Archive for the ZioBama Category

Egypt’s blood is on Obama’s hands

Posted in ZioBama on February 8, 2011 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Information Clearing House; February 3, 2011

The United States and Israel were caught off-guard by the size and ferocity of the demonstrations in Egypt, but they have since regained their balance and caught up to events. The two allies have settled on a strategy to preserve the Mubarak dictatorship (in some form) and assure that US-Israel regional hegemony will not be challenged.

Thus, the Obama administration will continue to offer lip-service to democracy and human rights, while coordinating efforts with Mubarak to maintain Washington’s stranglehold on power in Cairo.

The first step in this process, is to quash the rebellion with force.

Yesterday, after promising he would not use violence against the protesters, Mubarak deployed his goons to Tahrir Square where they attacked the assembly with batons, rocks, and clubs. Men on horseback and camels charged into the crowd sending droves of protesters fleeing in panic.

Al Jazeera reported that hundreds of people were injured in the melee. It’s clear that the so-called “Mubarak supporters” were not civilians at all, but members of the feared Egyptian security forces in disguise. The Obama administration is aware of the clashes but has refused to condemn the perpetrators. Obama is now sticking to a script that was written by powerbrokers in Washington and Tel Aviv.

Obama’s speech on Tuesday was aptly summarized by As’ad Abukhalil, blogging on The Angry Arab website. Here’s what he said:

“I just read the speech by Obama: it confirmed my suspicion, that basically Mubarak was permitted by the US to do with the Egyptian people as he would like…Every drop of blood that is spilled in Egypt from this day onwards should be blamed on Obama because he has embraced this new strategy of letting Mubarak defy the popular will of the Egyptian people.

I don’t trust the Egyptian army: the top brass is handpicked by the US/Israel and can be easily bought off by a combination of bribes, gadgets and perks. They could care less about the Egyptian people.  This is part of the ruling group of this tyrant. 

The speech by Obama was a not-so-coded language that let Mubarak do what he wished: the talk about transition means that he was basically told to stay in power, because Israel really freaked out at the prospect of Egypt without Mubarak… Make no mistake about it: this could be like the 1953 Operation Ajax in Iran.  The US is now arranging for a coup against the will of the Egyptian people… It requires utmost vigilance and steadfastness and thus far those qualities have been abundant among the Egyptian people. This move by Obama towards Egypt can be described as criminal because it will lead to blood on the streets…..

I say this without any hyperbole: the US is willing to have millions of Arab oppressed, killed, and tortured to preserve the Egyptian-Israeli peace treaty. I strongly believe that.” (Angry Arab website)

Israel’s leaders and surrogates in the media are “freaking out” as Abukhalil notes. Commentators across the ideological spectrum — from Thomas Friedman to Alan Dershowitz — have weighed in on how the world will come to an end if democracy breaks out in Egypt. Case in point, here’s a clip from Friedman’s latest essay:

“I’m meeting a retired Israeli general at a Tel Aviv hotel. As I take my seat, he begins the conversation with: “Well, everything we thought for the last 30 years is no longer relevant.”

That pretty much sums up the disorienting sense of shock and awe that the popular uprising in Egypt has inflicted on the psyche of Israel’s establishment. The peace treaty with a stable Egypt was the unspoken foundation for every geopolitical and economic policy in Israel for the last 35 years, and now it’s gone.” (“B.E., Before Egypt. A.E.., After Egypt”, Thomas Friedman, New York Times)

Friedman’s article is a shocking admission that “only Israel counts”. But what about other people’s struggles for freedom and human rights; don’t they matter or are the aspirations of millions of people living under tyranny supposed to be dismissed because  they could pose a challenge to Israel’s prized national security? This is cultural narcissism at its worst. The Egyptian people should not have to sacrifice their rights to satisfy the Zionist dream.

Here’s an excerpt from an article by Judith Miller of FOX News, who played a critical roll in propagating the lies which led to the Iraq War. Miller dispels any illusion that one might have about Israel’s commitment to liberty and democracy.

Judith Miller: “As long-standing allies and admirers distance themselves from Egypt’s autocratic regime, President Hosni Mubarak has found himself with only one serious ally left in the Middle East — Israel.

While Washington has publicly chided its stalwart ally of 30 years, urging him to stop repressing his people and speed the transition to democracy, only Israel and two conservative Arab monarchies — the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and Saudi Arabia — have publicly embraced Mubarak…Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to Mubarak by phone early in the crisis, the Israeli press reported, assuring him of Israel’s continuing support…..

It is Egypt, for instance, that has helped Israel and the United States maintain the embargo around the Gaza Strip… Cairo, like Israel, has also been critical of Iran’s efforts to flex political muscle in the region and its nuclear policies.” (“Mubarak Finds a Strong Ally in Israel”, Judith Miller, Fox News)

Is there any doubt where Miller stands on the issue of human rights vs. Israeli security?

Predictably, Obama has cast his lot with Miller, Netanyahu, and old friend, Hosni Mubarak. In fact, Imad Ad-Din Ad-Dib, the chief spokesman for the Mubarak regime, said today on Al-Arabiyah TV that the Egyptian Army was preparing a statement that would ban all future demonstrations. That means that Obama has given Mubarak the green light to crush the revolt while he works on his public relations strategyWe should expect that every act of brutality against unarmed Egyptian civilians will now be accompanied by a stern rebuke from Obama invoking his unwavering commitment to “universal values and human rights.”

Was there ever a bigger champion of the Bush Doctrine than Barack Obama?

