Obama-Iran Today; Hoover-Mussolini Then

As I consider my readers to be well-read, deep-thinking and quick on the uptake, I don't think I have to write much about this excerpt I found:-

When Mussolini’s foreign minister, the charismatic ex-squadistra Dino Grandi, met Hoover in 1931, the president is said to have assured his Italian guest that the vocal minority of antifascists in America should be ignored: “They do not exist for us Americans, and neither should they exist for you.”...Hitler famously said that he had seen the statesmen of the West at Munich and they were “worms.” On this, at least, Churchill agreed with him. For Migone, the logic of appeasement was not a matter of moral weakness. It was systematic. The failure to impose sanctions on the fascists was the faded echo of a once-powerful strategy of financial hegemony. In view of the policies of the 1920s, America’s refusal to back even the minimal sanctions imposed by the League of Nations was entirely predictable. Instead, surging imports of American oil and motor vehicles propelled Italy’s murderous aggression against the only independent African member of the League of Nations. The State Department’s principal concern was not to punish this violation of international law, but the fear that if Mussolini were to be humiliated, his regime might collapse and Italy might fall victim to revolution.

^

He Did Not Have Sect With That Religion

.

^

Ross & Makovsky's Leap-of-Disbelief

Two wise men, Dennis Ross and David Makovsky, in the Washington Post:

But, of course, Israel would have to adopt a policy on settlements that credibly ended building outside of the blocs. In addition to Israel stating publicly that it would no longer build beyond the security barrier, we would need several private understandings to be able to fulfill our side of the bargain: First, Israel would not add construction in places on the edge of the security barrier, such as Ariel, which has 20,000 settlers and is likely to be a difficult issue in final negotiations. Second, Israel would not build in Arab neighborhoods in East Jerusalem. Third, Israel would accept the principle of territorial exchanges or swaps.

They write that in order 

to preserve the possibility of a two-state outcome, particularly with the Palestinians entering a period of uncertain succession.

Of course, if uncertainty is in the succession, why should Israel take a risk now that would place itself in an awkward, no, a very threatening security situation?  Would an acceptance of territorial withdrawal lessen Hamas' influence and prohibit support for its terror campaign, or would, gioven the Gaza precedent, increase the possibility and probability of terror?

Are these gentlemen really wise or seeking to fulfill their own outlooks and forcing them on a reality that cannot at all assure not only Israel's existence but the stability of the region?

They do make a correct point:

The administration’s inability to differentiate between settlement activity within and outside of those blocs has actually bolstered the Israeli right, because most Israelis draw a distinction between the two. The Obama approach is seen as dismissing Israeli needs.

And they pursue it

A new U.S. approach would acknowledge that building within the blocs does not change the contours of the “peace map.” While not formally endorsing settlement activity, it would nonetheless seek to channel it into areas that will likely be part of Israel in any two-state outcome. In 2008, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas implicitly acknowledged the principle of settlement blocs remaining part of Israel, offering 1.9 percent of this territory during negotiations in return for land inside Israel.

Abbas is worthless and unsupported and won't be around soon.  And an offer of 1.9%?

Oh, they know that:

That does not mean that Abbas would embrace a U.S. approach that drew a distinction between settlement-building inside and outside the blocs.

And what is their next leap-of-disbelief?

The Obama administration could offer several things that would matter to Netanyahu.First, the president could promise to veto any resolution on settlements (or perceived to be anti-Israeli) at the U.N. Security Council. Second, he could agree not to present to the council a U.S. resolution on parameters for resolving the conflict. Third, he could commit to pressing our European and Arab partners to denounce Palestinian efforts against normalizing Israeli­-Palestinian contacts, emphasizing that the Palestinian effort to de­legitimize Israel is inconsistent with a two-state outcome. 

"Could"?  Obama could, would do that?

Are they serious?

^ 

Ibish: Obama is a Muslim

In the New York Times:

Who Is a Muslim?By HUSSEIN IBISH  DEC. 15, 2015

...Who and what is a “Muslim”?

...Would the definition of a Muslim be based on family heritage, personal beliefs or both? How would that be codified in practice?

...My own case is instructive. I am a citizen of the United States but born in a Muslim-majority country (Lebanon), and, on my father’s side, into a clearly Muslim family. Moreover, my first name, Hussein, is one of a few in Arabic that is practically exclusive to Muslims (Arab Christians and Jews are not given this name).

???

Barack Hussein Obama then is a Muslim, a la Ibish?

^

No Troops on the Ground

You've been listening to President Obama?

Here:

Describing the Islamic State as "the face of evil," President Obama said Monday he will continue working with other countries on a coordinated strategy to "degrade and ultimately destroy" the militant group — without U.S. combat troops...The president defended a strategy based on air strikes, working with allies on intelligence gathering, and training local military forces. He said that deploying a large U.S. military force to fight the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq — a step recommended by Republican presidential candidates and other critics — would be ineffective.

Military advisers have told him that ground troops "would be a mistake," Obama said during a news conference in Turkey, the site of the G-20 summit.

Actually, someone counted and

8 times Obama said there would be no ground troops or no combat mission in Syria

That bombing policy sounds familiar:

...there was the bombing. The British carried out punitive bombing raids on Mesopotamia, mostly on the Kurdish areas, throughout the early 1920s. This was in response to Churchill’s request to Trenchard, the chief of the air staff, to find a cheaper alternative to ground troops. Trenchard was delighted with this opportunity to perfect his ideas about ‘air policing’. He believed that ‘in dealing with Arabs, it was necessary to take a firm line,’ a sentiment endorsed by Squadron Leader Arthur Harris, who commanded a squadron of Vickers Vernons in Mesopotamia. Faced with an even larger revolt in their mandated territory of Syria, the French bombed Damascus for several days, as well as burning villages and stringing up rebel corpses in the narrow streets. When there was an international outcry, Aristide Briand instructed his new high commissioner in Syria, Henry de Jouvenel (recently divorced from Colette and no doubt hoping for a quieter life), to carry out an inquiry that would refute the ‘exaggerated claims’ – in other words, he wanted a cover-up. Meanwhile, in South-West Africa, the South African authorities had been bombing the defenceless Bondelswarts tribesmen and burning their villages too. The idea that the League mandate might afford these vulnerable peoples some protection from the modern horror of aerial bombardment seems to have occurred to nobody much. On the contrary, bombing people back into the Stone Age (or keeping them there) appealed as a low-cost, low-risk option, just as it does to us in the day of the drone.

That's quoted from a book review in the LBR by Ferdinand Mount.

Now, there's this:

President Obama breaks pledge: U.S. will send ground troops into Syria
For years, the president has pledged not to send U.S. forces into Syria. Now, he's reversing course

^

Netanyahu to Kerry: First Fire The Official Who Called Me Chickenshit

Remember this:

The other day I was talking to a senior Obama administration official about the foreign leader who seems to frustrate the White House and the State Department the most. “The thing about Bibi is, he’s a chickenshit,” this official said, referring to the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, by his nickname.This comment is representative of the gloves-off manner in which American and Israeli officials now talk about each other behind closed doors...

Well, Netanyahu may be telling Kerry, that guy gets identified and fired first.  And second, he wants to know who called him

Over the years, Obama administration officials have described Netanyahu to me as recalcitrant, myopic, reactionary, obtuse, blustering, pompous, and “Aspergery.” 

and only then he'll deal with Ran Baratz. 

As for this:

"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said of Netanyahu, according to the website.Obama replied, "You're tired of him; what about me? I have to deal with him every day," the site reported.Arret Sur Images ("Freeze Frame") said journalists had listened in on the conversation but had agreed not to report it. The Reuters and Associated Press news services confirmed that report Tuesday

Netanyahu already dealt with that.


_____________________

UPDATE (h/t=DG)


Why Baratz may think Kerry is an 'idiot'.

^

NEW: The "Think About That" Series

.

Source

^

GraphicZionism: On the Iran Agreement

^

By The Sweat Of Our Brows We Live

The vagaries of political history and semantics.

Back in 2000, you could read this

Middle East peace was given the slimmest of second chances yesterday after President Bill Clinton browbeat Israel and the Palestinians to agree to end the violence.

In 2013, you could read this:

Obama, a Democrat, never enamored himself to the Israeli people, nor to their prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  The U.S. leader was accused of trying to browbeat Israel into making concessions to the Palestinians, particularly in his efforts to halt settlement-building in the occupied West Bank, and of refusing to impose red lines on Iran's atomic project.

Back in 1992, Bill Clinton told the New York Community Relations Council that he would not

browbeat Israel

Here:

He had accused President Bush Sr. of doing that:

in 1992 candidate Clinton ostentatiously denounced George Bush for coddling dictators and for having "chosen to browbeat Israel, the region's sole democracy, while nurturing ties to Syria's despotic regime." 

Even Tom Friedman of the NYTimes recorded it. The term was pronounced in Clinton's second major foreign policy address of the election campaign a Manhattan hotel five days before the New York primary before the Foreign Policy Association in early April.

Last month, it was Hillary Clinton's turn at browbeating admission:

Clinton has called Netanyahu a “complicated figure” and admitted that, as secretary of state, “I was often the designated yeller,” browbeating Netanyahu as she represented the Obama administration’s insistence that Netanyahu make concessions to Israel’s enemies.

Oh, and the term has been used again to describe President Obama's actions, like here:

...after the Obama administration browbeat Israel into accepting a separate inquiry by a panel appointed by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, the HRC investigation continued. That’s what “fair and balanced” means at the U.N.: two panels, one biased, one supposedly not.

And in a phone call to Netanyahu.  A Republican congressman used the term:

Allen West, a Republican running against Democratic Rep. Ron Klein in Florida's 22nd District, said Obama was "browbeating" Israel.

I guess we Israelis are still livining by the sweat of our brows. 

^

GraphicZionism: Obama Confronts Saudi Arabia

.

^

GraphicZionism: All Black and White

In his first public comments on Tuesday's elections in Israel, Obama's deepest discomfort was saved for Netanyahu's Election Day warning about Arab Israeli voters going to the polls "in droves."
"We indicated that that kind of rhetoric was contrary to what is the best of Israel's traditions. That although Israel was founded based on the historic Jewish homeland and the need to have a Jewish homeland, Israeli democracy has been premised on everybody in the country being treated equally and fairly," said Obama. "And I think that that is what's best about Israeli democracy. If that is lost, then I think that not only does it give ammunition to folks who don't believe in a Jewish state, but it also I think starts to erode the meaning of democracy in the country."

I repeat:  did Obama slam the campaign rhetoric against Mizrachim, religious, etc.?


^

Where Is Obama's Denunciation of the Left?

As we are all aware, petulant Obama had his spokesperson say

“The United States and this administration is deeply concerned about rhetoric that seeks to marginalise Arab Israeli citizens. It undermines the values and democratic ideals that have been important to our democracy and an important part of what binds the United States and Israel together.”

And he added: 

“Rhetoric that seeks to marginalise one segment of their population is deeply concerning, it is divisive, and I can tell you that these are views the administration intends to communicate directly to the Israelis.”

That was called a 'snub'.   'Unseemly' and well as 'pettiness' and 'petulance'.  An anti-Netanyahu 'slam',

In responding the Tom Friedman of the NYTimes, I provided an explanation for his statement.

But let's not let Obama off the hook too quickly.  What were his reactions to these malignant and divisive statements?

• Author and cultural figure Alona Kimhi: "Long live stupidity, maliciousness and false consciousness. Drink some cyanide, f---ing Neanderthals. You won. Only death will save you from yourselves" (March 18, 2015).

• Haaretz columnist Gideon Levy: "The people need to be replaced. We don't need an election to choose the leadership of the country; we need a general election to choose the new Israeli people. [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu deserves the people of Israel and the people of Israel deserve Netanyahu" (Haaretz, March 18, 2015).

And earlier:

• Cultural figure Yair Garbuz: "Superstitious amulet kissers are running this country. How is it that such a minority controls us?" (March 8, 2015).

• Author Amos Oz: "I am guilty for Netanyahu's behavior -- I kicked him in the head when he was three years old. Either I kicked too hard, or not hard enough" (TheMarker, Feb. 14, 2015).

• Zionist Union leader Tzipi Livni in a veiled criticism against Netanyahu: "Herzog and I will take out the trash together" (Channel 10 satirical program "Matzav Ha'uma," Feb. 14, 2014).

Could it be that he agrees with the sentiments?  The rhetoric?

________________

Follow-up from the WashPost

Organizations that were active in the Israeli elections “with the political goal of replacing Netanyahu as Prime Minister.” 

• “A Million Hands,” an NGO, organized the massive demonstration “Israel Wants Change; ” Netanhayu says it was funded by foreign donors, primarily Daniel Lubetzky and S. Daniel Abraham, and “cost hundreds of thousands of shekels, and its promotion cost hundreds of thousands of shekels more,” the campaign said. (A shekel is worth about 25 cents.)  The total costs of the activity of “A Million Hands” to replace Netanyahu was $6 million to $7 million, the campaign asserted, though an article it cited did not contain that figure.

• V15 (“Victory 15”), which is tied to a U.S. group called OneVoice and included the involvement of a former top Obama campaign aide.  “The activity of V15, and especially its activity on election day, was several million dollars, the overwhelming majority of which came from American donors,” the campaign claimed.  A spokesman for OneVoice promised a response but we have not received one.

• “Commanders for the Security of Israel,” a group of former generals, which the campaign said was funded to the tune of “hundreds of thousands of shekels.” That’s maybe $100,000 to $200,000.

• Ameinu, another group, sponsored a get-out-the-vote campaign in the Arab community.  The campaign cited a fundraising documentfrom December that sought $3 million, but Ameinu president Kenneth Bob said it turned out to be “closer to $2 million.” He said the effort was “nonpartisan” intended to improve Arab participation. Though he acknowledged that Arabs tend to support left-leaning candidates, he noted that a Druze candidate on the Likud list also benefited from the group’s work.

• Activities of political strategist Eyal Arad, which the campaign said was funded primarily by American donors and cost “several million dollars.”  Arad has previously denied that claim, and had shot back that in 1994 Netanyahu had offered him a job that would have been funded by a “foreign and unnamed businessman.” (Netanyahu’s campaign denied that claim.)

__________________________________________

UPDATE

And remember this?

"... .. The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person who, uh, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know there's a reaction that's been been bred into our experiences that don't go away 

Obama, 2008.

Typical.


^ 

Netanyahu in Washington - GraphicZionism

^

Brutal and Outrageous

This report just came in, or did it?

US President Barack Obama has denounced the killing of the Jewish guard shot by a Muslim in Copenhagen, Denmark as a "brutal and outrageous murder".  In a statement, Mr Obama said no one should be targeted for "what they look like" or "how they worship".

Oh, sorry, I mixed things up.

This is what he said after criticism from Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan over Obama's silence on the killing of three Muslims:

US President Barack Obama has denounced the killing of three Muslim students in Chapel Hill, North Carolina as "brutal and outrageous murders".  In a statement, Mr Obama said no one in the US should be targeted for "what they look like" or "how they worship".

^

A Graphic Zionist Comment

.

(with apologies)

^

Is Obama on Ice with ISIS?

Reported:

President Obama wants to decide by the end of the week whether or not his war in Iraq against the Islamic State will expand to the group’s haven in eastern Syria. But nearly everything about the potential military campaign is still in flux, administration officials tell The Daily Beast—from the goals of the effort to the intelligence needed to carry it out...in a series of high-level meetings Tuesday—including one gathering of the Principals’ Committee, the administration's top national security officials—White House staffers and cabinet secretaries alike struggled to come up with answers to basic questions about the potential strikes. Among the unresolved issues: whether the U.S. has reliable intelligence on ISIS targets in Syria; what the objectives and limits of the strikes would be; and how the administration would defend the action legally, diplomatically, and politically.

My graphic interpretation:

^

Obama Bemoans Strong Bibi

For the record:

In some ways, Bibi is too strong [and] in some ways Abu Mazen is too weak to bring them together and make the kinds of bold decisions that Sadat or Begin or Rabin were willing to make. 

US President Barack Obama to NYTimes' Tom Friedman

^

Barack's Blockade Blast

From President Obama's press conference:

Long term, there has to be a recognition that Gaza cannot sustain itself permanently closed off from the world and incapable of providing some opportunity -- jobs, economic growth -- for the population that lives there, particularly given how dense that population is, how young that population is.  We’re going to have to see a shift in opportunity for the people of Gaza.  I have no sympathy for Hamas.  I have great sympathy for ordinary people who are struggling within Gaza.  And the question then becomes, can we find a formula in which Israel has greater assurance that Gaza will not be a launching pad for further attacks, perhaps more dangerous attacks as technology develops into their country.  But at the same time, ordinary Palestinians have some prospects for an opening of Gaza so that they do not feel walled off and incapable of pursuing basic prosperity.

We'll skip el bloqueo, America's embargo on Cuba in existence since October 1960 (that's almost 54 years old. is that permanent?)

Stop the Hamas industry of terrorism and economic prospserity and human development will flourish.

Simple.

Oh, and Manhattan is more dense.

^

Found!!! Obama's Redline:Gaza's Civilians

On July 19th, Kol Yisrael reported that US President Barack Obama had set limit of 1,000 dead Gazans that after which he would intervene to stop Israel's military yactivity:

Here's the recording and the translation via IMRA:

"A senior source in the American Administration says that if the number of dead among the Palestinians in Gaza reaches 1,000 President Obama will demand that Israel immediately ceases fire - in a conversation with ourcorrespondent Oren Nahari."   Israel Radio News bulletin 14:00 19 July 2014

As a friend noted to me:

So Obama has drawn a redline that he’s actually enforcing.  No redlines enforced in Syria no matter how many die yet arbitrarily he chose 1000 Pals. Simply bizarre

and another friend commented:

And there is no way to assess the actual number of civilian casualties.  The only source is Hamas propaganda. 

So, Obama seems to be a bit of a bully and the only Arabs he really cares for are among the worse.

And if you are wondering 'but what about the civilians?', well, we all care for the innocents but the standard of innocence in Gaza is a problematic matter:

An example and there are many.

^

Obama - Israel's Security Liability

If you read this

U.S. insists: Ya'alon has not apologized
Obama administration official denies Israeli defense minister apologized to counterpart Chuck Hagel in widely reported phone conversation for 'offensive and highly disappointing comments.'
The Obama administration is insisting on an explicit apology from Israeli Defense Minister Ya'alon and is refusing to make do with his widely-reported conversation on Thursday with Defense Secretary Hagel.

...The extent of Americans' rage with Ya'alon was also shown by unusual public statements made by two Jewish groups with close ties to the Obama administration who blasted the Israeli defense minister.  In the harsher of the two, Rabbi Jack Moline of The National Jewish Democratic Council, the main Jewish group affiliated with the Democratic Party, said that “Ya'alon has clearly crossed a line with these absurd and over-the-top attacks against Israel’s strongest ally. His remarks are simply inappropriate for someone of Ya'alon’s stature, and we condemn these counterproductive and damaging statements.”
The Israeli Policy Forum, a pro-peace group, said in a statement that it “condemns recent statements by Ya'alon that insulted the Obama administration and harshly criticized American foreign policy in the Middle East and around the world.”

you may have not read this:

Saudi Prince Criticizes Obama Administration, Citing Indecision in Mideast
By STEVEN ERLANGER
Published: December 15, 2013

An influential Saudi prince blasted the Obama administration on Sunday for what he called indecision and a loss of credibility with allies in the Middle East, saying that American efforts to secure a peace deal between Israelis and Palestinians would founder without a clear commitment from President Obama.

“We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white,” said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former intelligence chief of Saudi Arabia. “When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.” He added, “There is an issue of confidence.”

Mr. Obama has his problems, the prince said, but when a country has strong allies, “you should be able to give them the assurance that what you say is going to be what you do.” The prince no longer has any official position but has lately been providing the public expression of internal Saudi views with clear approval from the Saudi government.

because if you did read it, you're probably thinking to yourself, WTF!  What is with Obama? What's with his animosity to Israel?  Is he picking on the weaker one?  And what does that mean for Israel's future security?

And you may be thinking to yourself - those are Jews?

Put together, is Obama, as one of my friends noted, bitch-slapping?  Has he - not America - become a security liability for Israel?

^