web analytics
July 31, 2015 / 15 Av, 5775
At a Glance

Posts Tagged ‘US-Israel’

Netanyahu Wants US $45 Billion in US Military Aid by 2028

Thursday, May 28th, 2015

The Netanyahu administration is holding talks with American officials for a 13-year military program of $45 billion in aid, Defense News reported.

The current American military aid program for Israel amounts to $3.1 billion a year following an increase from the original $2.4 billion a year from 2007 to 2017.  The new request would grant Israel “$4.2 billion to $4.5 billion,” according to a security source.

The military aid package does not include annual funding for anti-missile systems being developed by the United States and Israel.

A healthy part of American aid ends up in the hands of American defense contractors.

The preliminary talks for a new agreement for military aid also do not take into account aid that President Barack Obama may offer Israel to sugar-coat a deal an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program.

The request for a hike in aid reflects the arms race in the world and especially in the Middle East, where Arab countries have developed or bought sophisticated weapons that can threaten Israel.

Howard Kohr, chief executive officer of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), “estimates that Israel may have to spend $160 billion on defense in the decade to come,” according to Defense News.

Kohr told the House Appropriations subcommittee on foreign operations last month that Israeli defense spending coincides with “accelerated military investment fueled by the oil revenues of Israel’s Arab neighbors.”

In addition, economic sanctions have not stopped Iran from doubling its military spending and development of new weapons. The Islamic Republic also is preparing to receive the advanced S-300 anti-missile systems from Russia, which has indicated it will not be in a rush to deliver the systems to Iran.

 

Kerry Hysterical over Opposition to Obama’s Deal with Iran

Sunday, May 3rd, 2015

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry spoke directly to Israelis on television Saturday night to denounce what he called “hysteria” over the emerging deal with Iran to ensure it does not reach nuclear capability.

The question is: Who is more hysterical, opponents to the deal, whom Iran is helping with increasingly belligerency, or the Obama administration that is offering the same sales pitch every day?

Two days after Vice-President Joe Biden told a Washington-based think tank that the proposed deal is not about trust but about verifications of Iran’s nuclear development, Kerry told Israel’s Channel that Israel can be assured that “we will be able to know what Iran is doing and prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon.”

He said:

There’s a lot of hysteria about this deal. People really need to look at the facts, and they need to look at the science behind those facts.

It is not clear what he meant by “science” unless he was referring to the promises that inspectors will be on duty “24/7″ in Iran, which for years has pulled the wool over the eyes of every United Nations effort to inspect what is going in at its nuclear facilities, at least the one which are known.

Kerry stated Saturday night, “I say this again – we will not sign a deal that does not close off Iran’s pathways to a bomb and that doesn’t give us the confidence – to all of our experts and global experts – that we will be able to know what Iran is doing and prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon….

“We will have inspectors in there every single day. That’s not a 10-year deal. That’s forever. There have to be inspections.”

Iran last month declared categorically that no inspectors will be allowed at its military sites.

Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, Maj. Gen. Hassan Fairuz Abadi declared:

The armed forces will not allow anyone to enter military sites.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ruled out any “extraordinary supervision measures.”

President Obama has dismisses Iran’s statements that contradict last month’s temporary agreement as nothing more than talk for domestic use only.

Obama Sends Biden to Threaten War on Iran

Friday, May 1st, 2015

Vice President Joe Biden used the “W” word – war – in a speech Thursday night that is part of a new White House charm offensive to calm down Israel’s concerns that Washington is ready to sign a “bad deal” with Iran over its nuclear program.

Biden said at his speech to the conservative Washington Institute for Near East Policy:

A war with Iran, if required, it will happen. It is a risk we may have to take should Iran race to a bomb….

The finest military in history remains at the ready. Don’t underestimate my friend Barack Obama. He has a spine of steel and he is willing to do what it takes to keep our allies safe.

Biden also emphasized parts of the proposed deal that Iran has thoroughly rejected in public, particularly “phased sanctions relief” and a demand that Iran take off the mask off past nuclear weapons research.

President Obama sent Biden two weeks ago to placate Israel at the annual Yom Ha’Atzmaut celebration in Washington, where he began his speech by declaring, “My name is Joe Biden, and everybody knows I love Israel.”

The White House clearly is trying to mend fences after Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s speech in Congress in March, when he warned of a “bad deal” with Iran.

Obama lost the elections in Israel two weeks later. His aides not only have given up hope that Netanyahu won’t be able to form a new coalition government, they also have finally realized it will be much more stable and more right-wing than previous governments.

The president has no choice but to play ball with Netanyahu, and Biden is his pitcher, although he showed his ignorance of Jewish self-guilt by throwing a couple of spitballs in his Yom Ha’Atzmaut speech , bragging that two of his children married Jews.

Netanyahu is reciprocating to a certain extent and laying off high-profile attacks on the proposed Iran deal.

Zalman Shoval, an adviser to Netanyahu and former ambassador to the United States, told Bloomberg News Thursday that Israel “would like to do what we can to remove the unnecessary hindrances in our relationship with the U.S.”

“Neither side want to have an open conflict, but Netanyahu will certainly continue to criticize the Iran talks and there isn’t much he can deliver on the actual peace process,” Robbie Sabel, a Hebrew University professor and a  former Israeli diplomat, told Bloomberg.

Netanyahu last month suddenly released nearly half a billion dollars in tax revenues that Israel collects for the Palestinian Authority, without deducting the entire sum from a large debt Ramallah owes Israel for electricity and other services.

Israel also has allowed more permits for Arabs in Judea and Samaria to travel to Jerusalem.

Obama reiterated last month he will visit Israel, but not before June 30th, the deadline for a final deal with Iran.

Tehran already has said that the deadline is not holy, so don’t expect Obama land at Ben Gurion Airport on July 1

Obama Spins Tale that Netanyahu Offered no Alternative to Iran Deal

Sunday, April 12th, 2015

President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu traded shots on the proposed deal with Iran through separate statements that continue what has become a conversation of the deaf.

The Prime Minister two weeks ago stated that a better deal would be one that “would significantly roll back Iran’s nuclear infrastructure [and] link the eventual lifting of the restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program to a change in Iran’s behavior.”

He added:

Iran must stop its aggression in the region, stop its terrorism throughout the world and stop its threats to annihilate Israel. That should be non-negotiable and that’s the deal that the world powers must insist upon.

President Obama said on Saturday:

The Prime Minister of Israel is deeply opposed to it [the deal]. I think he’s made that very clear. I have repeatedly asked –w hat is the alternative that you present that you think makes it less likely for Iran to get a nuclear weapon? And I have yet to obtain a good answer on that.

The key word is “good” because Obama insists he has come up with a “good deal” that Netanyahu asserts is a “bad deal.”

Obama’s reasoning is that Iran will reject a “better deal,” which would mean “no deal,” exactly what Israel, Republicans, and some Democrats have said is better than a “bad deal.” For Obama, “no deal” is worse than a “bad deal” that he insists is a “good deal.”

It’s enough to drive a card player nuts, and since Iran is dealing most of the cards, it is the only one who knows what joker it has up its sleeve.

An outstanding example of President Obama’s frame of mind  that a deal is an end and not a means is Prime Minister Netanyahu’s statement after Iran’s Revolutionary Guards commander said that eliminating Israel is “non-negotiable.” The Prime Minister responded that Iran’s recognizing Israel should be “non-negotiable.”

Obama replied that the idea simply is not practical. So forget it.

It also is not practical to make sure that Iran does not have the infrastructure to obtain a nuclear bomb in the future. So forget it.

Netanyahu said Saturday at a tradtional post-Passover Mimouna celebration, “To my regret, all of the things I warned about vis-à-vis the framework agreement that was put together in Lausanne are coming true before our eyes.

“This framework gives the leading terrorist state in the world a certain path to nuclear bombs, which would threaten Israel, the Middle East and the entire world. We see that Iran is being left with significant nuclear capabilities; it is not dismantling them, it is preserving them. We also see that the inspection is not serious. How can such a country be trusted? …

“We see that the sanctions are being lifted, immediately, according to Iran’s demand, and this is without Iran having changed its policy of aggression everywhere, not just against Israel, but in Yemen, the Bab el-Mandeb, the Middle East and through global terrorist networks. The most dangerous terrorist state in the world must not be allowed to have the most dangerous weapons in the world.

President Obama’s turning a deal with Iran into an end and not a means is illustrated in an article on The Hill website Saturday, in which it outlined five keys areas where the United States made concessions to Iran in order to reach a temporary framework agreement:

Banning uranium enrichment: Before talks began, the Obama administration and the United Nations Security Council called for Iran to stop all uranium enrichment. The framework agreement, though, allows Iran to continue enriching uranium and producing plutonium for domestic civilian use…The deal’s critics worry any enrichment could quickly be diverted to military use.

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.

Hillary Clinton Wants US-Israel Relations on ‘Constructive Footing’

Monday, March 30th, 2015

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has been advocating to try and get the U.S.-Israel relationship “to a constructive footing,” according to numerous media reports this week.

The question is, “constructive” for whom?

Clinton spoke with Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, who called her, to discuss that and other issues. In that conversation, she reportedly reiterated her support for renewed negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians to work towards a “two-state solution.”

A statement provided by Hoenlein to the San Diego Jewish World Sunday evening read as follows: “Secretary Clinton thinks we need to all work together to return the special US-Israel relationship to constructive footing, to get back to basic shared concerns and interests, including a two-state solution pursued through direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians. We must ensure that Israel never becomes a partisan issue.”

Hoenlein added, “Secretary Clinton’s views are of special importance and timeliness given recent issues in the US-Israel relationship. We note her call for direct negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, which, we believe, is the only possible route to a true peace.”

Neither acknowledged similar, repeated calls for direct talks by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu since he entered office in 2009.

Among American Jews, there is a growing division in opinion over the issue of the “two-state solution” as well as over who should be held responsible for “solving” it.

America’s grassroots Jewish community is beginning to become aware of the fact that it is the Palestinians – and not the Israelis – who are the reluctant wedding partners in U.S. attempts to woo partners to the table.

Some are questioning where Hillary Clinton really stands on the issue, as more and more people begin to remember her previous positions. Not many were supportive of Israel, and there’s no reason to believe she is likely to change that view once the polls close.

One calls to mind her phone call to scold Israel’s prime minister for a perceived slight to Vice President Joe Biden over a routine announcement of a step in a years-long housing process in Jerusalem that was not been cleared with Netanyahu’s office and her notable lack of response to the naming of a Palestinian Authority square for a bloodthirsty terrorist that same week.

Unfortunately, just too many generations in the Palestinian Authority have passed with deep, subliminal conditioning at the early childhood through adult levels, teaching visceral hatred and murderous, mindless rage towards Israelis and – yes! – Jews to simply wave it away.

That kind of conditioning cannot be undone in a month or even a year, nor can it be wished away at the negotiating table or at the podium. It must be reckoned with by sober planning and security checks that will take into consideration the fact that a nation of potential murderers, ticking time bombs, are located next door. To ignore that would be completely foolhardy, and Israel’s current leadership is anything but foolhardy, American pressure notwithstanding.

Frankly, in many ways, grassroots Israelis and Palestinians are both just heartily sick of the entire thing, and neither has the stomach for more posturing. Many on both sides want peace, and many on both sides want to see their children grow up, marry and make a living.

But then, there’s the reality of how to keep everyone safe from every one of those who dream of murdering us all — Israelis, Jews and “collaborating, traitorous” Arab brethren. Not to mention the reality of naive or biased U.S. leaders.

Joe Biden Looking for Reason to Flee the Country when Bibi Speaks [video]

Thursday, February 19th, 2015

The Obama administration’s new excuse to explain why Vice-President Joe Biden will be “out of the country” when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu addresses Congress next month is that he has to attend a Panama government inauguration – that occurred last July.

Kerry also has conveniently planned a trip to skip not only Netanyahu’s speech but also the annual pro-Israeli lobby AIPAC, which until this year has been a favorite podium for American political leaders to say how much they love Israel. Like Biden, he also does not where to keep himself busy and out of trouble.

The White House previously has stated that Kerry and Biden won’t be around for Biden, but now they are trying to figure out what kind of event in a foreign country they can dig up to elegantly get out of being questioned in Washington when Netanyahu is speaking.

The vice president of the United States normally attends joint sessions of Congress, but National Security Council Spokesperson Bernadette Meehan stated last month, “As a matter of long-standing practice and principle, we do not see heads of state or candidates in close proximity to their elections…. The President has been clear about his opposition to Congress passing new legislation on Iran that could undermine our negotiations and divide the international community.”

Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic Minority leader in the House of Representatives, insisted that many if not most of her party’s Congressmen are not boycotting the Prime Minister, She said:

I don’t think anybody should use the word ‘boycott. When these heads of state come, people are here doing their work, they’re trying to pass legislation, they’re meeting with their constituents and the rest. It’s not a high-priority item for them.

The Prime Minister of Israel is going to speak about the Iranian nuclear program aimed at developing a nuclear weapon that threatens the entire world, and Pelosi says his speech “is not a high priority for them.”

And what is Biden’s cover-up for Obama’s orders to go invisible when Netanyahu speaks?

State Dept. spokeswoman Jen Psaki explained to reporters Wednesday, “I believe the Vice President’s attending the inauguration for the new Government of Panama.”

That is very interesting because the Panama government was inaugurated last July 1.

Associated Press journalist asked Psaki about the contradiction, and she admitted that “perhaps that’s not the right information.”

When Lee persisted that perhaps Psaki can “invent a country that he could go to,” she insisted, “I don’t think inaugurations for new leaders are invented.”

She is right. Excuses, and not inaugurations, are invented.

So where will Biden and Kerry find themselves on March 3?

Psakai said:

Well, we’ve already been clear that we don’t have to plan – we don’t have plans, I should say, to have a meeting. I think the more likely reason is that the Secretary is probably going to be out of town, which I don’t think surprises any of you, given his overseas travel schedule. We’re still working out the next couple of weeks.

“We have a trip we’re working on for early March, late February.”

As a gesture to the government of the United States, The Jewish Press has done some homework for the Obama administration and has come up with suggestions where Kerry and Biden can go in hiding.

First of all, they shouldn’t miss the opportunity to attend the Malaysian International Furniture Fair, which begins March 3.

They can get “two for the price of one” in Malaysia by visiting the three-day conference, beginning on March 3, of the Global Food Safety Conference. They can tune in on the main topic, “How well do you know your Supply Chain?”

Printed from: http://www.jewishpress.com/news/breaking-news/joe-biden-looking-for-reason-to-flee-the-country-when-bibi-speaks-video/2015/02/19/

Scan this QR code to visit this page online: