Netanyahu’s true electoral rival


J. Kerry-Israel Apartheid State w-o Palestine

 

Caroline Glick embarks on an essay that should pique the ears of Conspiracy Theorists. Unfortunately for the Left, this essay displays Conspiracy Facts that paints a picture of President Barack Hussein Obama’s crazy agenda in Foreign Policy that explains much of his actions that are failing left and right. Glick’s exposé underpinning BHO’s actions is undoubtedly based on Leftist utopianism.

 

Whether that utopianism is a real belief or a contrived belief with an even more nefarious agenda waiting in the wings is really the only thing up for debate between political pundits and Conspiracy Theorists.

 

Here are some interesting Glick essay highlights:

 

o   On March 17 Israel embarks on Parliamentarian elections that will decide if the government managed by Prime Minister Netanyahu remains or is replaced by a more Left Wing duo of Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni.

 

o   Due to Netanyahu/Obama international political dueling, the Israeli electorate is really deciding the fate of Jerusalem remaining united or split apart by a violent Islamist republic to be known as Palestine; ergo the March 17 election is really a Netanyahu vs. Obama election.

 

o   If Netanyahu pulls out a victory Glick postulates from a Secretary of State John Kerry speech before the Trilateral Commission (of all freaking Conspiracy Theory places), “Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we don’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.” (Bold text by me)

 

o   Then the Obama Administration (then) Middle East mediator Martin Indyk (See also HERE) basically damned Israel in a Yediot Aharonot interview (Ynet is associated with the Israeli news outlet):

 

“Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, ‘They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.’” (Bold italics mine)

 

o   Obama is in the process of validating a nuclear armed Iran which paints a picture of strong arming Israel government compliance. AND TRUST ME there is even more meat from the pen of Caroline Glick in this essay – READ IT!

 

JRH 2/21/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Netanyahu’s true electoral rival

 

 

By Caroline Glick

February 20th, 2015

CarolineGlick.com

 

Officially, the election on March 17 is among Israelis. Depending on how we vote, either Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will remain in office and form the next government led by his Likud party, or Isaac Herzog and Tzipi Livni will form a government.

 

But unofficially, a far greater electoral drama is unfolding. The choice is not between Netanyahu and Herzog/Livni. It is between Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.

 

As the White House sees it, if Herzog/Livni form the next government, then Jerusalem will dance to Obama’s tune. If Netanyahu is reelected, then the entire edifice of Obama’s Middle East policy may topple and fall.

 

Secretary of State John Kerry made clear the administration’s desire to topple Netanyahu last spring during his remarks before the Trilateral Commission. It was during that memorable speech that Kerry libeled Israel, claiming that we would automatically and naturally become an apartheid state if we don’t give Jerusalem and Judea and Samaria to the PLO, Jew free, as quickly as possible.

 

Despite Israel’s venality, Kerry held out hope. In his words, “if there is a change of government [in Israel], or a change of heart, something will happen.”

 

Shortly after Kerry gave his Israel apartheid speech, his Middle East mediator Martin Indyk attacked Israel and the character of the Israeli people in an astounding interview to Yediot Aharonot.

 

Among other things, Indyk hinted that to force Israel to make concessions demanded by the PLO, the Palestinians may need to launch another terror war.

 

Indyk also threatened that the Palestinians will get their state whether Israel agrees to their terms of not. In his words, “They will get their state in the end – whether through violence or by turning to international organizations.”

 

Indyk made his statements as an unnamed US official. When his identity was exposed, he was forced to resign his position. Following his departure from government service he returned to his previous position as vice president of the Brookings Institution and the director of its foreign policy program. Last September, The New York Times reported that the Brookings Institute received a $14.8 million, four-year donation from Qatar, the chief financier of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

This week, Indyk was back in Israel to speak at the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies. There he provided us with a picture of what we can expect from the Obama administration in its remaining two years in office if Netanyahu forms the next government.

 

On the Palestinian front, Indyk warned that Israel shouldn’t be worried about the Palestinians getting an anti-Israel resolution passed in the UN Security Council. Rather, it can expect that the US will join with the other permanent members of the UN Security Council to pass a resolution “against Israel’s will” that will “lay out the principle of a two-state solution.”

 

As Indyk intimated, Israel can avoid this fate if it elects a Herzog/Livni government. Such a government, he indicated, will preemptively give in to all of the Palestinians demands and so avoid a confrontation with the US and its colleagues at the Security Council.

 

Indyk explained, “If there is a government in Israel after these elections that decides to pursue a two-state solution, then there is a way forward. It begins with coordinating an initiative with the United States. And then, together with the US, looking to Egypt and Jordan and the resurrection of the Arab Peace Initiative.”

 

As for Iran, Indyk shrugged at Israel’s concerns over the agreement that Obama is now seeking to conclude with the Iranian regime regarding its nuclear weapons program. That agreement will leave Iran as a threshold nuclear state. Indyk suggested that the US could assuage Israel’s concerns by signing a bilateral treaty with Israel that would commit the US to do something if Iran passes some nuclear threshold.

 

There are only three problems with such a deal.

 

First, as former ambassador to the US Itamar Rabinovich noted, such a treaty would likely render Israel unable to take independent action against Iranian nuclear sites.

 

Second, the US has a perfect track record of missing every major nuclear advance by every country. US intelligence agencies were taken by surprise when India, Pakistan and North Korea joined the nuclear club. They have always underestimated Iranian nuclear activities and were taken by surprise, repeatedly, by Syria’s nuclear proliferation activities. In other words, it would be insane for Israel to trust that the US would act in a timely manner to prevent Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold.

 

Third of course is the demonstrated lack of US will – particularly under the Obama administration – to take any action that could prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. So Israel has no reason whatsoever to believe that the US would honor its commitment.

 

But then, since the Obama administration believes that Herzog and Livni will be compliant with its policies, the White House may expect the two will agree to forgo Israel’s right to self-defense and place Israel’s national security in relation to Iran in Obama’s hands.

 

And this brings us to the real contest unfolding in the lead-up to March 17.

 

When Speaker of the House of Representatives John Boehner announced last month that he had invited Netanyahu to address the joint houses of Congress on the threat emanating from Iran’s nuclear program and from radical Islam, he unintentionally transformed the Israeli elections from a local affair to a contest between Obama and Netanyahu.

 

Obama’s response to Netanyahu’s speech has been astounding. His ad hominem attacks against Netanyahu, his open moves to coerce Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s speech, and the administration’s aggressive attempts to damage Israel’s reputation in the US have been without precedent. More than anything, they expose a deep-seated fear that Netanyahu will be successful in exposing the grave danger that Obama’s policies toward Iran and toward the Islamic world in general pose to the global security.

 

Those fears are reasonable for two reasons.

 

First due to a significant degree to the administration’s unhinged response to the news of Netanyahu’s speech, Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu sparked a long-belated public debate in the US regarding Obama’s strategy of appeasing the Iranian regime. Generally consistent Obama supporters like The Washington Post editorial board have published stinging indictments of this policy in recent weeks.

 

These analyses have noted for the first time that in pursuing Iran, Obama is alienating and weakening America’s allies, enabling Iran to expand its nuclear program, and empowering Iran regionally as the US does nothing to prevent Iran’s takeover of Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen.

 

Second, it is possible that in his remarks about Iran and radical Islam, Netanyahu will manage to discredit Obama’s approach to both issues. This is possible because Obama’s approach is difficult to understand.

 

Last week, following the decapitation of 21 Egyptian Coptic Christians by Islamic State, the Obama administration stood alone in its refusal to note that the victims were murdered because they were Christians. When Egypt retaliated for the massacre with air strikes against Islamic State training camps and other facilities in Libya, the Obama administration refused to support its ally. Instead it criticized Egypt for acting on its own and called for a political solution in Libya, which is now governed by two rival governments and has become a breeding ground for Islamic State terrorists who transit Libya to Sinai.

 

Following Islamic State’s massacre of the Christians, the group’s leaders threatened to invade neighboring Italy. Italy’s Prime Minister Matteo Renzi promised a strong response, and then called on the UN Security Council to do something. The Obama administration responded with coolness to a similar Egyptian call last week.

 

Hamas (which is supposedly much more moderate than Islamic State despite its intense cooperation with Libya-trained Islamic State forces in Sinai) warned Italy not to attack Islamic State in Libya, lest it be viewed in the words of Salah Bardawil as beginning “a new crusade against Arab and Muslim countries.”

 

While all of this has been going on, Obama presided over his much-touted international conference on Confronting Violent Extremism. Reportedly attended by representatives from 60 countries, and featuring many leaders of Muslim Brotherhood- linked groups like the Council on American- Islamic Relations, Obama’s conference’s apparent goal was to deemphasize and deny the link between terrorism and radical Islam.

 

In his remarks on Wednesday, Obama gave a lengthy defense of his refusal to acknowledge the link between Islam and Islamic State, al-Qaida and other Islamic terrorist groups. He insisted that these groups “have perverted Islam.”

 

Obama indirectly argued that the West is to blame for their behavior because of its supposed historical mistreatment of Muslims. In his words, the “reality… is that there’s a strain of thought that doesn’t embrace ISIL’s tactics, doesn’t embrace violence, but does buy into the notion that the Muslim world has suffered historic grievances, sometimes that’s accurate.”

 

Obama’s insistence that Islamic State and its ilk attack because of perceived Western misbehavior is completely at odds with observed reality. As The Atlantic’s Graeme Wood demonstrated this week in his in-depth report on Islamic State’s ideology and goals, Islam is central to the group. Islamic State is an apocalyptic movement rooted entirely in Islam.

 

Most of the coverage of Netanyahu’s scheduled speech before Congress has centered on his opposition to the deal Obama seeks to conclude with Iran. But it may be that the second half of his speech – which will be devoted to the threat posed by radical Islam – will be no less devastating to Obama. Obama’s stubborn refusal to acknowledge the fact that the greatest looming threats to global security today, including US national security, stem from radical Islam indicates that he is unable to contend with any evidence that jihadist Islam constitutes a unique threat unlike the threat posed by Western chauvinism and racism.

 

It is hard to understand either Israel’s election or Obama’s hysterical response to Netanyahu’s scheduled speech without recognizing that Obama clearly feels threatened by the message he will deliver. Surrounded by sycophantic aides and advisers, and until recently insulated from criticism by a supportive media, while free to ignore Congress due to his veto power, Obama has never had to seriously explain his policies regarding Iran and Islamic terrorists more generally. He has never endured a direct challenge to those policies.

 

Today Obama believes that he is in a to-the-death struggle with Netanyahu. If Netanyahu’s speech is a success, Obama’s foreign policy will be indefensible. If Obama is able to delegitimize Netanyahu ahead of his arrival, and bring about his electoral defeat, then with a compliant Israeli government, he will face no obstacles to his plan to appease Iran and blame Islamic terrorism on the West for the remainder of his tenure in office.

 

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

____________________________

© All right reserved, Caroline Glick

 

About Caroline B. Glick

Meddling at the Pond


Netanyahu on Obama thoughts-  U R My Enemy

 

Intro to ‘Meddling at the Pond’

By Ari Bussel

Editor: John R. Houk

Sent: 2/2/2015 8:34 AM

 

I am fairly certain the U.S. government uses taxpayer funding to undermine foreign governments either subversively or to influence elections if that foreign government has policies that are detrimental to American National Interests or National Security. This has occurred especially in the post-WWII era when the free world has expected America to police the world from nefarious motives typically with Cold War tactics associated with Soviet and Communist China international Marxist revolution agendas. In the post-Cold War era the Pax American paradigm is resented except when a nation or some state-persecuted nationality faces a genocidal situation and that may even be a bit iffy when political correctness forces our policies to conform to a despotic ruler’s sovereignty.

 

The problem I am having is our Socialist Transformation Deceiver-in-Chief has been promoting Left Wing NGOs – many associated with Leftist Jewish organizations – to fund Israeli opposition campaigning against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due for mid-March Israeli elections.

 

Amazingly Obama’s State Department could actually be sending American taxpayer funds to one of these NGOs directly to actively lobby against Prime Minister Netanyahu’s election. Since Israel has a special alliance reliance with the USA I cannot believe that a majority of American voters would support Obama or his Administration lobbying against the head of government in Israel. Senator Ted Cruz has queried the State Department about funding such an anti-Netanyahu campaign for an official confirmation or denial.

 

The Left Wing organization the State Department could be funneling money toward is One Voice (SA HERE). One Voice is funding Victory 15 (V15) which is actually using Obama 2012 campaign staffers (270 Strategies) in Israel in their anti-Netanyahu efforts. Follow the Leftist Money Trail.

 

See Also:

 

Exposed: Obama team working on election campaigns worldwide

 (CFP 2/3/15)

 

SUBVERSION: U.S. STATE DEPARTMENT-FUNDED GROUP INTERFERING IN ISRAEL ELECTIONS (Homespun Vine 1/30/15)

 

Netanyahu fires back at ‘Obama army’ plotting his defeat (WND 2/1/15)

 

JRH 2/3/15

Please Support NCCR

****************************

Meddling at the Pond

 

By Ari Bussel

Sent: 2/2/2015 8:34 AM

 

Jeffery Goldberg at the Atlantic describes the relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu as one of “mutual loathing.”  I will grant the feeling on the President’s part, although Netanyahu feels the heat, but does not reciprocate.  Netanyahu has a country to run, and issues for him are not personal.

 

Has the President sent a contingency of election manipulating experts to Israel to defeat Netanyahu’s Likud party in the upcoming Israeli elections?  Clearly the White House would deny such an absurd notion.  The President will not even see Netanyahu during his visit to DC at the beginning of March due (supposedly) to the proximity to the Israeli elections, let alone meddle in the sovereign election of a foreign country.

 

The President would not dispatch a delegation directly to Tel Aviv to manipulate the Israeli elections.  All the President needed to do is to listen to the idea, smile broadly and nod his head.  There are enough mega-philanthropists, mainly American Jews and a few Israeli expats living in New York, who would carry out the plan, put up the finances and pull the strings behind the scenes.

 

The President, undoubtedly, would love nothing better than to see Netanyahu defeated.  For him, it is personal, although he has much greater things to handle, including more fundraising, international mega-excursions with a full court, golf outings and vacations with the First Family.

 

It is not so much Obama as the driving force, it is his stance of “do what you want, it sounds good.”  Leave it to the J Street and like- minded Jews in America who feel they need to force Israel to act as they want.  Time and again they turned to the Administration to apply pressure on Israel, for her to give in, extend more gestures, withdraw and to submit.  Thus, there is really nothing new under the sun.  George Soros, J Street, Americans for Peace Now and others have consistently used the same tactics to topple Netanyahu’s government, but Netanyahu is stubborn.  He has his country to defend; contrary to what good American Jews may think.

 

The Likud party is convening a press conference to disclose sources of funds to members of the so-called “Zionist Camp” (a misleading name self-assigned, somewhat similar to J Street initially calling itself “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” later to drop the “pro-Israel” portion.  There is another similarity many would remember:  J Street hid the fact the Soros was its initial mega donor).  The Likud party also enlisted high-powered lawyers to ask the Elections Committee overseeing the upcoming March 17th election to rule against the flow of foreign indirect funding to the election cycle.

 

This is a very important lesson to which one must pay very careful attention.  For a long period of time, there has been noise, thus public attention in Israel, about the flow of foreign money (some from foreign governments) into local NGOs that are acting to undermine Israel’s position in world public opinion.

 

There has been an attempt to pass legislation to prohibit such funding, but it has not been successful.  The main reason is that in Israel, like any true democracy, one does not target only the portion of the flow of funds one does not like.  The rule of law applies equally to all.  And the “all” in this equation does not want to stop the flow of funds; until the action hits them directly.

 

Each member of the Knesset, each political party and movement relies heavily on money flowing in from the outside (the comfort zone is psychological more than an imperative).  Members of the Knesset regularly travel overseas on fundraising missions, rather than focus on local individuals and companies, within which there is richness beyond imagination (although less of a giving culture and an inclination is rarely forthcoming).  (As I flew to Israel, a former Israeli ambassador and a former major general were busy fundraising in my hometown of Beverly Hills.)

 

An Israeli colonel (reserves) has travelled to the USA repeatedly and very successfully raised millions of dollars to expose the flow of funds from the USA to Israel.  Numerous individuals received tax exemptions on donations to that cause legally.  So exposed he did what is otherwise generally publicly available (by the mere status of American non-profits; a requirement for the 501(c)(3) status) and came public with it in Israel. 

 

This vigilante only erred with one unacceptable omission:  he hid his own sources of funds.  Go expose others, while protecting exactly what you are attempting to expose.  This does not sit well with me, nor should it with anyone.

 

As for the elections, something similar is happening.  For many years, there are election experts, primarily in New York, who provide advice to the Likud and to Mr. Netanyahu for “big bucks.”  They fly back and forth, most are religious and those whom I know are ultra-Zionists.  (This is a new form of Zionism, one of living the comforts and the high-life of New York, while espousing to know better and run the Israeli political scene.)

 

Suddenly there is a problem.  There is an acute need to expose “the other side.”  Has the Likud forgotten that it, too, uses high-powered “experts” from New York?  Admittedly, V15 may not be “Modern-Orthodox” and their flavor of “Zionism” is closer to J Street’s than to ZOA’s, but they are playing the exact same game. 

It turns out they are very good at it, and none other than Ha’Aretz has been actively promoting their every move.  There is nothing to hide.  All is in the sunlight.  And they are very effective – the media both in Israel and the USA is hovering around like bees so the public is fed constantly the idea that “Netanyahu has to go.  Even the USA thinks so.”  Imagine, they do not even need to spend money on this message.  In short, priceless.

 

The more the White House denies, as it should and as is expected, the more the message is drilled into the collective Israeli and international psyche.

 

The Likud wants to change the rules of the game.  Suddenly the same rules by which it played all along are no longer to its liking.  Similar to the foreign funding flowing to Israel, the Likud in this case will cry “foul!” but apply their discontent only to the other side, not themselves.

 

To effect change, one must hurt personally.  But “change” applies to all equally, so one must be very careful with for what one wishes.

 

The upcoming election in Israel is indeed a most fascinating one.  The Prime Minister is going to America to act as a tool in the hands of the Republican-controlled Congress, and a team of experts has arrived in Israel to tilt the election results here.

Allow me a small reminder that holds true both in Israel and in the USA.  The voter, contrary to all assumptions, is not stupid.  So try as you might, spend the money, attempt to manipulate.  At the end of the day, it is the voter who decides.

 

My recommendation for anyone who cares:  BE SURE TO VOTE!

_____________________________

This is the latest in the series “Postcards from America – Postcards from Israel,” a collaboration between Zager and Bussel, a foreign correspondent reporting from Israel.

 

Ari Bussel and Norma Zager collaborate both in writing and on the air in a point-counter-point discussion of all things Israel-related.  Together, they have dedicated the past decade to promoting Israel.

 

© Israel Monitor, February, 2015

 

First Published February 1, 2015

Contact:  bussel@me.com