web analytics
December 1, 2015 / 19 Kislev, 5776
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘Obama’

Analysis: Obama Defends Iran, Jabbing at Israel and Sunni States at Press Conference

Wednesday, July 15th, 2015

(JNi.media) “My hope is that building on this deal, we could continue to have conversations with Iran that incentivize them to behave differently in the region,” Obama said Wednesday at a White House press conference.

In fact, listening to the president’s message, one could conclude that the source of the problem has been not the Islamic Republic, but the Jewish State and the Saudi Kingdom.

“Israel has legitimate concerns about its security regarding Iran,” Obama said, but he added Prime Minister Netanyahu has yet to present a better option.

“Without a deal,” Obama argued, “there would be no limits to Iran’s nuclear program and Iran could move close to a nuclear bomb. Without a deal, we risk even more war in the Middle East.”

Except that Netanyahu did offer an idea for a better deal — walk away from this one, don’t make more concessions, trust the fact that the Iranians need the sanctions lifted badly enough to agree to more useful terms.

Back in March, speaking only a 10-minutes walk away from where President Obama had his press conference Wednesday, Netanyahu said “Iran’s nuclear program can be rolled back well-beyond the current proposal by insisting on a better deal and keeping up the pressure on a very vulnerable regime, especially given the recent collapse in the price of oil.”

Netanyahu spoke mostly about strategy, not content, when he said, “Now, if Iran threatens to walk away from the table — and this often happens in a Persian bazaar — call their bluff. They’ll be back, because they need the deal a lot more than you do.”

“And by maintaining the pressure on Iran and on those who do business with Iran,” Netanyahu said to Obama, albeit indirectly—you have the power to make them need it even more.”

“My friends,” he said, “for over a year, we’ve been told that no deal is better than a bad deal. Well, this is a bad deal. It’s a very bad deal. We’re better off without it.”

The deal is a “historic chance to pursue a safer and more secure world,” Obama said at his news conference. “It represents an opportunity that may not come again in our lifetime.”

That’s not so much reality as salesmanship — the one-time chance sales pitch. But what was the upside of taking seriously Iran’s threat to walk away from the table unless… — when it was clear Iran was the side that’s aching for economic relief?

In addition to attacking Israel and its prime minister, Obama on Wednesday also attacked America’s friends and allies of many decades in the region, who are easily as terrified as the Israelis are of the possibility of a nuclear Iran.

A point to consider: since the 1950s, Israel has had enough nuclear weapons to eliminate every living thing between Afghanistan and Morocco, and yet no Arab country was feeling the urge to enter a nuclear arms race because they feared an imminent attack from the direction of Tel Aviv. But as soon as the Mullahs in Tehran began to arm themselves, everyone in the region starts preparing for a nuclear confrontation?

Does it say anything about what Arab leaders think about the sanity of the supreme leader and his merry revolutionary guards?

In May, Obama invited America’s Gulf allies to a meeting in Camp David, to calm them down. Evidently, they were hysterical, as they still are. The pro-Saudi London paper Asharq Al Awsat wrote an editorial on Wednesday headlined: “Iran nuclear deal opens the gates of evil in the Middle East.”

“Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states can only welcome the nuclear deal, which in itself is supposed to close the gates of evil that Iran had opened in the region,” the editorial concluded. “However, the real concern is that the deal will open other gates of evil, gates which Iran mastered knocking at for years even while Western sanctions were still in place.”

The Good Deal

Sunday, July 12th, 2015

We’ve shown this video in the past, but it still remains incredibly relevant, especially this week.

Iranian Expert: Khamenei Says No to Signed Deal as Iran Already Getting All it Wants

Tuesday, July 7th, 2015

According to an expert on Iran, there will be no deal between the U.S. and its western partners and Iran.

But that is not because the bad deal Iran is demanding will be rejected by the U.S. or its partners. It’s because the Ayatollah Khamenie has instructed his minions in Vienna not to sign anything.

Credit for this novel theory goes to Michael Ledeen, an international affairs analyst who has been covering Iran for decades.

Ledeen explained that the desperate attempts by President Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and their team to cave to any demands uttered (or even considered) by the Iranians has led Iran’s Supreme Leader to conclude that “there is no reason for him to approve a hated deal with the devil. It’s much better to keep talking until all the sanctions are gone, and Iran’s ‘right’ to pursue its nuclear projects is fully recognized.”

What Ledeen predicts will happen is that what he has dubbed the “no deal deal” will represent a commitment to come to an actual agreement by the end of the calendar year. But in the meantime, Iran will enjoy the gold and money pouring in and the piecemeal, if not whole cloth, lifting of sanctions. What does the P5+1 get? Iran’s willingness to keep talking. What could be better?

For those who watched President Obama’s press conference from the Pentagon today about the threat of ISIS, they’d recognize an additional object of Ledeen’s sneer. That press conference took place at the Pentagon. Flanking the president at the podium were the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense. Standing alongside his military men, Obama informed everyone, essentially, that “guns don’t defeat ideologies, only good ideas do.”

Ledeen wrote that if he were “a Pentagon official” standing next to a president who said that, “I’d have resigned on the spot.”

The way the “no deal deal” is likely to play out, if all goes as Ledeen predicts, is the players will act as if a deal has been accomplished, while “just some details” remain to be worked out.

This denouement will also pose a quandary to those in Congress who have been trying – some harder than others – to ensure that those elected officials will be able to have some say about whether a bad deal is implemented. But what happens when the deal is not actually a deal? There will be nothing for Congress to vote or take action on.

Obama Won’t Enforce Anti-BDS Provision Language in Trade Bill he just Signed

Wednesday, July 1st, 2015

This week the United States officially put on notice its trade partners that it will not countenance boycotts or other economic warfare against Israel.

After signing the relevant trade legislation into law, however, the White House signaled to all its trade partners that they are still free to boycott goods made in the disputed territories, despite the clear language of the legislation the president signed.

This week the Trade Promotion Authority bill was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Barack Obama.

The TPA is primarily focused on international trade between the U.S. and Europe. It also included a section which addresses trade between the U.S. and Israel.

That part of the legislation, the U.S.-Israel Trade and Commercial Enhancement Act, bans boycotts and other means of economic warfare against Israel or the “Israeli-controlled territories.” This amendment, introduced by Rep. Peter Roskam (R-Ill-6) with bi-partisan co-sponsorship, was unanimously adopted into the PTA in April.

The passage of the TPA, including the anti-BDS section, should sound a death knell for the BDS (Boycott of, Divestment from and Sanctions against Israel) Movement. It should.

However, as pro-Israel Americans and Israelis learned only a few weeks ago in the Jerusalem passport case (Zivotofsky v. Kerry), there are certain spheres of international decision making over which the president has exclusive, or at least primary and controlling, control. Obama claims that international trade is one of those areas, even though Article 1, Section 8, clause 3, expressly gives Congress the power to regulate foreign commerce.

So even though the TPA is intended to act as a strong deterrent to European and other countries to pass and enforce boycotts of Israeli products, the White House has already signaled that it will not extend its protection to any goods produced in the disputed territories.

The anti boycott of Israel language in the TPA is: “actions by states, nonmember states of the United Nations, international organizations or affiliated agencies of international organizations that are politically motivated and are intended to penalize or otherwise limit commercial relations specifically with Israel or persons doing business in Israel or in Israeli-controlled territories.” [emphasis added.]

In a statement which Matt Lee of the Associated Press attributed to State Dept. spokesperson John Kirby, the administration made clear that despite signing the TPA, the position of the White House remains, as it has been, that the U.S. opposes boycotts of the State of Israel, but it also opposes the presence of Jews in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria and the Golan Heights.

In the statement the administration argues that by “conflating Israel and ‘Israeli-controlled territories’ a provision of the Trade Promotion Authority legislation runs counter to longstanding U.S. policy towards the occupied territories, including with regard to settlement activity,” and says that every U.S. administration has opposed “settlement activity.”

It goes on to point out that the “U.S. government has never defended or supported Israeli settlements and activity associated with them and, by extension, does not pursue policies or activities that would legitimize them.”

The U.S. administration announced that it will not jeopardize the holy grail of the two-state solution by enforcing the U.S. law as written and which its leader signed. In the statement it claims that “both parties have long recognized that settlement activity and efforts to change facts on the ground undermine the goal of a two-state solution to the conflict and only make it harder to negotiate a sustainable and equitable peace deal in good faith.” It is on this basis, ostensibly to promote a peaceful solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict, that this administration

Professor Eugene Kontorovich of the Northwestern University School of Law analyzes several other provisions of the U.S-Israel trade aspect of the TPA which have been largely overlooked. In particular, Kontorovich points out, U.S. courts cannot recognize or enforce the judgment of any foreign court “that doing business in or being based in the West Bank or Golan Heights violates international law or particular European rules.”


Jeb Bush Launches Campaign with Swipes at Obama and Clinton [video]

Tuesday, June 16th, 2015

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush officially announced his candidacy for the Republican nomination for president Monday night in a speech that was laced with promises for getting rid of Big Brother and improving relations with America’s allies.

It was clear the Bush was referring to Israel, although he did not mention it by name.

He hammered on his record as Florida governor and ridiculed what he called the Obama administration’s policies of a “regulatory state” and more concern for the stock market than the economy.

Bush said that an administration headed by Hillary Clinton will be “more of the same” and declared:

The party now in the White House is planning a no-suspense primary, for a no-change election. To hold onto power.

To slog on with the same agenda under another name: That’s our opponents’ call to action this time around. That’s all they’ve got left.

They have offered a progressive agenda that includes everything but progress. They are responsible for the…the relentless buildup of the regulatory state, and the swift, mindless drawdown of a military that was generations in the making.

His speech sets up the campaign between the Democrats and Republicans as one of conservative vs. liberal. Bush stated:

The presidency should not be passed on from one liberal to the next…. We will get back on the side of free enterprise and free people….

What the IRS, EPA, and entire bureaucracy have done with overregulation, we can undo by act of Congress and order of the president.

Federal regulation has gone far past the consent of the governed.

It is time to start making rules for the rule-makers.

Bush is considered the front-runner in the crowded GOP race for the nomination next year. He emphasized his experience as governor of Florida. Unlike most other Republican candidates, he focused on the economy, which is what most interests voters, and spent little time on foreign policy.

He chided President Obama and recalled “a few months ago, [Obama] thought it relevant at a prayer breakfast to bring up the Crusades. Americans don’t need lectures on the Middle Ages when we are dealing abroad with modern horrors committed by fanatics.

The former governor mocked what he called the Obama administration’s “phone-it-in foreign policy” and charged that the Obama-Clinton-Kerry team is leaving a legacy of crises uncontained, violence unopposed, enemies unnamed, friends undefended, and alliances unraveling.”

He said here two weeks ago, “I…support moving the embassy to Jerusalem as well — our embassy. Not just as a symbol but a show of solidarity.”

Bush’s ability to speak Spanish gives him big advantage that no Democratic candidate has. He mentioned his Mexican-born wife, the former Columba Garnica de Gallo and then spoke a couple of sentence in Spanish. He has an uphill battle for the support for Jewish voters, whom polls show would vote for Clinton by a 2-1 margin.

His speech can be seen and heard below at 2:14:40.

Arabs Charge Obama With Turning His Back on Iraqi Prime Minister [video]

Friday, June 12th, 2015

The White House has vehemently denied charges that President Barack Obama literally turned his back on Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi at the G7 summitt in Germany this week.

GulfNews.com posted a video showing Abadi sitting down on a bench where President Obama was talking with two other leaders. Obama’s back was turned to Abadi. The President continued to talk as if the newcomer didn’t exist, but it obviously was not intentional since the Iraqi leader approached the bench in the middle of the conservation.

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said that anyone looking at the scene and concluding that Obama  was snubbing Abadi is “telegraphing some insecurities that date back to junior high.”

Earnest obviously is right, as the video below shows, but the Arab reaction makes it clear that despite its being  sensitive, ego-centric and arrogant, it also interprets every word and body language of President Obama as a slur against Arabs.

When Obama “reached out Muslims” in Cairo in 2009, he did not realize whom he was dealing with.

And he still doesn’t.

Just ask Iran.

Jerusalem Mayor Responds to U.S. Decision Against Israel’s Capital

Monday, June 8th, 2015

Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat responded to today’s US Supreme Court’s decision that U.S. citizens born in Jerusalem won’t be able to list Israel as their country of birth in their passports.

Barkat said,

“Just like the U.S. capital is Washington [D.C.], London is the capital of England and France’s capital is Paris – Jerusalem was and will always be the capital of Israel, but more importantly the heart and soul of the Jewish people.

Just as anti-Semitism is currently trying to raise its head and BDS is supporting Hamas’ positions that endanger the peace of the world and deny the existence of Israel, we expect the United States to strengthen the State of Israel and recognize Jerusalem as its capital.

I call on President Obama to publicly declare what has been known for generations, Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and Israel is the home of the Jewish people.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/jerusalem-mayor-responds-to-u-s-decision-against-israels-capital/2015/06/08/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: