White House forces limitations on Israel in new military-aid conditions

Obama limits all appropriation to be spent in America, blocks Israel from Congress.

"The U.S.-Israel Memorandum of Mis-Understanding" by Eli Lake,  Bloomberg.com 15 Sept '16 

Netanyahu meets Obama in Oval Office Nov '15 (Doug Mills/NY Times)

According to the governments in Jerusalem and Washington, this was a great week for the U.S.-Israel relationship. The two countries arrived at a "memorandum of understanding" to extend the U.S. subsidy of Israel's military budget until 2028. President Barack Obama, no fan of Israel's current leader, declared: "America's commitment to Israel's security is unshakable."

It would be pleasant to believe this. It's not true though. America's commitment to Israel's security is quite shakable. Indeed, Obama has done much of the shaking. That reminder puts the new memorandum into perspective.

For much of Obama's presidency, he said he would lift sanctions on Iran in exchange for Iran dismantling its nuclear infrastructure. This was a big part of how he dissuaded Israel's prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, from bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.

But that's not the deal the U.S. and other nations struck with Iran. Obama ended up agreeing to legitimize and legalize Iran's nuclear infrastructure and to lift limits on production of nuclear fuel after 15 years. When Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu protested Obama's Iran bargain to Congress, the White House quietly encouraged fellow Democrats to boycott his speech.   

After all of this bad blood, in the last months of his administration, Obama has decided to sign an agreement with Israel that guarantees $3.8 billion per year between 2018 and 2028. On paper it seems generous. As Susan Rice, Obama's national security adviser, said Wednesday, this is the "single largest pledge of military assistance -- to any country -- in American history."

The fine print tells a different story. The key word in Rice's statement is "pledge." Congress is the body that appropriates the annual aid budget. When Obama is long gone, it will be Congress that doles out the money for Israel to spend on U.S. military equipment. So one aspect of the aid deal should raise eyebrows: terms saying that Israel will stop making its case directly to Congress for military aid.

Morris Amitay, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, told me he had never before heard of a president asking a sovereign country, as part of an aid package negotiation, not to lobby Congress.

Next steps could defuse Obama's Iran-nuclear plan- Rep. Brad Sherman to Iranian-Americans

Rep. Brad Sherman admits he will suffer politically for backing JCPOA

Congressman Brad Sherman (D- CA) delivered a speech concerning his opposition to  the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on Iran’s nuclear program at 30 Years After on August 27th at the Writers Guild Theater in Beverly Hills and then answered audience questions.  He spoke with us about the upstream lobbying to tow the Democrat Party line, backed by the Iran-lobby, the National Iranian-American Council ("NIAC") which receives support from the mullahs' regime, taking place on Capitol Hill.


Here is a slightly-edited version of Rep. Sherman's address, which he also presented at Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, CA on a week prior.

Iran Deal – The Background

Now a little background about the Iran agreement, because without understanding the international finance, nuclear physics, constitutional and international law at play, the pieces don’t fit together. 

First, international finance: what are sanctions? People throw around sanctions as if it’s something we can turn up or turn down at will. And that’s true as to “primary sanctions.” Americans cannot buy any Iranian oil, and we haven’t since the mid-1990s. Unless you have an old Corvette, your car has never tasted Iranian oil. Those are primary sanctions. That’s not nearly enough. Sanctions are effective only when, through pressure and persuasion, we get European and Asian oil companies and banks to suspend their profitable business relationships with Iran. 

Congressman Sherman's  Speech


Now other countries can get a little insulted when the United States Congress tells their companies what to do. And presidents have been reluctant to go eyeball to eyeball and say “we’ll shut down ultimately the entire international finance system if your companies don’t do what we tell them to do.” So we haven’t really sanctioned major foreign oil companies who have done business with Iran. What we’ve done more recently is persuade and pressure countries around the world to forgo business with Iran (I will get to how we did that in a while). The bottom line is sanctions are useful only if Europe and Asia are participating. And it requires not only tough sanctions written by Congress, but good persuasion by President Obama and his team. They have done a better job than any of the prior administrations in persuading European and Asian governments to be on our side with this. And remember, no matter what Congress does, the Obama team will be telling European and Asian companies that now they should do business with Iran, subject to the deal. 


Nuclear physics. Three things you need to be a nuclear power: fissile material, weaponization, and a delivery system. The big one is fissile material. I’ll explain why. What is fissile material? You start with uranium ore, you go up to Yellowcake, you go to low enriched uranium by spinning centrifuges, which separate the uranium 235 from uranium 238 and other impurities, and you’ve got to get up to 3% or so to have fuel for a nuclear power plant; you’ve got to get up to 90% or more to have the components for a nuclear weapon. So people think they draw some solace from this saying “well, you go up to 3%, that’s a long way from 90%.” It doesn’t work that way. To get from natural uranium up to 3% is actually most of the effort. Going from 3 percent to 90 percent takes less time and effort than going from natural uranium to 3-5 percent, what is referred to as low enriched uranium suitable as fuel for a nuclear reactor. So what do we learn from this: a robust “peaceful” program gets you almost to nuclear weapons grade uranium.

Questions and Answers  Part 1


Weaponization is the process of taking that enriched uranium, building it into a ball, and having a system to implode it to bring it to critical mass. I’d like to think that we can stop weaponization, but Iran is already much of the way there. It is easier to do the weaponization piece than to get the fissile material, and weaponization research can be done in a much smaller facility and is much harder to catch. Weaponization will take a few additional months after Iran has the fissile material, but it is not the way to stop them from becoming a nuclear power. 

Finally, Iran wants intercontinental ballistic missiles. That is the symbol of being a great tyranny. But the fact is, you can smuggle a nuclear weapon inside a bale of marijuana. Iran will always have a nuclear delivery system, as long as there are a couple of guys who want 72 virgins apiece. 

So you’ve got to focus on the fissile material, and the discussion about centrifuges and stockpiles is about the fissile material, mostly enriched uranium and, to a lesser extent, plutonium, the other fissile material that can be used to create nuclear weapons.[2] 

Now when we talk about the fissile material, it’s counter intuitive, but what you need for a robust peaceful electronic generation program is much larger than what you need for a weapons program. In fact, to electrify a city or two and have enough fuel to do so dwarfs the amount of fissile material you need for a robust nuclear bomb program. So if you allow Iran to have a complete and robust peaceful program, you’re allowing them to grow a forest. And where else would you hide a single tree? And the one tree in this example is enough fissile material for a nuclear weapon. 

Questions and Answers Part 2
 

Now as to law. Under U.S. law, the only thing that’s binding on the U.S. is a treaty that’s designed as a treaty, says its’ a treaty, is submitted to the Senate for ratification and gets a 2/3 positive vote. This Deal is not a treaty. It has no standing under U.S. law except as a handshake from our President. As a man of honor we’d expect him to follow it. What’s confusing is that much of the talk here is about whether there will be a 2/3 vote against the agreement to override a veto. And this confusion is our enemy; I’ll explain why in a bit. But the Deal is not going to get a 2/3 positive vote, the issue is whether it gets a 2/3 negative vote. But the issue is how do you explain to the general public that this Deal is not the same thing as a treaty? Especially if it gets a one-third positive vote; that sounds like the two-thirds vote needed to ratify a treaty. 

International law. The Vienna Convention of the Law of Treaties provides a hierarchy of agreements. This Deal is not a ratified treaty, it is not an unratified treaty, it is not an executive-legislative agreement; it is the lowest form of international handshake. 
Q&A Part 2

But appearances matter. We are the good guys and we feel we must follow international law. You can be sure that Iran will violate this agreement, or not, based on whether it’s in its interest or whether they think they will get caught. No one around the Ayatollah will say “Oh, that would be in violation of international law.” But the good guys are constrained by international law. And if it appears in the mind of the publics in the United States and countries around the world that we are bound to this agreement, it will be more difficult for us to view ourselves as free to take action. 

Sam Yebri, President of 30 Years After, the Iranian Jewish-American civic group host of the event, addresses the community's perspectives on empowering and enriching the mullahs under the proposed inspections regimen.

Will Chuck Schumer deliver a dozen Democrats to override Obama's Iran veto?

Schumer Speaks Out Against Iran Deal In Greece by Veronica Volk in WXXI News

Credit: AP/Seth Wenig/Susan Walsh/Photo montage by Salon

Senator Chuck Schumer says leaders need to go back to the table to renegotiate the Iran Deal, and made his first public comments about the statement Monday afternoon in Greece.
Schumer says the deal has too many flaws: He says a 24-day delay for inspections doesn't offer complete security against nuclear development in Iran, and he's concerned about categorizing the country as a nuclear threshold state in ten years.  

"If you believe the Iranian regime may change, then you say, 'Ok, it's a gamble.' But if you think they're going to be the same horrible regime they are now, you don't want the United States and the other nations of the world putting a stamp of approval on Iran being a nuclear threshold state." The deal currently promises Iran relief from sanctions that have devastated the economy, as long as it curbs its nuclear program and submits to inspections for a decade. The senator says he thinks the regime might use that money to cause political problems in the Middle East instead.  

Schumer says he does not believe this position will threaten his leadership role within the Democratic Party.  

The senator says renegotiating would be difficult, but he believes sanctions are strong enough to keep Iran invested in brokering a deal. 

Schumer states but doesn't emphatically argue his points to persuade other Democrats. Schumer said, "A lot of this is a question of judgement. It's a close question . . . I don't begrudge anyone who sees it the other way." - 

(Video courtesy: Bud Lowell)

More than 20 speakers presented arguments to over 10,000 New Yorkers to appeal to Sen. Chuck Schumer and other members of Congress to oppose this initiative at Stop Iran Rally in Times Square July 22, 2015. Jeffrey Wiesenfeld of the Jewish Rapid-Response Coalition emcee'd and opined that it wouldn't be sufficient for Schumer to give a nice speech, then say that others should "vote their conscience." Citizens should demand Schumer, as a likely party leader, should round-up enough votes to over-ride Pres. Obama's veto.


At the press conference in Greece, NY,  Sen. Schumer explained his decision to oppose Obama's Iran proposition. He feels the solution is to try secondary sanctions on Iran. He states- but doesn't emphatically enough argue his points to persuade other Democrats, just as Jeff Wiesenfeld fears. Said Schumer, "A lot of this is a question of judgement. It's a close question . . . I don't begrudge anyone who sees it the other way." 



According to Mike Debonis in the Washington Post's Chuck Schumer isn't actually going to kill the Iran deal:

While virtually every Democratic senator said initially that he or she was undecided on the Iran deal and planned to make a decision only after close study, only a small subset of the Democratic caucus is considered even close to likely to vote against it. 

Those include the eight senators who were early co-sponsors of the legislation establishing a congressional review process for the deal. Of those eight, two have announced support for the deal and only Schumer has declared opposition. (Another Democratic co-sponsor, Robert Menendez of New Jersey, is almost certain to be a no.) 

If no Republicans break ranks to support the deal, deal opponents would have to guarantee each of those undecided Democrats -- Joe Donnelly (Ind.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Michael F. Bennet (Colo.) and Richard Blumenthal (Conn.) -- maintained their opposition in order to block a Democratic filibuster, or try and recruit from the 12 Democrats who signed on to the Iran review bill only after the White House dropped its opposition. (One of those, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, announced her support of the deal Thursday.) 

Long story short: getting the 67 votes to override a veto would require a monumental feat of persuasion under the current circumstances, and getting the 60 necessary to block a filibuster is hardly assured. 

In "Chuck Schumer, Hero?" in the Wall St. Journal, William McGurn speculates:

To make his mark, Mr. Schumer would have to do more than vote no. He would have to do what Jackson did in his day: To lead, to rally others to his side, and set before the American public an alternative approach for dealing with a determined and untrustworthy enemy. 

Sure, the president and his supporters would howl. They are howling now, and it’s not pretty.   

And sure, it was easier for Scoop Jackson to go up against a president of the other party rather than one from his own. But those who have doubts might ask Jimmy Carter whether Jackson was afraid to buck his own president if he thought it necessary.  

Among the upsides for Mr. Schumer is that he’d be liberated from having to defend policies that he knows leave the world less safe and make war more likely. He would help address the drift of a Democratic Party that booed the mention of Jerusalem at its last convention. Finally, he would be greeted as a hero by a good swath of the American electorate—and rightly so. 

Manifestly, the odds are stacked against Mr. Schumer’s recruiting enough Democratic senators to get to the 67 votes needed to sink the nuclear deal. But it’s no sure thing for the White House, either. Most Americans are skeptical of the agreement; the president’s defenses are proving petulant and unpersuasive; and five weeks remain before a vote. 

Sen. Schumer's playing-down may come as a result of the anti-Israel and Jewish dual-loyalism rhetoric from Pres. Obama on Jewish opponents of his Iran détente. James Taranto addresses comprehensively references to attacks in "Bigotry, Pure and Simple’ - The ugly attacks on Sen. Chuck Schumer" in the Wall St. Journal, 10 Aug

The NY Post editorial of 10 August characterizes the administration's dirty tactics- and the challenge Schumer should rise to: The anti-Semitic drive to silence Schumer on the Iran deal <

... The dual-loyalty smear popped up even before Schumer came out against the deal. A New York Times editorial, for one, talked of the “unseemly spectacle of lawmakers siding with a foreign leader” — Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu — against Obama. 

In fact, it’s Obama who’s siding with foreign leaders: Iran’s. At least Israel’s an ally. 

Schumer still seems to think he can appease the deal’s supporters by not pushing aggressively for its defeat. 

It won’t work. Schumer made a potent case against the deal last week — warning, above all else, that it hands at least $50 billion to an Iranian regime that’s likely to become even more hard-line. 

He also rightly sees this as paving the way for Iran to get nukes via a US-approved process. How is that not a life-or-death matter? 

Sorry, senator: There’s no excuse for not doing everything — everything — possible to stop this madness. And, as the anti-Semitic attacks and other threats suggest, pulling your punches won’t buy you any love from the pro-deal zealots. 

Schumer’s long dreamed of becoming Senate leader. Now’s his chance to show leadership, stand up for what he says are his beliefs, convince fellow senators to nix the deal — and head off a nuclear Iran.

Israeli Amb. Michael Oren discusses revelations about Democrat administration shift against Israel, towards Iran in "Ally"

Israel's Ambassador to U.S. Michael Oren at Nixon Library, July 2, 2015

Israel's Ambassador to the U.S. Michael Oren (2009 - 2013) discusses his book, "Ally," which exposes the Obama Administration's duplicity towards Israel (and has caused a stir among previously Obama-supporting Jewish-Americans) with Rabbi David Wolpe at the Nixon Library in Yorba Linda, California, on the last night of his U.S. book tour.



Amb. Oren engages with audience's questions in the continuation of our original video, filmed July 2nd 2015.  

David Suissa in the Jewish Journal of L.A. (who interviewed Amb. Oren the previous night at the Museum of Tolerance), analyzes Oren’s book as

... threatening to liberal Zionists because it makes a compelling case that their hero Obama has severely undermined the very thing they crave – negotiations towards a two-state solution.

With the sharp eye of a historian, Oren explains how, in Obama’s zeal to create diplomatic “daylight” with Israel while reaching out to the Arab/Muslim world, Obama brought terminal darkness to the peace process.

Read more

Revelations cast egg-on-faces of Jewish officials, leaders, and journalists who have carried led community down Obama's garden path for personal status and privilege

Congregants of Adas Israel and Rabbi Steinlauf fete Obama 5/22/15

Will the Jewish establishment in America and Israel now downplay the revelations by their diplomat friend and hero, Israeli Amb. Michael Oren to not incriminate themselves? The revelatory, "How Obama Abandoned Israel" Netanyahu and the president both made mistakes, but only one purposely damaged U.S.-Israel relations (in the Wall St. Journal) may have overshadowed the complementary points Lee Smith makes on the same day but are worth knowing. Lee Smith analyzes the Jewish communal leadership and Jews in Obama's administration who sold Obama's policies to Jewish communities (and their donors), didn't oppose him in the face of bad actions, and together serve to justify Obama's actions in general. He lays these points out in "The ‘Court Jew’ Controversy Re-Erupts" New reality for an old phenomenon: How Obama and Israel changed the stakes of Jewish power" in Tablet Magazine June 16, 2015 and deserve your consideration.

... the evidence suggests that Obama keenly understands certain peculiarities of the Jewish communal psyche—survival strategies that distinguish the Jews from other American minority groups. The president’s use of Jewish aides and organizations to advance his policies with the Jewish community shows that Obama is correct in believing that Jewish politics are often motivated by fear, which can range from the existential fear of mass extermination to the more prosaic fear of looking shabby in front of the goyim.

And Obama isn’t using his energy and inspiring leadership skills to help these people rise above their fear; he is instead capitalizing on it—masterfully, ruthlessly—by manipulating American Jews in ways that other minority groups would find unbelievably insulting.  ...
 
Like Obama, the current prime minister of the Jewish state is also contemptuous of the American liberal Jewish community (leaders and those in Obama's administration). From both of their perspectives, these are weak, primitive, frightened people, who can be manipulated from a distance and suck up to power not because their lives depend on it, but their careers do.

By not resigning in protest, Obama’s Jewish aides have arguably not only harmed their community; they weakened their own position—which was, in a sense, ultimately far more detrimental. In a town where the appearance of power is power, Obama’s Jewish defenders had no idea which way the president was actually going. They got played, and now everyone knows it. 

Read original article  

In this original video-playlist, Jewish-Americans who attended the AIPAC and CPAC conventions this spring sound-off on Obama's actions affecting Israel and Jews.

 
 Menu and Play Next buttons are for your convenience.

Jewish Democrat decries Obama pandering as "Jewish" to molify opposition to his nuclear Iran vs Israel deal

Dov Hikind: Obama Eclipsing Carter for Worst Record on Israel 

NY Assemblyman Dov Hikind on Neil Cavuto's TV show

President Barack Obama has been touting his bona fides with Israel in the past few days, but New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind isn't buying it. 

"President Obama, unfortunately, he's not living in reality," the Democrat said Wednesday on Fox News Channel's "Your World with Neil Cavuto." 

"Not with Iran, not with what is going on in the Middle East. He is living in a different planet than we are and watching the events that are unfolding and it's disastrous for the world, disastrous for America." 

Watch here: Assemblyman Dov Hikind (D) and Mort Zuckerman (publisher, U.S. News and World Report) with Neil Cavuto on Fox News Channel.


Assemblyman Hikind spoke with JewTube regarding Obama's Democrat party push for a Palestinian state when they hate Jews and seek to conquer Israel.



Obama has said he is hurt that people think he is anti-Israel or anti-Semitic, his former adviser David Axelrod recently said. And in an Israeli television interview, Obama said he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu often "joust," but have a good relationship. 

"Oy vey. We're in trouble," Hikind said, adding that Obama seems obsessed with Netanyahu. 

 Before the April Israeli elections, Obama and his people were very negative against Netanyahu, hoping he would be defeated, Hikind said. Hikind called Obama's "jousting" comment "insulting." 

"We're talking about an existential threat to the state Israel," he said. "He's jousting? He's playing a game? This is fun time? It is just absolutely obnoxious." 

Jimmy Carter used to be the worst president in regard to being a friend to Israel, Hikind said, but Obama now has taken that position. 

Obama "is the worst president in terms of the relationship with the state of Israel," Hikind said. "When he plays this game, he is endangering Israel." 
Source NewsMax 

Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon: the rightful blame for no peace-progress belongs on Abbas' rejection of Israel as a Jewish state and cessation of hostilities

Bret Stephens' speech on Obama's "Worse than Munich" deal allowing Iran the ability to to build a nuclear bomb within weeks

"In 1938, Chamberlain bought time to rearm. In 2013, Obama gives Iran time to go nuclear. To adapt Churchill : Never in the field of global diplomacy has so much been given away by so many for so little." -Bret Stephens "Worse than Munich" column in the Wall St. Journal

In addressing a Zionist banquet by StandWithUs in Los Angeles on Sunday, 8 December, Mr. Stephens augmented this theory, echoed by other experts.  Listen to the speech audio here: "Now, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I want to spend most of my time tonight talking about Iran, but I think that it is also fitting feel that I should begin by speaking about Nelson Mandela and the meaning of his legacy and its meaning for us as Americans- for us as Jews."
 
Click the CC button on the lower right of the frame to display sub-titles. To read the edited transcript of the first half of this speech, see companion article on DemocracyBroadcasting.TV.  The second half of the transcript appears below. 

      

Bret Stephens: (transcript by Nurit Greenger): "There is one skill that every dictatorial regime, every tyrant needs in order to survive in power as long as the Islamic Republic and the Ayatollah Khamenei has survived. And that is the ability to sense the weakness of others and to take advantage of that. That is exactly how Iran is behaving towards us today. So now we have this interim agreement and the pressure is going to be powerful, almost overwhelming to make a go of the final, any final, agreement.

I do not think that there is much that I can do that will change the administration's views. But let at least be smart about what we, in this room, can do. For starters, we can support Mark Kirk and Senator Menendez, in pushing to increase sanctions, now, immediately to send a signal to the Iranian regime that we are not simply folding. But I want to bring another idea to this room. In September the president decided that the issue of military strike on Syria required congressional approval. I am not sure that this was really true, but let us concede that point for now. If the president thought congress's approval was necessary back then, should congress also demand that any deal the administration reach with Iran require the approval of the senate, just as all international treaties constitutionally require the agreement of two thirds of the United State senate. Now is the time to tell Senator Boxer and Feinstein from California, and Senator Schumer and Gillibrand in New York that they should demand an up and down vote on any agreement the administration reaches with Iran. We know these senators are pro-Israel and pro-Iran sanctions when they are giving speeches at AIPAC policy conference or before audiences like this one. We, let us make them go on the record. Are they seriously prepared to stand up against the bad nuclear deal with Iran, to stand with us, even if it means crossing the administration? Let us see if all of those friendly speeches are anything more than simple donor's maintenance. 

White House has Israel's back (to stab) on Iran nukes; True colors lose Zion's trust- writes Richard Baehr

"Backstabbed" by Richard Baehr in Israel Hayom 11/11/13: 

Who would have thought it would come to this -- the French interceding to block a giveaway deal to Iran on its nuclear weapons program, a deal advanced enthusiastically by the United States? On the other hand, the Obama administration's rapture for a deal that would involve empty Iranian promises in exchange for real hard cash to be released to the mullahs with sanctions relief, is not at all surprising.  As Daniel Pipes argued, a second term for U.S. President Barack Obama was bound to lead to this:

"I wrote before the last presidential election that Israel's troubles will really begin should Obama win a second term. At Obama's second inauguration, I predicted that he, freed from re-election constraints, can finally express his early anti-Zionist views after a decade of political positioning. Watch for a markedly worse tone from the second Obama administration toward the third Netanyahu government."

Richard Baehr

Obama is now finished with elections, unless he seeks the U.N. secretary-general's post (for which he is eminently qualified with his anti-Zionism). He is done fundraising from his many liberal Jewish "friends" in Hollywood and Wall Street, who always cared a lot more for his policies on abortion, or for business favors he could deliver, or ambassadorships, than they did about Israel, assuming they cared about Israel at all.

Nonetheless, Obama made sure to say that "he had Israel's back" and "would stop Iran from securing nuclear weapons," empty words that were enough to clear the very low bar that has been set for those seeking the designation of "pro-Israel" from the organized Jewish community. Obama voted for foreign aid as a senator (like almost all members of the House of Representatives and Senate). He was, therefore, deemed by the Jewish community to be acceptably pro-Israel. The fact that Obama remained a member of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church for 20 years, to hear his continuous Israel- (and America-) bashing, was simply not a concern for those who wanted to ignore all evidence to the contrary. Now, the president no longer needs to even pretend that Israel's views, or the pro-Israel community's views, matter on issues that concern that nation.

To thwart Iran's nuclear weapons program, Obama tells Jews to quit sanctions legislation? "Israel can not trust Obama" says ex-V.P. Dick Cheney

Obama presses Senate and American Jewish leaders to hold off on new sanctions as part of Iran de-nuclear strategy.

'Congress loves Israel, but is even more averse to another conflict'  Israel Hayom

Fresh U.S. sanctions over Iran's disputed nuclear program being debated behind closed doors in the Senate aim to slash the country's oil sales in half within a year of the plan being signed into law, an influential senator said this week. Bob McNally, adviser on energy to former President George W. Bush: "There is a concern in Congress about tightening the sanctions so much that it would lead to a conflict"  
Israel Hayom

Day After Rushed White House Meeting With Jewish Leaders, Simon Wiesenthal Center Calls-Out Obama Admin. on Iran Algemeiner Oct 30

A leading Jewish human rights group called out the Obama administration Wednesday for its recent efforts to block new Iran sanctions legislation, and urged the senate to “immediately adopt the Nuclear Iran Prevention Act, which earlier passed the House with broad bi-partisan support.” 

“We respectfully disagree with the White House’s push to give the Iranians more time,” said Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper (founder and dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center) who also called on the President to sign the bill if it is ratified by the senate.

The criticism comes only a day after Jewish leaders were urgently summoned to the White House to discuss sanctions on Iran. Although Jewish leaders touted the meeting as a “constructive and open exchange,” the Jerusalem Post characterized it as “an effort to dissuade them from lobbying the Senate towards passing harsh new sanctions against Iran.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center was not invited to participate in the meeting.



JooTube asked Rabbi Hier to clarify his position during a screening of Moriah Films' "The Prime Ministers" in Los Angeles.




On Monday U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said that “the US would not ‘succumb to fear tactics,’ of those who oppose diplomacy,” with Iran, the Jerusalem Post reported. The post said that the remarks “could be construed as a reference to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s warnings to the world not to fall for the ‘charm offensive’ of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.”  Algemeiner Oct 30


On US CBS-TV news, former Vice-President Dick Cheney said President Obama ought be trusted by Israel to keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Vice-President Cheney believes that Israel should attack Iran's nuclear facilities.



While Obama has been criticized for impeding past Israeli attack plans, the Bush / Cheney  administration also stalled Israeli military pre-emption to rely on sanctions and diplomacy. Israeli intelligence now views Iranian weaponization as imminent, and Mr. Cheney now appears to doubt the Obama administration's Middle East strategies.

Obama prefers Rohani's tricks over Bibi's evidences; Is Obama sacrificing Israel on an Iranian 'deal' altar?

Israel no longer certain Obama would ever use force against Iran, Likud MK indicates


(Video courtesy EuroNews Monday 30 Sept)

Tzachi Hanegbi: In his UN speech, PM was telling Iran that Israel will take action ‘even if the Americans will be prevented from acting against you’  by Raphael Ahren in The Times of Israel, October 2, 2013

Tzachi Hanegbi with PM Netanyahu (Miriam Alster/Flash90)

“The prime minister essentially is telling the Iranians: ‘Do not delude yourselves. Even if the Americans will be prevented from acting against you, we will know how to defend ourselves, with our own forces.’”

Asked whether, rhetoric aside, Israel could actually strike at Iran when the US president was engaged with Tehran in a diplomatic effort to resolve the nuclear crisis, Hanegbi dismissed such a scenario. “The non-diplomatic option will only become applicable once it is clear that the diplomatic option failed,” he said. “Since the American president clarified what he expects in the diplomatic realm, it is clear that if this doesn’t work, he couldn’t come and complain to any other player.”

However, a senior official in the prime minister’s delegation to the US told The Times of Israel Wednesday that a preemptive Israeli strike against Iranian nuclear facilities remains a viable option even while Washington is engaged in a diplomatic process with Tehran.

“The prime minister was very clear about it. He said that that option is still on the table,” said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “It is not the preferred option, as we prefer a successful solution to the crisis through diplomatic means, but it’s always on the table.”

In his comments to The Times of Israel, Hanegbi added that “the prime minister’s position represents the State of Israel, and he is very skeptical about Iran’s willingness to give up on a dream they have tried to advance for more than 15 years.”

Hanegbi, who is considered close to the prime minister, also noted that Netanyahu’s speech included a “hardening of positions” regarding Jerusalem’s demands of Iran, as for the first time he required that Iran close its uranium enrichment plant in Natanz, as well as its facilities at Qom and Arak.
Any “meaningful” diplomatic solution to the Iranian nuclear standoff would require four steps, Netanyahu told the UN: “First, cease all uranium enrichment… Second, remove from Iran’s territory the stockpiles of enriched uranium. Third, dismantle the infrastructure for nuclear breakout capability, including the underground facility at Qom and the advanced centrifuges in Natanz. And, four, stop all work at the heavy water reactor in Arak aimed at the production of plutonium.”

In an op-ed in Israel National News, Italian journalist, Giulio Meotti of Il Foglio, assesses that
Obama is Sacrificing Israel on an Iranian Deal Altar


"It is now on the table:  Obama prefers implementing his policy towards the Arab world to ensuring Israel's existence.

Barack Obama is sacrificing Israel on the altar of the deal he wishes to broker with Iran.

The Jewish State should unilaterally act against the Iranian nuclear program, as Prime Minister Netanyahu warned in his speech at the United Nations on Tuesday, October 1, but it is currently more probable that Ayatollah Khamenei will arm himself with nuclear bombs.


(Video of PBS NewsHour's report)

Because Obama's damage to Israel's deterrence has already been immense.  Under the possible deal with Washington, Teheran will preserve the 20 per cent level of uranium enrichment that will turn Iran into a "nuclear threshold state".

Obama will accept that. Obama's record against Israeli Jews is long and abundant. He is the most anti-Semitic US president ever.

 
(Video: CNN Int'l)

The Obama Administrations fomented a war on Jerusalem and treated Israel like a banana republic. Israeli-American relations are the worst they have been in memory."

Israeli Arabist Prof. Mordechai Kedar analyzes the Obama - Netanyahu - Rohani Mexican-standoff in our exclusive interview from his U.S. visit.



"Obama said in front of an Israeli parterre in Jerusalem: “See the world through the eyes of Palestinians”. And "peace must not be made through occupation". Obama not only backs the Muslims; he identifies with them and asks the Jews to commit suicide.

Obama sees the Israeli Jews as “disturbers of the peace.” He wants to see them so disheartened that in the end they will choose not to fight, but to surrender.

Who gave the IRS the idea of going after pro-Israel groups?

Israel Matzav publishes: Prof. Eugene Kontorovich asks some important questions about IRS scrutiny of pro-Israel groups.

One major question raised by the IRS scandal is where these ideas came from. At least as far as Jewish groups go, the IRS scrutiny is not a fluke. That is not to suggest it was ordered by the White House – that is highly unlikely. At the same time, it certainly does not come out of the blue. The past several years have seen a concerted campaign in the mainstream liberal press to bring the IRS down upon certain pro-Israel groups, particularly those that support activities in the West Bank (or the Territories Formerly Occupied By Jordan).

For example, in 2009 David Ignatius had a story in the Washington Post, A Tax Break Fuels Middle East Friction. “Critics of Israeli settlements question why American taxpayers are supporting indirectly, through the exempt contributions, a process that the government condemns,” he wrote. The Guardian in 2009 also had a piece calling for IRS action.

In 2010, the New York Times continued the theme with a massive, expose-style front page story, which concluded that while such tax breaks do not seem to be exactly illegal, it creates :a surprising juxtaposition: As the American government seeks to end the four-decade Jewish settlement enterprise and foster a Palestinian state in the West Bank, the American Treasury helps sustain the settlements through tax breaks on donations to support them.” The article then tried to raise questions about whether such groups really satisfied U.S. tax-deductible requirements, suggesting the IRS should look into them. The activities the supported, the Times article suggests, were illegal and extremist.

Picking up the gauntlet, J Street called on the IRS to “probe” groups that support settlements, despite there being no apparent violation of tax laws involved.

And last year, an op-ed in the Times by Peter Beinart argued that “we should push to end Internal Revenue Service policies that allow Americans to make tax-deductible gifts to settler charities.”

This is just a sampling: the notion that right wing Jewish groups should be “probed” by the IRS because they do not line up with President Obama’s (former?) absolutist anti-settlement policy is not a new one. All the organs of intelligent opinion agreed that some generally right wing Jewish groups need to be dealt with by the IRS because they contradict government policy, not because of any evidence of tax fraud. And surely IRS bosses read the Post and the Times; it may even be their “absolute truth” as Times editor Jill Abramson memorably put it.

Huckabee to Obama on Mid-East mission: Heed the lesson of Palestinians after Israel's Gaza withdrawal

Jerusalem Post columnist Caroline Glick posits the hidden agenda in Obama's snubbing the Israeli Knesset on his "charm offensive" trip to Israel, speaking, instead, before a liberal audience of American college students:

It is possible that in addressing the unelected radical Left in Jerusalem, Obama seeks to undermine the legitimacy of the Israeli government. But if that is the plan, then it would bespeak an extraordinary contempt and underestimation of Israeli democracy. Such a plan would not play out the same way his Egyptian speech did.

There are two possible policies Obama would want to empower Israel’s radical, unelectable Left in order to advance.  First, he could be strengthening these forces to help them pressure the government to make concessions to the Palestinians in order to convince the Palestinian Authority to renew negotiations and accept an Israeli peace offer.

While Obama indicated in his interview with Channel 2 that this is his goal, it is absurd to believe it. Obama knows there is no chance that the Palestinians will accept a deal from Israel. PA chief Mahmoud Abbas and his predecessor Yasser Arafat both rejected Israeli peace offers made by far more radical Israeli governments than the new Netanyahu government. Moreover, the Palestinians refused to meet with Israeli negotiators while Mubarak was still in power. With the Muslim Brotherhood now in charge in Cairo, there is absolutely no way they will agree to negotiate – let alone accept a deal.

This leaves another glaring possibility. Through the radical Left, Obama may intend to foment a pressure campaign to force the government to withdraw unilaterally from all or parts of Judea and Samaria, as Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee advised Pres. Obama to learn the lessons of Israel's unilateral withdrawal from Gush Katif in 2005.  At a dinner held in Brooklyn on behalf of the Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem,  Gov. Huckabee advised President Obama who intends to ask Israelis to make sacrifices for peace, “If that is the case, I would love to escort Mr. Obama personally to the Gush Katif Museum and say, ‘Mr. President, the Israelis have made many sacrifices for peace. Can you show me one sacrifice that the Palestinians have made for peace?’”


 
Mr. Huckabee declared that instead of asking the Israelis to stop building bedrooms for their children in the land that is theirs, the President should “demand that the Iranians stop building bombs” pointed at Israel and the rest of the free-world.

Mr. Huckabee said, “It is time we recognize that you don’t negotiate with people who do not believe you have the right to even exist, much less live next to you.”


The Palestinian example at Gush Katif was remembered by Sephardic Rabbi David Algaze of Havurat Yisrael in Queens, Rabbi Shalom DovWolpe, Executive Director of the Gush Katif Museum in Jerusalem, and Helen Friedman, Executive Director of Americans for a Safe Israel.  (Playlist controls on bottom center of window).

AIPAC Policy Conference addresses U.S. foreign policy and its effect on freedom and safety

Franco Frattini, Italy's former Foreign Minister joined Canada's Foreign Minister John Baird on the AIPAC Policy Conference mainstage with Robert Satloff (Center for Defense of Democracies) to explain the threat Iran and Islamist terror pose beyond Israel. 

Consecutive video clips from the AIPAC main stage:  Elliot Abrams and Dennis Ross with Frank Sesno;

Amb. Michael Oren with Frank Sesno 

Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) on the main stage; 

US Medal of Honor recipient veteran Sgt. Major Ken Stumpf relates perceptions visiting I.D.F. 

US Medal of Honor, Lt. Col. Hon. Alfred Rascon shares his experience from Israel 

 

Breakout session:  Analyzing American power in the Mid-East under Obama administration's policies and actions in the wake of the post-Arab Spring. 

Former AIPAC president, David Victor moderates panel presentations by: Robert Satloff, Executive Director of Center for Defense of Democracies; Wall St. Journal's Bret Stephens; Ha'aretz military analyst Amos Harel, conveying his country's view of the Middle East in view of the upheaval in Syria and Egypt. 



Far-leftist, anti-Israel demonstrators were again present. The notorious Code:Pink's Medea Benjamin antagonized AIPAC attendees shouting agitprop through a loud P.A. system.  We inquired what information were they shaping their criticisms by.  Only a few AIPAC attendees challenged them.  We followed one young man who did, and then engaged them directly.  Their answers (in this playlist) may surprise you.

A flashback and foreboding of Obama's threat to Jews - watch "Israel Under Obama" starring Andrew Breitbart, Ed Ames, and Jon Voight

When Israel is embattled in the media - especially when struggling with Islamist-friendly political enemies like Barack Obama's regime, Jews everywhere lose- and anti-Semitism grows.  

Celebrities, poliiticians, clergy, & Zionistic Americans caution how Obama Administration's pro-Palestinian, philo-Islamist bent imperils Israel, America & the world. 

Jewish Life ("JLTV") TV broadcast "Israel Under Obama" Part 3 today.  If you didn't see it, contact them to ask that they repeat it.  Call JLTV's feedback hotline at (646) 481-JLTV (5588). 



Watch the concluding Episode 4 of Israel under Obama, "Hearken! Prophets remind us of the danger of Obama" from 4:30-5pm ET on LegacyTV (also "The Walk TV") across America (especially in swing states).

Campaign rhetoric aside, Obama's handling of Arab-Israeli conflict reviewed in broadcast tonight at 9pm/8pm ct on LegacyTV

A foreboding of the American-Israel relationship under Obama - from before the candidates' debate rhetoric.

The second installment of the "Israel under Obama" series will be broadcast tonight on Legacy TV at 9pm ET/8pm CT. 

The program shows Obama's ceremonial pledges to be on Israel's side - contradicted by examples of his philo-Islamist Iran and Arab Palestine policies working against Israel's strength and self-defense. 

It features statements from Amb. John Bolton, former CIA director James Woolsey, Israeli analyst Barry Rubin, actor Jon Voight, radio host, Michael Medved, Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Jewish Organizations, and activist Bob Kunst at AIPAC and the White House. 

The show will air on LegacyTV across America- check for your for local listings. 

 

If LegacyTV isn't available in your area, watch it here:



Please support future airings of the "Israel under Obama" series on LegacyTV and more channels by clicking the "Donate" link in the right-hand column.

Jewish values and interests in the US Presidential election

Two columnists from The Jerusalem Post, Martin Sherman and Caroline Glick (and one US syndicated columnist and radio host) contend that re-electing Barack Obama is antithetical to pro-Israel values, but also to Jewish-American values.

"If you are Jewish..." by Martin Sherman in The Jerusalem Post; 10/18/12

Israel aside, the unquestioning, almost Pavlovian, suport US Jews give Obama is inconsistent with their values and incompatible with their welfare.

As I have stated previously, I am not among the most strident critics of Barack Obama. Indeed, I find some of the vitriol directed against him by some of his more radical detractors both tasteless and baseless.

That said, I am convinced that his reelection is liable to be a calamity of epic proportions — with incalculable, probably irreversible, repercussions for US interests, both at home and abroad (at least as they have been traditionally perceived), and for those of its longstanding allies — particularly Israel. 

After four years and $5 trillion dollars, since the inspiring 2008 rallying call of “Hope and Change,” all the American people have been left with is changes that have failed and hopes that have faded.  

Read More 

US Jewry’s cherished values by Caroline Glick  10/11/2012

For 70% of American Jews, party loyalty trumps all of their conceivable rational interests.

Obama’s economic policies have taken a huge toll on the economic fortunes of American Jews who invest disproportionately in the stock market. His nationalization of the college loan business has given universities impetus to raise tuition rates still further, thus dooming more young American Jews to start their adult lives under a mountain of debt. And it isn’t at all clear how they will be able to pay off this debt since under Obama half of recent college graduates cannot find jobs 

Obama’s gutting of Medicare to pay for Obamacare has harmed the medical choices for older Jewish Americans. His war on tax deductions for charitable contributions has placed synagogues, Jewish schools and nursing homes in financial jeopardy. 

So with economics ruled out as a reason to support Obama we are left with American-Jewish values. But is Obama really advancing those values? 

What are those values anyway? Well, there’s civil liberties. American Jews like those. But Obama doesn’t. Take freedom of speech. Obama is the most hostile president to freedom of speech in recent memory. He has advocated implementing the so-called “fairness doctrine” for radio to stifle the free speech of his political opponents on talk radio. 

He has sought to undermine the freedom of the Internet through federal regulations and intimidation of Internet companies such as Google. He has made repeated and outspoken attempts to intimidate individuals, groups and businesses including Google to bar freedom of speech as relates to criticism of Islam. He has purged the lexicon of the federal government of all terms necessary to describe jihad, Islamic radicalism and terrorism, and so made it impossible for federal employees to examine, investigate, discuss or understand the nature of the greatest national security threat facing the US.

 Read More

Obama could set-up Israel to be forced to take actions which would, as in during Operation Cast Lead, incite public animus against her- which manifests internationally in anti-Semitism sentiment and violence against Jews. It's only a matter of how he regards the Jewish state and the Jews.

Dennis Prager says any illusions that US ally Israel will receive good treatment from a re-elected Barack H. Obama were dispelled when, on Netanyahu's recent visit to the U.S., Obama rejected his request for the men to meet to discuss matters of mutual importance.

Radio-host Dennis Prager told JooTube recently that Obama's mistreatment of Netanyahu reveals his disrespect for Israel and pro-Israel voters- and would forebode ill for Israel and Jews if Obama gets re-elected to a second, 4-year term.