web analytics
December 28, 2014 / 6 Tevet, 5775
 
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Jeffrey Goldberg’

Disability Rights Org Dismayed by Diss from US Administration

Thursday, October 30th, 2014

The Ruderman Family Foundation is a U.S.-and-Israel-based Foundation which generously supports entities promoting the full inclusion of people with disabilities into the wider Jewish community.

Yesterday, Oct. 29, the Ruderman Foundation issued a statement expressing dismay over the report that an Obama aide referred to Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu as “Aspergery.”

Jay Ruderman, president of the Ruderman Family Foundation, said “In his article in The Atlantic, ‘The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations is Officially Here,’ Jeffrey Goldberg quotes an unnamed source in the Obama administration who refers to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu as ‘Aspergery.’”

“The term ‘Asperpery’ was used in a manner that is insulting to the millions of people around the world with Asperger Syndrome. It is never OK to insult someone by referring to them by using disability in a negative manner.”

The Ruderman Family Foundation called upon the Obama administration to release a statement denouncing the use of the name of a disability in a derogatory manner.

In earlier articles describing Goldberg’s article and the ensuing outcry, the JewishPress.com refrained from mentioning the use of the disability term as an insult, concluding it was simply too offensive to mention, but as a show of support to the Ruderman Foundation, The Jewish Press resolved to amplify their voice representing the rights of those with disabilities.

US: Calling Bibi ‘Chicken****’ Not Acceptable (Other Insults OK)

Wednesday, October 29th, 2014

A senior administration official calling Israel’s prime minister a word for fowl excrement was “inappropriate and counter-productive,” the White House said early Wednesday, Justin Sink at The Hill explained on Wednesday, Oct. 29.

“Certainly, that’s not the administration’s view, and we think such comments are inappropriate and counter-productive,” National Security Council spokesman Alistair Baskey said.

“Prime Minister [Benjamin] Netanyahu and the president have forged an effective partnership, and consult closely and frequently, including earlier this month when the president hosted the prime minister in the Oval Office.”

Baskey was referring to the…well…excrement storm touched off by a lengthy article in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg.

Throughout that article Goldberg quotes various unnamed senior administration officials using schoolyard taunts aimed at Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. The name-calling article also served to deliver Goldberg’s own view – that a Palestinian State must be carved out of the hide of the tiny Jewish one - and that Netanyahu is a “coward” for refusing to take orders from this administration and perform vivisection on his own nation.

Of course, the juvenile name-calling is of a piece with Goldberg’s own analysis which fails to conclude that the creation of a Palestinian State now or at any time in the near future would simply and quickly create yet another official haven for terrorism. This was already proved conclusively when Israel removed every Jew, living and dead, from the Gaza Strip, birthing Gazastan. And this new hoped-for haven would have a clear shot at Ben Gurion Airport, among many other strategic points in Israel.

The response by many Israelis to the crude verbal attack was anger, but there were also a sizable minority who simply laughed at the idea that anyone working in this U.S. administration, for this president, could call someone a coward who served in an elite combat unit in the Israel Defense Force.

There was one sliver of a silver lining, however, in Goldberg’s article.

Evidence that Netanyahu is a coward, one administration official offered according to Goldberg, is that Netanyahu had not made war against Iran, and “now it is too late.”

“The official said the Obama administration no longer believes that Netanyahu would launch a preemptive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in order to keep the regime in Tehran from building an atomic arsenal. ‘It’s too late for him to do anything. Two, three years ago, this was a possibility. But ultimately he couldn’t bring himself to pull the trigger. It was a combination of our pressure and his own unwillingness to do anything dramatic. Now it’s too late,’” Goldberg wrote.

And both the quoted official and Goldberg himself acknowledged that it was the Obama administration’s threats that prevented Netanyahu from launching the strikes against Iran.

Nice.

Listen to what I say or I’ll ridicule you for listening to what I say or I’ll carry out my threats against you if you don’t listen to what I say. It’s a no-win game. So maybe it makes more sense just not to listen?

For those who wonder whether Goldberg was just quoting a few malcontents, several former high level insiders emphatically suggest otherwise.

Ari Fleischer, former White House Press Secretary for President George W. Bush, tweeted that “As ex WH staffer, I can safely say staff wouldn’t publicly call someone “chickensh*t” if POTUS hadn’t privately said something similar 1st.”

And as a former state department lawyer told The Jewish Press, “The way politics is practiced in America, it’s standard operating procedure to release such quotes and then pretend to talk away from them; it’s like a pitcher throwing an inside ball to brush a batter back from the plate. Their statements today do not in any way mean that they didn’t officially release this tripe yesterday, or mean to do it.”

The US-Israel Crisis Created by Obama

Wednesday, October 29th, 2014

As Palestinian Authority officials continue to incite their population and Arab terrorists rev up for what they hope will be a third “intifada” last night a mouthpiece for the Obama Administration has lit his own fuse on the internet.

The Atlantic columnist Jeffrey Goldberg led his column Tuesday (Oct. 28) with a comment from a “senior Obama administration official” who called Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu “a chickenshit.”

Goldberg wrote that the comment was “representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors” and “yet another sign that relations between the Obama and Netanyahu governments have moved toward a full-blown crisis.”

I say it’s all hogwash, kashruth and halal notwithstanding.

On June 4, 2009 – just six months after entering the White House – Israel independently rated a grand total of just four sentences in a landmark hour-long speech delivered by President Barack Obama from Cairo. Of the four, one sentence contained a major inaccuracy.

The reference was to America’s “unbreakable” bond with Israel, which Obama insisted was based upon “cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.”  (ed. note: italics added for emphasis)

It’s not, and if Obama knew his Qur’an as well he claims to know to, and as well as he allegedly knows his Bible as a Christian – which perhaps he may not – he would know that last is patently untrue.

Yesterday before this brouhaha began Israel’s President Reuven Rivlin revisited this very same issue as he inaugurated a new Museum of History of Polish Jewry in Warsaw, at the invitation of Poland’s President Bronislaw Komorowski. The two men stood together as Rivlin spoke of Jewish history.

“There are those who mistakenly think that the State of Israel is compensation for the Holocaust,” Rivlin said in an ironic response to Obama’s 2009 Cairo claim. “There is no greater mistake. The State of Israel is not a compensation for the Holocaust. The State of Israel was established in its own right.” (italics added)

To be perfectly politically incorrect, Israel is the Jewish homeland because it was granted by Almighty God Himself to His Chosen People. Period, full stop. Read the Old Testament. It’s there in black and white.

Even observant Muslims know it, those who have studied their Qur’an. The passages are quoted often by those Muslim leaders who do truly understand the meaning of coexistence and peace, and even at times by those who don’t.

(Sura 5:20) “And when Moses said to his people, ‘O my people, remember the favor of Allah upon you when He appointed among you prophets and made you possessors and gave you that which He had not given anyone among the worlds.’”

(Sura 5:21) “O my people, enter the Holy Land which Allah has assigned to you and do not turn back [from fighting in Allah’s cause] and [thus] become losers.”

Clearly Obama’s speech writers were not among these well-educated people, nor did he correct them. Perhaps he was unable to, perhaps he didn’t notice.

But his priorities vis a vis Israel were made equally clear in the fact that every other reference to the Jewish State in his Cairo speech was made solely in relation to its relations with the Palestinian Authority and the Arab world.

Obama’s scorn for Israel — and in particular, for its leader — has never really been a particularly well-kept secret.

Barely a year after Obama first entered the White House, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu was treated to a taste of that disdain. In 2010 America’s first black president suddenly left Israel’s top leader “on hold” in the Oval Office in a breathtakingly rude manner during an exchange over Obama’s demands that Israel cease building in Jerusalem.

Bennett: Obama Plans to Throw Israel Under the Bus

Wednesday, October 29th, 2014

Responding to Jeffrey Goldberg’s recent article “The Crisis in U.S.-Israel Relations Is Officially Here” which can practically be summed up as an insider’s guide to the Obama administration’s upcoming strategic plan to harm Israel, Economy Minister Naftali Bennett said,

“If what is written is true, then the current administration intends to throw Israel under the bus.”

Bennett elaborated,

“Israel is stronger than any disparager. The Prime Minister is not some private individual. He is the leader of the Jewish State and the Jewish world as a whole. Vulgar remarks directed against an Israeli Prime Minister are hurtful to the millions of citizens of Israel and Jews worldwide.

It isn’t the leader of Syria, who has slaughtered 150,000 of his citizens, nor the leader of Saudi Arabia, who stones women and homosexuals, who are being called a “chickenshit”.

If what is written is true, then the current [US] administration intends to throw Israel under the bus.

Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East, and we have struggled throughout our 66 years for our existence.

Israel is the vanguard of the free world against the Islamic terrorism of ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas and Iran.

Instead of attacking Israel and forcing suicidal conditions on her, strengthen her.

I call upon the United States government to renounce and reject this vulgar remark.”

