Kurds are fighters and an oppressed minority throughout that part of the world, but apparently they do not deserve a state, either. Only the Pal-Arabs deserve a state, although one is left to wonder just what their contribution to humanity has been that they "deserve" to control a Judenrein Arab state among the 22 other largely Jew-free and hostile Arab states in the Middle East?

The "Palestinians" did not even have a self-conscious national identity until shortly before the Beatles broke up.
I happen to think that moving toward a two-state solution, trying to provide more support for the aspirations of the Palestinian people is in the long-term best interests of Israel, as well as the region, and, of course, the people themselves.
Should it not be painfully obvious by now that the aspirations of the Palestinian-Arabs is not for two states living side-by-side in peace next to one another? They have refused every single offer since the Peel Commission of 1937, they name sports stadiums and boulevards after the murderers of innocent Jews, and they have trained a whole generation of their children to believe that chopping off the heads of Jewish toddlers, or stabbing old men in the streets with scissors, is beloved in the sight of Allah.

Hillary is either deluded or simply does not care... in much the same way that Obama is deluded or simply does not care.

The only question that I have, in the fairly likely event of a Hillary presidency, is will she be more, or less, hostile toward Israel than Barack Obama? I do not know the answer to that question, but given her advisers I would I would not put much faith in a Hillary presidency.

She is a creature of Oslo.

She is riding a dead horse, and it will be the Israelis - both Jewish and Arab, between the River and the Sea - that will pay the price.


  1. It certainly is concerning, for all sorts of reasons, what a Hillary Clinton presidency would look like in regards to Israel.
    I would possibly be even more concerned, unfortunately, about a Sanders presidency. For complex reasons.

    The most worrying thing - because noises have been made from White House staffers - is whether Obama will recognize a state of Palestine before leaving office. I wouldn't rule it out.

    1. Sanders is a self-hater who would give cover to Israel-hater types like Chomsky and West, who support him.

      to the OP, I think Hillary will be much better than Barack Hussein Obama on Israel. From 2000 (her first senate run) to 2009 (when she joined Obama's clique), she was one of the most pro-Israel politicians, which I believe she is at heart. She's also got Haim Saban and Robert Kagan on board! She paid lip service to Obama, for reasons we saw in South Carolina last week. Seeing as a lot of pro-Israel people might jump ship to her if Trump is the nominee (he'll be barring unforeseen events) because Trump might be an isolationist (tho I'd vote for him instead of Sanders), I think Hillary deserves a second chance. Bill was great with Israel- Oslo had been negotiated with Bush Senior under the guise of "thanking" the Gulf War coalition countries. Clinton went with the facts on the ground, and rightfully blamed Arafat and didn't demean Israel in public like Barack Hussein Obama.

    2. Sanders said in one of the debates that the U.S was responsible for the genocide in Cambodia. Not Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge. That's straight our of Chomsky. Alarming.

  2. You will know that I am reluctant to comment on current US politics but I have to say that "President Trump "is starting to sound not so bad all things considered.

    I know that he's at least half crazy but then again so is just about every other world leader.

    Sanders would be a catastrophe. He has horrible disaster written all over him.



    A small matter concerning a private computer and national security has probably made her unelectable anyway.

    Yesterday I watched a video of a speech Trump made to a group called the "Republican Jewish Alliance " or something similar very recently.

    He made a lot of sense. I haven't got the link at hand but I'm sure it would be easy to find.

  3. First of all, all the candidates, including Cruz and Rubio, give lip service to the two state solution. I think it is simply not possible as the current rulers in the West Bank and Gaza are fascist kleptomaniacs who are really not interested in having a viable state since it would lead to a loss of both power and money to them. Secondly, I fail to see how the destruction of the American economy is good for Israel. The Republicans, all of them, have as their raison d' etre the transfer of wealth to the rich. That simply cannot to on indefinitely. Lastly, I am as pro Israel as anybody, but there are other issues. To support candidates who rely on hatred and bigotry is certainly contrary to my Jewish values.

    1. "Republicans, all of them, have as their raison d' ere the transfer of wealth to the rich."

      I just want to isolate that statement so others can comment on it. Although I have always supported progressive taxation, I still find your statement a bit too facile for my taste, and reminds me a bit of "liberals, all of them, want to confiscate your hard earned money and give to a bunch of welfare recipients who are too lazy to work for a living.

    2. Joseph,

      I would argue that while it is true that all the candidates give lip service to the two-state solution, only the Obama administration (with Hillary acting as an enforcer) used it as a club against the Jews of the Middle East or a reason to demand that Jews be allowed to live here, but not there.

      As for the partisan politics, what I would argue is that the differences between the Democrats and the Republicans reflect the foundational divisions within the country, itself.

      The Preamble to the Constitution reads as follows:

      We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

      Democrats and progressives see themselves as oriented more toward the "general welfare" while Republicans and conservaitves are more concerned with the "blessings of liberty."

      Of course, neither are consistent. For Democrats the "general welfare" usually refers to the economy whereas for Republicans it more often refers to national security.

      For Republicans the "blessings of liberty" tend to refer to smaller government and lower taxation, while for Democrats it means staying the hell out of our bedrooms.

      As for hatred and bigotry, I see none among the candidates. There is concern about Jihadism, but there should be such concern.

      Am I wrong?

    3. I know that the Republicans - unlike European conservative parties - are much concerned with "social issues". We don't have the equivalent emphasis on ideas around homosexuality, abortion, same-sex marriage etc.
      And of course, there are people with very strong feelings. However, it seems to me that, for the most part, they draw a distinction between what they believe - or approve of- and people's freedom to do what they want. In a free society it is not necessarily relevant whether people approve of anyone's lifestyle or behaviour, what matters is if they wish to prevent you from living your life. Agreeing with something or endorsing it is less important than tolerating it. And, above all, allowing people the liberty to make their own lives. Regardless of what you happened to personally think.
      Liberty seems to me to be predicated on tolerance. Tolerance of difference.

    4. Kate,

      I have to tell you that over the years I have developed something of a fondness for Evangelicals and social conservatives.

      I don't even agree with much of what they think - which is to say that I am pro Gay rights and favor a woman's right to choose and I am obviously not a Christian - but they stand against the prevailing culture of politically-correct narcissism... if you get me.

    5. I certainly get you. Well said.

    6. By now it should be clear that Trump is saying out loud what the Republicans have been dog whistling for years. Whatever his real beliefs are, he is clearly running on a hate filled, xenophobic, racist platform. The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Republicans see the world as Ayn Rand does. Before he was embarrassed into downplaying her influence, Paul Ryan was demanding his staff read her works. Democrats, on the other hand, see the world as a cooperative venture, where we are all responsible for each other, the essence of Jewish teachings.

    7. I disagree. I think it's much more complicated than that. And much more interesting. Both parties are at great fault. Great fault.
      This is not dissimilar to what is happening in Europe.
      It's really quite fascinating. Depressing, but fascinating.

    8. It is not both sides, it is the Republicans. Read conservative Republican Norman Orsnstein. Here is an example http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-10-14/thomas-mann-and-norman-ornstein-on-republicans-gone-wild

    9. Joseph,
      Thanks for the link. It's interesting.
      I don't think anyone would suggest that as a party the Republicans have not gone off the deep end.
      That has been getting obvious.
      However, you implied that they were all racist and hate-filled. And xenophobic.
      There is no evidence to support those claims. There are all manner of things wrong with the Republican party, obviously. But they are much more complex than mere accusations of bigotry. I think the anger felt by many - including the Tea Party - is far more to do with the role of government and, of course, the bank bailouts. Far-left parties in Europe also objected to the bank bailouts.
      Of course there are some people who call themselves Republicans who are unpleasant. There are some - many - people who call themselves Democrats who are unpleasant.
      As far as what we are witnessing with the Trump phenomenon: Most registered Republicans don't like him and don't support him. Many of the people voting for him are people who have not voted before. Some are former Democratic voters. The majority of Republican voters are very negative towards him.
      He is playing a clever game. He is a megalomaniac, demagogue who knows exactly how to play the media. He's in it for Trump.
      He'll almost certainly win the nomination because the Republican party has been blind to its failings and to some of the concerns of its base. The biggest concern of people voting Trump is welfare. Not building walls, anti-anyone bigotry or anything else. Welfare. I linked further down in the thread to an article by Ed West trying to explain what might be happening. It is a pattern we are seeing in Europe. Not a pretty pattern, but one that deserves attention.
      Trump is not really a Republican, nor is he an actual conservative. He has, effectively, hijacked the Republican party for his own ambitions. Most of his positions are liberal. He *is* anti-immigration and a nationalist. We are seeing similar in Europe. I think there are interesting reasons for that.
      Your views about the Democratic party sound as if you don't think they are responsible for anything that is damaging. I would massively disagree with that. They have played identity politics for all it is worth. Often to the detriment of the most vulnerable in society. Supporting the Democratic party shouldn't mean being blind to quite how much is wrong with them. As an organization, they are fairly ruthless and rotten. As a comment from Pitt demonstrates.
      It is possible for two things to be true at the same time. Both American political parties can be deeply troubled. And responsible for much that is wrong. There is fault on all sides.
      Political parties are great big organizations which, by definition, become full of people who have ambitions for power and influence. That's understandable. I see them as necessary, things to be wary of, and to be constantly questioned. Whoever they are. It is a mistake to believe that the only reason people can come to a different conclusion about what kind of policies would help people is because they are intrinsically bad or stupid. This demonization of one's opponents has been a stock- in- trade of both sides. If anything, like in the UK, the worst demonizers are on the Left.
      Politics doesn't tend to attract very nice people. And political parties, I think, should judged on outcomes rather than intentions. And certainly not on whatever image they have carefully constructed for themselves. They shouldn't be fetishized. It's dangerous.
      That's true of all of them.

    10. Edit:
      Should *be* judged on outcomes...

    11. First of all, I agree that tribal affiliation as a reason for voting for any party is a problem. Second, I don't think all Republicans are racist jerks. I rather like Graham, although I disagree with him on just about everything. At least he comes across as trying to understand problems. But I continue to believe that the modern Republican party created Trump. When people voted their economic interests, that is until Nixon came along with his Southern strategy, the Democrats were the dominant party. It is only by appealing to emotions that the Republicans have managed to remain competitive. Whether those who rise to the top of any political party, or any political or corporate system for that matter, is someone necessarily lacking in moral underpinnings is something I have thought and studied about for a while. But that is really a topic for a different day.

    12. Joseph,
      What you say is interesting.
      I think *all* politics is filtered through emotions. Most people find policy alone quite dry and unengaging. It's interesting that you go back to the Sixties in your argument. The bigger part mass media - particularly television - plays in politics, the more there is a reliance on personality and emotion. It is impossible for it to be otherwise. In the UK, we have seen a far greater distrust in politicians since we have watched a certain type of politician be created by the demands of the news cycle. Which, as you know, has increased to a state of constant coverage. Everyone is "on message" and scripted by their advisers. Some are better at media than others. Personality starts to matter more. It shouldn't, but it does. In the present day, Nixon wouldn't get a look- in. He wouldn't have the necessary charm or charisma for television and social media etc.
      I don't tend to think that people only vote in their economic interests. And I don't tend to think they should. I think there are other important factors that affect how people see their lives. Social cohesion. A sense of belonging to a particular country. These things can be taken for granted until a time when people feel they are under threat. Social cohesion - and "social capital" as sociologists call it - is a hugely important factor in how people feel. And it should be.
      Sometimes political parties behave in such a way as to ride roughshod over these very human feelings. And, if they leave it too late, they can push people into less than savoury arms.
      I think the great lesson of what is happening, is that too many people feel like no-one speaks for them. And they are probably right. It doesn't mean that whoever pops up claiming to be on their side will actually be a decent spokesman for them, though. This is happening all over Europe. Populists are gaining ground. Have a look at what is happening in France, Sweden, Denmark, Austria, Holland etc. There is a lot of similar stuff going on. Politics is global now. And the results of globalization are increasingly difficult for many working and middle class people. There are wider trends going on, I think.
      I'll try and get a couple of links together which might be relevant.

    13. Joseph, a couple of links:

      First is a long-read, but with some really interesting points to make.

      Second is a short piece from the WaPo.



      Sincerely hope link is correct.

      There's quite a lot of stuff I can find on Europe if you're interested. You absolutely don't have to be.

  4. Mike,

    That was a great piece. The only thing I might change is to work in "on Jewish land" after "Judenrein Arab state."
    The Beatles breakup line is a keeper.

    Hillary supports Israel, but...
    This indicates to me that she thinks the way to get to a "Palestinian" State is to pressure Israel to make concessions it cannot make. What the Palestinian Arabs want is Western recognition of a state which will be in a state of belligerence with Israel. It's what the phased plan is all about, and they may indeed get it.

    What makes Jimmy Carter a darling of the left? The left wasn't crazy about him when he ran in 1976. It wasn't hot for him when he ran for re-election. His humanitarian work since leaving office is enough to get some limited praise from liberal-minded people, but why does the Left love him so much? I think you and I and some others here know the answer. The short answer is they are forever grateful to him for smearing Israel as an apartheid state on the cover of his book, and his general antipathy to Israel, and, let's face it, Jews, i.e., two dimensional, morally deficient creatures from his favorite Bible stories. (That was short? Yes.)

  5. Hillary, like Jeremy Corbyn, where they ever to attain real and legitimate power in their respective countries there would or will in fact be pogroms in those countries.

  6. As Douglas Murray points out, there could only be a *Three* state solution. There is zero possibility of any proper alliance between Hamas and Fatah. It is politically disingenuous to believe that those two polities could unite to form a single state. All evidence shows the opposite.

  7. Any statement by any American politician on what 'they think MUST occur' is utter absolute bullshit. It is for the sole purpose of OUR domestic politics and typically it's for their OWN base, as if suddenly they were going to change their minds. It's for fund raisers and professional Jew haters.

    But at least they stopped calling this slow motion genocide The Arab Spring. Who knows, maybe in a decade the BBC will call it The Jewish War of all the Jews Against the Whole World or something equally Amnesty International-sounding.

  8. Sometimes you gotta just shake your head.

    "Secretary of State John Kerry told the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the Department of State and Foreign Assistance today that he is having an “additional evaluation” done to help him determine whether the systematic murder of Christians and other religious minorities in the Middle East—at the hands of the Islamic State and others—should be declared “genocide.”


    1. It's extraordinary, isn't it?
      Maybe he can get advice from Samantha Power.

    2. Right. I wonder where did "responsibility to protect" evaporate to. She was so gung-ho to bomb Israel.

  9. "Here is a brief list of things that British PM David Cameron has been shocked about over the past couple of years:

    1. Malaysian air disaster, 239 killed
    2. Peshawar school massacre, 141 killed
    3. Nepal earthquake, 9000 killed
    4. Tunisia terror attacks, 38 killed (31 British)
    5. Paris terror attacks, 130 killed
    6. Jews building houses in their historic capital.

    Actually, his words about Jews building houses were even stronger than those of the other events, because that was the only one he termed "genuinely shocking."

    Do you get the impression that world leaders, including those who call themselves Israel's friends, have a fairly twisted sense of priorities?"


  10. "A political science professor who claims his statistical model has correctly predicted the results of every election in the last 104 years has forecast that the odds of Donald Trump becoming America’s next president currently range from 97 percent to 99 percent.

    Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/24/political-science-professor-odds-of-president-trump-range-between-97-and-99/#ixzz41DJ4Lmo3

    1. 97 to 99 percent?

      I cannot believe that to be true.

    2. Read it and weep, Mike. Embrace the Donald ;)

    3. The Trump campaign borders on the surreal.

      I keep wanting to tell him to get his foot out of his mouth, but it seems fully ensconced.

      I am beginning to think that he shoves it in there on a daily basis on purpose because he thinks that, somehow, it's beneficial to his campaign. And apparently he's right!

      I mean, what do you think? There he was, sitting around with Ivanka and his advisers, and they said, "Donald, you need to be as obnoxious as possible. If you go with sexism and personal insults they'll love it."

      And they do!

      My suspicion is that Rubio is best set to knock off Hillary, but it looks like we are going to see and Hillary / Trump race.

      The notion of yet another Clinton presidency is vaguely nauseating. The notion of a Trump presidency is a little frightening. However, the idea of a Clinton / Trump battle to the death sounds like like a rip-roaring good time.

    4. Trump deliberately double speaks: to say the media said this about him (he played dumb on the klan) but in "reality" he disavowed them (at the press conference and now in his tweets and Jas Shaw dad endorsement). Ditto the "shut down of Muslims entering" which was "really" lowing Muslim immigration.

  11. Been gone for a while, anyways let me add a couple things

    1st, the Dixiecrats on Super Tuesday have made sure "that old Jewish guy" wouldn't win. The AA communities who we supported to help Obama over HRC (Her Royal Clinton) abandoned us.

    Also I would like to point out something about the dear leader of the DSKF (Daily Storm Kos Front). He started that site for better Democrats railing against Joe Lieberman who he saw as to right/centrist. Now the dear leader over there for months has been pandering and shilling a right/centrist $hillary Clinton over a true liberal Bernie Sanders.

    I wonder why .... Hmmmm

    At this point I am very disgusted with the whole of the Democratic Party and their mouthpieces.

    1. No, Too different groups I was addressing.

      should have the word (also) at the end of the first paragraph to make it more clear

  12. A slightly different thesis from Ed West:


    It is interesting to see similar things going on in Europe and America. Difficult things. Things that cross party lines.

  13. k,
    That was interesting. Thanks.