Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders

Obama's shameless Jewish cheerleaders by Issi Leibler While U.S. President Barack Obama determinedly pursues his policy of appeasement, which may enable the world's most dangerous terrorist state to become a nuclear threshold power, some Israelis and American Jews have initiated a campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.  The campaign calling for the maintenance of bipartisanship toward Israel is in reality undermining the hitherto strong bipartisan congressional opposition to the catastrophic U.S. policy on Iran. Israeli opposition groups and the anti-Netanyahu media are now concentrating their efforts on discrediting and calling on the prime minister to cancel his address to the joint session of Congress scheduled for March 3. Disregarding the gravity of the negotiations with Iran -- the underlying reason for the invitation -- they accuse Netanyahu of destroying the U.S.-Israeli relationship by failing to obtain Obama's advance approval to address Congress (which would never have been forthcoming). The White House even falsely alleged that Netanyahu accepted the invitation before they were aware of it. Labor leader Isaac Herzog, in an irresponsible breach of propriety while attending a conference on security in Munich, slandered the prime minister, calling on "Bibi to act as a patriot … cancel his speech … which was born in sin … and not throw Israel's security under the bus of the elections." The timing of his comments were even more shameful as on that same day and in the same city U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry was meeting Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammed Zarif. Similar sentiments were echoed by other political leaders, whose primitive electioneering tactics display utter indifference and contempt for the repercussions on the greatest threat facing Israel. They warn that Israel would suffer serious ramifications if Netanyahu persisted in addressing Congress and demand that he postpone his address until after the elections -- when the "negotiations" will be over. They also accuse him of forcing Democrats to choose between supporting their president or undermining his policies, and thus destroying bipartisanship. That surely sends the wrong message to Congress about limiting Obama's actions. Worse still, it sends bad vibes to American Jews, reinforcing their inability to stand up and protest against Obama's hostile policies.  The White House, of course, uses this to discredit Netanyahu on the grounds that he is merely engaged in an electoral stunt. Truth be told, a failure by Netanyahu in this area could cost him the election. But Iran has genuinely been Netanyahu's greatest concern and without his intervention would already be a nuclear state. Israel remains the target for annihilation by the Holocaust-denying Iranians who brazenly repeat their determination to eradicate the "cancerous" Israel from the map. Yet Israel is marginalized by the P5+1 nations determining the outcome. Netanyahu regarded the invitation not only as a means to promote his case to Congress but also as a platform to convey his message to the entire world. But this is ignored by his Israeli political opponents who are more concerned with electoral populism than displaying a united front in the face of an existential threat. Yet Obama is on extremely shaky ground. Even the normally supportive Washington Post published an editorial warning him against presenting the world with a fait accompli over Iran's nuclear goals and granting them regional hegemony. It accused Obama of seeking "to avoid congressional review because he suspects a bipartisan majority would oppose the deal he is prepared to make." It is in fact Obama, not Netanyahu, who has made this a partisan issue, because of his fear that an effective presentation by Netanyahu at Congress could have a major impact on legislators and the public. It is this, rather than pre-election protocol, that explains the frenzied efforts and threats that the White House has engaged to discredit Netanyahu. Netanyahu's efforts are also being undermined by extreme left-wing groups like J Street, which call on congressmen to boycott his speech and launch petitions proclaiming that he does not represent the views of American Jews. This is buttressed by media court Jews like New York Times columnist Tom Friedman resurrecting the traditional anti-Semitic dual loyalties accusation, warning Jews that if they protest against Obama's policies on Iran, Americans will be convinced that Israel controls Washington, was responsible for the war in Iraq, and is now dragging the U.S. into another war. American Jews claim that they live in a unique democratic country and enjoy full equality. Yet, whereas most Americans have no hesitation in criticizing their president when they disagree with his policies, the traditionally feisty and outspoken American Jewish leaders seem fearful of criticizing their president even in the most respectful terms. This, even after Obama's repeated and crudely appalling behavior aimed at humiliating his ally, the Israeli prime minister, in direct contrast to his servility to representatives of rogue states including Iran. On this issue, most of the Jewish leadership establishment remained silent. This included the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, whose officials, according to the White House, privately distanced themselves from Netanyahu's visit. To his credit, Malcolm Hoenlein, the executive vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, was one of the few mainstream leaders stressing that Netanyahu's intention was neither to personally attack the president nor become engaged in U.S. domestic politics. Rather, it was to promote Israel's concerns about developments that it considers an existential threat and great danger to the world. But shockingly, a number of Jewish leaders also publicly slammed Netanyahu. Abe Foxman, national director of the Anti-Defamation League, went so far as to describe the issue as a "circus" and called on House Speaker John Boehner "to withdraw" the invitation and Netanyahu to rescind his acceptance. He was followed by Rabbi Rick Jacobs of the Reform movement, who said Netanyahu's speech was "a bad idea" and urged him "to bite the bullet and postpone his address" or he would "turn Israel into a partisan issue." This was outrageous. Who gave Foxman and Jacobs a mandate to challenge the decision of Israel's prime minister to appeal against enabling the Iranian terrorist state to become a nuclear state -- an act of appeasement that would dwarf Chamberlain's concessions to Hitler in Munich? Foxman's subsequent effort to modify his outburst by condemning J Street's "inflammatory and repugnant campaign" against Netanyahu did not detract from the damage he caused. Jacobs and Foxman may have convinced themselves that by seeking to avoid a conflict with their president, they were acting on the side of the angels. It was left to the hawkish Zionist Organization of America to bitterly condemn their intervention and make chilling parallels between their behavior and that of Rabbi Stephen Wise, who in 1944 urged Jewish leaders to cease campaigning to pressure the White house to intervene on behalf of the Jews in Europe in order not to embarrass President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Today, Netanyahu is desperately appealing to the world to prevent an evil apocalyptic Islamic terrorist state, committed to Israel's destruction, from becoming a nuclear power. Yet Foxman and Jacobs seem more concerned to placate their president. In making such negative statements, it is they who are transforming this into a partisan issue and providing enormous satisfaction to Iranian mullahs who undoubtedly appreciate their efforts. Shame on them! Not surprisingly, the White House exploited these outbursts as a means of encouraging Democrats to boycott the address. The president even shed crocodile tears bemoaning that Israel would become a partisan issue.  Conveniently, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden announced that he would be out of the country and unable to attend. Yet very few Democrats have indicated that they would absent themselves. Indeed, while unhappy with the timing, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi said she would attend, and dismissed calls for a boycott. Rep. Eliot Engel, the senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, also made it clear that he intends to hear what Netanyahu has to say. There is, in fact, a growing awareness that Obama's proposed deal represents a sellout to the Iranians. What were hitherto considered wild accusations that Obama was abandoning the traditional allies of the U.S. in order to enter into an alliance with the Iranians has now become a genuine concern. Netanyahu's speech from a U.S. Congress platform will undoubtedly enjoy massive media exposure and may bring public pressure on the P5+1 countries to refrain from committing an act that would have horrific implications not only for Israel but the entire world. Those committed to overcoming the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism and preserving the well-being of the Jewish state should pray that Netanyahu will succeed in his efforts. Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