What Better Way to Neutralize Netanyahu on Iran, Than by Mocking and Disparaging him

Wednesday, October 29th, 2014

There should not be a shred of doubt by now: When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.” — Barack Obama, May 2012

Some of the more petty and thin-skinned members of the Obama administration probably enjoyed anonymously calling the Prime Minister of Israel a “chickenshit“, knowing it would be printed in the papers. Using Jeffrey Goldberg as the tool to get the message out on how the Obama administration might harm Israel over the next two years certainly didn’t hurt either.

But don’t get sidetracked by the Obama administration’s crass vulgarity and maliciousness.

Goldberg’s article wasn’t about settlements, and it wasn’t about President Obama’s childish and visceral hatred of Netanyahu.

It was about deflecting attention away from the Obama administration’s ongoing Middle East policy failures, and most specifically, Iran; trying to instead make the public discussion about a grudge match with a supposedly ungrateful Israeli Prime Minister, as well as placing blame on Israel for Obama’s failures.

In 2012, in a Zig moment, before he Zagged, Obama said, “There should not be a shred of doubt by now: When the chips are down, I have Israel’s back.”

But is that really true?

During the war with Gaza, when Israel was defending itself from thousands of missiles, it was the Obama administration that had the FAA shut down flights to Israel. It was the Obama administration that blocked weapon purchases and shipments. It was the Obama administration that was forcing ceasefires on Israel as missiles were still flying at us. And leading up to the Gaza war, it was the Obama administration that pushed to have that same Hamas terrorist organization whitewashed and recognized as part of the Palestinian Authority. And we certainly can’t ignore how Secretary of State Kerry recently blamed ISIS’s popularity on Israel.

In the wider world, it’s the Obama administration that is currently allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran reach the cusp of a nuclear bomb.

And Iran’s nuclear program is what Goldberg’s is article really about.

The very worried Arab states recently cataloged a series of serious concessions the US has supposedly made to Iran, as reported by The Tower.

…that the U.S. has dropped its demand that Iran close its underground military enrichment facility at Fordow, that the U.S. has accepted Iran’s characterization of its enrichment rights regarding uranium, that the U.S. will permit Iran to operate the plutonium-producing reactor at Arak, and that the U.S. has delinked Iran’s ballistic missile program from the rest of its nuclear program.

Simultaneously, the Obama administration is very worried that Congress might stop them from moving forward on their Iranian concessions. They know, a strong Bibi speech can galvanize Congress.

The New York Times reported on plans by President Barack Obama to “do everything in his power to avoid letting Congress vote on “a nuclear deal that many lawmakers have publicly worried will be inadequate to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

What better way to neutralize Netanyahu, than by mocking and disparaging him.

Rahm Emanuel said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste.” And clearly if you don’t have a crisis, you manufacture one.

What better way to sidestep Obama’s Netanyahu-Iran problem, than a U.S.-Israel crisis – manufactured by the Obama administration.

Last Defense Of Obama’s Defenders On Israel Has Evaporated

Thursday, August 21st, 2014

There is much to say about last week’s Wall Street Journal report on the further deterioration of U.S.-Israel relations under President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu. But there’s one aspect in particular that stands out. And that is the fact that if the basic structure of arms transfers from the U.S. to Israel is described accurately in the story – and it appears it is – the last refuge of Barack Obama’s defenders on his attitude toward Israel has evaporated.

Obama never hid his contempt for the Israeli government or the majority of Israel’s voters. Even as a candidate in 2008 he let loose, ranting about Likud in a way that showed his lack of understanding of the basics of Israeli political life as well as his desire to push back on Israel’s supporters in the U.S.

After he became president, only the most dedicated leftists were surprised when he, in entirely predictable fashion, picked silly fights with Israel and tried to collapse its elected governing coalition. (Though it can also be argued that those leftists were cheered by this course of action.)

There was always, however, one defense Obama’s “fanboy”s in the media would fall back on: at least he is dedicated to ensuring Israel has what it needs to defend itself. This was generally thought to be a fair point, though never as compelling as they hoped it would be. After all, “Obama hasn’t abandoned Israel to a bloody genocide at the hands of its neighbors” is quite a low bar to clear.

But the Journal story takes apart the idea that Obama has always had Israel’s back when the chips were down:

 

White House and State Department officials who were leading U.S. efforts to rein in Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip were caught off guard last month when they learned that the Israeli military had been quietly securing supplies of ammunition from the Pentagon without their approval.

Since then the Obama administration has tightened its control on arms transfers to Israel. But Israeli and U.S. officials say that the adroit bureaucratic maneuvering made it plain how little influence the White House and State Department have with the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu – and that both sides know it.

