OBAMA: The handwriting is on the wall

Obama`s green light to attack Iran


Caroline Glick - May 08, 2009


The Jerusalem Post



Column One: Obama`s green light to attack Iran

May. 8, 2009, Caroline Glick, THE JERUSALEM POST

Arctic winds are blowing into Jerusalem from Washington these days. As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu`s May 18 visit to Washington fast approaches, the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner.

Using the annual AIPAC conference as a backdrop, this week the Obama administration launched its harshest onslaught against Israel to date. It began with media reports that National Security Adviser James Jones told a European foreign minister that the US is planning to build an anti-Israel coalition with the Arabs and Europe to compel Israel to surrender Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

According to Haaretz, Jones was quoted in a classified foreign ministry cable as having told his European interlocutor, "The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question. We will not push Israel under the wheels of a bus, but we will be more forceful toward Israel than we have been under Bush."

He then explained that the US, the EU and the moderate Arab states must determine together what "a satisfactory endgame solution," will be.

As far as Jones is concerned, Israel should be left out of those discussions and simply presented with a fait accompli that it will be compelled to accept.
Events this week showed that Jones`s statement was an accurate depiction of the administration`s policy. First, quartet mediator Tony Blair announced that within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state. Speaking with Palestinian reporters on Wednesday, Blair said that this new framework will be a serious initiative because it "is being worked on at the highest level in the American administration."

Moreover, this week we learned that the administration is trying to get the Arabs themselves to write the Quartet`s new plan. The London-based Al-Quds al-Arabi pan-Arab newspaper reported Tuesday that acting on behalf of Obama, Jordanian King Abdullah urged the Arab League to update the so-called Arab peace plan from 2002. That plan, which calls for Israel to withdraw from Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and the Golan Heights and accept millions of foreign Arabs as citizens as part of the so-called "right of return" in exchange for "natural" relations with the Arab world, has been rejected by successive Israeli governments as a diplomatic subterfuge whose goal is Israel`s destruction.

By accepting millions of so-called "Palestinian refugees," Israel would effectively cease to be a Jewish state. By shrinking into the 1949 armistice lines, Israel would be unable to defend itself against foreign invasion. And since "natural relations" is a meaningless term both in international legal discourse and in diplomatic discourse, Israel would have committed national suicide for nothing.

To make the plan less objectionable to Israel, Abdullah reportedly called on his Arab brethren to strike references to the so-called "Arab refugees" from the plan and to agree to "normal" rather than "natural" relations with the Jewish state. According to the report, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was expected to present Obama with the changes to the plan during their meeting in Washington later this month. The revised plan was supposed to form the basis for the new Quartet plan that Blair referred to.

But the Arabs would have none of it. On Wednesday, both Arab League General Secretary Amr Moussa and Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas announced that they oppose the initiative. On Thursday, Syria rejected making any changes in the document.
The administration couldn`t care less. The Palestinians and Arabs are no more than bit players in its Middle East policy. As far as the Obama administration is concerned, Israel is the only obstacle to peace.

To make certain that Israel understands this central point, Vice President Joseph Biden used his appearance at the AIPAC conference to drive it home. As Biden made clear, the US doesn`t respect or support Israel`s right as a sovereign state to determine its own policies for securing its national interests. In Biden`s words, "Israel has to work toward a two-state solution. You`re not going to like my saying this, but not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow the Palestinians freedom of movement."
FOR ISRAEL, the main event of the week was supposed to be President Shimon Peres`s meeting with Obama on Tuesday. Peres was tasked with calming the waters ahead of Netanyahu`s visit. It was hoped that he could introduce a more collegial tone to US-Israel relations.

What Israel didn`t count on was the humiliating reception Peres received from Obama. By barring all media from covering the event, Obama transformed what was supposed to be a friendly visit with a respected and friendly head of state into a back-door encounter with an unwanted guest, who was shooed in and shooed out of the White House without a sound.

The Obama White House`s bald attempt to force Israel to take full blame for the Arab world`s hostility toward it is not the only way that it is casting Israel as the scapegoat for the region`s ills. In their bid to open direct diplomatic ties with Iran, Obama and his advisers are also blaming Israel for Iran`s nuclear program. They are doing this both indirectly and directly.

As Obama`s chief of staff Rahm Emmanuel made clear in his closed-door briefing to senior AIPAC officials this week, the administration is holding Israel indirectly responsible for Iran`s nuclear program. It does this by claiming that Israel`s refusal to cede its land to the Palestinians is making it impossible for the Arab world to support preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

Somewhat inconveniently for the administration, the Arabs themselves are rejecting this premise. This week US Defense Secretary Robert Gates visited the Persian Gulf and Egypt to soothe Arab fears that the administration`s desperate attempts to appease the mullahs will harm their security interests. He also sought to gain their support for the administration`s plan to unveil a new peace plan aimed at isolating and pressuring Israel.

After meeting with Gates, Amr Moussa - who has distinguished himself as one of Israel`s most trenchant critics - said categorically, "The question of Iran should be separate from the Arab-Israel conflict."

Just as the administration is unmoved by objective facts that expose as folly its single-minded devotion to the notion that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace in the Middle East, so the Arab rejection of its view that Israel is to blame for Iran`s nuclear program has simply driven it to escalate its attacks on Israel. This week it opened a new campaign of blaming Israel directly - through its purported nuclear arsenal - for Iran`s nuclear ambitions.
Speaking at a UN forum, US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller said, "Universal adherence to the [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty] NPT itself, including by India, Israel, Pakistan and North Korea... remains a fundamental objective of the United States."

As Eli Lake from The Washington Times demonstrated convincingly, by speaking as she did, Gottemoeller effectively abrogated a 40-year-old US-Israeli understanding that the US would remain silent about Israel`s nuclear program because it understood that it was defensive, not offensive in nature. In so doing, Gottemoeller legitimized Iran`s claim that it cannot be expected to suspend its quest to acquire nuclear weapons as long as Israel possesses them. She also erased any distinction between nuclear weapons in the hands of US allies and democratic states and nuclear weapons in the hands of US enemies and terror states.

The Israeli media are largely framing the story of the US`s growing and already unprecedented antagonism toward Israel as a diplomatic challenge for Netanyahu. To meet this challenge, it is argued that Netanyahu must come to Washington in 10 days` time with an attractive peace plan that will win over the White House. But this is a false interpretation of what is happening.

Even Ethan Bronner of the The New York Times pointed out this week that Obama`s Middle East policy is not based on facts. If it were, the so-called "two state solution," which has failed repeatedly since 1993, would not be its centerpiece. Obama`s Middle East policy is based on ideology, not reality. Consequently, it is immune to rational argument.

The fact that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and the Arab world will disappear, is of no interest to Obama and his advisers. They do not care that the day after Hamas terror-master Khaled Mashaal told The New York Times that Hamas was suspending its attacks against Israel from Gaza, the Iranian-controlled terror regime took credit for several volleys of rockets shot against Israeli civilian targets from Gaza. The administration stills intends to give Gaza $900 million in US taxpayer funds, and it still demands that Israel give its land to a joint Fatah-Hamas government.

REGARDLESS OF the weight of Netanyahu`s arguments, and irrespective of the reasonableness of whatever diplomatic initiative he presents to Obama, he can expect no sympathy or support from the White House.

As a consequence, the operational significance of the administration`s anti-Israel positions is that Israel will not be well served by adopting a more accommodating posture toward the Palestinians and Iran. Indeed, perversely, what the Obama administration`s treatment of Israel should be making clear to the Netanyahu government is that Israel should no longer take Washington`s views into account as it makes its decisions about how to advance Israel`s national security interests. This is particularly true with regard to Iran`s nuclear weapons program.

Rationally speaking, the only way the Obama administration could reasonably expect to deter Israel from attacking Iran`s nuclear installations would be if it could make the cost for Israel of attacking higher than the cost for Israel of not attacking. But what the behavior of the Obama administration is demonstrating is that there is no significant difference in the costs of the two options.

By blaming Israel for the absence of peace in the Middle East while ignoring the Palestinians` refusal to accept Israel`s right to exist; by seeking to build an international coalition with Europe and the Arabs against Israel while glossing over the fact that at least the Arabs share Israel`s concerns about Iran; by exposing Israel`s nuclear arsenal and pressuring Israel to disarm while in the meantime courting the ayatollahs like an overeager bridegroom, the Obama administration is telling Israel that regardless of what it does, and what objective reality is, as far as the White House is concerned, Israel is to blame.

This, of course, doesn`t mean that Netanyahu shouldn`t make his case to Obama when they meet and to the American people during his US visit. What it does mean is that Netanyahu should have no expectation that Israeli goodwill can divert Obama from the course he has chosen. And again, this tells us two things: Israel`s relations with the US during Obama`s tenure in office will be unpleasant and difficult, and the damage that Israel will cause to that relationship by preventing Iran from acquiring the means to destroy it will be negligible.

caroline@carolineglick.com
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
The Sun Orbits the Palestinian State

Arieh Eldad - May 08, 2009

HaTikvah

By Arieh Eldad

For hundreds of years, the Catholic Church believed that the sun orbits the earth. Whoever dared oppose this view was branded insane or a heretic.

Religious dogmas are not overturned by logic. An argument between the believers of different faiths is rarely resolved by rational argument. The prophet Habukuk says, “The righteous man lives by his faith.” (Today we say, “A man lives by his faith,” and by this we mean that every man has his own personal belief system, and all do not need to believe in one thing.)

But political positions are not matters of mystical faith. They are supposed to be logical. At their best they serve the interests of he who propounds them. Occasionally they fail because the analysis on which they are based is faulty. We can understand countries that demand Israel accept the program of “two states for two nations” because they think that the creation of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River serves their interests. If, Heaven forbid, such a state is established and as a result the State of Israel falls, their own interests will be hurt, but this will simply be one more political miscalculation in a history full of miscalculations.

We can even understand those who demand the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel because they are hostile to Israel and wish to help Arabs. More than 3,500 years of recorded history bear witness to many attempts to destroy the people of Israel or to prevent its political independence. Indeed, the first time the nation of Israel is mentioned in human history outside of the Bible is on the stele of the Pharaoh Merneptah on which is written, “Israel has been destroyed, its seed no longer exists.” They tried in the past, they’re still trying, and apparently they’ll continue to try.

However, when the demand to establish an independent Palestinian state comes not from an attempt to served the speaker’s interests but rather as part of a “search for justice” or under an assumption that one is benefiting Israel, we can no longer relate to the demand with the tools of logic. This is a sort of “religious dogma” that will be difficult if not impossible to contradict by reason. The establishment of a Palestinian state will necessarily bring about the destruction of Israel. Whoever blindly and closed mindedly repeats the mantra “two states for two nations” can apparently not understand this, just as the Popes in the Middle Ages could not be convinced that the sun does not orbit the earth.

The late Yitzchak Rabin said, “A Palestinian state can rise only on the ruins of the State of Israel.” He understood that the Arabs desire to destroy Israel. He was familiar with the geography and history of the Land of Israel and knew that a Palestinian state would always be an irredenta longing to take over Israel and inherit the land.

This writer is a doctor, and as a doctor I know that he who wrongly diagnoses a disease cannot hope to cure it. The most widespread error made by those considering the conflict between Jews and Arabs in the Land of Israel lies in the diagnosis that it is a territorial dispute. If it were a territorial dispute, it should be curable by a territorial compromise. (Dozens of such attempts have been made in recent centuries, and all of them have ended bloodbaths or war.) But he who recognizes even at the most basic level the attitude of Islam towards Jews and the status of the Land of Israel in Islam knows that for Islam the Land of Israel is a “Wakf” – holy land granted forever to Moslems. Moslems are enjoined from recognizing rule by heretics – Jews or Christians – in this Wakf. Thus, the Arabs can sign a political agreement, even a peace treaty, with the State of Israel but they will never recognize it as a Jewish state; and no such peace treaty will prevent them from fighting a war with Israel, whether from within or without, in order to turn it into a bi-national state and then, at a later stage, an Arab state. The creation of an independent Palestinian state in the Land of Israel serves this purpose well. This is exactly how Yassir Arafat defined his Theory of Stages. So today, everyone who supports the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan River is trying to implement Arafat’s plan. Anyone who believes that an Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 lines will resolve the conflict should remember that the Palestine Liberation Organization, which Arafat led, was founded not as a result of the Six Day War of 1967 but three years earlier, when Israel did not possess the territories of Judea, Samaria, and Gaza; and the territory of that Israel is precisely the “Palestine” that the Arabs want to “liberate” as expressed in the name of the organization that Israel is now being asked to sign an accord with, in order to give it a state.

But why is the establishment of a Palestinian state west of the Jordan not only impossible for anyone who wants Israel to continue to exist, but also unnecessary?

Because there already is a Palestinian state, and it is Jordan. Whoever supports the establishment of another Palestinian state, west of Jordan, supports the program of “three states for two nations.” The Balfour Declaration of 1917 and the League of Nations’ decisions in Geneva in 1920 and 1922 called for the establishment of a national home for the Jews and granted Britain a mandate in order to establish this Jewish National Home on both banks of the Jordan River. The Arabs, who opposed this plan, initiated the first wave of terror in 1920-1921 and put political pressure on Britain, after which the British Secretary of State for the Colonies Winston Churchill visited the Land of Israel and then published the White Paper of 1922, by which he gave three-quarters of the Jewish National Home’s territory to the Arabs and established east of the Jordan the Emirate of Trans-Jordan, which eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Thus, at that point, the Land of Israel had already been divided. An Arab state had been established, and all that remained to do was establish the Jewish state west of the Jordan. But the Arabs of course were not satisfied with that partition, just as they rejected all proposed partitions afterwards, and they initiated another wave of terror, and following each successive wave of terror, another international commission arrived that again redrew the borders and repeatedly re-partitioned the country, leading only to bloodier attacks.

In any case, a Palestinian state rose in Jordan. Seventy percent of its citizens are Palestinians. Jordan is Palestine, de facto and de jure. Nonetheless, those who believed that the sun orbits the earth now say that one Palestinian state is not enough, and because the Palestinians are demanding another one west of the Jordan – if they are granted that state, peace will come to the Middle East.

Samuel Huntington in his book The Clash of Civilizations counted over 130 armed conflicts around the world in the year 2000. Approximately 95 percent of these were between Moslems and their neighbors. Islamic borders are bloody. Almost everywhere on the planet, Moslems are attempting to expand at the territorial expense of their neighbors. The illness is global. But for some reason the believers think that the conflict in the Land of Israel is local, of a different nature, and territorial concessions will resolve the conflict. In like manner did many Europeans believe in 1938 that territorial concessions to Hitler would satisfy his hunger and bring peace. For who could believe then that Hitler wanted to take over the world? And who believes today that Islam wants to take over the world? If only the Jews would give up their homeland, there would be peace.

Nonetheless, the solution of two states for two nations should indeed be accepted by everyone. Fortunately, the Jews have a state in Israel and the Palestinians have a state in Jordan. If they don’t want a Hashemite king using a Bedouin minority to control 70 percent of the population, they should change that regime. But a Bedouin minority subjugating a Palestinian majority in Jordan should not be the reason for the creation of another state at Israel’s expense. With worldwide assistance, the Palestinian refugees can easily be resettled in the expanses of Jordan, and energy and water sources, along with housing and employment, can be promoted with sums much smaller that those that have been invested by the world for over 60 years to maintain the refugees in appalling conditions in their camps. Settling refugees in Arab countries and mainly in Jordan will not completely resolve the conflict because, as noted above, this is fundamentally a religious conflict, and Islam will never accept Jewish rule in the land of Israel. But this is a necessary humanitarian solution which will also diffuse many of the bombs that have exploded and continue to explode in the Land of Israel. Perhaps after the refugee problem has been solved, and after the West stops funding the teaching of hatred and terror in UNWRA institutions and stops mouthing platitudes instead of resettling the refugees, maybe then we will see two sustainable states, Israel and Jordan, living side by side quietly. Maybe then an Arab living in Ramallah as a citizen of the Palestinian-Hashemite State of Jordan can vote for the parliament in Amman and live peacefully in the Land of Israel.

But those who believe in the dogma of “two states for two nations” and intend to establish another Palestinian state west of the Jordan at the expense of Israel, step outside, look heavenward, they see the sun shining in the east, moving along the sky and setting in the west towards evening, and they know: The sun orbits the earth – and another Palestinian state is necessary to bring peace. It won’t help to tell these people the facts; facts would only confuse such people.

//////////////////////////////////////////////////
Netanyahu Prepares for Obama: Israel to Be Left Alone in World?

Hillel Fendel - May 10, 2009


Arutz-7



(IsraelNN.com) As Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepares for his visit to the United States next week, warnings abound that the Obama Administration’s policies will leave Israel to face Iran and Hamas alone.

The warnings are summed up in recent articles by the West’s two main pro-Israel female commentators: Melanie Phillips and Caroline Glick. Writing in the Spectator (United Kingdom) last week, Philips warns that “Obama is attempting to throw Israel under the Islamist bus.” She cites the report that Obama’s National Security Adviser told a European foreign minister that Obama will be ‘forceful’ with Israel, and plans to impose, with the EU and moderate Arab states, "a satisfactory endgame solution" upon Israel.

PA State: Evil and Stupid

“This is all not only evil,” Phillips says, “but exceptionally stupid… The Arab states are beside themselves with anxiety about Iran. They want it to be attacked and its nuclear programme stopped. They are desperately fearful that the Obama administration might have decided that it can live with a nuclear Iran… A Palestine state will be Iran, in the sense that it will be run by Hamas as a proxy for the Islamic Republic. The idea that a Palestine state will not compromise Israel’s security is ludicrous.”

American Jewry: Spineless

After expressing incredulity at the American demands for further Israeli concessions in the light of the utter failure of the Disengagement, Phillips writes that U.S. Jews are reacting “with a total absence of spine… Almost eighty per cent of American Jews voted for Obama despite the clear and present danger he posed to Israel. They did so because their liberal self-image was and is more important to them than the Jewish state whose existence and security cannot be allowed to jeopardise their standing with America’s elite.”

Netanyahu must therefore take Israel’s message to “the ordinary American people,” she concludes: “They do value and support Israel. They do understand that if Israel is thrown under that bus, the west is next. And it is they to whom Israel’s Prime Minister Netanyahu must now appeal, over the heads of the politicians and the media and certainly America’s Jews and everyone else. He must tell the American people the terrible truth, that America is now run by a man who is intent on sacrificing Israel for a reckless and amoral political strategy which will put America and the rest of the free world at risk.”

Glick: Obama Forcing Israel into Corner

Caroline Glick, writing in The Jerusalem Post, states that ahead of Netanyahu’s visit to Washington, “the Obama administration is ratcheting up its anti-Israel rhetoric and working feverishly to force Israel into a corner.”

She notes that quartet mediator Tony Blair has announced that within six weeks the US, EU, UN and Russia will unveil a new framework for establishing a Palestinian state, and that it is “being worked on at the highest level in the American administration."

Obama Humiliates Peres

Yet another milestone in the U.S. path towards abandoning Israel is the “humiliating reception” President Shimon Peres received from Obama. Visiting in Washington last week, “Peres was tasked with calming the waters ahead of Netanyahu`s visit. It was hoped that he could introduce a more collegial tone to US-Israel relations.” However, the Obama government barred all media from covering the event, thus “transform[ing] what was supposed to be a friendly visit with a respected and friendly head of state into a back-door encounter with an unwanted guest, who was shooed in and shooed out of the White House without a sound.”

Abrogating 40 Years of Understanding

Another point raised by Glick and Eli Lake of The Washington Times: US Assistant Secretary of State Rose Gottemoeller told the UN that Israel and others must adhere to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), thus effectively abrogating a 40-year-old US-Israeli understanding that the US would remain silent about Israel`s nuclear program because it understood that it is defensive, not offensive in nature. The statement also erases “any distinction between nuclear weapons in the hands of US allies and democratic states and nuclear weapons in the hands of US enemies and terror states,” Glick wrote.

“The fact that if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, all chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians and Israel and the Arab world will disappear,” Glick continues, “is of no interest to Obama and his advisers. They do not care that the day after [Hamas said it was] suspending its attacks against Israel from Gaza, the Iranian-controlled terror regime took credit for several volleys of rockets shot against Israeli civilian targets from Gaza.”

“The operational significance of the administration`s anti-Israel positions is that Israel will not be well served by adopting a more accommodating posture toward the Palestinians and Iran,” Glick concludes.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

A recent article in Ha’aretz focused on attempts by the U.S. assistant secretary of state to force Israel to sign on to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The fear of breaking Israel's nuclear monopoly is a nightmare to Israel, the U.S. and other western countries. The more nuclear weapons multiply and proliferate, so grows the danger of it purposely or accidentally being used by an irresponsible regime or extremist organization…The biggest concern now for Israel, as well - is that unless Iran's nuclear program is halted, other Mideast countries, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey will sooner or later begin to develop their own nuclear cache.” (Read entire article.)

There is great concern in Israel that it will be left defenseless if the U.S. State Department exerts enough influence to back Israel into a corner.

OBAMA GETS TOUGHER WITH ISRAEL: As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington May 17 approaches, Washington is sending strong messages on the establishment of a Palestinian state and Israeli settlement activity. Gen. James Jones, national security adviser to President Barack Obama, told a European foreign minister days ago that Obama will be "forceful" with the Jewish state. "The new administration will convince Israel to compromise on the Palestinian question," Jones said. (Ha’aretz)

MK KATZ TO BIDEN: HAVE SOME RESPECT FOR LAND OF THE BIBLE: U.S. Vice President Joe Biden this week said straight out: Israel must stop building in Judea and Samaria, as well as remove anti-terrorist roadblocks. Israeli Knesset Member Katz responded by saying, “The Land of the Bible, with the People of the Bible, will not be Judenrein – for the Vice President to give ‘orders’ otherwise, against the policies of Israel’s democratically-voted government, is unacceptable.” (INN)

Shortly, I will be going to Israel. I will be meeting with numerous diplomats while there. I always take time to meet with the poor, the forgotten elderly Russian Jews. I have a deep concern for these people because my family, on my mother’s side, was Russian Jews. Her grandfather was a rabbi in Russia. He and his congregation were burned to death in his synagogue during Shabbat.

I believe with all my heart that we can win this battle if we unite. The national anthem of Israel is Hatikvah, which means “hope.” Israelis are not allowed to respond with sorrow when it is played. They pick themselves up so the nation can move forward with hope, and a hope-filled future. You and I must do the same.

Your ambassador to Jerusalem,

Mike Evans
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
Obama Outsources the Holocaust

Posted: 10 May 2009 07:14 PM PDT BY SULTAN

Obama's planned photo op stop at the site of the Buchenwald Concentration Camp is all the more repulsive when you consider that his administration has become the primary enabler of those who would like to repeat the final solution.

From the Holocaust denying and Holocaust planning Ahmadinejad, to Venezuela's dictator Chavez, whose anti-semitic rants have contributed to attacks against Jews, to Hamas, whose covenant demands uncompromisingly the destruction of Israel-- Obama has made it his mission to try and befriend dictators and regimes who think that Buchenwald did not go far enough.

The Holocaust happened because of a two way relationship between those regimes which perpetrated it, and those which turned a blind eye to what was going on. Now Obama is repeating the same process, and while he is not building the concentration camps, he is actively enabling those who are. And the practical distinction becomes lost amid the moral distinction.

By making clear that not only will the US do nothing to stop Iran's nuclear program, but that his administration will obstruct Israel from stopping the nuclear program, Obama is giving Iran the all clear for a nuclear program whose end result is to be a nuclear weapon meant for Israel. And in doing so he is outsourcing a second Holocaust to the Muslim regimes who wish to carry it out.

Had Obama chosen some sort of even-handed non-interventionism, opting out of the conflict entirely, he would have stayed true to his rhetoric. Instead his administration has chosen to lay the blame for everything wrong in the Muslim world at Israel's doorstep, and demand that Israel rectify it by destroying itself through territorial concessions to terrorists, lest Obama "allow" Iran to do the job more directly.

It's a cynical gambit that is exact opposite of even handedness. Like Clinton and Condi, Obama has once again turned the "Special Relationship" between America and Israel... into a gun pointed at Israel's head.

This time the message is that Israel must allow itself to be destroyed so that Obama can cut a deal with Iran to "stabilize" Afghanistan and Iraq before a quick withdrawal. The message is that Israel must allow itself to be destroyed so that the Muslim world, which views the non-Muslim world the way a starving bum views a chicken sandwich, will come to like America. The message is that if Israel does not comply, Obama will not protect it from Iran... something he has made it obvious he has no intention of doing anyway.

While Obama conducts his never-ending world tour, deluding himself that he's a world leader instead of a world class pawn of every totalitarian regime he meets, all the camera flashes from the photo ops are meant to blind everyone to what is really going on. As with Obama's treatment of the UK's Prime Minister Brown and the Danish Prime Minister, pressing NATO to make way for Turkey at the expense of Western Europe-- it is all too clear that what he meant by "Strong Diplomacy" was appeasing America's enemies and abusing America's allies.

The foulest crimes are done behind the facade of saintliness. Under the guise of human rights entire countries have been destroyed and mass murderers have been given power. Cemeteries are sown with the dead produced by "progressive" policies and politics.

The lovers of peace, the bleeding hearts and the human rights activists did their part in the 30's to ensure that Hitler would be able to carry out the Holocaust by denouncing any effort to stop him as "warmongering". Like the modern day anti-war activists who could not see past the legacy of the Vietnam War, they could not see past the legacy of WWI, to be able to actually make a moral choice.

Obama's administration is now chock full of the same sort of progressives who view American military power as the problem, and American allies such as Israel, as the problem by extension. Once again the soldiers are the villains and the murderous fanatical thugs are the victims. "Poor Germany", the anti-war activists sighed in the 30's. "Poor Iran. Poor Gaza. Poor Cuba", their spiritual descendants sigh today. If only all these poor oppressed dictatorships would be left alone by the warmongering democracies, there would be a new era of peace on earth.

And so the same cycle repeats itself. It took the destruction of Czechoslovakia and Poland for the West to wake up and fight back. Yugoslavia was the new Czechoslovakia, and it is a toss up whether Israel will be the new Poland or not. With Obama, America has its own Chamberlain, had Chamberlain been a closet Nazi sympathizer. Lindbergh might be more on the nose. The black umbrellas are once again unfurled and Obama flashes a V promising us that all the nuclear weapons will soon be abolished and the world will learn to sing together with him.

If history repeats itself again, then Obama will be able to kill millions of Jews without firing a single shot or making a single hateful statement. He will simply keep the boot on Israel while extending a hand to those who would destroy it. The Holocaust will have been successfully outsourced, the lead buried and the dead countless. We have seen the Reactionary Holocaust. Now we may live to see the Progressive Holocaust. Or we may not.


We have as our example of course the Progressive Holocaust that did not come to be. Stalin's Holocaust, that began with the Doctor's Plot and was to end with government encouraged Antisemitic riots culminating in the Jews being removed for their own "protection". A third were to die in the riots. A third in transport. And a third in the bitter cold of the far northern gulags.

One interesting feature of the planned Progressive Holocaust was that it was a group of prominent Jewish Communists who were prompted to officially sign a letter asking for the deportation. And at the end of it all, Stalin was to come forward, along with a handful of those same loyal Jews who had been kept alive. Stalin was to denounce the whole thing as a conspiracy that he had been unaware of. This gruesome charade of plausible deniable would allow Stalin to still seem civilized to the rest of the world.

After repeating Hitler's worst atrocity, Stalin wanted to appear innocent of it all. "Who did it? Not me. I had no idea. None at all." That cynical charade is echoed by Barack Hussein Obama visiting Buchenwald while enabling those who want to make the Holocaust happen all over again.
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////
US Quietly Sets Iran Deadline
by Hana Levi Julian

The United States is willing to continue talks with Iran over suspension of its nuclear development activities for the next four or five months, according to sources in Jerusalem.

But in October, the hourglass will finally run out, unless Iran has shown signs of softening its resistance to ending its uranium enrichment program.

Special U.S. envoy to the Persian Gulf Dennis Ross met with a European diplomat recently to discuss the matter, according to a confidential telegram received last week in Jerusalem. The Hebrew-language daily Haaretz reported Sunday that Ross told the senior European official during their meeting the U.S. will end its first round of talks with Iranian nuclear negotiators sometime this autumn, probably October.

Israel at Arm's Length

It is significant that Ross did not brief Israeli officials on his talks with Iran, as was customary during the tenure of former U.S. President George W. Bush. The Obama administration has kept Israel at arm’s length vis-a-vis its Middle East policies, with fewer consultations and less message-coordination with Israeli diplomats – a fact that has not gone unnoticed by Arab media.

“Obama’s people brief their Israeli counterparts in advance much less about security and Middle East policy activities than the Bush administration used to,” said an official quoted late last week by Saudi Arabia-based English-language daily Arab News.

Ross met last week with President Hosni Mubarak and other officials in Egypt and a number of other nations in the region for talks on the Iranian nuclear threat before flying back to the United States. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu is also expected to meet on the matter with Mubarak as well as Jordan's King Abdullah II, before flying to Washington for talks with President Barack Obama, scheduled for May 18.