Why did Boehner really invite Netanyahu to address Congress? Hint: IRAN!

Iran has apparently produced an intercontinental ballistic missile whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe.

On Wednesday night, Channel 2 showed satellite imagery taken by Israel’s Eros-B satellite that was launched last April. The imagery showed new missile-related sites that Iran recently constructed just outside Tehran. One facility is a missile launch site, capable of sending a rocket into space or of firing an ICBM.

On the launch pad was a new 27-meter long missile, never seen before.

The missile and the launch pad indicate that Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is an integral part of its nuclear weapons program, is moving forward at full throttle. The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States as well.

Also on Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to address a joint session of Congress by House Speaker John Boehner.

Boehner has asked Netanyahu to address US lawmakers on February 11 regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the threat to international security posed by radical Islam.

Opposition leaders were quick to accuse Boehner and the Republican Party of interfering in Israel’s upcoming election by providing Netanyahu with such a prestigious stage just five weeks before Israelis go to the polls.

Labor MK Nachman Shai told The Jerusalem Post that for the sake of fairness, Boehner should extend the same invitation to opposition leader Isaac Herzog.

But in protesting as they have, opposition members have missed the point. Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu because he cares about Israel’s election. He invited Netanyahu because he cares about US national security. He believes that by having Netanyahu speak on the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and radical Islam, he will advance America’s national security.

Boehner’s chief concern, and that of the majority of his colleagues from the Democratic and Republican parties alike, is that President Barack Obama’s policy in regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons program imperils the US. Just as the invitation to Netanyahu was a bipartisan invitation, so concerns about Obama’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program are bipartisan concerns.

Over the past week in particular, Obama has adopted a position on Iran that puts him far beyond the mainstream of US politics. This radical position has placed the president on a collision course with Congress best expressed on Wednesday by Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez. 

During a hearing at the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee where Menendez serves as ranking Democratic member, he said, “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”
Menendez was referring to threats that Obama has made three times over the past week, most prominently at his State of the Union address on Tuesday, to veto any sanctions legislation against Iran brought to his desk for signature.

He has cast proponents of sanctions – and Menendez is the co-sponsor of a pending sanctions bill – as enemies of a diplomatic strategy of dealing with Iran, and by implication, as warmongers.

Indeed, in remarks to the Democratic members of the Senate last week, Obama impugned the motivations of lawmakers who support further sanctions legislation. He indirectly alleged that they were being forced to take their positions due to pressure from their donors and others.

The problem for American lawmakers is that the diplomatic course that Obama has chosen makes it impossible for the US to use the tools of diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

That course of diplomatic action is anchored in the Joint Plan of Action that the US and its partners Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia (the P5+1) signed with Tehran in November 2013.

The JPOA placed no limitation on Iran’s ballistic missile program. The main areas the JPOA covers are Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium reactor activities. Under the agreement, or the aspects of it that Obama has made public, Iran is supposed to limit its enrichment of uranium to 3.5-percent purity.

And it is not supposed to take action to expand its heavy water reactor at Arak, which could be used to develop weapons grade plutonium.

THE JPOA is also supposed to force Iran to share all nuclear activities undertaken in the past by its military personnel.

During his State of the Union address, Obama claimed that since the agreement was signed, Iran has “halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”

Yet as Omri Ceren of the Israel Project noted this week, since the JPOA was signed, Iran has expanded its uranium and plutonium work. And as the Eros-B satellite imagery demonstrated, Iran is poised to launch an ICBM.

When it signed the JPOA, Obama administration officials dismissed concerns that by permitting Iran to enrich uranium to 3.5% – in breach of binding UN Security Council Resolution 1929 from 2010 – the US was enabling Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Enrichment to 3.5%, they said, is a far cry from the 90% enrichment level needed for uranium to be bomb grade.

But it works out that the distance isn’t all that great. Sixty percent of the work required to enrich uranium to bomb grade levels of purity is done by enriching it to 3.5%. Since it signed the JPOA, Iran has enriched sufficient quantities of uranium to produce two nuclear bombs.

As for plutonium development work, as Ceren pointed out, the White House’s fact sheet on the JPOA said that Iran committed itself “to halt progress on its plutonium track.”

Last October, Foreign Policy magazine reported that Iran was violating that commitment by seeking to procure parts for its heavy water plutonium reactor at Arak. And yet, astoundingly, rather than acknowledge the simple fact that Iran was violating its commitment, the State Department excused Iran’s behavior and insisted that it was not in clear violation of its commitment.

More distressingly, since the JPOA was signed, Iran has repeatedly refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to access Iran’s nuclear installations or to inform the IAEA about the nuclear activities that its military have carried out in the past.

As a consequence, the US and its partners still do not know what nuclear installations Iran has or what nuclear development work it has undertaken.

This means that if a nuclear agreement is signed between Iran and the P5+1, that agreement’s verification protocols will in all likelihood not apply to all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. And if it does not apply to all aspects of Iran’s nuclear activities, it cannot prevent Iran from continuing the activities it doesn’t know about.

As David Albright, a former IAEA inspector, explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last May, “To be credible, a final agreement must ensure that any effort by Tehran to construct a bomb would be sufficiently time-consuming and detectable that the international community could act decisively to prevent Iran from succeeding. It is critical to know whether the Islamic Republic had a nuclear weapons program in the past, how far the work on warheads advanced and whether it continues. Without clear answers to these questions, outsiders will be unable to determine how fast the Iranian regime could construct either a crude nuclear-test device or a deliverable weapon if it chose to renege on an agreement.”

Concern about the loopholes in the JPOA led congressional leaders from both parties to begin work to pass additional sanctions against Iran immediately after the JPOA was concluded. To withstand congressional pressure, the Obama administration alternately attacked the patriotism of its critics, who it claimed were trying to push the US into and unnecessary war against Iran, and assured them that all of their concerns would be addressed in a final agreement.

Unfortunately, since signing the JPOA, the administration has adopted positions that ensure that none of Congress’s concerns will be addressed.

Whereas in early 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry declared that “the president has made it definitive” that Iran needs to answer all “questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program,” last November it was reported that the US and its partners had walked back this requirement.

Iran will not be required to give full accounting of its past nuclear work, and so the US and its partners intend to sign a deal that will be unable to verify that Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

As the administration has ignored its previous pledges to Congress to ensure that a deal with Iran will make it possible to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, it has also acted to ensure that Iran will pay no price for negotiating in bad faith. The sanctions bill that Obama threatens to veto would only go into effect if Iran fails to sign an agreement.

As long as negotiations progress, no sanctions would be enforced.

OBAMA’S MESSAGE then is clear. Not only will the diplomatic policy he has adopted not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons (and the ability to attack the US with nuclear warheads attached to an ICBM), but in the event that Iran fails to agree to even cosmetic limitations on its nuclear progress, it will suffer no consequences for its recalcitrance.

And this brings us back to Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu.

With Obama’s diplomatic policy toward Iran enabling rather than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, members of the House and Senate are seeking a credible, unwavering voice that offers an alternative path. For the past 20 years, Netanyahu has been the global leader most outspoken about the need to take all necessary measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, not only for Israel’s benefit, but to protect the entire free world. From the perspective of the congressional leadership, then, inviting Netanyahu to speak was a logical move.

In the Israeli context, however, it was an astounding development. For the past generation, the Israeli Left has insisted Israel’s role on the world stage is that of a follower.

As a small, isolated nation, Israel has no choice, they say, other than to follow the lead of the West, and particularly of the White House, on all issues, even when the US president is wrong. All resistance to White House policies is dangerous and irresponsible, leaders like Herzog and Tzipi Livni continuously warn.

Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu exposes the Left’s dogma as dangerous nonsense.

The role of an Israeli leader is to adopt the policies that protect Israel, even when they are unpopular at the White House. Far from being ostracized for those policies, such an Israeli leader will be supported, respected, and relied upon by those who share with him a concern for what truly matters.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Netanyahu in Paris – pushed Israel’s dignity to the front row

For most Israelis watching Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Paris over the past few days, was another reminder of the dignity that Netanyahu has brought to Israel in the world abroad, in spite of the inhospitable treatment Israel is shown.By DANIEL TAUBER

 Somehow, the Left, inhabiting some planet other than our own – one ruled by Isaac Herzog, Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid and where propaganda like Israel Hayom is banned – Netanyahu’s trip has been a public relations disaster for Israel.

On planet Earth, Israelis saw Netanyahu stand against terrorism shoulder to shoulder with world leaders. They saw him demonstrate that the leader of the Jewish state is the leader of the Jewish people, as he spoke to the French Jewish community from the Grand Synagogue in Paris, visited the supermarket that was the site of the attack and lit a candle, and consoled mourners at the funeral for the Jewish victims held in Jerusalem. They heard him remind embattled French Jewry that the Jewish homeland is always open to them, reminding all Jews that Zionism is still relevant today.

This was in spite of the giant unwelcome sign the French government hung out for the Jewish state, when it asked Netanyahu not to participate in the rally because Israel was too controversial.

They attempted to relegate Israel to a separate and unequal status among the nations on the grounds that Israel’s fight against terrorism is not legitimate – because the Palestinian terror war on Israel is.

The rally in Paris was held in defiance of terrorism that targeted the Jewish community, but no spot in the front row was reserved for the leader of the Jewish state. Yet Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the PLO, the terrorist organization that pioneered the killing of Jews as an international sport in the modern era, was well placed in the front row.

Not only did Netanyahu attend the rally despite the French request, but he managed to gracefully make his way to the front of the rally, showing his understanding of the symbolism of world leaders marching against terror. He did not push or shove.

He shook a hand and stepped forward. Israel is on the frontlines in the war on terror and by stepping to the front, Netanyahu found a powerful way of conveying that.

Beyond that, in his speeches in Paris and in his statement before leaving Israel, he reminded the world, much in the way he has done with regard to Iran’s nuclear program, the war on Israel is the same as the war on the rest of the civilization. In Netanyahu’s words, “Those who murdered Jews at a synagogue in Jerusalem and those who murdered Jews and journalists in Paris are part of the same problem.”

The Left claims that French hostility was a symptom of Netanyahu’s leadership, but this is not the first time Israel has been excluded from the international struggle against terrorism and aggression.

During the Gulf War, Israel was not only not invited to take part in the coalition to roll back Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait, keeping Israel out of the war was a top priority for the US government. In the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001, Israel’s participation in the various “coalitions of the willing” was often kept secret or played down.

France’s attempt to exclude Israel’s leader from the rally was no different. It also follows other hostile French actions such as the French parliament’s resolution on recognition of a Palestinian state and France’s vote in the UN Security Council on the same subject, despite the PA’s refusal to stop the Palestinians’ war on Israel.

France’s position on Palestinian statehood is a rejection of Israel’s long-held position that it is prepared to withdraw from territory when the Palestinians make peace with Israel. That policy was not invented by Prime Minister Netanyahu or the Likud, but should be credited to the Labor party.

Yet in the face of such unwarranted hostility, once again, as with his speeches to the UN General Assembly, to the US Congress or in the Oval Office, Netanyahu proved himself to be a world leader in rallying humanity against the agents of death and destruction.

By contrast, one can imagine how a prime minister Isaac Herzog or Tzipi Livni would have handled the situation Netanyahu was placed in: if they would have come to France or the rally at all, they probably would have made their way to Abbas, who recently incited a number of murders of innocent Israeli civilians in Jerusalem, and shaken his hand to demonstrate their desire for peace. Then they might have gone on to lecture the Jewish community of Paris on the need to establish a Palestinian state.

The reminders that Israel’s fight against Palestinian terrorism is just as legitimate as the world’s fight against terrorism and that aliya and Zionism are still relevant would have been absent from their speeches and actions, just as the word “Zionism” was absent from Labor’s recent Arabic-language advertisement campaign.

The writer is an attorney, a Likud Central Committee member and director of Likud Anglos
.

Early Israeli Polls Show Netanyahu in Lead!

Elections are a necessary step  According to polls, Netanyahu has no rivals for the job. It is not merely that nearly three times as many people think that Netanyahu is the best person to serve as prime minister when compared to his closest contender, Labor Party leader Isaac Herzog. It’s also that the polls show right-wing parties picking up seats, while Lapid’s party is likely to lose more than half it seats in the Knesset. In recent days I met a man with an impressive military combat background. At the start of his many years in the army, he served in Sayeret Matkal, the IDF's elite reconnaissance unit, along with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The man explained that for fighters in the unit, loyalty to the team is a supreme value. Violating that is an attack on the soldiers' most basic ethos. The man I was speaking to said that fighters in the unit were prepared to face a lot, but would never accept anyone breaking the loyalty code, because it was a matter of life and death. When the prime minister realized that former Finance Minister Yair Lapid and his cohort were cooking something up behind his back and trying to curry favor with the American administration by attacking the unity of Jerusalem and government decisions, he said, "That's it." Disloyalty by a cabinet member is unforgiveable. An early election is a must, because the harm caused to the citizens of Israel by a government in which every minister makes his own calculations is 10 times greater than the cost of holding early elections. I have no doubt that U.S. President Barack Obama, like Yair Lapid and Hatnuah leader Tzipi Livni, is sorry about the decision to hold an early Knesset election. Netanyahu will continue to fight with whoever succeeds Obama to keep the land of Israel intact. Not even a week has passed since the prime minister and finance minister's fateful meeting, and spokespeople from Lapid's Yesh Atid party are already letting the people of Israel know what will happen in the election.  The evil ghost of Tommy Lapid will once again appear, and his son and heir will proclaim excitedly that the ultra-Orthodox are the greatest disaster to befall the people of Zion. The same anti-Semitic headlines will appear again, exuding hate. Of course, the ultra-Orthodox (haredi) sector can be criticized, but to blame it for Lapid's ineffectiveness as finance minister when they were in the opposition throughout his term, is pure malice. Salvos of pure hatred will also be flung at the settlers -- "those religious people" who have lived in Judea and Samaria for years and serve as the first line of defense for the residents of Tel Aviv. The most idealistic public in Israeli society, which carries the weight of the country's settlement and security, will be turned into an obstacle to peace. Neither the recalcitrant Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas nor Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh are the stumbling block, but rather the Israeli settlers who are fulfilling Zionism at its best. The Yesh Atid people will make the election about the state of Tel Aviv vs. everyone else. But even in Tel Aviv there are citizens who understand that the walls of our existence cannot be built from bricks of hatred. Another central motif from Yesh Atid, Hatnuah, and Meretz will be drowning the citizens of Israel in a flood of clinical depression. The Left has been an expert at this for years. The worse things are, the better it is for the Left. Morning, noon and night we hear about the chasms, the inequality in Israeli society, about poverty and housing prices. As if most of the voters for the center-left parties didn't come from the affluent sectors. The tycoons, the lobbyists, the contractors, and the new rich vote for the Left, while the weaker sectors vote for the Likud and the Right. The campaign by Yesh Atid and Hatnuah will focus relentlessly on the prime minister. Bibiphobia will reach new heights. They will unleash all their ongoing frustration on Netanyahu, frustration that has its roots in the simple fact that all the Left's candidates for prime minister have the faith of only single digit's worth of support from the public. In our geopolitical reality, we need an experienced leadership that can face a world that is mostly hostile toward the state of Israel. The public has already learned that delusional concessions and agreements don't bring peace any closer -- they encourage war. Soon we'll hold elections and the people will have their say. The results will no doubt be crystal clear.  Most of the Israeli people lean Right, love their homeland, and are holding on to it forever, refusing to buy the baseless dreams of the Left.