The munitions surprise and previously unreported U.S. response added to a string of slights and arguments that have bubbled behind the scenes during the Gaza conflict, according to events related by senior American, Palestinian and Israeli officials involved.

 

So the essential resupply was not approved by Obama, because it didn’t have to be. It’s simply the default setting: the two countries’ defense departments have military cooperation on autopilot. But when Obama found out, he put a stop to the automatic resupply. In other words, Obama sought to downgrade the U.S.-Israel military relationship.

A general defense of Obama on Israel’s security goes something like this, from Obama’s dedicated press ally Jeffrey Goldberg: “On matters of genuine security, Obama has been a reliable ally, encouraging close military cooperation, helping maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge over its regional rivals and, most important, promising that he won’t allow Iran to cross the nuclear-weapons threshold.”

You tend to hear some variation on that theme from time to time, usually when Obama is busy picking fights with Israeli leaders. Diplomatically, he may be consistently harsh on Israel, so the thinking goes, but at least he’s absolutely committed to Israel’s security. (The Iran part of that Goldberg quote, by the way, is also up in the air, considering the president’s consistent attempts to water down or derail sanctions on Iran and his desperation for a deal that lets Iran drag out the process.)

Why The Palestinians Can’t Say Two Simple Words

Wednesday, March 26th, 2014

As we learned from his recent interview with journalist Jeffery Goldberg, President Obama is obsessed with the idea that Israeli intransigence is the reason there is no peace in the Middle East.

But Israel has already shown its willingness to accept a U.S. framework for continued talks despite justified misgivings about the direction of the negotiations. Meanwhile, the Palestinians have given every indication they won’t buy into the framework because they fear it will commit them to the one thing they have repeatedly shown no interest in accepting: peace.

Further proof of that came earlier this month from The New York Times in the form of an op-ed from a leading Palestinian academic explaining why his people could never agree to one of the key points in the framework: recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. Ali Jarbawi of Bir Zeit University gave a number of reasons why the Jewish state demand is a non-starter.

Not entirely by coincidence, the Times editorial page has endorsed the Palestinian position on the Jewish state. The Times’s dismissal of the Jewish state demand is one more indication that the paper’s supposed concern for Israel’s future is less than sincere.

Let’s first dismiss the claim made by both the Times and Jarbawi that this demand by Israel is an innovation on Netanyahu’s part whose purpose is to derail the peace process. In fact, there’s nothing new about it. The original 1947 United Nations partition resolution stated that the land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River was to be divided between an Arab state and one it designated as a “Jewish state.”

If the Palestinians are now reversing their adamant rejection of partition by saying they will be satisfied by an independent state in the West Bank and Gaza, there should be no problem accepting this term.

But they can’t, and Jarbawi doesn’t shy away from explaining why. The Palestinians can’t say the words “Jewish state” because to do so would force them to give up their historical narrative in which they see themselves as victims of history who can only be made whole by annulling the results of Israel’s War of Independence.

The key principle of Palestinian nationalism is rejection of Zionism and the existence of Israel no matter where its borders are drawn. If Palestinians agree that a Jewish state has a right to exist, that means they are forever giving up their dreams of extinguishing it. That seems unfair to Jarbawi because it means the 1948 refugees and their descendants would be deprived of their dream of “return,” which means the end of Israel as a Jewish state.

Jarbawi makes the specious point that agreeing to Israel’s being a Jewish state would compromise the rights of Israel’s Arab minority. He knows very well this is a red herring since Israel’s basic laws hold that it is both a Jewish state and one in which ethnic and religious minorities have full rights. Israeli Arabs are equal before the law in Israel; they serve in its Knesset, government and judiciary. There is no conceivable scenario under which those rights will be annulled even in the event of war, let alone the outbreak of peace.

But his real objection to this point comes in the next paragraph when he says that even if those conditions are confirmed, Palestinians fear a peace treaty might mean that Jews in the West Bank who wish to remain in their homes in the event of peace, would be given the same rights that Arabs have in Israel.

A savvy Palestinian propagandist might have been willing to concede the right of Jews to live in a future Palestinian State as a protected minority, but not Jarbawi. Speaking for what is mainstream – indeed, the virtually unanimous – opinion of Palestinians, the academic says Jews have no right to be there and therefore cannot be accorded the equal rights Arabs have inside Israel. Their vision of peace is apparently one in which a Jew-free Palestinian state exists alongside an Israel flooded by Palestinian refugees who would vote the Jewish state out of existence.

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/indepth/opinions/why-the-palestinians-cant-say-two-simple-words/2014/03/26/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: