HOP no.5
The Hussein Obama Pages
 |
| Obama dressed as a Muslim dignitary while on a visit to Kenya in 2006. |
HOP no.5
Hussein Obama Pages
26 May 2009, 3 Sivan 5769
Contents:
1. Anne Bayefsky: Obama's latest calculated move against the Jewish State
2. The Obama Lovers Consensus
3. Israeli Quisling (Uri Avnery) Shows the "other side of the picture"
4. Another Obama Sonnet
5. Jackie Mason on Obama
|
Brit-Am Discussion Group 
|
Contents by Subject |
Research Recognition Reconciliation Contribute |
|
Site Map Contents in Alphabetical Order |
 This Site |
1. Obama's latest calculated move against the Jewish State
By Anne Bayefsky
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | In advance of Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to the United States today, President Obama unveiled a new strategy for throwing Israel to the wolves. It takes the form of enthusiasm for the United Nations and international interlopers of all kinds. Instead of ensuring strong American control over the course of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations or the Arab-Israeli peace process, the Obama administration is busy inserting an international mob between the U.S. and Israel. The thinking goes: If Israel doesn't fall into an American line, Obama will step out of the way, claim his hands are tied, and let the U.N. and other international gangsters have at their prey.
It began this past Monday with the adoption of a so-called presidential statement by the U.N. Security Council. Such statements are not law, but they must be adopted unanimously - meaning that U.S. approval was essential and at any time Obama could have stopped its adoption. Instead, he agreed to this: "The Security Council supports the proposal of the Russian Federation to convene, in consultation with the Quartet and the parties, an international conference on the Middle East peace process in Moscow in 2009."
This move is several steps beyond what the Bush administration did in approving Security Council resolutions in December and January, which said only that "The Security Council welcomes the Quartet's consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009." Apparently Obama prefers a playing field with 57 members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, 22 members of the Arab League, most of whom don't recognize the right of Israel to exist, and one Jewish state. A great idea if the purpose is to ensure Israel comes begging for American protection.
The U.N. presidential statement also makes laudatory references to another third-party venture, the 2002 Arab "Peace" Initiative. That's a Saudi plan to force Israel to retreat to indefensible borders in advance of what most Arab states still believe will be a final putsch down the road. America's U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, announced to the Security Council that "we intend to integrate the Arab Peace Initiative into our own approach."
Make no mistake: This U.N. move, made with U.S. approval, sets America on a well-calculated collision course with Israel. U.S. collusion on this presidential statement was directly at odds with Israel's wishes and well-founded concerns about the U.N.'s bona fides on anything related to Israel. Israeli U.N. ambassador Gabriella Shalev issued a statement of Israel's position: "Israel does not believe that the involvement of the Security Council contributes to the political process in the Middle East. This process should be bilateral and left to the parties themselves. Furthermore, the timing of this Security Council meeting is inappropriate as the Israeli government is in the midst of conducting a policy review, prior to next week's visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to the United States "Israel shared its position with members of the Security Council."
By contrast, Rice told reporters: "We had a very useful and constructive meeting thus far of the Council. We welcome Foreign Minister Lavrov's initiative to convene the Council, and we're very pleased with the constructive and comprehensive statement that will be issued by the president of the Council on the Council's behalf. This was a product of really collaborative, good-faith efforts by all members of the Council, and we're pleased with the outcome."
The Obama administration's total disregard of Israel's obvious interest in keeping the U.N. on the sidelines was striking. Instead of reiterating the obvious that peace will not come if bigots and autocrats are permitted to ram an international "solution" down the throat of the only democracy at the table Rice told the Council: "The United States cannot be left to do all the heavy lifting by itself, and other countries "must do all that they can to shore up our common efforts." In a break with decades of U.S. policy, the Obama strategy is to energize a U.N. bad cop so that the U.S. might assume the role of good cop for a price.
On Tuesday the Obama administration did it again: It ran for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As expected, the administration won election to represent the Council's Western European and Others Group it was a three-state contest for three spaces.
