web analytics
July 29, 2015 / 13 Av, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘President Obama’

French Town to Name New Road after Yasser Arafat

Thursday, June 4th, 2015

A small town in southern France has deiced to name a new road after Yasser Arafat, the arch-terrorist whose gun and holster on his hip earned him the Nobel Peace Prize for signing the Oslo Accords that morphed into the Oslo War in 2000.

Several people opposed the move and complained that Arafat was a “terrorist,” according to the Nice Matin newspaper, but La Seyne-sur-Mer Mayor Marc Vuillemot told the newspaper:

There is also a Yitzhak Rabin-street in the district. To my knowledge, the two men received the Nobel Peace Prize together.

Perhaps a different recognition could be calling a trench “Arafat Ditch,” but opposing the naming of a street after a Nobel Peace winner indeed would be absurd, almost absurd as the entire Noble Peace Price industry.

President Barack Obama received the Peace Prize in 2009, less than a year after having seen elected as President.  The Nobel Prize committee explained it granted him the honor for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people” and for promoting nuclear non-proliferation and a “new climate” reaching out to Muslims.

It is amazing how much he accomplished while sitting in the White House for eight months.

The five people who the Nobel Committee that decides who wins the price are appointed by the Norwegian parliament, which says everything you need to about the agenda of the organization based in Oslo, the home of the “peace” agreement that Arafat signed and eventually scuttled to launch what is popularly called the Second Intifada but also is known as the Oslo War.

Obama Chastises Netanyahu for not Adopting US Policy

Wednesday, June 3rd, 2015

President Barack Obama used Israeli television Tuesday night to accelerate his campaign to make Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu look like an illegitimate leader

The President established his credentials for a thorough knowledge and understanding of Israel. Afar all, he said, “When I’ve visited Israel, when I was in Sderot, talking to families who had seen missiles crash through their living rooms; when I was with young people in Jerusalem and talking to them about the possibilities of peace, the reception was incredibly warm.”

He then provided evidence that he knows and understands “the very moral imperatives that led to the founding of Israel — the belief that all of us share a basic humanity and dignity and rights that make it important for us to speak out against anti-Semitism.”

So much for Theodore Herzl and Zionism.

President Obama then went to the heart of his criticism of Netanyahu’s leadership in Israel, but he inadvertently exposed his administration as a wholesale failure without his questioner taking note.

Referring to the dangers of security to Israel, he noted “the incredible tumult and chaos that’s taking place in the Middle East, the hope of the Arab Spring that turned into the disasters of places like Syria, the rise of ISIL, the continuing expressions of anti-Semitism and anti-Israeli settlement [sentiment] in so much of the Arab world, the rockets coming in from Gaza, the buildup of arms by Hezbollah.

And which country and which president of the same country encouraged the Arab Spring without the ability to see beyond tomorrow, because of ignorance of the Middle East? The United States and President Barack Obama.

And which country and which president encouraged Israel to exercise “restraint” and not respond “disproportionately” when Hamas and Hezbollah tried to destroy the country? Same answer.

But the heart of Obama’s creed is “two states,” which he stills dreams is a “solution.” He blamed Prime Minister Netanyahu for “so many conditions” for “two states” “that it is not realistic to think that those conditions would be met any time in the near future.”

His clincher is that since the peace process is a dead duck, Israel is to be blamed and will be deemed illegitimate:

And so the danger here is that Israel as a whole loses credibility.

Already, the international community does not believe that Israel is serious about a two-state solution.

His statements represent a huge collapse of his former promises the United States would not impose conditions on Israel. President Obama always has promised that Israel should be guaranteed security and should remain Jewish, but now he is defining what those terms mean.

Netanyahu’s concerns for security are not Obama’s, and therefore the Prime Minister’s conditions are not “practical.”

The President did not utter one word about the Palestinian Authority, not about Mahmoud Abbas’ corrupt regime that he heads seven years after his term of office has expired, and not about Abbas’ refusal to talk with Israel except on his own condition of “all or nothing.”

President Obama used to criticize the Palestinian Authority for ditching the Oslo Accords and going to the United Nations for recognition, but he indicated in the interview last night that he might tacitly support the move.

Obama said:

But the practical consequence that I refer to — let’s be very specific — if there are additional resolutions introduced in the United Nations, up until this point, we have pushed away against European efforts, for example, or other efforts because we’ve said, the only way this gets resolved is if the two parties work together….

Iin fact, there’s no prospect of an actual peace process, if nobody believes there’s a peace process, then it becomes more difficult to argue with those who are concerned about settlement construction, those who are concerned about the current situation– it’s more difficult for me to say to them, be patient and wait because we have a process here — because all they need to do is to point to the statements that have been made saying there is no process.

But Obama says Israel has his back.

Saudi Arabia Snubs US Summit on Iran

Monday, May 11th, 2015

Saudi Arabia’s new King Salman has screamed its irritation with President Barack Obama’s eagerness to cooperate with Iran on its nuclear program by snubbing a U.S. summit and sending his crown prince instead.

The monarchy explained in its sudden announcement that King Salman won’t attend the planned meeting at Camp David because he is too busy with the crisis in Yemen.

The official version is the king cannot attend “due to the timing of the summit, the scheduled humanitarian cease-fire in Yemen and the opening of the King Salman Center for Humanitarian Aid.”

Two days earlier, the White House played up the expected meeting between President Barack Obama and King Salman as a venue “to build on their close consultations.”

Close consultations?

Since King Salman ascended to the throne in January after the death of King Abdullah, there have been drastic shifts in Riyadh’s attitude in public. It has been more open about its opposition to how President Obama and the rest of the P5+1 is making a deal with Iran on its nuclear development as an end in itself instead of a means to putting an end to the threat of a nuclear Iran.

It also is scared stiff of Iran’s open desire to take over the entire Middle East.

Saudi Arabia and Israel are on the same page. Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu went to Washington to preach his gospel against trusting Iran, and President Obama refused to meet him since the speech was two weeks before the general elections in Israel.

Obama was looking forward to meeting King Salman as another opportunity to show how he can continue on a one-way street with Iran while bringing along a passenger who is going the other way.

King Salman, like Prime Minister Netanyahu, is not playing Obama’s political posturing.

There are some analysts who are insisting that the king’s absence from the summit is not a “snub” Obama and that the crisis in Yemen is more urgent.

But U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry met with King Salman on Thursday and said, “I’ll see you next week.” Kerry also was with Saudi Foreign Minister Adel al-Juber when the cease-fire in Yemen was announced.

On Friday, Saudi Arabia sent signals that it was not certain King Salman would arrive, and the kingdom confirmed the king’s absence on Saturday.

The Obama is spinning that it is business as usual with Saudi Arabia and the relationship is as strong as it has been in quite some time, just like it always assures Netanyahu of Washington’s “unbreakable bond” with Israel while it walks with Iran towards a nuclear weapon.

The Washington Post quoted a State Dept. source as saying:

They did not mean it as a snub. They were not trying to send a message.”

The newspaper also quoted Johns Hopkins International Studies lecturer Jean-Francois Seznec as saying, “I do not think this is a snub. I think on the other hand that it is a proof that the Saudis want substantive talks.”

Okay. It’s not a snub. In diplomatic language, it is “a message we aren’t happy with Obama.”

In other words, a snub. Or if not that, a spit in the face.

Or as was said by Jon Alterman, director of the Middle East program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “The king’s decision suggests that, despite all of this, he thinks he has better things to do with his time.”

In other words, a snub to get the message across to President Obama that Prime Minister Netanyahu is not alone.

So who’s coming to the party at Camp David besides the crown prince of Saudi Arabia?

There are five other Gulf States besides Saudi Arabia, and only two of them are sending a king. Two Gulf monarchs are not in good health. The third is from Kuwait, but its king, like King Salman, is sending his crown prince.

Salman’s absence could be seen as a snub to Obama’s administration, said Jon Alterman,

In one of the understatements of the year, Bloomberg News quoted Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Geneva, as saying that “after six years of empty promises, hesitation, and indecisiveness” by Obama, the Gulf States have a “very deep lack of trust” in his administration.

Hosni Mubarak learned what it means to have friends like President Obama, who panted after the Muslim Brotherhood before turning his back on the political party that he finally realized is a terrorist organization.

Netanyahu knows exactly how mixed-up Obama is when he equates Israeli security interests with America’s.

Saudi Arabia knows how much Washington can be trusted to stand by a decision to bomb Syria because of its use of chemical weapons.

Yes. Obama stepped back by stating that the Assad regime gave up its chemical weapons, which does not exactly explain evidence that surfaced last week of a chemical weapons attack on rebel strongholds.

Russia Backs Down and Says Iran Won’t Get S300 System in ‘Near Future’

Thursday, April 23rd, 2015

Russia has backed down on delivering the advanced S-300 advanced anti-missile system to Iran in the “near future,” Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov told Russian media on Thursday

Moscow announced two weeks ago that it was lifting the bean of selling Iran the S-300, causing “concern” in Washington and fierce anger in Jerusalem.

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu told Russian president Vladimir Putin last week that Israel would bomb the S-300 systems if Iran were to ship them to Syria or the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

Tass News agency quoted Ryabkov on Thursday as saying:

I do not think that it is a matter of near future. It is far more important that a political and legal decision has been taken to open up such an opportunity

Before the ban, Iran had paid nearly $170 million in advance for five of the anti-missile systems that would make it more difficult for Israel or any other country to attack Iran.

Russia’s retreat will somewhat calm down a storm in Congress, where support is growing to cripple the emerging deal with Iran after President Barack Obama and the other P5+1 countries agreed to a temporary framework arrangement.

Nancy Pelosi Will Oppose Iran Deal Legislation

Thursday, April 9th, 2015

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D) will oppose Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Bob Corker (R) legislation that allows Congress to review President Obama’s Iran deal, according to a report in The Hill.

Pelosi warned that the proposal by Senator Corker threatens to kill Obama’s deal.

Pelosi said, “Senator Corker’s legislation undermines these international negotiations and represents an unnecessary hurdle to achieving a strong, final agreement.”

But not all Democrats aren’t on the same page with Pelosi.

Rep. Steve Israel (D) implied that Pelosi was a partisan-based decisions when he said, “If President Bush had proposed this deal, I would demand the right to review it and to vote on it. President Obama is proposing this deal, I reserve the right to read it and vote on it… It shouldn’t matter who the president is, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to weigh in on deals of this magnitude and that’s exactly what we should do.”

There are apparently enough votes in Congress and the Senate for the proposal to pass, but President Obama has threatened to use his veto if it does.

If all the Republicans support the measure, only 45 Democrats would be needed to override the President’s veto.

Obama Espouses his Iran Strategy: If, If, If and Blind Hope

Monday, April 6th, 2015

Unofficial presidential spokesman and New York Time columnist Thomas Friedman interviewed President Barack Obama Saturday and unwittingly revealed a presidential strategy towards Iran that is based on plain hope and lots of conditional “ifs.”

In the interview under the title “The Obama Doctrine and Iran”, President Obama elevated Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to the clear leader in the campaign to bury the emerging deal that is supposed to make sure Iran cannot get its hands on a nuclear weapon.

Prime Minister Netanyahu already has led off a media blitz with interviews on several American television networks on Friday, a strong follow-up to his candid speech to a joint session of Congress last year in which he warned of a bad deal.

President Obama’s defense of last week’s temporary framework for a final agreement with Iran in June expressed his optimism and hope but did little to convince anyone who is undecided whether the emerging deal is worthwhile.

His assumption – giving it the old college try for diplomacy is better than trying force that cannot force Iran into submission – is the underlying difference in views between Israel and the president.

Obama assumes nothing can stop from getting a nuclear bomb if it wants it, and therefore it is best to try to engage it, change its personality, culture and character and maybe, just maybe, it will become a new creature.

Netanyahu and Israel, with more experience than the entire world when it comes to negotiating with the Muslim world, know that force, whether economic or military, is the only language it understands and that there is such a thing as Iran or an Arab country surrendering, even if they call it a cease-fire in order to uphold their honor.

One of President Obama’s weakest arguments in his interview with Friedman was that the policy of “engagement” has succeeded. After pointing out that Cuba does not threaten the United States but Iran does, he nevertheless compared them.

Obama said:

You take a country like Cuba. For us to test the possibility that engagement leads to a better outcome for the Cuban people, there aren’t that many risks for us. It’s a tiny little country. It’s not one that threatens our core security interests, and so [there’s no reason not] to test the proposition. And if it turns out that it doesn’t lead to better outcomes, we can adjust our policies.

The same is true with respect to Iran, a larger country, a dangerous country, one that has engaged in activities that resulted in the death of U.S. citizens, but the truth of the matter is: Iran’s defense budget is $30 billion. Our defense budget is closer to $600 billion. Iran understands that they cannot fight us. … You asked about an Obama doctrine. The doctrine is: We will engage, but we preserve all our capabilities.

His entire defense of engagement with Iran is based on the defense budget. It is not clear why he even mentioned Cuba since he admitted there is no comparing the tiny country with Iran.

Friedman, Obama’s favorite interviewer, did not bother the president with nuisance questions, such as what followed the Obama administration’s engagement with Syria, for starters.

Netanyahu Warns Iran-Yemen-Nuclear Deal Axis ‘Dangerous to Humanity’ [video]

Sunday, March 29th, 2015

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned Sunday that the deal shaping up with Iran on its nuclear program is “even worse than feared” and that the “Iranian-Lausanne talks-Yemen axis is dangerous to humanity and must be stopped.”

He told the Cabinet:

Even as meetings [in Lausanne] proceed on this dangerous agreement, Iran’s proxies in Yemen are overrunning large sections of that country and are attempting to seize control of the strategic Bab-el-Mandeb straits which would affect the naval balance and the global oil supply.

After the Beirut-Damascus-Baghdad axis, Iran is carrying out a pincers movement in the south as well in order to take over and conquer the entire Middle East.

Talks are dragging on in Lausanne, and it is not clear if the P5+1 will strike an agreement. Reports of concessions include Secretary of State John Kerry’s willingness to allow Iran retain 6,000 centrifuges at is main nuclear site, where it can continue to enrich uranium.

Netanyahu has become Public Enemy Number 1 to the Obama administration for his defiant speech in Congress earlier this month, where he warned of a “bad deal” with Iran.

He is winning more backing, not only from Congress but also from The Washington Post and even the London Economist, which is far from friendly to Netanyahu.

The Post wrote in an editorial Friday:

Negotiators — including the supposedly hard-line French, who have taken the lead on the ‘military dimensions’ issue — have reportedly agreed to let Iran’s noncompliance slide. The IAEA’s unanswered questions will be rolled over and rebundled into the new agreement, with a new time line. That means that Iran will have some sanctions lifted before it complies with a commitment it first made eight years ago.

The question this raises was articulated months ago in congressional testimony by nuclear weapons expert David Albright: ‘If Iran is able to successfully evade addressing the IAEA’s concerns now, when biting sanctions are in place, why would it address them later when these sanctions are lifted? In its rush to complete a deal, the Obama administration appears eager to ignore the likely answer.

The Economist wrote on Saturday, “Mr. Obama was right to chastise Mr. Netanyahu over Palestine. But he should not ignore him altogether. This is a vital moment in the Middle East. Mr. Obama may this week embrace Israel’s greatest foe, Iran, by agreeing on the outline for a nuclear deal. As cynical as Mr. Netanyahu may be about Palestine, he deserves to be heard on the risk that a deal will turn Iran from a pariah into a legitimate and overbearing regional power.”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/netanyahu-warns-iran-yemen-nuclear-deal-axis-dangerous-to-humanity/2015/03/29/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: