Occupation of hating Israel

Barack Obama’s top aide says Israeli ‘occupation’ must end

Dennis McDonough says the White House isn’t impressed with Israeli prime minister’s effort to backtrack on campaign comments.

By Edward-Isaac Dovere — 3/23/15 | Politico

White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough made clear in a speech to a left-leaning Israel advocacy group that President Barack Obama isn’t letting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu off the hook for his dismissal of a two-state solution.

That stance, as well as Netanyahu’s suggestion also made in the closing days before last week’s Israeli elections that he’d approved settlements in contested territory in Jerusalem for the strategic purpose of changing the borders are “so very troubling,” McDonough told J Street’s annual conference in Washington. He called the pro-Israel group, which opposes some of Netanyahu’s policies, “our partner.”

“We cannot simply pretend that these comments were never made,” McDonough said.

“An occupation that has lasted more than 50 years must end,” McDonough said, one of several times he brought the crowd to its feet.

Read more at Politico

Let’s put it this way, anyone or thing that opposes Netanyahu or Israel they’ll call “our partner”. But, as usual, it is worse than that. McDonough also referenced the BDS movement. (dominated by his Leftist base.) And as noted, he gets applause for using the tag line “occupation”. Or as Joseph Farah points out in his column:

Yes, I’ll say it: Obama is anti-Semitic

Exclusive: Joseph Farah examines president’s ‘outrageous anti-Israel policies

(Editor’s note: Joseph Farah wrote this column before the Obama administration betrayed Israel in the most shocking way by revealing classified information about its nuclear program.)

What’s that old adage?

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck.

Read more at World Net Daily http://www.wnd.com/2015/03/yes-ill-say-it-obama-is-anti-semitic/

Oh its a duck alright. What follows in his piece is an indictment of the Obama administration’s anti-Semitic behavior. So deeper than the dust up between Netanyahu, it is downright bigotry and hatred toward Israel. Then Obama and his cohorts have the nerve to act like they are an ally or friends with Israel?

Item #3 — How does Obama spell revenge?

US Declassifies Document Revealing Israel’s Nuclear Program

Obama revenge for Netanyahu’s Congress talk? 1987 report on Israel’s top secret nuclear program released in unprecedented move.
By Ari Yashar, Matt Wanderman — 3/25/2015 | Israel National News

In a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel’s nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.[…/]

More: http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/193175#.VRrcOeGYExI

It will be interesting to see how the Obamafiles explain that one away. Hardly just a tiff with Netanyahu. They aren’t even trying to hide it. Or, as Obama’s White House would point out: if it looks like a duck and walks like a duck, it must be a microwave oven.

Obama is king of the non-scandal

The new definition of scandal is: you cannot call something a scandal until Democrats say it is. That is the official certification of scandal. They declare non-scandals too.

So, no fast and furious scandal… no matter how many guns they run. (see Wikipedia list of Obama controversies) There’s another list of Obama scandals and blunders here.

No, you idiots, Benghazi is not and never was a scandal. It is merely the result of Obama’s overseas contingency operation. But scandal? Hardly. Four Americans including an ambassador are killed and shrouded in false explanations from the administration’s talking points machine. But a scandal? Surely you jest.

IRS, not one itsy-bitsy “smidgeon” of corruption there. Another non-scandal. And we know there are no scandals because Axelrod declared there were none.

Now members of Congress writing a letter to Iran informing them that they have a say in treaties is a seismic scandal. In fact, it qualifies all signers as traitors. Expressing any dissent is treasonous.

But Obama trying to bypass Congress to make a treaty and keep them in the dark, what scandal? That couldn’t possibly be scandalous. Nor is Obama issuing executive edicts on immigration, creating fiat laws, rewriting existing law, and refusal to enforce US law by any stretch a scandal. Even if King O himself said as much years earlier. Well, it isn’t now anyway, which is all that matters. Supporting terrorist organizations, now where is the scandal in that? Obama’s campaign gurus coordinating and working to oust Netanhayu in Israel’s election, while declaring not to be playing politics, is not a problem.

Now Boehner inviting Netanyahu to come and speak his concerns on the security of Israel to Congress? Bingo, that’s scandalous if ever anything was. A scandal of the first order. Obama’s repeated lies about Obamacare were not even an issue compared to that invitation. Obama refuses to engage in diplomacy with Congress but will with dictators like Castro, or concessions to Iran under the guise of a deal. But make a deal with Congress, are you crazy? Dealing with Congress would be scandalous.

Just because he has no respect for the other branches of government doesn’t a scandal make. Usurping congressional or state’s authority could not be scandalous. Playing political roulette with our military and national security is not scandalous. Telegraphing our plans to the enemy is no way a scandal. Declaring all options are on the table while seeking to restrict any of Congress’s options could not be a scandal.

Glad we solved the definition problem. He should have been around to help for the Clinton years. They should have had Obama’s definition of “is”. Besides, Obama could never have a scandal because he could just abolish it by Executive Order.

Notice that while nothing is a scandal to Democrats, they come up with the most creative names to call Republicans for daring to talk about Obama’s non-scandals. So investigating, hearings or even talking about Obama’s many non-scandals is really scandalous — even an abuse of power. That’s the way it works. Congress cites Holder with contempt. Dems and the Black Caucus call that abuse and racism, then stage a protest. So Democrats accuse Republicans of abusing their power. The problem was the administration’s abuses, so Dems defiantly walk out. You just have to know the rules.

RightRing | Bullright

Kidnapped Israeli teens

Netanyahu confirms: ‘Our boys were kidnapped by a terrorist organization’

By Times of Israel staff June 14, 2014

In his first statement since the disappearance of Eyal Yifrach, Gil-ad Shaar and Naftali Frenkel nearly 48 hours ago, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu confirmed Saturday that the three yeshiva students were kidnapped by a terrorist organization.

“Our boys were kidnapped by a terrorist organization. There is no doubt about that,” said Netanyahu in a statement to the press Saturday night, following a security meeting with Defense Minister Moshe (Bougie) Ya’alon and IDF chief Benny Gantz.

“We are in the midst of a widespread operation to locate and bring back the three young yeshiva students. I spoke with their parents, and I told them that we are doing everything possible and more to bring back their boys, who are also our boys,” said the prime minister.

Read more: http://www.timesofisrael.com/netanyahu-confirms-our-boys-were-kidnapped-by-a-terrorist-organization/#ixzz34eRVvXMt


‘Secret Obama plan’ forfeits Temple Mount to Palestinians

Formula for Israel-Arab talks leaked to WND

Aaron Klein

The Obama administration has quietly presented a plan in which the Palestinian Authority and Jordan will receive sovereignty over the Temple Mount while Israel will retain the land below the Western Wall, according to a senior PA negotiator speaking to WND.

The Temple Mount is the holiest site in Judaism.

The proposed plan is part of the basis for U.S.-brokered talks that are set to resume in Washington next week after Secretary of State John Kerry announced that both Israel and PA President Mahmoud Abbas have agreed to open negotiations aimed at creating a Palestinian state.

Israel has not agreed to the U.S. plan over the Temple Mount, with details still open for discussion, stated the PA negotiator.

The negotiator, who is one of the main Palestinian figures leading the Arab side of the talks, further divulged Kerry’s proposed outline for a Palestinian state as presented orally to Israel and the PA.

He said Jordan has been invited to play a key role in the discussions surrounding both the Temple Mount and Jerusalem while it will be the PA, with some Jordanian assistance, that would ultimately receive control of some of those areas.

WND was first to report in 2007 that Jordan had been quietly purchasing real estate surrounding the Temple Mount in Jerusalem hoping to gain more control over the area accessing the holy site, according to Palestinian and Israeli officials.

Meanwhile, regarding the rest of Jerusalem, Kerry’s plan is to rehash what is known as the Clinton parameters. That formula, pushed by President Bill Clinton during the Camp David talks in 2000, called for Jewish areas of Jerusalem to remain Israeli while the Palestinians would get sovereignty over neighborhoods that are largely Arab. Most Arab sections are located in eastern Jerusalem.

WND previously reported the Palestinians are building illegally in Jewish-owned areas of Jerusalem, resulting in Arab majorities in some neighborhoods.

For the strategic Jordan Valley, Obama’s proposal calls for international forces to maintain security control along with unarmed Palestinian police forces, the PA negotiator said. Israel will retain security posts in some strategic areas of the Jordan Valley, according to the leaked plan.

When it comes to the West Bank, which borders Jerusalem and is within rocket range of Israel’s main population centers, Israel is expected to evacuate about 90 percent of its Jewish communities currently located in the territory, as outlined in Kerry’s plan.

Israel would retain strategic security posts along with the West Bank’s main blocs, Maale Adumin, Ariel and Gush Etzion. In return, Obama is calling for an exchange of territory with the Palestinians in other locations inside Israel, with discussion being open for the Palestinians to possibly receive land in the Israeli Negev in the country’s south.

The PA negotiator further said Israel rejected a Palestinian request that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agree not to place the final peace plan up for referendum in the Knesset.

Indeed, Netanyahu announced today any plan must receive final approval in a national poll.

“I am committed to two objectives that must guide the result … if there will be a result. And if there will be a result, it will be put to a national referendum,” he said at the start of the cabinet meeting.

“Negotiations with the Palestinians will not be easy, but we are entering them with integrity, honesty and hope,” Netanyahu added.

The PA negotiator, meanwhile, said Netanyahu agreed that as a gesture to restart talks, Israel will enact a temporary freeze on all Jewish construction in the West Bank outside the main settlement blocs. According to Israeli sources, such a freeze has largely already been in place for several months now anyway.

The negotiator warned that one of the toughest issues centers on control of water, with Kerry already reaching out to Turkey about the prospect of selling water at a cheaper rate to a future Palestinian state.

It sure seems they have a lot of players involved. Kerry as an honest broker has about no credibility. I spoke to an Israel resident who said, following the Arab Spring, the major concern now is Jordan. I guess that is on no ones radar yet. But this deal sure smells of a scheme. A 90% evacuation of the West Bank does not seem like negotiation.

Imagine then a request that Netanyahu agree to not put it to a referendum. Well, maybe that is the way Arabs like to do things considering Abbas assuming office, but that should not fly in Israel. And considering the Arabs seem to have this model democracy thing across the region.

Op-Ed: Jews Die When the World Talks “Peace”

Giulio Meotti

Repeating what happened to Czechoslovakia in 1938, in 2013 the Western democracies are betraying the tiny State of Israel. And the Palestinian Arabs are no more likely to preserve the peace after Israel’s withdrawal from the territories than Nazi Germany was after the democracies offered it the Sudetenland on a silver platter. The Palestinian Arabs want to create a state west of the Jordan as a springboard from which to eliminate Israel.

The main difference is that while the Germans used gas, the Arabs would probably prefer knives to finish the job.

David Isaac writes:

Unfortunately, getting Israel to the negotiating table is just a first step in squeezing Israel back to the 1949 Armistice Lines. Doubly unfortunate is that trying to reduce Israel to those lines is a long State Department tradition.

But other than that, it seems to be peacetime in the region.

H/T to Pepp for the WND article.

UN + Obama = UNObama

A little rebuke of Obama’s speech, and part rant. He gave his speech to the beloved UN. Well, la di da! But it could be boiled down to this: he mentioned the movie how many times and mentioned terrorism how many times?

It only shows he is about as disconnected from reality as anyone can be. It was another lecture like the many others before it – shallow and pretty meaningless. If one has to give an apologetic defense of freedom of speech, which he has been doing, then he pretty much has missed the point.

When it comes to exercising free speech, he was not only a sleep at the switch, he was turning it off. The same can be said for religious freedom here. He is actively working to undermine them with the all-powerful state. State power and control is always a great substitute for freedom. Now he tells other regimes to suck it up.

Trying to invoke Gandhi, he said “intolerance itself is a form of violence”. Great rhetoric which must mean that Obama is the most violent regime we’ve had, since he is overwhelmingly intolerant of our freedom. Intolerant of anything or anyone who opposes him.

The real point is that he mentioned terrorists once(i.e. “terrorist groups”), and he mentioned the movie (video) 7 times. I guess that expresses his tolerance for terrorism vs. his intolerance for the movie. The latter is protected free speech, the former is not.

I guess that word terrorist is rejected by the teleprompter. He should have that looked at. But it is completely compatible with newspeak. Ingsoc can continue on with his help.

The always entertaining Art Carney had forecasted about his UN speech:

Carney said Obama would address the recent protests that left four Americans dead and once again criticize the U.S.-made anti-Islam video blamed for inflaming tensions, while rejecting the violent response. The president, Carney said, is also expected to warn that the United States will not allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon. – The Hill

So he addressed it, but protests did not leave 4 Americans dead. And he managed to do it without using the word terrorism. Considering that even Carney had repeatedly said it was “self-evident” that it was “terrorism”. I’d say he put ramped up disdain for the video ahead of our security and interests. He calls them killers rather than terrorists. That contrasts with the reality of what they did.

Once again, he repeated his assertions against containment of Iran, and saying he would not allow Iran to have nuclear weapons. But this would be to believe he has not been the guy who allowed it this far, or the one who stood in the way of action, or what his top general already telegraphed. So Barry is reaching out for the UNObama. That one seems too busy with campaigning, fundraising, and reelection to pay it much concern. The UNObama will rattle off a speech or a few tough talking points here and there, hoping that suffices. Besides, he can talk a lot better about it if he should lose.

So believing anything he says should require the willing suspension of disbelief. And he refuses to meet with leaders like Netanyahu, for fear of hurting his reelection chances.