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?

^ 

Why Is Kerry Pissed Off?

Have we forgotten this?

The open mike I-wish-I-hadn't-said-that moment when French President Nicolas Sarkozy called Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu a "liar" and Barack Obama didn't disagree is a tale as old as the hills for American presidents and secretaries of state.
For decades, American presidents and diplomats have been locked in uneasy relationships with Israeli prime ministers from the Likud Party. One example: "Who's the f---- superpower here," a frustrated Bill Clinton exploded to his aides after his first meeting with Netanyahu in 1996.
It's a good thing for Obama that the open mike caught Sarkozy with the ad hominem attack on Netanyahu rather than the president.
"I can't stand him. He's a liar," Sarkozy said. Obama was heard to say, "You're tired of him -- what about me? I have to deal with him every day," according to a French website.

Why apologize?


^

What Moshe Feiglin Thinks About Moshe Yaalon

This is what he thinks:

Bogie Ya'alon is a Jew with roots in the Mapai of old,

who has not yet adopted the rightist slave mentality.

I wonder want Bogie thinks about Feiglin.

There's A Difference Between "Viral" and "Virus"

You would think that an intelligent man would know not to stir up debates but to win them.

I'm referring to Moshe Ya'alon's remark about Peace Now.

First of all, Peace Now feeds on this stuff.

Twenty-five years ago at least, someone (Ronni Milo?) referred to them as a "cancer" although their supporters, of course, refer to Jewish communities as "cancerous". The Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria are regularly called "mitnachablim" by the Left which translates as "settler terrorists" and the opponents of the 2005 disengagement could be threatened with an Altalena response, which means firing a canon at them.

{UPDATE: Tadmit informs me that on August 4th, MK Ahmed Tibi described the Jewish residential communities in Judea and Samaria on Galei Tzahal Radio as "cancer".}

On the Internet you can use "viral" to describe a wildfire spread of a vid. In politics, it's being dumb to use "virus", especially as it has been done before.

Instead of "In order to save the country, we must deal with the issue of the virus that is Peace Now and, if you will, the elites, their damage is very great...", he could have just as easily said:

"In order to save the country from a debilitating political orientation that weakens our ability to withstand our enemies' onslaught, we must deal with the issue of that harmful phenomenon that is represented by Peace Now and, if you will, the elites, for their damage is very great."

Great men should be great with language.

From the Words of Wisdom Series

"The defeatist discourse is advanced by a trio of forces: a leadership that fails to lead, media that do not report the truth and a group of the very wealthy, who want calm - even when it is an ostensible calm - to ensure maximal profits, which depend on high rates in the stock exchange. This is the 'money-power-media' connection ... These three forces, each for its own reasons, have contributed to the creation of a dangerous illusion, which I consider to be a strategic threat of the highest level."

Former IDF Chief of Staff General (Ret.) Moshe Ya'alon

quoted here in a book review and read his article here.

Nope, No

Nope, no Palestinian state.

So says Moshe Ya'alon.

“We have to replace the conception of a two-state solution – it is not relevant anymore,” former Chief of Staff Brig.-Gen. (Ret.) Moshe Yaalon told Army Radio Thursday morning. “This is not pessimism, but realism. It is not practical to keep assuming it is the answer.”

“We are trying to find answers for the situation in Gaza without diagnosing the problem,” the previous IDF chief said. “What we are witnessing in Gaza is the establishment of a Jihadist Islamic society.”

Yaalon says that any talk of negotiations and withdrawing to the 1967 borders pushes peace farther away. “These are movements that are not interested in territorial issues between us and the Palestinians, but in other issues altogether. This was proven with the Disengagement and now is our opportunity to look and learn. It was a victory in their eyes for the global Jihad and gave strength to Hizbullah, Hamas and all the other Islamist groups.”

“Maybe we should therefore strengthen the moderates?” Army Radio’s Yael Dann asked Yaalon.

“I am not saying to sit and do nothing…but in the face of the wave of Jihad, any discussions of agreements are not relevant. Any talk like this distances us further from peace rather than bringing us closer…It is a kind of blindness to continue to pursue these policies.”

“How do you explain our ‘blindness’ during Oslo and now during the era of ‘Hamastan,’” Dann asked.

“We are always looking for a solution - we want peace now and it blinds us. We blame ourselves, changing the government and the prime minister.”

Thanks to Arutz 7 for the transcripting.

Moshe Ya'alon's Remarks

The cornerstone of Israeli policy since the end of the war did not advocate annexation of territories nor a return to 1967 borders.

This perception, along with failed political conduct to date, has ultimately led to significant erosion in the achievements of the Six Day War and has vastly detracted from the Israeli position, while also adversely affecting the Zionist narrative and its achievements.

Israelis who sought to reach final-status agreement with the Palestinians through "land for peace" obscured the difference between resolving the conflict with Egypt via Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Those same elements went even further by obscuring the Palestinian demand for all of the Land of Israel rather then territories occupied in 1967 only, and ignored the persistent Palestinian refusal - which has been in place since the birth of Zionism - to partition the nation.

These elements vastly contributed to the erosion of Israel's positions upon recognizing the Palestinian peoples' right for self determination without insisting on mutual Palestinian recognition for the Jewish people and an independent Jewish State.

The self assurance that came in wake of the Six Day War created a sense of being "strong enough to take risks" - which is reminiscent of the time of the Oslo Accords. This self confidence led to the loss of the attitude associated with a society facing constant struggle.

Those striving to return to 1967 borders, from within Israel and abroad, are taking advantage of the Six Day War triumph to argue that the problem lies in the "occupation" and that Israeli relinquishment of these territories will bring the longed-for peace.

Yet the botched terror attack on December 31, 1964 reminds us that Palestinian terror began prior to the takeover of Judea, Samaria and Gaza. Since then, additional proof accumulated over time attests to the Palestinian leadership's refusal to end the conflict based on such a solution.

Moreover, recent statements by leaders of the Israeli Arab community expressed their refusal to recognize the State of Israel's right to exist as an independent Jewish State.

Events of the past years, the Palestinian failure to adhere to agreements and obligations within the Oslo framework, the launching of a terror war in September 2000, and the situation in Gaza following disengagement - could have served as opportunities to "reveal the true face" of the Palestinian leadership and its intentions to undermine the irrelevant concept of a "two state solution" within the ancient Land of Israel's western borders.

Grounding the "two-state solution" discourse to a halt among the Israeli public and in the international arena is a prerequisite for encouraging a new direction of thought with regards to the conflict and possible ways of resolving it.

Source.