Published: 19:27 EDT, 5 May 2019 | Updated: 10:48 EDT, 6 May 2019
Hate preacher Anjem Choudary pictured in London today
Hate preacher Anjem Choudary has been pictured walking the streets of London with his electronic ankle tag clearly visible under his socks, after he was released from a bail hostel to return to his family home.
It comes amid fears he will again pose a threat to national security with reports that security services have noticed increased activity among his militant Islamist followers.
Choudary returned to his home in east London under licence in the past fortnight, having spent close to six months in a bail hostel under close supervision following his release from prison.
He was jailed after pledging allegiance to ISIS following a decades-long cat and mouse game with the authorities.
The father of five spent three years of a five-and-a-half year sentence in prison after he was detained in 2016 under terror laws for his encouragement to Muslims to join Isis.
The Choudary-led extremist group al-Muhajiroun was outlawed by the Government following the 2005 7/7 attacks on London but it has continued to operate under a number of different images.
He helped radicalise some of Britain’s most notorious terrorists, including London Bridge terror attacker ringleader Khuram Butt, and Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who murdered Fusilier Lee Rigby in Woolwich, south-east London.
The electronic tag worn as a condition of his early release from jail is clearly visible under his clothes
Anjem Choudary walks along the road close to his home in East London today after being released from his bail hostel following his release from jail six months ago
Anjem Choudary leaves a bail hostel in north London after his release from Belmarsh Prison last year. The hate preacher was recently allowed to leave the hostel and return to his family home in London
The 52-year-old, dressed in white robes, was pictured by The Daily Telegraph yesterday, smiling while out shopping for sweets and to pay off electricity bill.
He said to the newspaper: ‘It’s a lovely day’, but declined to answer any questions.
He will have to submit his receipts to the authorities after his assets were frozen under United Nations sanctions.
Chaudary’s al-Muhajiroun group often targeted mixed-up or vulnerable young men, such as Brusthom Ziamani, who was brought up a Jehovah’s Witness, but converted to Islam after leaving his south London family home.
Ziamani was radicalised in just two weeks before he was arrested as he wandered the streets looking for a serviceman to execute in a Woolwich-style killing. He was jailed for 22 years in 2015.
Choudary is seen leaving a probation hostel in London on October 19, 2018 following his release from prison
Choudary’s students and lieutenants were also among ISIS militants to wage jihad in Syria including Siddhartha Dhar, who has been put on a global terror list as an ISIS executioner.
Al-Muhajiroun was seriously disrupted with the detention of Choudary in 2016 under terror laws for his encouragement to Muslims to join Isis.
But the release of Choudary and other offenders poses a renewed threat to national security with the worry that it may fuel young impressionable Muslims.
While security services are assured Choudary’s extremist activities have decreased it is understood that they’ve noticed increased activity among some of his followers, according to The Daily Telegraph.
A well-placed source told the newspaper: ‘The group remains a threat to national security but the dis-ruptions have been very effective.
‘Choudary is now out and back at home. He is somebody who preferred to stay in the comfort of his home in London and encourage others to go and fight.
‘He is a coward, his are not the actions of a warrior.’
A Ministry of Justice spokesman declined to comment on his move back to the family home.
The spokesman added: ‘Public protection is our overriding priority when deciding whether an offender should be allowed to relocate from an approved premises.
‘This would only be permitted following a robust risk assessment and they remain subject to close monitoring and strict licence conditions which, if breached, can see them go back to jail.’
Web of hate: How Anjem Choudary’s sermons inspired a generation of home-grown terrorists and radicals
The hate-filled circle around Anjem Choudary was a breeding ground for the Islamic extremism which plagued Britain in the last two decades.
Former law-student Choudary, who previously called for adulterers to be stoned to death and branded UK troops ‘cowards’, always hid behind free speech rules whenever challenged by the authorities.
But the group he helped to set up were linked to a series of terrorist attacks, as easily-influenced young men became inspired by his twisted vision of jihad.
Anjem Choudary was at the centre of a web of extremists who operated in London
The best known of his disciples was Muslim convert Michael Adebolajo, who, along with Michael Adebowale, attacked Fusilier Lee Rigby with a meat cleaver in Woolwich in 2013 in a murder which shocked the country.
Adebolajo was a supporter of Choudary’s al-Muhajiroun group and was pictured standing behind the hate preacher in 2007.
After the incident, Choudary said Adebolajo was ‘a practising Muslim and a family man’ who he was ‘proud of’.
But he denied encouraging the killer to carry out the attack, insisting he was ‘channeling the energy of the youth through demonstrations and processions’.
London Bridge attacker Khuram Butt also joined one of Choudary’s rallies, this time on College Green outside the Palace of Westminster in 2013.
There, Butt ‘verbally assaulted’ a moderate Muslim leader who had opposed Choudary’s extremist rhetoric.
Meanwhile, Mohammed Reza Haque, thought of as Choudary’s bodyguard, disappeared from Britain in 2014.
A photograph taken in Syria showed him in a balaclava and camouflage clothing, brandishing an AK-47 assault rifle and he has since been suspected as being a tall figure in ISIS’s horrific execution films.
Siddhartha Dhar, who once ran Choudary’s media operation, was also seen posing in a military style coat and boots, brandishing an assault rifle and holding his new born baby in Syria, labelling the picture ‘Generation Khilafah’.
In December 2014, two other close associates were discovered in the back of a lorry at Dover as they tried to leave the country.
Westminster attacker Khalid Masood was also linked to Choudary through Ibrahim Anderson, an al-Muhajiroun activist convicted of inviting support for ISIS in 2016.
“Now the Iranian nation eagerly awaits the establishment of the Jerusalem Army.” This provocative statement lies within the first official charter of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (irgc), written in December 1981.
It was just one year after Iraq’s Saddam Hussein attacked Iran, seeking to capitalize on the instability following Iran’s revolution a year earlier. Iran was deeply focused on repelling an Iraqi attack.
Why, then, establish a Jerusalem army? Because in the hearts of many of Iran’s revolutionaries, fighting an offensive war against Iraq was a necessary step toward the real prize: taking Jerusalem.
“The irgc argued that the ‘greater victory’ of delivering Jerusalem from Israeli occupation could be achieved only after the ‘lesser victory’ of defeating Saddam Hussein,” writes Afshon Ostovar in his 2016 book Vanguard of the Imam: Religion, Politics and Iran’s Revolutionary Guards. “Iraq became seen as both the literal and figurative gateway to Jerusalem and the
first step toward the emancipation of Muslim societies.” A popular slogan during the war on Iraq was “the path to Jerusalem runs through Karbala,” the location of
Shiite holy places just south of Baghdad.
This was the cause that burned in Iranian hearts as they waged war on Iraq for eight long years during the 1980s. Even after something like a million souls perished and the war ended inconclusively, that ambition did not die: Iraq, then Jerusalem.
It has taken decades, but recent events show Iran is finally realizing the first part of this long-held mission—and proceeding to the next.
Signs of Victory
In early March, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and a huge delegation began a three-day state visit to Baghdad. This was Rouhani’s first trip to Iraq’s capital since he became president in 2013. It signaled Iran’s victory over the United States for influence in post-Saddam Iraq.
Photos of Rouhani’s trip showed a long table in meetings with Iraqi officials, at least 16 men present on each side. They were signing a batch of agreements aimed at cementing an alliance.
The visit came precisely as the U.S. was working to punish the Iranian regime with strict financial sanctions. By cutting off funds, Washington aims to force Tehran to soften its warlike posture in the region. It hoped Iraq would support at least some of these sanctions. Rouhani’s Baghdad visit wounded that hope.
“We consider this trip a new start in our relations with Iraq,” Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif said. He discussed “joint interests” and “regional cooperation.” He thanked Iraq for having “refused the unjust and illegal sanctions imposed on the Iranian people.”
At the same time, Iraqi lawmakers are pressuring the U.S. to evacuate its remaining forces from their country.
Currently, America stations about 5,000 forces at an Iraqi airbase—a critical post in the fight against the remnants of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. But America’s presence there is not solely about the terrorist group. In a February interview with cbs’s Face the Nation, U.S. President Donald Trump made an off-the-cuff comment revealing that part of the rationale in remaining at the base is to keep an eye on Iran.
Iraq’s reaction to that statement was negative and emphatic. “Don’t overburden Iraq with your own issues,” Iraqi President Barham Salih responded. “The U.S. is a major power … but do not pursue your own policy priorities. We live here.” The Fatah Alliance, the Iraqi parliament’s second-largest party, is now pushing for U.S. troops to leave. As such pressure increases, America’s complete evacuation seems only a matter of time.
Suleimani—Conqueror of Karbala
The same weekend as Rouhani’s visit to Baghdad, yet another portentous event took place. Just as Rouhani was preparing to depart on his trip, the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was at an official function—the first of its kind since the Islamic Republic was established in 1979. Khamenei awarded the prestigious Order of Zulfaqar, Iran’s highest military honor, to Gen. Qassem Suleimani—the only Iranian military official to receive it in the last 40 years.
Why decorate Suleimani now? One cannot help but recognize the connection to the meetings Rouhani was to hold in Baghdad.
Suleimani was, in fact, being honored for his critical role in taking over Iraq—a task that stretched clear back to the days of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.
Suleimani had just turned 22 years old. He volunteered for the newly established Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. This military force was separate from Iran’s official military, which could not be trusted to ensure the continuation of the revolution. At first, the irgcwas used to tamp down internal dissent, but when the Iraq-Iran War began, it was called on to defend against Saddam Hussein’s invasion.
During the eight bloody years that followed, Suleimani proved his mettle on the battlefield. He rose through the ranks, eventually becoming a division commander while still in his 20s. After the war, he remained an irgc commander.
In late 1997, Suleimani assumed leadership of the irgc Quds Force, a special expeditionary unit that orchestrates Iranian action in foreign domains. Quds is the Arabic term for Jerusalem, which betrays the force’s ultimate goal. Under Suleimani, the Quds Force oversaw the training and decision-making of Iran’s proxies: It directed Hezbollah in southern Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza; it conducted missions in Afghanistan—and, of course, Iraq.
Inside Iraq, Suleimani won the affection of several Shiite movements that chafed against Saddam’s Sunni governance. Then, in 2003, the United States invaded to remove Hussein. For a moment, a temporary, informal alliance budded between U.S. armed forces and Suleimani’s assets.
When Saddam Hussein fell, Trumpet editor in chief Gerald Flurry wrote this in the June 2003 issue: “Saddam Hussein was the only leader that Iran feared. Now the U.S. has taken him out of the way. But does America have the will or strength to guard the spoils of war? Prophecy states that it does not.
“Have we now cleared the way for Shiite Iran to rule over Shiite Iraq?”
Earlier in the article he wrote, “It may seem shocking, given the U.S. presence in the region right now, but prophecy indicates that in pursuit of its goal, Iran will probably take over Iraq.”
Today, 16 years later, that prophecy has been fulfilled.
Shadow War on America
Soon after American and coalition forces expelled Hussein’s regime, Iran initiated a long-term shadow war against the U.S. in Iraq. Who helmed that war? None other than Qassem Suleimani.
In 2004, the Quds Force began flooding Iraq with lethal roadside bombs that Americans referred to as efps—“explosively formed projectiles.” These warheads, which fire a molten copper slug able to penetrate armor, wreaked havoc on coalition forces. efps could be made only by skilled technicians, and they were often triggered by sophisticated motion sensors. “There was zero question where they were coming from,” Gen. Stanley McChrystal, head of the Joint Special Operations Command at the time, told the New Yorker in 2013. “We knew where all the factories were in Iran.”
In 2008, sensing the success of America’s troop surge, Suleimani reached out to the U.S. general in command, saying, “Dear General Petraeus, You should know that I, Qassem Suleimani, control the policy for Iran with respect to Iraq, Lebanon, Gaza and Afghanistan. And indeed, the ambassador in Baghdad is a Quds Force member. The individual who’s going to replace him is a Quds Force member.”
Petraeus refused to negotiate with this man, whose hands were stained with so much American blood. At the time, the U.S. seemed to be winning in Iraq.
Soon, though, a new administration took over Washington. President Barack Obama decided it was time to draw down forces in Iraq.
After that draw down, in America’s absence the Sunni Islamic State rose up to fight against virtually everyone in the region—especially the Shiites of Iraq. Iraq and the Kurds in northern Iraq received welcome help from Suleimani in the form of weapons and leadership. The main ground forces in Iraq were not the Iraqi Army, but the very Shiite militias, numbering over 100,000 soldiers, that had allied with Suleimani years before. And they were still answering to Suleimani
Again America was called in to provide air cover to free Iraq, this time from the brutal Islamic State. Thus the U.S. actually found itself working with Iran.
Mr. Flurry wrote about the folly of the situation in the January 2018 Trumpet:“When you see what Iran is doing, it is dumbfounding that the U.S. has followed an anti-terrorism strategy that involves fighting alongside Iran, the number one state sponsor of terrorism! For America to be fighting alongside Iran,something is terribly wrong! We have fallen into a deadly trap! …
“America is not actually fighting alongside Iran—we are empowering it! Iran now looks like an effective and useful partner in the war against terrorism. America has helped to make Iran appear to be the savior in Iraq and Syria!”
This shortsighted strategy is what created the conditions that culminated in the events of March. To recap: Iranian President Hassan Rouhani was in Baghdad cementing a new relationship with Iraq. And Gen. Qassem Suleimani was in Tehran receiving the highest military honor Iran has to offer.
Certainly, the timing of the award was not lost on Iranians—not those with a sense of history. It acknowledged that for 40 years, Suleimani has fought for the revolution, a revolution whose first mission was to conquer Iraq. Suleimani was there in the 1980s on the front lines against Saddam Hussein. After America overthrew Saddam in 2003, Suleimani led the long shadow war against the U.S. in Iraq. From 2014 to now, he has mobilized and then commanded the Shiite militias to fight the Islamic State.
Now, in 2019, with the Islamic State all but vanquished and the U.S. preparing to vacate, Suleimani is being recognized as the conqueror of Karbala.
What is next? Simply look to the irgc creed: The path that cuts through Karbala ends in Jerusalem.
Almost on cue, mere days after Suleimani was decorated, Iran announced a new offensive exercise involving the mass use of drones. These were not simple drones designed for reconnaissance flights, but attack drones that can fly great distances and carry massive loads of explosives.
This aerial exercise over the Persian Gulf on March 14 was the first large-scale drill using offensive drones, the Washington Post reported. The 50 Iranian-made Shahed 171 drones were copies of the U.S.-built RQ-170 Sentinel stealth drone that fell into Iranian territory in 2011. At the time, President Obama decided against retrieving or destroying the drone, lest Iran perceive it as an act of war.
With this military drill, it appears the Iranians have successfully copied the American technology. In the exercise, the drones flew over 620 miles before successfully striking their intended target on an island in the Persian Gulf located within Iran’s territorial waters.
However, more important than the success of the exercises is the name the irgc gave it: “Toward Jerusalem 1.”
The connection with the events earlier the same week is unmistakable. Just as the irgc announced nearly 40 years ago, Iran conquered Karbala—and now it is advancing toward the real prize.
What Prophecy Says
While it is impressive to witness Iran’s long-term commitment to its strategy in the Middle East, there is something far more extraordinary at play with Iran’s rise, its conquest of Iraq, and its play for Jerusalem.
Over 2,500 years ago—just three years after the ancient Babylonians were conquered by the ancestors of the Iranians, the Persians—the Prophet Daniel recorded a stunning prophecy. This longest single prophecy in the Bible, recorded in Daniel 11, details the rise and fall of kingdoms in the years following the Persian Empire’s fall. Most of the chapter deals with two of those kingdoms, “the king of the south,” based in Egypt, and “the king of the north,” based in Mesopotamia. The chapter’s first verses were fulfilled by the Ptolemaic and Seleucid Kingdoms, respectively.
However, not all of this prophecy was fulfilled anciently! The latter part of the chapter is for “the time of the end.”
Verse 40 says, “And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.”
The Ptolemies and the Seleucids have long disappeared. Who, then, are the modern counterparts of the king of the south and king of the north? Please consider the following long-standing forecast of the Trumpet.
Our September-October 1990 issue featured an article titled “King of the South—Is He Now on the World Scene?” Mr. Flurry identified this “king” as a Middle Eastern power bloc, possibly led by Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, that would violently clash with “the king of the north.”
In 1992, he told Trumpet readers that he believed Iran would be the king of radical Islam. Then in December 1994—while Saddam Hussein was still in power—Mr. Flurry asked, “Is Iraq About to Fall to Iran?” In the July 1998 Trumpet he wrote, “The stage is being set for an Islamic group of nations to be led by Iran as the prophesied king of the south …. Iran has a foreign policy with a lot of ‘push.’”
In the February 1995 Trumpet, Mr. Flurry berated the West for being “spellbound by peace treaties” and thus suffering willful blindness to “Iran’s massive plot to control the Middle East.” Then he wrote: “The most precious jewel of Iran’s plan is to conquer Jerusalem. This would then galvanize the Islamic world behind Iran” (emphasis added).
What does all this mean? It means that 2,500 years ago God gave the Prophet Daniel a vision for the time of the end—our time today. Based on that prophecy, Mr. Flurry wrote 25 years ago that Iran would head the king of the south, that Iraq would fall to Iran, and that Iran would initiate a plan to conquer Jerusalem.
In 2019, we see it all happening.
This confirms the accuracy of biblical prophecy and validates the Trumpet’s warning message.
Now that it has taken over Iraq, watch for Iran to become more vocal and pushy against Israel. Its “Toward Jerusalem 1” exercises are only the start.
Iran intends not only to take Jerusalem from the Jews, but also to use the Palestinian cause to galvanize its leadership over the Islamic world. As the 1981 irgc charter also relates, “[I]f the Islamic Republic through radio and television propagates the establishment of the Jerusalem army throughout the Islamic world—in spite of Zionist plots—millions of Muslims will be ready to liberate Jerusalem.”
The Bible does indeed indicate that millions of Muslims will rise up against Jerusalem. However, it also reveals that the Iranian-led king of the south will not succeed! That prize will fall into the hands of the other king in Daniel’s prophecy: the king of the north.
But even then, the “victory” will be short-lived.
You need not be oblivious to the future of Jerusalem and the Middle East. Iran’s strategy to conquer Jerusalem is laid out in Daniel 11 and other prophecies and is explained in Mr. Flurry’s booklet The King of the South.
All this fighting over Jerusalem is not without hope. The rise of Iran as the king of the south is a step that hails the soon-coming return of the true King of Jerusalem, Jesus Christ. He will, finally, put an end to the incessant warfare over the city in the name of religion, and will establish His own government of peace from that holy city.
I believe that Obama’s goal is the Muslim goal primarily. He is a Communist secondarily. He’s an anti Colonialist, as defined by the African definition. If one is anti – colonialist, then one is against the West and ALL that the WEST represents. This, indeed, means anti – Jewish and Christian, anti- Capitalist and anti – Socialist, this further means anti – Capitalist. This leave Theocracy and nothing else. THIS is OBAMA.
This also means that a Caliphate across the ME, would not be objectionable to him. He is after all a TRUE son to Africa, not America. Regardless of his birth place, he is African. He’s SAID so.
Obama’s diversionary tactics
By Caroline B. Glick
What did the president wish to accomplish by purposely starting an ugly fight with the prime minister this past weekend?
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |As the Washington Post pointed out on Friday, US President Barack Obama purposely provoked the current fight with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. He knew full well that Netanyahu does not back the Palestinian formulation that negotiations with Israel must be based on the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, or what are wrongly referred to as the 1967 lines. In the days leading up to Obama’s speech last Thursday, Israel registered explicit, repeated requests that he not adopt the Palestinian position that negotiations should be based on those lines.
And so it was a stinging rebuke when Obama declared Thursday: “The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.” According to the Washington Post, Obama wrote these lines of his speech himself and Netanyahu was informed of them just as he was scheduled to fly to the US on Thursday evening. Obama gave the speech while Netanyahu was in the air on his way to Washington to meet Obama the next morning. It is hard to think of a more stunning insult or a greater display of contempt for the leader of a US ally and fellow democracy than Obama’s actions last week. And it is obvious that Netanyahu had no choice but to react forcefully to Obama’s provocation.
The question is why would Obama act as he did? What did he wish to accomplish by purposely starting such an ugly fight with Netanyahu?
Probably the best way to figure out what Obama wished to accomplish is to consider what he did accomplish, because the two are undoubtedly related.
ON MAY 4, two weeks before Obama gave his speech, Fatah and Hamas signed a unity agreement. Hamas is the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood. Like its fellow Brotherhood satellite al-Qaida, Hamas shares the Brotherhood’s ideology of global jihad, the destruction of Western civilization and the establishment of a global caliphate. Also like al-Qaida, it is a terrorist organization which, since its establishment in 1987 has murdered more than a thousand Israelis.
In 2005, Hamas subcontracted itself out to the Iranian regime. Since then, its men have been trained by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and by Hezbollah. Hamas maintains operational ties with both outfits and receives most of its weapons and significant funding from Iran.
The agreement between Fatah and Hamas makes Hamas a partner in the leadership of the Palestinian Authority. It also paves the way for Hamas to win the planned Palestinian legislative and presidential elections that are scheduled for September just after the UN General Assembly is scheduled to endorse Palestinian statehood. It also sets the conditions for Hamas to integrate its forces and eventually take over the UStrained Palestinian army in Judea and Samaria and to join the PLO.
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal constitutes a complete repudiation of the assumptions informing Obama’s policies towards the Palestinians and Israel. Obama perceives the conflict as a direct consequence of two things: prior US administrations’ refusal to “put light” between the US and Israel, and Israel’s unwillingness to surrender all of the territory it took during the course of the 1967 Six Day War.
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal is indisputable proof that contrary to what Obama believes, the conflict has nothing to do with previous administrations’ support for Israel or with Israel’s size. It is instead entirely the consequence of the Palestinians’ rejection of Israel’s right to exist and their commitment to bringing about Israel’s destruction.
Forcing Israel into indefensible boundaries, (which as Netanyahu explained to Obama at the White House on Friday, “were not the boundaries of peace, they were the boundaries of repeated wars because the attack on Israel was so attractive for them,”), will not advance the cause of peace. It will advance the Palestinians’ goal of destroying Israel.
Obama had two options for contending with the Palestinian unity deal. He could pay attention to it or he could create a distraction in order to ignore it. If he paid attention to it, he would have been forced to disavow his policy of blaming his predecessors in the White House and Israel for the absence of peace. By creating a distraction he would be able to change the subject in a manner that would enable him to maintain those policies.
And so he picked a fight with Netanyahu. And by picking the fight, he created a distraction that has, in fact, changed the subject and enabled Obama to maintain his policies that have been wholly repudiated by the reality of the Palestinian unity deal.
By inserting the citation of the 1949 armistice lines into his speech, Obama made Israel’s size again the issue.
Political map of Israel with Westbank and Gaza, Golan Heights, and southern Lebanon
The Hamas-Fatah unity deal actually demonstrates that not only is Israel’s size not the cause of the conflict, it is the main reason that Israelis and Palestinians live in relative peace.
Israel’s control over Judea and Samaria and east Jerusalem, and with them, its ability to ward off invasion and attacks on its major cities is what has prevented wars. If Israel were more vulnerable, the de facto Palestinian terror state would not be weighing whether or not to begin a new terror war as its leaders from Fatah and Hamas are doing today. It would be waging a continuous campaign of terror whose clear aim is Israel’s destruction for again, as Netanyahu said the 1949 armistice lines make war an attractive option for Israel’s enemies.
BY PICKING a fight with Netanyahu, since Thursday, no one could have possibly noted this basic truth because the false issue of Israel’s control over these areas — that is, Israel’s size — has dominated the global discourse on the Middle East.
Obama would never have been able to create his diversion from the unwelcome fact of Palestinian duplicity and rejectionism, to imaginary problem with the size of Israel without the enthusiastic support given to him by the Israeli Left.
Led by opposition leader Tzipi Livni, the Israeli Left responded to Obama’s full-scale assault on Israel’s legitimacy by launching a full-scale partisan assault on Netanyahu. Rather than back Netanyahu as he fights for the country’s future, Livni called for him to resign and said that he was wrecking Israel’s ties with the US. In so doing, the Left provided crucial support for Obama’s move to maintain his phony anti- Israel paradigm for Middle East policymaking in the face of the Palestinian unity deal’s repudiation of that model.
The Left’s assault on Netanyahu is not the only way it has enabled Obama to maintain his pro-Palestinian policies in the face of the Palestinians’ embrace of terror and war. In his speech to AIPAC, Obama argued that Israel needs to surrender its defensible boundaries because the Palestinians are about to demographically challenge Israel’s Jewish majority.
As Obama put it, “The number of Palestinians living west of the Jordan River is growing rapidly and fundamentally reshaping the demographic realities of both Israel and the Palestinian territories. This will make it harder and harder — without a peace deal — to maintain Israel as both a Jewish state and a democratic state.”
The demographic time bomb story is a Palestinian fabrication. In 1997, the Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics published a falsified Palestinian census that inflated Palestinian population data by 50 percent. The Israeli Left adopted this fake report as its own when Palestinian terrorism and political warfare convinced the majority of Israelis that it was unwise to give them any more land and that the peace process was a lie.
Since 2004, repeated, in-depth studies of Jewish and Arab birthrates and immigration/ emigration statistics west of the Jordan River undertaken by independent researchers have shown that the demographic time bomb is a dud. In January, the respected demographer Yaakov Faitelson published a study for the Institute of Zionist Strategies in which he definitively put to rest the tale of pending Jewish demographic doom.
As Faitelson demonstrated, Jewish and Arab birthrates are already converging west of the Jordan River at around three children per woman. And whereas the fertility rates of Israeli Arabs, Gazans and residents of Judea and Samaria are all trending downward, Jewish fertility is consistently rising. Moreover, whereas the Arabs are experiencing consistently negative net immigration rates, Jewish net immigration rates are positive and high.
Faitelson based his multiyear projections on current population numbers in which Jews comprise 58.6 percent of the population west of the Jordan River and Muslims constitute 38.7% of the overall population. Non-Jewish, non-Muslim minorities comprise the other 2.7%. Using assessment baselines for Jewish net immigration well below current averages, Faitelson showed that in the years to come, not only will Jews not lose our demographic majority. We will increase it.
Faitelson’s study, like the studies published since 2004 by the American-Israeli Demographic Research Group show that from a demographic perspective, Israel is in the same situation as many Western states today. Namely, it has to develop policies for dealing with an irredentist minority population.
There are many reasonable, liberal policies that Israel can adopt. These include applying the liberal Israeli legal code to Judea and Samaria and enforcing the laws of treason. It is hard to see why the best policy for Israel is to take some of that irredentist population off its books by establishing a terror state ruled by what Netanyahu rightly referred to as “the Israeli equivalent of al-Qaida” on its border.
ALL OF this brings us back to Hamas, terrorism, the Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist, and Obama’s diversionary moves to facilitate his preservation of a Middle East policy based on a wholly false and discredited assessment of reality and the Israeli Left’s facilitation of Obama’s efforts.
When we realize what Obama is up to, we recognize as well what Netanyahu must do in response.
In his address before Congress on today and in all of his appearances in the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu should have one goal: to bring the focus of debate back where it belongs — on the Palestinians.
At every opportunity, Netanyahu needs to pound the message that the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction is the sole reason that there is no peace.
As for the Israeli Left, it is high time that Netanyahu place the likes of Livni on the defensive. This involves two things. First, Netanyahu must attack the Left’s doomsday demographic projections that are without factual basis and are indeed antithetical to reality. As long as the demographic lie goes unchallenged by Netanyahu, the Left will continue to argue that by refusing to build a terror state on the outskirts of Tel Aviv, Netanyahu is endangering Israel.
Netanyahu deserves a lot of credit for standing up to Obama on Friday. He showed enormous courage in doing so. It was his finest hour to date and polls over the weekend show that the public appreciates and supports him for it. He must build on that success by putting the focus on the truth.
I was out sick yesterday so I was unable to write today’s column for theJerusalem Post. I did manage to watch President Obama’s speech on the Middle East yesterday evening. And I didn’t want to wait until next week to discuss it. After all, who knows what he’ll do by Tuesday?
Before we get into what the speech means for Israel, it is important to consider what it means for America.
Quite simply, Obama’s speech represents the effective renunciation of the US’s right to have and to pursue national interests. Consequently, his speech imperils the real interests that the US has in the region – first and foremost, the US’s interest in securing its national security.
Obama’s renunciation of the US national interests unfolded as follows:
First, Obama mentioned a number of core US interests in the region. In his view these are: “Countering terrorism and stopping the spread of nuclear weapons; securing the free flow of commerce, and safe-guarding the security of the region; standing up for Israel’s security and pursuing Arab-Israeli peace.”
Then he said, “Yet we must acknowledge that a strategy based solely upon the narrow pursuit of these interests will not fill an empty stomach or allow someone to speak their mind.”
While this is true enough, Obama went on to say that the Arabs have good reason to hate the US and that it is up to the US to put its national interests aside in the interest of making them like America. As he put it, “a failure to change our approach threatens a deepening spiral of division between the United States and Muslim communities.”
And you know what that means. If the US doesn’t end the “spiral of division,” (sounds sort of like “spiral of violence” doesn’t it?), then the Muslims will come after America. So the US better straighten up and fly right.
And how does it do that? Well, by courting the Muslim Brotherhood which spawned Al Qaeda, Hamas, Jamma Islamiya and a number of other terror groups and is allies with Hezbollah.
How do we know this is Obama’s plan? Because right after he said that the US needs to end the “spiral of division,” he recalled his speech in Egypt in June 2009 when he spoke at the Brotherhood controlled Al Azhar University and made sure that Brotherhood members were in the audience in a direct diplomatic assault on US ally Hosni Mubarak.
And of course, intimations of Obama’s plan to woo and appease the jihadists appear throughout the speech. For instance:
“There will be times when our short term interests do not align perfectly with our long term vision of the region.”
So US short term interests, like for instance preventing terrorist attacks against itself or its interests, will have to be sacrificed for the greater good of bringing the Muslim Brotherhood to power in democratic elections.
And he also said that the US will “support the governments that will be elected later this year” in Egypt and Tunisia. But why would the US support governments controlled by the Muslim Brotherhood? They are poised to control the elected government in Egypt and are the ticket to beat in Tunisia as well.
Then there is the way Obama abandoned US allies Yemen and Bahrain in order to show the US’s lack of hypocrisy. As he presented it, the US will not demand from its enemies Syria and Iran that which it doesn’t demand from its friends.
While this sounds fair, it is anything but fair. The fact is that if you don’t distinguish between your allies and your enemies then you betray your allies and side with your enemies. Bahrain and Yemen need US support to survive. Iran and Syria do not. So when he removes US support from the former, his action redounds to the direct benefit of the latter.
P Photo/US Navy, Kurt Eischen The USS New Orleans makes its way down the Mississippi River on March 5, 2007. The U.S. Navy's 5th Fleet says two of its vessels -- a submarine, the USS Hartford and an amphibious ship, the USS New Orleans -- collided in the Strait of Hormuz between Iran and the Arabian peninsula early Friday.
Beyond his abandonment of Bahrain and Yemen, in claiming that the US mustn’t distinguish between its allies and its foes, Obama made clear that he has renounced the US’s right to have and pursue national interests. If you can’t favor your allies against your enemies then you cannot defend your national interests. And if you cannot defend your national interests then you renounce your right to have them.
As for Iran, in his speech, Obama effectively abandoned the pursuit of the US’s core interest of preventing nuclear proliferation. All he had to say about Iran’s openly genocidal nuclear program is, “Our opposition to Iran’s intolerance – as well as its illicit nuclear program, and its sponsorship of terror – is well known.”
Well so is my opposition to all of that, and so is yours. But unlike us, Obama is supposed to do something about it. And by putting the gravest threat the US presently faces from the Middle East in the passive voice, he made clear that actually, the US isn’t going to do anything about it.
Palestinian Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar walks on an Israeli flag while taking part in a rally to mark the upcoming 23rd anniversary since the group's foundation, in Gaza city, Thursday, Dec. 9, 2010. The arabic text reads: "For sure will be destroyed. Israel". AP Photo.
Gaza rulers say September most likely too soon to declare Palestinian independence, as too many questions pertaining to state’s viability remain unanswered
Senior Hamas official Mahmoud al-Zahar said Wednesday that the Islamist movement was somewhat skeptical as to the viability of Fatah’s September-bound bid for statehood.
Speaking with the Palestinian Ma’an News Agency, al-Zahar said that “all the talk of a Palestinian state is… an attempt to pacify us.”
He further wondered as to the nature of the Palestinian state, should it be declared in several months’ time: “Where is the land for this state? Are those living in the West Bank and Gaza to be its citizens? What will be the fate of the five million Palestinians in the diaspora? Are we to give up the right of return?”
He also said that anyone who thinks that a Palestinian state would be accepted by the international community without it recognizing Israel first, “does not understand the (political) landscape.”
Hamas, he said, is willing to accept a Palestinian state based on the 1967 borders, but will maintain its refusal to recognize Israel, since a formal recognition of Israel would “cancel the right of the next generations to liberate the lands.”
In short, every American who is concerned about the security of the United States should be livid. The US President just abandoned his responsibility to defend the country and its interests in the interest of coddling the US’s worst enemies.
AS FOR ISRAEL, in a way, Obama did Israel a favor by giving this speech. By abandoning even a semblance of friendliness, he has told us that we have nothing whatsoever to gain by trying to make him like us. Obama didn’t even say that he would oppose the Palestinians’ plan to get the UN Security Council to pass a resolution in support for Palestinian independence. All he said was that it is a dumb idea.
Obama sided with Hamas against Israel by acting as though its partnership with Fatah is just a little problem that has to be sorted out to reassure the paranoid Jews. Or as he put it, “the recent announcement of an agreement between Fatah and Hamas raises profound and legitimate questions for Israel.”
Hamas is a jihadist movement dedicated to the annihilation of the Jewish people, and the establishment of a global caliphate. It’s in their charter. And all Obama said of the movement that has now taken over the Palestinian Authority was, “Palestinian leaders will not achieve peace or prosperity if Hamas insists on a path of terror and rejection.”
Irrelevant and untrue.
It is irrelevant because obviously the Palestinians don’t want peace. That’s why they just formed a government dedicated to Israel’s destruction.
As for being untrue, Obama’s speech makes clear that they have no reason to fear a loss of prosperity. After all, by failing to mention that US law bars the US government from funding an entity which includes Hamas, he made clear that the US will continue to bankroll the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority. So too, the EU will continue to join the US in giving them billions for bombs and patronage jobs. The Palestinians have nothing to worry about. They will continue to be rewarded regardless of what they do.
Then of course there are all the hostile, hateful details of the speech:
He said Israel has to concede its right to defensible borders as a precondition for negotiations;
He didn’t say he opposes the Palestinian demand for open immigration of millions of foreign Arabs into Israel;
He again ignored Bush’s 2004 letter to Sharon opposing a return to the 1949 armistice lines, supporting the large settlements, defensible borders and opposing mass Arab immigration into Israel;
He said he was leaving Jerusalem out but actually brought it in by calling for an Israeli retreat to the 1949 lines;
He called for Israel to be cut in two when he called for the Palestinians state to be contiguous;
He called for Israel to withdraw from the Jordan Valley – without which it is powerless against invasion – by saying that the Palestinian State will have an international border with Jordan.
Conceptually and substantively, Obama abandoned the US alliance with Israel. The rest of his words – security arrangements, demilitarized Palestinian state and the rest of it – were nothing more than filler to please empty-headed liberal Jews in America so they can feel comfortable signing checks for him again.
Indeed, even his seemingly pro-Israel call for security arrangements in a final peace deal involved sticking it to Israel. Obama said, “The full and phased withdrawal of Israeli military forces should be coordinated with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility in a sovereign, non-militarized state.”
What does that mean “with the assumption of Palestinian security responsibility?”
It means we have to assume everything will be terrific.
All of this means is that if Prime Minister Netanyahu was planning to be nice to Obama, and pretend that everything is terrific with the administration, he should just forget about it. He needn’t attack Obama. Let the Republicans do that.
But both in his speech to AIPAC and his address to Congress, he should very forthrightly tell the truth about the nature of the populist movements in the Middle East, the danger of a nuclear Iran, the Palestinians’ commitment to Israel’s destruction; the lie of the so-called peace process; the importance of standing by allies; and the critical importance of a strong Israel to US national security.
He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by playing by the rules that Obama is trying to set for him.
This President is dangerous to the US. The logic that started the war in Libya has nothing to do with Gadhafi, per se. It has to do with setting the stage. This president is not a leader. He IS an actor. The stage is being prepared by others. He is only the lead role at the moment. And this is WHY he is dangerous. Nothing is REAL. It’s all staged. No one that is a REAL player gets hurt, according to the globalists.
I’m convinced that there is a fracturing in the Globalists clique. Some of them are Global Capitalists and others are Global Communists. There is an ideological strife a foot. The reason I believe that is because there are leaks of information surfacing that would otherwise NOT be there.
Be that as it may, the other agents in play are the Muslims. They are outmaneuvering the Globalists on some fronts and the Globalists are making hasty errors in judgement. They are forced to move more quickly, but some have already made deals with the other side. Those, I believe, are the Capitalists, because they have only one goal, money, but not money in that they have paper or stuff like that, but money in terms of true wealth and that is Control driven. They have to get CONTROL of the commonly accepted currency, because in the end, that is their only truest commodity.
So, how does that correlate to Gadhafi and how does that set the stage for a war that the US be subjected to?
It’s the Logic. The UN is the Global GUN. The reason that Gadhafi was attacked is to begin to set the precedent and NO other reason. The next casualty will be potentially Syria, in my opinion. The following, and this may not occur until AFTER the election, is Israel. And the reasoning is nice outlined below, in Gaffeney’s article. However, I would take it a step farther. The same situation is setting itself up here too, in the US. The next casualty, may indeed be, the US. Hezbollah and Hamas have set up shop in South America and Mexico. They are taking over the cartels. They got their FEET in the door by selling weapons and training the Cartels. Now, they are tenured within those “armies.” The same situation is setting itself up. What difference is there in logic? It is the same. The Palestinian’s cry that they were removed from their land. The Mexicans cry the same. US children are being taught toward sedition and outright treason of their own country by “teachers” whose agenda is to overthrow the state that they teach. Even the methods are the same between the Palestinians and what they are doing to Israel and what the “Mexican’s” are doing to the US. The similarities should not go unnoticed. The fish ALWAYS stinks from the HEAD.
<thanks to Mandy for the Gaffney article.>
I would also like to mention that Obama sitting as the head of the UN security council is a direct violation of the nobility clause in Article 9 of the US CONSTITUTION.
The Senate Armed Services Committee should convene immediately to prevent Obama from using our people in his and the NWO’s war. The military should stand down.
The ATF who’s under the Homeland security, which the CIA is also under, is headed by a CZAR. This agency is NOT steered by an elected official. This is an appointment by the PRESIDENT. These CZAR headed agencies have taken control of legitimate agencies and are run by executive fiat. This is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. How is it that they have been allowed these POWERS? These agencies have seized control of America. They overrule the Constitutional limitations of power.
Communist China may be bad, but America is going to be much worse, if this continues unchecked.
The Gadhafi precedent: Could attack on Libya set the stage for action against Israel?
By Frank J. Gaffney, Jr.
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |There are many reasons to be worried about the bridge-leap the Obama administration has just undertaken in its war with Col. Moammar Gadhafi. How it will all end is just one of them.
Particularly concerning is the prospect that what we might call the Gadhafi precedent will be used in the not-too-distant future to justify and threaten the use of U.S. military forces against an American ally: Israel.
Here’s how such a seemingly impossible scenario might eventuate:
It begins with the Palestinian Authority seeking a United Nations Security Council resolution that would recognize its unilateral declaration of statehood. Three top female officials in the Obama administration reprise roles they played in the council’s recent action on Libya: U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice, a vehement critic of Israel, urges that the United States support (or at least not veto) the Palestinians’ gambit. She is supported by the senior director for multilateral affairs at the National Security Council, Samantha Power, who in the past argued for landing a “mammoth force” of American troops to protect the Palestinians from Israel. Ditto Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, whose unalloyed sympathy for the Palestinian cause dates back at least to her days as first lady.
This resolution enjoys the support of the other four veto-wielding Security Council members – Russia, China, Britain and France – as well as all of the other nonpermanent members except India, which joins the United States in abstaining. As a result, it is adopted with overwhelming support from what is known as the “international community.”
With a stroke of the U.N.’s collective pen, substantial numbers of Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and Israeli citizens find themselves on the wrong side of internationally recognized borders. The Palestinian Authority (PA) insists on its long-standing position: The sovereign territory of Palestine must be rid of all Jews.
The Israeli government refuses to evacuate the oft-condemned “settlements” now on Palestinian land or to remove the IDF personnel, checkpoints and facilities rightly seen as vital to protecting their inhabitants and, for that matter, the Jewish state itself.
Hamas and Fatah bury the hatchet (temporarily), forging a united front and promising democratic elections in the new Palestine. There, as in Gaza – and probably elsewhere in the wake of the so-called “Arab awakening” – the winner likely will be the Muslim Brotherhood, whose Palestinian franchise is Hamas.
The unified Palestinian proto-government then seeks international help to “liberate” its land. As with the Gadhafi precedent, the first to act is the Arab League. Its members unanimously endorse the use of force to protect the “Palestinian people” and end the occupation of the West Bank by the Israelis.
Turkey, which is still a NATO ally despite its ever-more-aggressive embrace of Islamism, is joined by Britain and France – two European nations increasingly hostile to Israel – in applauding this initiative in the interest of promoting “peace.” They call on the U.N. Security Council to authorize such steps as might be necessary to enforce the Arab League’s bidding.
Once again, Team Obama’s leading ladies – Mrs. Clinton, Ms. Power and Ms. Rice – align to support the “will of the international community.” They exemplify and are prepared to enforce the president’s willingness to subordinate U.S. sovereignty to the dictates of transnationalism and his personal hostility toward Israel. The concerns of Mr. Obama’s political advisers about alienating Jewish voters on the eve of the 2012 election are trumped by presidential sympathy for the Palestinian right to a homeland.
Accordingly, hard as it may be to believe given the United States’ long-standing role as Israel’s principal ally and protector, Mr. Obama acts in accordance with the Gadhafi precedent. He warns Israel that it must take steps immediately to dismantle its unwanted presence inside the internationally recognized state of Palestine lest it face the sort of U.S.- enabled “coalition” military measures now under way in Libya. In this case, they would be aimed at neutralizing IDF forces on the West Bank – and beyond, if necessary – in order to fulfill the “will of the international community.”
Of course, such steps would not result in the ostensibly desired endgame, namely “two states living side by side in peace and security.” If the current attack on Libya entails the distinct possibility of unintended (or at least unforeseen) consequences, application of the Gadhafi precedent to Israel seems certain to produce a very different outcome from the two-state “solution”: Under present and foreseeable circumstances, it will unleash a new regional war, with possible worldwide repercussions.
At the moment, it seems unlikely that the first application in Libya of the Gadhafi precedent will have results consistent with U.S. interests. Even if a positive outcome somehow is forthcoming there, should Mr. Obama and his anti-Israel troika of female advisers be allowed, based on that precedent, to realize the foregoing hypothetical scenario, they surely would precipitate a new international conflagration, one fraught with truly horrific repercussions – for Israel, the United States and freedom-loving people elsewhere.
A Congress that was effectively sidelined by Team Obama in the current crisis had better engage fully, decisively and quickly if it is to head off such a disastrous reprise.
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
Try to understand this: At the time of the adoption of the Constitution there were no “natural born Citizens” (no country yet = no citizens, period?), so yes, the Founders wrote in a “grandfather” clause to allow those present (already born) at the time the Constitution was signed to qualify to be president. However, if you weren’t born yet when the Constitution was adopted (that includes Obama), then you had to be a “natural born Citizen,” meaning both parents must be U.S. citizens. It is amazing how tough this is for some people to understand. The reason Congress “investigated” McCain was because he was not born in the USA. They concluded in their report that that was OK, because his “parents” (notice the plural form of “parents”) were both U.S. Citizens. This is not true for Obama, and he clearly was not held to the same standard.
The Constitution says you must be a natural born Citizen, or a citizen at the time the Constitution was adopted. The Founders wanted the president to be a natural born Citizen, but they recognized that there were NO natural born Citizens until after the Constitution was adopted. They didn’t know that 200+ years from the signing, the education system would have dumbed down the USA’s population to the point that understanding it was an endangered ability.
Some may believe the natural born Citizen clause isn’t fair. The Founders of our nation believed it was the right thing to do because they had just fought a war with those who had allegiance to a country other than the one they were fighting to create….that country was the one they left to come to America, namely, England. The Founders did not want to elect a newborn to the office of the president, nor did they want to wait 35 years for a natural born Citizen to meet the age requirement to be president. So they grandfathered themselves in with the statement “or a Citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution.” No doubt they trusted themselves and their children who were born prior to the signing of the Constitution to be loyal only to the USA, fighting a war with England would have had that effect on them.
Obama is the “poster child’ who proves once again that the wisdom of America’s Founders was impeccable.
You can make up excuses till the earth fries from global warming, but you can’t change the truth.
The arguments are the same. The logic is equivalent.
If it is logical that Israel should give up their land then, the US should release the WEST to Mexico.
If the AZTECS want to CEDE from Mexico, because it was the SPANISH who came to Mexico, then should Mexico give up that portion of territory to them? It was the Spaniards who unified a country of INDIANS and then settled it. Doe that sound familiar?
Since the Jews would be cast out of their lives in their own country, then would that not indeed be the SAME as what occurred in Europe to the Czechs? and many other places where Jews and gypsies were driven out?
That is called ethnic cleansing.
OUR PRESIDENT has just called for the ETHNIC cleansing of the JEWS from their own land.
wiki defined ethnic cleansing:
Ethnic cleansing “is a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas. (Commission of Experts Established Pursuant to United Nations Security Council Resolution 780)”.
This presidents logic, if transposed on our own situation, would create an ethnic cleansing here. If he didn’t follow the SAME logic, then the WORLD would see America as a hypocrite. Which, would not be favorable to all you appeasers out there. It’s a LOOSE / LOOSE LOGIC.
This argument WILL come up and be used. Mark my words.
Rabbi: ‘The President of the United States is Asking for Ethnic Cleansing’
President Barack Obama. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak, File)
(CNSNews.com) – President Barack Obama has made an unprecedented demand on Israel, Jewish leaders said Thursday, after the president called for Israel to redraw its borders to where they were in 1967 before the Six Day War. One rabbi said Obama was, in essence, asking for “ethnic cleansing” of thousands of Jewish families.
“It’s immoral in that basically the president of the United States is asking that 500,000 people who live, work, and raise families around Jerusalem – Jewish families – that they be uprooted, resettled, deported from their homes, have their families broken,” Rabbi Aryeh Spero, founder of Caucus for America, told CNSNews.com.
“The president of the United States is asking for ethnic cleansing,” said Rabbi Spero. “It’s ironic that the president, who speaks in humanitarian tones regarding the Palestinians, doesn’t have any humanitarian concerns toward 500,000 Jewish people and families that will be uprooted and deported from their homes.”
Obama made the demand on Israel during a speech on the Middle East, delivered at the State Department on Thursday, as a way to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But Spero believes Obama was not being honest.
“Every time Israel relinquishes land on the altar of peace, it gets not peace but rockets,” Spero said. “This has been played over and over by the Palestinian Authority, then with Yasser Arafat, with Hamas. He knows what will happen with the Israelis, and yet it doesn’t seem to bother him.”
“I’m just very disappointed that my president seems to be so indifferent to the plight of the Jewish people in Israel,” he said.
Though Israel has given up land to Palestinians in the past because of pressure from the United States, no U.S. president has asked this much, said Rabbi Gershon Tannenbaum, director of the Rabbinical Alliance of America.
Rabbi Aryeh Spero
“It’s par for the course, but not to this extent,” Tannenbaum told CNSNews.com. “In other words, other presidents have also pressured Israel with the hope of achieving some kind of peace. But considering the history and considering facts on the ground, no president has been as severe as President Obama.”
However, Tannenbaum thinks the proposal is a non-starter primarily because the borders have never been the issue.
“The suggestion is going to die, this is not going to work,” he said. “It won’t go anywhere. If you notice, there was an attack on all the borders of the state of Israel. There was an attack on the 1967 borders. The problem with Israel for the Palestinians is the very existence of the state of Israel — not its borders — but that it exists at all. They will not rest until there is no Israel.”
But Spero is not so sure the proposal will just go away, even without support from Congress.
“While he [Obama] can’t force the Jewish people out of their lands, he can certainly pressure Israel to the point where it finds itself in a very insecure state of affairs,” said Rabbi Spero. “He could without certain military weapons and parts that are needed for Israel’s defense. So, it’s a tremendous amount of intimidation and pressure.”
Israel expanded its territory after the Six Day War defeating Egypt, Jordan and Syria. Israel gained the West Bank, the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem, the Gaza Strip, and the Sinai Peninsula (the Sinai was returned to Egypt in a deal brokered in 1978). Since 1967, and most notably in the early 1990s, Israel gave up significant amounts of land for peace to the Palestinians. The conflict has nevertheless raged onward.
“The reason Israel today is bigger than it was in 1967 is because the Arab countries united in an attack against Israel,” Tannenbaum said. “Miraculously, Israel fought them off and won. Now Israel has returned a majority of the West Bank and Israel has returned the Gaza Strip. There still is no peace. So at this point, returning more land is counterproductive and is not the answer. And the president is wrong in his plan.”
On the eve of a visit to the U.S. by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the timing of the announcement seemed calculating, said Rabbi Yehuda Levin, a spokesman for the Rabbinical Alliance of America.
“I’m not a political Zionist,” said the rabbi. “I have my problems with the state of Israel and the things that they do that flies in the face of our religious traditional heritage. Nevertheless, in terms of security for human beings, one has to be totally concerned. I have many family members and extended family members and fellow Jews in Israel and I’m concerned for their safety.”
“I’m just prayerful that the Congress of the United States will respond to the Jewish people and residents of Israel that the position of one human being as president does not reflect what the country feels,” Levin said.
Obama recognized the negotiations would be a challenge because of the agreement between the Fatah, the leading Palestinian political party and the terrorist group Hamas, but he reaffirmed America’s relationship with Israel.
Still the speech has sparked concern and widespread coverage.
“We welcome the president’s recognition of Israel’s security needs and that Hamas cannot be a partner in the peace process, but a call to a return to 1967 borders as the basis for negotiations, even with ‘land swaps’ is a non-starter, when at least half of the Palestinian rulers are committed to Israel’s destruction,” said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in a written statement. “The road to peace has been clear for a long time — direct negotiations between parties who recognize each other’s legitimacy.”
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla), in a statement released after the president’s speech, said: “This proposal is a slap in the face of our friend and democracy’s only ally in the Middle East: Israel. As a nation, we should support and promote freedom and democracy in the region, but we should not do so at the expense of Israel. That land belongs to Israel – period.”
“Based on archeological evidence and historical right, that land belongs to Israel,” said Inhofe. “As I have outlined several times before, Israel is a strategic ally to the United States that acts as a roadblock to terrorism. Every other country in that region hates Israel and would stop at nothing for Israel’s destruction just as they would stop at nothing to see our own destruction.”
“President Obama’s speech today kowtows to the very forces that hate us,” said the senator. “I will try to address all these issues on the Senate floor next week to refute President Obama’s message today.”
No only is the uprising in the ME NOT Democratic, it’s a sort of CIVIL WAR.
I say civil war, because if one looks at the entire area as PERSIA and Muslim, then the area and issue becomes VERY clear.
Iran is not the head. There is no HEAD. The HEAD is ISLAM.
The wars are over control of the region. The issue is who will be the leader of the coming LARGER fight. Who wins here is who will take the baton of ISLAM to carry it forward in to the NEW MILLENNIAL.
2011 is 1432 H in Islam.
Bahrain Sees Hezbollah Plot in Protest
In Report to U.N., Government Says Lebanese Militant Group Has Been Working to Overthrow Ruling Khalifa Family
by Jay Solomon
Bahrain At Night
Bahrain has accused the Iranian-backed militia Hezbollah with seeking to overthrow the island-state’s ruling family, in a report to the United Nations, escalating the growing cold war between Sunni Arab states and Shiite-dominated Iran.
The confidential report, sent to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon last week, alleges that Hezbollah has been training Bahraini opposition figures at camps in Lebanon and Iran. Bahrain’s government also accuses Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and other senior members of the Islamist Lebanese organization of directly plotting with Bahrain’s largely Shiite opposition on how to challenge the ruling Khalifa family.
Iran, Hezbollah and Bahrain’s opposition movement deny …
The Lebanese Shiite Hizballah has obviously decided the Assad regime is sinking.DEBKAfile’s military sources report the organization is preparing to pull its heavy, long-range weapons out of storage in Syrian military facilities – no longer sure they are safe there – and risk transporting them to Lebanon.
Last year, Syrian President Bashar Assad agreed to store Hizballah’s incoming Iran-made Fatah-110 surface missiles and its Syrian equivalent the M-600 and the mobile SA-8 (Gecko) anti-air battery which holds 18 warheads with a maximum range of 12 kilometers. Tehran paid for the upkeep of the Hizballah hardware on Syrian side of the border after Israel threatened to bomb these potential game-changers if they crossed over.
Deployed at Hizballah bases in Lebanon, the Fatah-110 and M-600 would place almost every corner of Israel within range of bombardment, while the SA-8 would seriously restrict Israeli Air Force operations over southern Lebanon and Galilee.
However, as the uprising against Assad rolls ever closer to Damascus, Hizballah see a very real threat of it infecting the Syrian army and has decided that now might be its last chance to get hold of the core arsenal it has standing by for war with Israel before events get out of hand in Syria.
Hizballah’s headquarters in Dahya, Beirut, became alarmed when they heard about strong resentment building up in the Syrian 11th Division over the Assad crackdown against the dissidents – among officers as well as other ranks.
The 11th Division, which is camped outside Aleppo, is the best trained and organized of all Syrian army units, equipped as its strategic reserve with the most advanced weaponry. If the unrest has reached this elite unit, Hizballah reckons there is no time to losing for pulling its missiles out of Syrian military safekeeping.
Meanwhile, top Hizballah and Iranian offices in Tehran are working on the best way to transport the missiles into Lebanon without exposing them to Israeli attack, DEBKAfile’s Iranian sources report. Some of them calculate that Israel would not venture to strike them while still on Syrian soil because it would lay itself open to interfering, or even getting in the way of, the revolt against President Assad and playing into his hands.
A security emergency might well take the wind out of protest movement’s sails.
But already, Tehran’s Lebanese surrogate is beginning to distance itself from Bashar Assad, its longtime strategic partner and arms supplier, having decided he has his back to the wall. April 28, the Hizballah-controlled Lebanese Al Akhbar newspaper started criticizing the Assad regime on its op-ed pages.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Syria category.
But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of DISCERNMENT trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil.
------------------this is now called DISCRIMINATION
What was once a virtue of the wise, is, now on the verge of being criminal