The Council is most famous, not for protecting human rights, but for its obsession with Israel. In its three-year history it has:
adopted more resolutions and decisions condemning Israel than condemning the 191 other U.N. members combined;
entrenched an agenda with only ten items, one permanently reserved for condemning Israel and another for condemning any other U.N. state that might "require the Council's attention";
held ten regular sessions on human rights, and five special sessions to condemn only Israel;
insisted on an investigator with an open-ended mandate to condemn Israel, while all other investigators must be regularly renewed;
spawned constant investigations on Israel, and abolished human-rights investigations (launched by its predecessor, the Commission on Human Rights) into Belarus, Cuba, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Liberia, Iran, Kyrgyzstan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan.
Moreover, every morning before the Human Rights Council starts, all states and even observers like the Palestinians get together in their regional blocs for an hour to negotiate, share information, and determine positions. All, that is, except Israel. The Western European and Others Group refuses to give Israel full membership. Now the U.S. will be complicit in this injustice.
Joining the Council has one immediate effect on U.S.-Israel relations: It gives the Obama administration a new stick to use against Israel. Having legitimized the forum through its membership and participation, the U.S. can now attempt to extract concessions from Israel in return for American objections to the Council's constant anti-Israel barrage.
Obama administration officials may believe they can put the lid back on Pandora's box after having invited the U.N., Russia, the Arab League, and the Organization of the Islamic Conference to jump into the process of manufacturing a Palestinian state while Israel is literally under fire. They have badly miscalculated. By making his bed with countries that have no serious interest in democratic values, the president has made our world a much more dangerous place.
Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow of the Hudson Institute, director of the Touro Institute on Human Rights and the Holocaust and editor of www.EYEontheUN.org.
2. The Obama Lovers Consensus
There is no Conspiracy. There may be something worse and more formidable.
This is a Consensus.
A Political-Ideaological Consensus is a trend of thought in which "like" minds reach an unspoken almost intuitive agreement.
The Hate-Israel Do-Good to Queers Consensus that now prevails in much of the West World according to the article below
has apparently decided on the following steps:
No Real Military Threat to be applied against Iran but rather lip service to increased sanctions etc.
Iran will be allowed to get the bomb.
Israel will be blamed because of the "settlements".
An attempt will be made to transform the Palestinian entity into a State.
The right for millions of Arabs "returnees" to enter this State will be assisted upon or at least pushed to be at least partially implemented.
A rapport with Hamas may be attempted.
Obama will try to break the Israeli lobby in the USA.
Obama gives the impression of being anti-Israel and anti-America but he is careful, will attempt not to damage the US infrastructure overduly
but will do what he can while hoping not to "rock the boat".
3. Israeli Quisling Shows the "other side of the picture"
Note: Uri Avnery has been pandering to Arab nationalism and helping undermine the State of Israel.
This is his profession. it is what he make his livelihood doing. He has been doing this since before most of the Peace Now boys were in nappies.
What he considers "bad" for Israel is good.
He is sometimes worth reading if only to console ourselves that as long as he thinks all is not won we may hope that all is not lost.
Avnery in effect is warning us that Obama intends to break the Israeli lobby in the USA and force Israel to accept a Palestinian State along with the influx of millions of Arabs posing as Palestinian refugees.
Date: Sun, 24 May 2009 01:21:10 -0700
Gush Shalom, English website http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/ru/avnery
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_he.html ,
URI AVNERY
Calm Voice, Big Stick
Extracts Only:
BARACK OBAMA is often compared to Franklin Delano Roosevelt, but it is from the book of another Roosevelt that he has taken a leaf: President Theodore Roosevelt, who, 108 years ago, advised his successors: "Speak softly and carry a big stick!"
This week, the whole world saw how this is done. Obama sat in the Oval Office side by side with Binyamin Netanyahu and spoke to the journalists. He was earnest, but relaxed. The body language spoke clearly: while Netanyahu leaned forward assiduously, like a traveling salesman peddling his merchandise, Obama leaned back, tranquil and self-assured.
He spoke softly, very softly. But leaning against the wall behind him, hidden by the flag, was a very big stick indeed.
THE WORLD wanted, of course, to know what went on between the two when they met alone.
Coming home, Netanyahu strenuously tried to present the meeting as a great success. But after the spotlights turned off and the red carpet rolled up, we can examine what we have really seen and heard.
Among his great achievements, Netanyahu emphasized the Iranian issue. "We have reached complete agreement," he proudly announced time and again.
Agreement on what? On the need to prevent Iran from getting a "military nuclear capability".
Just a moment. What is that we hear, "military"? Where did this word creep up from? Until now, all Israeli governments have insisted that Iran must be prevented from acquiring any nuclear capability at all. The new formula means that the Netanyahu government now accepts Iran having a "non-military" which is never very far from a "military" - nuclear capability.
This is not Netanyahu?s only defeat on the Iranian issue. Before his trip, he demanded that Obama give Iran just three months, "until October", and that after this "all the options would be on the table". An ultimatum that included a military threat.
Nothing of this remains. Obama said that he would conduct a dialogue with Iran until the end of the year, and that he would then assess what had been achieved and consider what to do next. If he came to the conclusion that there had been no progress, he would take further steps, including the imposition of more stringent sanctions. The military option has disappeared. True, before the meeting Obama told a newspaper that "all the options are on the table", but the fact that he did not repeat this in Netanyahu?s presence speaks volumes.
No doubt Netanyahu asked for permission to attack Iran, or at the very least to threaten such an attack. The answer was a flat No. Obama is resolved to prevent an Israeli attack. He has warned the Israeli government unequivocally. Just to make sure that the message has been properly absorbed, he sent the CIA chief to Israel to deliver the message personally to every Israeli leader.
The Israeli plan for a military attack on Iran has been taken off the table if it was ever lying there.
Netanyahu wanted to connect Iran with the Palestinian issue, in a negative way: as long as the Iranian danger exists, the Palestinian matter cannot be dealt with. Obama has turned the formula upside down and made a positive connection: progress on the Palestinian issue is a precondition to progress on the Iranian one. That makes sense: the unsolved conflict is fuelling Iran, provides it with a reason to menace Israel and weakens the opposition of Egypt and Saudi Arabia to Iran?s ambitions.
OBAMA?S MAIN message concerned one issue that returned to center stage this week: settlements.
This word almost disappeared during the reign of Bush the Younger. True, all US administrations have opposed the enlargement of the settlements, but since the failed attempt by James Baker, the Secretary of State of Bush the Elder, to impose sanctions on Israel, no one has dared to do anything about them. In Washington they mumbled, on the ground they built. In Jerusalem they dissimulated, and on the ground they built.
As a senior Palestinian put it: "We are negotiating about dividing the pizza, and in the meantime Israel is eating it."
It has to be repeated again and again: the settlements are a disaster for the Palestinians, a disaster for peace and a double and triple disaster for Israel. First, because their main aim is to make the establishment of a Palestinian state impossible, and thus prevent peace forever. Second, because they suck the marrow out of the Israeli economy and swallow resources that should be used to help the poor. Third: because the settlements undermine the rule of law in Israel, they spread the cancer of fascism and push the whole political system to the right.
Therefore Obama is right when he puts the settlement issue ahead of everything else, even ahead of the peace negotiations. A total cessation of building in the settlements comes before anything else. When a body is bleeding, the flow has to be stopped before the disease can be treated. Otherwise the patient will die of loss of blood and there won?t be anybody left to treat. This is precisely the aim of Netanyahu.
This is why Netanyahu has refused to accede to the request. Otherwise his coalition would have fallen apart and he would be compelled to resign or set up an alternative coalition with Kadima. The hapless Tzipi Livni, who has not found a role in opposition, would probably jump at the opportunity.
Netanyahu will try to use Barak against Barack. With the help of Ehud Barak he is putting on a performance of "demolishing outposts", in order to divert attention from the ongoing building in the settlements. We shall see whether this ploy succeeds and whether the settlers' leadership will play their part in this charade. The day after Netanyahu's return, Barak demolished for the seventh time (!) Maoz Esther, an outpost consisting of seven wooden huts. Within hours, the settlers returned to the place.
(The Israeli army has built an entire Arab village in the Negev for training purposes. Somebody joked this week that the army has also built this outpost and manned it with soldiers disguised as settlers, so it can be demolished every time there is pressure from America. Afterwards the soldiers build it up again, ready for use the next time pressure is exerted.)
REFUSAL TO freeze the settlements means refusal to accept the two-state solution. Instead, Netanyahu juggled with empty slogans. He spoke about "two peoples living together in peace", but refused to speak about a Palestinian state. One of his aides called the demand for two states a "childish game".
But this is not a childish game at all. It has already been proven that negotiations, the aim of which has not been defined in advance, do not lead anywhere. The Oslo agreement collapsed for precisely this reason. Netanyahu hopes that the next round of negotiations will also founder because of this.
He has not presented a plan of his own. Not because he has no plan, but because he knows that nobody would accept it.
Netanyahu's plan is: total Israeli control over all the country between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Unlimited Jewish settlement everywhere. Limited self-government for a number of Palestinian enclaves with a dense Palestinian population, which will be surrounded by settlements. All of Jerusalem to remain part of Israel. Not a single Palestinian refugee to return to the territory of Israel.
This merchandise will find no buyers in the whole wide world. So Netanyahu, a professional salesman, tries to wrap it in an attractive package.
For example: the Palestinians will "govern themselves". Where exactly? Where will the borders run? He has already pronounced that the Palestinians cannot have control over "their airspace or their border crossings". A state without a military and without control over its airspace and border crossings that looks suspiciously like the Bantustans of the late racist apartheid regime in South Africa.
I would not be surprised if at some point in the future Netanyahu starts to call these native reservations "a Palestinian state".
In the meanwhile he tries to gain time and postpone the negotiations as long as possible. He demands that the Palestinians recognize Israel as "the state of the Jewish people", expecting and hoping that they will reject this with both hands. And indeed, accepting it would mean giving up in advance their main card the refugee issue and also sticking a knife in the he back of the 1.5 million Palestinians who are citizens of Israel.
Netanyahu is ready to accept Obama's proposal to involve the Arab and other Muslim states in the peace process an idea that has always been rigorously rejected by all Israel governments. But that is just one more of the rabbits that he will pull out of his hat from time to time in order to delay everything. Before dozens of Arab and perhaps more than fifty Muslim states decide whether to join the process, months, perhaps years, will pass. And in the meantime, Netanyahu demands from them an advance payment in the form of normalization which means that the entire Arab and Muslim world would give up their only card without getting anything in return. Pure baksheesh.
That is Netanyahu's working plan.
DOES OBAMA have a peace plan of his own? If one puts all his statements of the last few days together, it seems that he has.
When he speaks about "two states for two peoples", he practically accepts the peace plan that has by now become a world-wide consensus: as the "parameters" put forward by Bill Clinton in his last days in office, as the core of the Saudi peace proposal and as the peace plans of the Israeli peace movement (the draft peace agreement of Gush Shalom, the Geneva initiative, the Ayalon-Nusseibeh statement and more.)
IN THE MEANTIME, throughout the world there is a growing consensus that the only way to get the wheels of peace moving again is for Obama to publish his peace plan and call upon both sides to accept it. If need be, in popular referendums.
He could do this in the speech he is due to deliver in two weeks time in Cairo, during his first presidential trip to the Middle East. Not by accident, he will not come to Israel during this trip, something that is almost unprecedented for a US president.
To do this, he must be ready to take on the powerful Israeli lobby. It seems that he is ready for that. The last president who dared to do this was Dwight D. Eisenhower, who compelled Israel to give back the Sinai straight after the 1956 war. "Ike" was so popular that he was not afraid of the lobby. Obama is no less popular, and perhaps he will dare, too.
As "Teddy" Roosevelt indicated: when you have a big stick, you don't have to wave it. You can afford to speak softly.
I hope Obama will indeed speak softly but clearly and unambiguously.
4. Another Obama Sonnet
Obama is not Osama
There is a "b" instead of an "s"
Ladin is dead
Barak is now head
of the US
nothing less
The Arabs paid
BO has it made
Let us hope
and not mope
Firm Trust
we must
and so we will
carry on through
5. Jackie Mason on Obama
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98693
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=98693
Pleased with what you read?
Click Here to make an offering. |
'It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God or the Bible.'
George Washington
Brit-Am is the "still small voice" that contains the truth.
[1-Kings 19:12] AND AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE A FIRE; BUT THE LORD WAS NOT IN THE FIRE: AND AFTER THE FIRE A STILL SMALL VOICE.