The above article can be found here:


Obama offers Israel free stealth fighters, UNSC vetoes, Jordan Valley for 90-day settlement freeze

Posted in ZioBama on November 27, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

‘Obama’s embarrassing gift to Israel’

Foreign Policy; November 15, 2010

A legendary story from our early history has it that Thomas Jefferson so hated John Jay that he ordered Pierre L’Enfant — the civil engineer who designed our capital city — to excise any reference to Jay (including “J Street”) from his plans. The story is apocryphal, but the history behind it isn’t. For Jefferson, Jay was an arch-appeaser: his 1795 treaty with Britain provided concessions to a nation we had defeated in our revolution.

Jefferson wasn’t the only one who hated the treaty. While Jay’s agreement was ratified by the Congress, he was burned in effigy by New York and Philadelphia mobs and the treaty so stained his reputation that he was never considered for the presidency. Jefferson didn’t make the same mistake. When the Pasha of Barbary demanded ransom for US ships he had seized, Jefferson sent a US naval squadron to punish him. The resulting victory is now celebrated with a half-verse in the Marine Corps hymn (which celebrates the triumph on “the shores of Tripoli”) and a knock-out political slogan that energized a nation: “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.”

If only Jefferson could see us now. This weekend, the Obama administration promised to turn over $3 billion in stealth fighters to Israel (supplementing the 20 F-35s it will buy with the $2.75 billion in “grants” it gets from Washington) and veto any UN resolution that questions Israel’s legitimacy — all in exchange for Israel’s pledge to extend a ten-month partial settlement moratorium for another 90 days.

This is a bad idea. And it’s dangerous. There are differences, of course, between the events of the last 24 hours and the crisis that Jefferson faced in 1804. Then, we protested that we were “paying tribute,” now we are “providing incentives.” Then too, Israel is not making any “demands,” they are simply (in Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s words) “insisting.” Oh — and let’s not forget — the pirates of Barbary were America’s “enemy.” That’s a lot different than now; Israel is our “friend.”


This administration’s decision would be shocking were it not so predictable. Back on October 20, State Department spokesman Andrew Shapiro reassured the press that a $60 billion US arms transfer to Saudi Arabia would go forward because “Israel does not object…” Shapiro’s statement passed with nary an eye blink in L’Enfant’s city, where Israel‘s approval is apparently required for America to do anything in the Middle East.

But Shapiro’s tone-deafness is hardly limited to dime-a-dozen spokespersons. In the wake of General Petreaus’ controversial March testimony that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict “foments anti-American sentiment” (stop the presses), Hillary Clinton went out of her way to reassure Israelis that “we are committed to Israel’s security,” a soothing word-for-word mantra repeated by Barack Obama (July 6), Joe Biden (November 7) and any old American official behind a microphone (P.J. Crowley, August 4). The administration doesn’t get it: the question is not whether we are committed to Israel’s security, but whether they’re committed to ours.

The tone-deafness evidenced by Andrew Shapiro is now an all-consuming part of public policy, extending to every part of the American government — and beyond. When Elena Kagan testified during her confirmation hearings for the Supreme Court, she cited Israel jurist Aharon Barak as her model, because he was the “John Marshall of the State of Israel.” Kagan might well be a brilliant justice, but I would have thought she would cite Marshall as her model.

Reminded that Barak was a judicial activist (and therefore not necessarily acceptable for some committee members), Kagan gave a ready explanation: “Israel means a lot to me,” she explained. Enough said.

When David Petreaus was criticized by Israel advocates for his March testimony, he backtracked, asking neo-conservative Max Boot (in an email he carelessly sent to a blogger) whether it would help “if folks know that I hosted Elie Wiesel and his wife at our quarters last Sun night?”

Petreaus is our nation’s most influential military officer since Eisenhower. Guess what? He’s afraid of Israel’s lobby. And when Angela Merkel addressed the US Congress in November of 2009, she didn’t talk about American security, but Israeli security. “Security for the state of Israel is, for me, non-negotiable,” she said. “Whoever threatens Israel also threatens us.”

Even senior aides to the otherwise pro-Israel Congress were puzzled. “Maybe she thought she was talking to the Knesset,” one of them said. Finally, Republican Eric Cantor recently told Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that the new Republican majority would serve as “a check on the administration” in any dispute with Israel — a statement so astonishing that one pro-Israel journalist viewed it as not only unprecedented, but “extraordinary.”

None of this has been lost on the administration, which is apparently intent on proving to Cantor (and the new Republican majority) that it’s as committed to Israel as they are. Or more. On October 25, Dennis Ross, the White House point person on the Middle East, told a meeting of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that not only is America committed “to Israel’s security”, but that the US commitment “has also been demonstrated in our work to defeat efforts in international organizations to single out or delegitimize Israel.”

This is new, but undoubtedly welcome to Israel’s supporters: the US will not only defend Israel, it will silence its critics. The Ross pledge was ostensibly made to bar a UN move for Palestinian statehood which, under the agreement, would be vetoed by the US.

But the administration’s new promise has far reaching consequences. It pledges US opposition to Israeli compliance with international agreements on nuclear weapons (explicitly mentioned by Ross), the criticisms issued by Judge Goldstone in his report of Operation Cast Lead against Gaza, and any UN action condemning Israel for its May boarding of a ship on which 19-year-old Furkan Dogan, an American citizen, was killed. That investigation, which the US insisted be “prompt, impartial, credible and transparent,” is now (at America’s urging) in the hands of an investigation run by the Israelis.

The Ross message to AIPAC was repeated by Vice President Biden during a meeting of the Jewish Federations of North America in New Orleans, just two weeks later. The Biden speech included the administration’s mantra — “we are absolutely, unequivocally committed to Israel’s security” — and then focused on the administration’s new effort to fight any questioning of Israel’s actions, extending to the international community the view now required of every American: that Israel not only be defended, but viewed as above criticism.

Biden bragged about his role in defending Israeli actions during the flotilla episode in his New Orleans speech. “That’s why, at the direction of President Obama…I spent hour after hour in the aftermath of the flotilla incident, trying to put it in its proper focus and ensure that Israel had its right to conduct its own independent investigation.”

Breathtaking: people weren’t opposed to Israel’s right to “conduct its own independent investigation” (who cares?), they simply believed that any Israeli inquiry would be a Moscow show trial in reverse: instead of being automatically condemned, the accused would be automatically acquitted. The message to American citizens is clear: if a Muslim kills you it’s because he’s a terrorist, if an Israeli kills you, it’s because you’re a terrorist.

The Obama Administration’s newest promise to Israel is abject, embarrassing and gutless. Our country — our president — is rewarding a foreign leader who openly boasts that America “is something that can easily be moved,” who urges a waiting game with the US because he knows that Israel’s friends in the Congress will defy a president who opposes him, who tells his cabinet that he will outfox Barack Obama.

We are paying Israel to do something that is in their own interests — and very much not in ours. That’s extortion. The Obama Administration has this dangerously wrong. F-35s? This is not a defensive weapon. The jet is the most advanced air system in the world, with a round-trip capability that puts Tehran in range of Tel Aviv. The message, intended or not, will be heard by Iran: we’re not interested in allowing Israel to defend itself, we’re interested in having it attack others.

The administration has not made Israel stronger, they’ve made America more vulnerable. We are purposely escalating the regional sprint to acquire weapons that will eventually, and inevitably, kill American soldiers. We have lost our way. It is not Israel’s legitimacy that needs defending, but ours.

This is not the first time this has happened. During his second administration, George Washington faced a similar test and finally, if reluctantly, agreed to pay ransom to the Barbary extortionists. He had little choice: the US had no navy and little international leverage. Then Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson opposed paying of the tribute, but acceded to Washington decision.

It was a terrible mistake: in 1795, the US paid $1 million in cash and turned over valuable naval stores to keep the peace in North Africa. It didn’t work. The Pashas of Barbary demanded more. George Washington, the father of our country, was a very great man. But in this one case he was wrong; and Thomas Jefferson was right: “Paying tribute,” he said, “will merely invite more demands.”

The above article can be found here:

‘Obama has made Netanyahu an offer he can’t refuse’

Haaretz (Israel); November 15, 2010 The list of defense-related and other gifts the US administration is willing to offer to Israel in exchange for three months of construction freeze in the settlements raises suspicions that someone has gone mad.

An additional extension of the freeze, which he has previously rejected out of hand, may spell a political and ideological headache for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — but the offer by US President Barack Obama is very enticing. The addition of 20 F-35s to the package discussed two months ago tips the balance very clearly. From Israel’s point of view, it is an offer that cannot be refused.

Since Obama entered the White House two years ago, he has not given the impression — at least in terms of foreign relations — of being a particularly tough negotiator. Nonetheless, this time the administration appears to have gone overboard, even though in Washington they know full well that the freeze is a highly symbolic gesture, which the settlers have already managed to avoid in the past.

This, of course, raises suspicions that there are much broader and substantive issues at hand, and not merely a few housing units in Samaria or Gush Etzion. Not only may there be a genuine Israeli willingness to move forward in a substantive way in negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, but perhaps some sort of deal on the Iranian question is afoot.

Could it be — and this is only conjecture — that Obama is trying to persuade Israel to commit to desisting from any independent action against the nuclear installations of Iran, in exchange for a substantial future reinforcement of the Israel Air Force?

The F-35 deal signed last month was controversial in both defense establishment and political circles. The debate did not stem from the quality of the stealth aircraft, but from the price tag accompanying it: Generals and minister believed that when the price per unit is more than $130 million, there are better ways to make use of the US military aid package.

But, according to the prime minister, the US is now generously offering to double the number of aircraft without the funding for them being taken from the future military aid package.

This is an enormous gift, which nearly makes the debate on the need for the F-35 redundant. According to reports, there will also be significant benefits elsewhere in the gift list for Israel.

In spite a great deal of bad mouthing about him, the US president has proven no less committed to Israel’s security than his predecessor. To date the security package has included emergency stores that are available to the Israel Defense Forces, a $205-million grant to purchase Iron Dome systems, and a significant stepping-up of joint missile defense training programs. The list of items to come, at least on paper, is impressive.

“The Americans have put forth an excellent proposal. It will be a big mistake not to take it,” a senior defense source told Haaretz last night, adding that “the prime minister has made impressive gains. If we do not implement this deal, we will suffer in terms of defense.”

Obama is essentially spotlighting a debate that has been going on since the settlements began — namely, whether they contribute to or undermine Israel’s security. The US president is now asking: What benefits Israeli security more — a few more trailers on some hilltops or doubling the number of advanced fighters in its inventory?

The above article can be found here:

‘Israel mulls F-35s for peace-talks offer’

Aviation Week (US); November 22, 2010

Besides an additional 20 Lockheed Martin F-35s, at a cost of around $3 billion, if Israel makes more movement for peace with Palestinians, the US also has pledged to provide Israel with more technologies and capabilities to counter threats from Iran and to veto any anti-Israeli resolution in the UN or the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Further, the US has proposed signing a new defense treaty with Israel if a peace accord with the Palestinians can be achieved.

Western defense sources tell Aviation Week that the offer was initially presented to Israel in September, at the time when the previous 10-month moratorium on settlements was about to expire, but was rejected by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The offer was renewed by US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a seven-hour meeting with Netanyahu in New York on Nov. 11.

It is assumed that Clinton demanded, in addition to the moratorium, that Israel will accept the US guidelines for the negotiations with the Palestinians and will remove some of the objections that have stalled the peace process so far.

As part of its efforts to revitalize stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, the US government is widely reported to be suggesting it may provide Tel Aviv 20 additional F-35s if it halts new building construction in the West Bank.

Palestinians cite the construction efforts as the main barrier to resuming negotiations.

While the US State Department has refused to comment on the matter this week, Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak confirmed that such an offer was made by the US. “In the past, we wanted to procure 40 F-35s, but due to budget constraints we could only afford 20,” he said. “Now the US is offering to give us the additional 20 in exchange for a 90-day freeze on settlements.”

But apparently Netanyahu has asked to receive the US offer in a presidential letter that he would put before the Israeli cabinet, a move that stirred opposition from his own party and other coalition partners. “Twenty fighters are much more important in the long term than the current political friction between Netanyahu and his party members,” says Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, frequently a political rival to Netanyahu.

Without commenting directly on the US offer, Israel air force commander, Maj. Gen. Ido Nachoshtan, notes that “the F-35s will provide us a significant strategic capability. They have a key role in the building of Israel’s air force in the face of a developing arena.”

In October, Israel signed a $2.75 billion contract to buy a first squadron of 20 F-35As, to be financed through US foreign military aid funds. The aircraft are due to be delivered in 2015-17.

“The US offer to provide additional fighters for free is an offer we cannot refuse,” a senior defense source told Aviation Week. However, if Israel will accept the offer, the new fighters will be delivered only by the end of the decade, and will be irrelevant to any imminent conflict with Iran.

As of mid-November, the US presidential letter of commitment had yet to be received in Israel.

The above article can be found here:


‘Washington rolls over’

Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt); November 25, 2010

The [Zionist-run] Palestinian Authority (PA) reacted indignantly but helplessly to the reported package of incentives the Obama administration has offered Israel in exchange for agreeing to “freeze” settlement construction in the West Bank for 90 days.

PA officials said the incentives would embolden Israel even further and make any real progress in the peace process less likely.

“With these huge amounts of weapons, with these comprehensive diplomatic guarantees, why would Israel even think of giving concessions or make peace?” asked Ghassan Al-Khatib, head of the Government Information Office in Ramallah.

Another Palestinian official said the incentives amounted to “a total surrender of American political will to Israel”.

According to written assurances, Israel would receive far-reaching offers and guarantees that no other US administration agreed to cede to Israel. This includes offering Israel 20 F-35 fighters, Israel’s control of the entire Jordan Valley for an unspecific period of time after a final border is established, and a guarantee that the US will veto any anti-Israeli resolution at the UN Security Council.

The incentives deal, which has not been finalized, is still vague with regards to freezing settlement building in East Jerusalem. Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, insisted that Jerusalem was not included in the deal. “Jerusalem is not a settlement, and Israel won’t stop building in the capital,” Netanyahu has said.

However, diplomatic sources in Ramallah have pointed out that Israel might agree to take some “symbolic measures” in East Jerusalem to persuade the Palestinians to rejoin the talks.

Meanwhile, Israel is trying to take advantage of the incentives by insisting on the inclusion of a clause that would make the US refrain from asking Israel, once again, to initiate another settlement freeze, regardless of the situation on the ground.

The effective bribe being offered to Israel has raised eyebrows, even among Israel’s most rightwing political currents, who deemed the move “a golden deal that Israel can’t reject,” and that “such a deal must never be missed.”

Some Israeli leaders affiliated with Netanyahu’s Likud Party were quoted as saying that Israel should accept the deal and at the same time stick to its settlement policy in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

The inference was that Israel could always circumvent any promises given to the Americans vis-à-vis a settlement freeze, and that in any case the Obama administration is in no position to pressure Israel given its “insecure domestic standing” especially in light of the outcome of the recent midterm congressional elections.

The main reason for Israel’s embrace of the incentives deal is the inclusion of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (FSJ). Considered the best in US military technology, the FSJ is part of a joint multinational acquisition program for the US Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps as well as eight international partners.

By allowing Israel to acquire these state-of-the-art fighters, Israel effectively joins the US and the other eight countries as members of a Western alliance working together on the largest military aircraft procurement ever made.

According to one American strategic analyst, Israel is not just receiving a gift of 20 F-35s, it is also becoming part of a procurement program designed to run through 2026 and possibly longer. According to the Global Security report, the F-35 fleet “may well stay in service until 2060 or longer”.

It is not clear what prompted the Obama administration to offer Israel the package of incentives in return for so little and with such uncertainty.

Some say the package is partially intended to benefit the US military industrial complex; others suggest that the Obama administration has been effectively demoralized, having seen Israeli leaders circumvent, outmaneuver and beat the administration on its own turf. Still others interpret the unprecedented offering by citing growing desperation in Washington for any diplomatic achievement that would warrant and justify the Nobel Peace Prize Obama won last year, especially in light of his most modest achievements and many failures in Iraq and Afghanistan.

There is little doubt that Israel will be able to score a double hit in its current standoff with Washington: get the package of incentives and also have its way in the West Bank. Israel would receive the best and utmost America military technology in return for strategically insignificant promises that Israel won’t likely keep.

Underscoring its ill-will towards a just and dignified peace with neighboring Arab states, the Israeli Knesset this week passed a bill that obliges the government not to agree to withdraw from the Golan Heights and East Jerusalem without the approval of an absolute majority in the Knesset followed by a referendum in which a majority of the people would have to support any withdrawal.

Israel annexed both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights in violation of international law in 1967. Israel has also built extensive Jewish colonies in both areas, which makes it difficult to return to the status quo ante before the occupation in 1967.

Another Israeli provocation has been the approval by the Israeli government for changing the timeless features of Al-Aqsa Mosque’s Buraq Wall, known to Jews as the Western Wall or Wailing Wall. The scheme appears aimed at erasing Islamic history at the site, ruled as wholly Islamic by the League of Nations during the British Mandate era.

The Israeli government allocated a budget of $25 million to expand and develop the site as well as fund archaeological excavations. The Israeli plan would be the most extensive alteration of the features of Haram Al-Sharif (the Noble Sanctuary) since 1967.

Meanwhile, the PA, weak and helpless, is considering appealing to the United Nations General Assembly for recognition of a Palestinian state in light of Israel’s unilateral steps in the occupied territories and also US unwillingness — or inability — to force Israel to end its occupation of Arab land.

PA leader Mahmoud Abbas met this week in Cairo with Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak. The two are believed to have agreed that the Palestinians would go the UN as a last resort, if current US efforts fail.

However, even receiving a positive resolution from the UN General Assembly would not radically alter the situation on the ground, as without the intercession of the UN Security Council there would be no means available of enforcing the consensus of the General Assembly which for decades has supported, in majority, the rights of the Palestinians.

The circle is squared when the US includes in its incentive package to continue wielding its Security Council veto in Israel’s favor.

The above article can be found here:

US Dept. of State daily press briefing

November 15, 2010

QUESTION: Just regarding US assurances of Israel’s security, the proposal that you guys have made to Israel reportedly includes 20 F-35s.  And I know you’re going to say, “We’re not going to comment on the details,” but I’m —

STATE DEPT. SPOKESMAN PHILIP CROWLEY: I’m not going to comment on the details.  (Laughter)

QUESTION: I want to finish so you’ll understand why I think you should.  The agreement is for 20 planes.  Israel has already committed to buying 20 of these planes from Lockheed at a cost of $7 billion.  So my question is:  If — is this the same 20 planes and, if so, what kind of incentive is that?  I mean, they’ve already committed to buying.  If it’s not, are you actually spending $7 billion to get them to extend the talks, extend freeze — the freeze for 90 days?


QUESTION: Because that’s the way it looks.

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’m not going to comment on details.  Our policy with regard to Israel’s security is well known. We are —

QUESTION: But $7 billion?

MR. CROWLEY: We are — look, we are committed to maintaining Israel’s qualitative edge in the region and– but beyond that, I’m not going to comment.

QUESTION: That was actually my question as well.  (Inaudible)

QUESTION: Well, wait a second.

MR. CROWLEY: All right, hold —

QUESTION: Let’s stay — staying on the planes.  Is this something that they would have to buy or are you going to give them these?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’m not going to comment on any specific discussions.  I would just always caution that any time you have reports about specific things, some details may be right, some details may be wrong.

QUESTION: All right.  Well, let’s — then let’s just ask this:  Can you — can this Administration afford to give Israel another $3 billion worth of military equipment?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, we are committed to support Israel —

QUESTION: Well, regardless of whether you’re committed to preserving their qualitative military edge, can you —

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I — you’re —

QUESTION: Can this Administration, which is broke, afford —

MR. CROWLEY: — leaping —

QUESTION: — afford another $3 billion?

MR. CROWLEY: You’re leaping to a conclusion — to conclusions that I’m not prepared to address here.

QUESTION: But Israeli officials have told reporters over there this.  Are they misleading the reporters?

MR. CROWLEY: Again, I’m just not going to get into any details of ideas that may or may not be under discussion between the United States and Israel.

The above excerpt can be found here:


Also see ‘Zionist state to build another 1300 Jewish-only housing units in occupied W. Bank’ here:

Also see ‘Zionist-run PA (along with Arab League and OIC) keeps UN Goldstone Report, flotilla probe in bureaucratic limbo’ here:

Also see ‘Jewish general to pilot evangelical-friendly air force (2008)’ here:

Also see ‘While Washington plays peacemaker, US Treasury supports illegal Israeli settlement drive’ here:

MIND THE SCHMALTZ: Obama makes Jewish Passover ritual a White House tradition, reports NYT

Posted in ZioBama on August 28, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Next Year in the White House: A Seder Tradition

The New York Times; March 27, 2010

WASHINGTON — One evening in April 2008, three low-level staff members from the Obama presidential campaign — a baggage handler, a videographer and an advance man — gathered in the windowless basement of a Pennsylvania hotel for an improvised Passover Seder.

The day had been long, the hour was late, and the young men had not been home in months. So they had cadged some matzo and Manischewitz wine, hoping to create some semblance of the holiday.

Suddenly they heard a familiar voice. “Hey, is this the Seder?” Barack Obama asked, entering the room.

So begins the story of the Obama Seder, now one of the newest, most intimate and least likely of White House traditions. When Passover begins at sunset on Monday evening, Mr. Obama and about 20 others will gather for a ritual that neither the rabbinic sages nor the founding fathers would recognize.

In the Old Family Dining Room, under sparkling chandeliers and portraits of former first ladies, the mostly Jewish and African-American guests will recite prayers and retell the biblical story of slavery and liberation, ending with the traditional declaration “Next year in Jerusalem.” (Never mind the current chill in the administration’s relationship with Israel.)

Top aides like David Axelrod and Valerie Jarret will attend, but so will assistants like 24-year-old Herbie Ziskend. White House chefs will prepare Jewish participants’ family recipes, even rendering chicken fat — better known as schmaltz — for just the right matzo ball flavor.

If last year is any guide, Malia and Sasha Obama will take on the duties of Jewish children, asking four questions about the night’s purpose — along with a few of their own — and scrambling to find matzo hidden in the gleaming antique furniture.

That event was the first presidential Seder, and also probably “the first time in history that gefilte fish had been placed on White House dishware,” said Eric Lesser, the former baggage handler, who organizes each year’s ritual.

As in many Jewish households, the Obama Seder seems to take on new meaning each year, depending on what is happening in the world and in participants’ lives (for this group, the former is often the same as the latter).

The first one took place at the bleakest point of the campaign, the long prelude to the Pennsylvania primary, which was dominated by a furor over Mr. Obama’s former pastor. “We were in the desert, so to speak,” remembered Arun Chaudhary, then and now Mr. Obama’s videographer, who grew up attending Seders with his half-Jewish, half-Indian family.

No one led the proceedings; everyone took turns reading aloud. Mr. Obama had brought Reggie Love, his personal aide, Ms. Jarrett and Eric Whitaker, another close friend, all African-American. Jennifer Psaki, the traveling press secretary, and Samantha Tubman, a press assistant, filtered in. Neither had ever been to a Seder, but they knew the Exodus story, Ms. Psaki from Catholic school and Ms. Tubman from childhood Sundays at black churches.

They peppered the outnumbered Jews at the table with questions, which the young men sometimes struggled to answer. “We’re not exactly crack Hebrew scholars,” said Mr. Lesser, now an assistant to Mr. Axelrod.

Participants remember the evening as a rare moment of calm, an escape from the din of airplanes and rallies. As the tale of the Israelites unfolded, the campaign team half-jokingly identified with their plight — one day, they too would be free. At the close of the Seder, Mr. Obama added his own ending — “Next year in the White House!”

Indeed, the group, with a few additions, has now made the Seder an Executive Mansion tradition. (No one considered inviting prominent rabbis or other Jewish leaders; it is a private event.)

But maintaining the original humble feel has been easier said than done.

Ms. Tubman and Desiree Rogers, then the White House social secretary, tried to plan an informal meal last year, with little or even no wait staff required. White House ushers reacted with what seemed like polite horror. The president and the first lady simply do not serve themselves, they explained. The two sides negotiated a compromise: the gefilte fish would be preplated, the brisket passed family-style.

Then came what is now remembered as the Macaroon Security Standoff. At 6:30, with the Seder about to start, Neil Cohen, the husband of Michelle Obama’s friend and adviser Susan Sher, was stuck at the gate bearing flourless cookies he had brought from Chicago. They were kosher for Passover, but not kosher with the Secret Service, which does not allow food into the building.

Offering to help, the president walked to the North Portico and peered out the door, startling tourists. He volunteered to go all the way to the gates, but advisers stopped him, fearing that would cause a ruckus. Everyone seemed momentarily befuddled. Could the commander in chief not summon a plate of cookies to his table? Finally, Mr. Love ran outside to clear them.

Mr. Obama began the Seder by invoking the universality of the holiday’s themes of struggle and liberation. Malia and Sasha quickly found the hidden matzo and tucked it away again, so cleverly that Mr. Ziskend, the former advance man, needed 45 minutes to locate it. At the Seder’s close, the group opened a door and sang to the prophet Elijah.

In preparation for this year’s gathering, Mr. Lesser and others have again been collecting recipes from the guests, including matzo ball instructions from Patricia Winter, the mother of Melissa Winter, Mrs. Obama’s deputy chief of staff.

“We like soft (not hard) matzo balls,” Mrs. Winter warned in a note to the White House chefs, instructing them to buy mix but doctor it. Use three eggs, not two, she told them; substitute schmaltz for vegetable oil, and refrigerate them for a day before serving (but not in the soup).

The Seder originated with Jewish staff members on the campaign trail who could not go home, but now some celebrate at the White House by choice. Participants say their ties are practically familial now anyway. “Some of the most challenging experiences of our life we’ve shared together,” Ms. Jarrett said.

No one yet knows exactly what themes will emerge this year. Maybe “taking care of people who can’t take care of themselves and health care reform,” suggested Ms. Sher, now Mrs. Obama’s chief of staff.

The evening might also reflect a group that has settled into the White House and a staff more familiar with the new custom. Last week, Ms. Sher was leaving the East Wing when a guard stopped her.

“Hey, are you bringing macaroons again this year?” he asked.

The above article can be found at:

Jacob Lew (Jewish Zionist) to replace Peter Orszag (Jewish Zionist) as White House budget chief

Posted in ZioBama on August 11, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Haaretz (Israel)
July 13, 2010

US President [and Zionist front-man] Barack Obama on Tuesday picked Jacob Lew, an Orthodox Jew, as the new White House budget chief, naming a policy veteran who helped return the United States to budget surpluses and who must now confront its record deficit.

Obama said Lew, who served President Bill Clinton as budget head, was the right man to cut the deficit over the next few years and to “put our nation back on a fiscally responsible path.”

Analysts say this will require a mixture of tax hikes and spending cuts, both politically unpopular issues to even raise in an election year, and warn it will take considerable time to reverse the country’s funding gap.

“If there was a hall of fame for budget directors, then Jack Lew surely would have earned a place for his service in that role under President Clinton when he helped balance the federal budget after years of deficits,” Obama said.

“Jack is the only budget director in history to preside over a budget surplus for three consecutive years,” Obama said at the White House.

Clinton inherited a deficit and eight years later left office with a $237 billion surplus.

Lew was director of the Office of Management and Budget between 1998 and 2001 and is currently Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources.

His appointment requires Senate confirmation. Lew’s nomination quickly drew support from lawmakers, including Paul Ryan, top Republican on the House of Representatives Budget Committee.

“Jack has consistently demonstrated a pragmatic approach to tackling challenges and getting things done. The grave threat posed by our looming fiscal crisis will require leaders to chart a new course,” Ryan said in a statement.

Obama says he is committed to curbing a record US deficit and rising debts in the medium term, but wants to maintain taxpayer supported fiscal stimulus policies to aid growth and jobs until hiring has picked back up.

Lew, a former hedge fund manager, would replace Peter Orszag [another Zionist Jew], who steps down on July 30 for a position at the Council on Foreign Relations, a New York think-tank.

Orszag was seen as a budget hawk within the Obama administration, which has debated how far to go in emphasizing continued stimulus over deficit reduction.

Democrats running in the November midterm congressional elections are also keen to emphasize fiscal probity to voters weary of government bailouts, with the deficit forecast to rise to $1.56 trillion this fiscal year.

Lew’s success in ending the deficit under Clinton would also mark him out as a deficit hawk, say analysts, who say he would not have taken the post if he was uncomfortable with the White House’s budget priorities.

“I think Jack is an absolutely terrific public servant,” said James Horney, director of federal fiscal policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities in Washington.

“It’s hard for me to imagine a better person given the challenges that lie ahead,” said Horney. “There are no easy politically popular ways to do it. I am absolutely convinced it is going to take a combination of increases in revenues … and also reductions in spending,” he said.

Obama has appointed a bipartisan commission to study ways of tackling the deficit. It is due to submit recommendations by the end of 2010, and is expected to suggest a mixture of spending cuts and higher taxes.

Brian Riedl of the conservative Heritage Foundation said Lew knew the budget would have a shorter learning curve than previous budget chiefs having done the job before.

But his chances of repeating his Clinton-era performance of rolling back the deficit were “virtually impossible.”

“The 1990s budget surpluses were based on some very good luck,” said Riedl, citing lower defense spending after the end of the Cold War and high tax revenues generated by strong economic growth and a stock market surge.

“Those variables are responsible for virtually 100 percent of the deficit reduction in the 1990s … I wouldn’t count on history repeating itself on that. He’s going to have a tough haul,” said Riedl.

The above article can be found at:

Also see ‘Obama’s first pick: Israeli Rahm Emanuel as chief of staff’ here:

Obama reaffirms US promise to maintain Zionist ‘nuclear opacity,’ vows to step up US-Israeli nuclear cooperation

Posted in ZioBama on August 4, 2010 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

Obama agrees to keep Israel’s nukes secret’

The Washington Times (US); October 2, 2009

President Obama has reaffirmed a 4-decade-old secret understanding that has allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it to international inspections, three officials familiar with the understanding said.

The officials, who spoke on the condition that they not be named because they were discussing private conversations, said Mr. Obama pledged to maintain the agreement when he first hosted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at the White House in May.

Under the understanding, the US has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for nonproliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. The US and five other world powers made progress during talks with Iran in Geneva on Thursday as Iran agreed in principle to transfer some potential bomb fuel out of the country and to open a recently disclosed facility to international inspection.

Mr. Netanyahu let the news of the continued US-Israeli accord slip last week in a remark that attracted little notice. He was asked by Israel’s Channel 2 whether he was worried that Mr. Obama’s speech at the UN General Assembly, calling for a world without nuclear weapons, would apply to Israel.

“It was utterly clear from the context of the speech that he was speaking about North Korea and Iran,” the Israeli leader said. “But I want to remind you that in my first meeting with President Obama in Washington I received from him, and I asked to receive from him, an itemized list of the strategic understandings that have existed for many years between Israel and the United States on that issue. It was not for naught that I requested, and it was not for naught that I received [that document].”

The chief nuclear understanding was reached at a summit between President Nixon and Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir that began on Sept. 25, 1969. Avner Cohen, author of “Israel and the Bomb” and the leading authority outside the Israeli government on the history of Israel’s nuclear program, said the accord amounts to “the United States passively accepting Israel’s nuclear weapons status as long as Israel does not unveil publicly its capability or test a weapon.”

There is no formal record of the agreement nor have Israeli nor American governments ever publicly acknowledged it. In 2007, however, the Nixon library declassified a July 19, 1969, memo from national security adviser Henry Kissinger that comes closest to articulating US policy on the issue. That memo says, “While we might ideally like to halt actual Israeli possession, what we really want at a minimum may be just to keep Israeli possession from becoming an established international fact.”

Mr. Cohen has said the resulting policy was the equivalent of “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

The Netanyahu government sought to reaffirm the understanding in part out of concern that Iran would seek Israeli disclosures of its nuclear program in negotiations with the United States and other world powers. Iran has frequently accused the US of having a double standard by not objecting to Israel’s arsenal.

Mr. Cohen said the reaffirmation and the fact that Mr. Netanyahu sought and received a written record of the deal suggest that “it appears not only that there was no joint understanding of what had been agreed in September 1969 but it is also apparent that even the notes of the two leaders may no longer exist. It means that Netanyahu wanted to have something in writing that implies that understanding. It also affirms the view that the United States is in fact a partner in Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity.”

Jonathan Peled, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment, as did the White House National Security Council.

The secret understanding could undermine the Obama administration’s goal of a world without nuclear weapons. In particular, it could impinge on US efforts to bring into force the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty, two agreements that US administrations have argued should apply to Israel in the past. They would ban nuclear tests and the production of material for weapons.

A Senate staffer familiar with the May reaffirmation, who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the issue, said, “What this means is that the president gave commitments that politically he had no choice but to give regarding Israel’s nuclear program. However, it calls into question virtually every part of the president’s nonproliferation agenda. The president gave Israel an NPT treaty get-out-of-jail-free card.”

Daryl Kimball, executive director of the Arms Control Association, said the step was less injurious to US policy.

“I think it is par for the course that the two incoming leaders of the United States and Israel would want to clarify previous understandings between their governments on this issue,” he said.

However Mr. Kimball added, “I would respectfully disagree with Mr. Netanyahu. President Obama’s speech and UN Security Council Resolution 1887 apply to all countries irrespective of secret understandings between the US and Israel. A world without nuclear weapons is consistent with Israel’s stated goal of achieving a Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction. Obama’s message is that the same nonproliferation and disarmament responsibilities should apply to all states and not just a few.”

Israeli nuclear doctrine is known as “the long corridor.” Under it, Israel would begin to consider nuclear disarmament only after all countries officially at war with it signed peace treaties and all neighboring countries relinquished not only nuclear programs but also chemical and biological arsenals. Israel sees nuclear weapons as an existential guarantee in a hostile environment.

David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security, said he hoped the Obama administration did not concede too much to Israel.

“One hopes that the price for such concessions is Israeli agreement to the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and the Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty and an acceptance of the long-term goal of a Middle East weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone,” he said. “Otherwise, the Obama administration paid too much, given its focus on a world free of nuclear weapons.”

The above article can be found here:

‘Report: Secret document affirms US-Israel nuclear partnership’

Haaretz (Israel); July 7, 2010

Israel’s Army Radio reported on Wednesday that the United States has sent Israel a secret document committing to nuclear cooperation between the two countries.

According to Army Radio, the US has reportedly pledged to sell Israel materials used to produce electricity, as well as nuclear technology and other supplies, despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Other countries have refused to cooperate with Israel on nuclear matters because it has not signed the NPT, and there has been increasing international pressure for Israel to be more transparent about its nuclear arsenal.

Army Radio’s diplomatic correspondent said the reported offer could put Israel on a par with India, another NPT holdout which is openly nuclear-armed but in 2008 secured a US-led deal granting it civilian nuclear imports.

During Tuesday’s meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President [and Zionist front-man] Barack Obama, the two leaders discussed the global challenge of nuclear proliferation and the need to strengthen the nonproliferation system.

They also discussed calls for a conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, which was proposed during the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty (NTP) review conference in New York and which Netanyahu said he would not take part in because it intends to single out Israel.

Obama informed Netanyahu that, as a co-sponsor charged with enabling the proposed conference, the United States will insist that such a conference have a broad agenda to include regional security issues, verification and compliance and discussion of all types of weapons of mass destruction.

Obama emphasized the conference will only take place if all countries “feel confident that they can attend,” and said that efforts to single out Israel would make the prospects of such a conference unlikely.

The two leaders agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the IAEA General Conference in September.

Obama emphasized that the US will continue to work closely with Israel to ensure that arms control initiatives and policies do not detract from Israel’s security, and “support our common efforts to strengthen international peace and stability.”

Dan Meridor, Netanyahu’s deputy prime minister in charge of nuclear affairs, said Obama’s endorsement was not new but that its public expression — two months after Washington supported Egypt’s proposal at a review conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) — was significant.

Obama’s statement “was without a doubt a special and significant text. It was important for us, and it was important for the region,” Meridor said.

Israel neither confirms nor denies having nuclear weapons under an “ambiguity” strategy billed as warding off foes while avoiding public provocations that can spark regional arms races.

The official reticence, and its toleration in Washington, has long aggrieved many Arabs and Iranians — especially given US-led pressure on Tehran to rein in its nuclear program.

The above article can be found here:

‘Signing the world’s death warrant?’
Al-Ahram Weekly (Egypt); July 22, 2010

I went cold, very cold, when I read in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz that, “the US has reportedly pledged to sell Israel… nuclear technology and other supplies, despite the fact that Israel is not a signatory of the Nuclear Non- Proliferation Treaty [NPT].”

“Other countries have refused to cooperate with Israel on nuclear matters because it has not signed the NPT, and there has been increasing international pressure for Israel to be more transparent about its nuclear arsenal.”

In their recent meeting in Washington, US President Barack Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also discussed the upcoming International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) conference on a nuclear-free Middle East, which was proposed during the 2010 Non-Proliferation Treaty review conference in New York and which Netanyahu is refusing to attend because Israel would be singled out. Well obviously.

So Obama thought it best put the toys back in Bibi’s pram before he threw another tantrum. The two leaders agreed to work together to oppose efforts to single out Israel at the conference in September, in which case, what will be the point of it?

In what many will see as a pact with the devil, Obama has emphasized that the US will cuddle up to Israel to “support our common efforts to strengthen international peace and stability” and ensure that arms control initiatives don’t rock the boat on Israel’s precious security.

In October last year the Washington Times ran a report, by Eli Lake, to the effect that Obama had agreed to keep Israel’s nukes secret by reaffirming a four-decade-old secret understanding that allowed Israel to keep a nuclear arsenal without opening it up to international inspections [see above].

Under this understanding the US has not pressured Israel to disclose its nuclear weapons or sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which could require Israel to give up its estimated several hundred nuclear bombs.

“Israel had been nervous that Mr. Obama would not continue the 1969 understanding because of his strong support for non-proliferation and priority on preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons,” the report read.

So here we have Obama helping the delinquent state on its way to Armageddon and God-promised world supremacy, while itching to vaporize Iran for daring to think nuclear even in a civil way.

More than ever before, the world seems to be in the hands of madmen that are devoid of principle and completely, certifiably bonkers.

And it’s Western democracies that are producing the power freaks and militarized terrorists. They come from nowhere — like Bush, like Obama, like Blair, like Cameron. They have no track record. They haven’t put in any time in a key office so that we can study and measure their performance, and check their integrity, before handing them supreme power.

They are too immature to have sound judgment and too distracted by a young family. But youth and family are vital ingredients in the marketing mix. These high-flyers are the carefully packaged product of [Zionist] political power brokers and interest groups, skillfully groomed for maximum public appeal and subsequent manipulation.

For the obedient there’s a rich and rewarding retirement waiting, lucrative jobs with merchant banks and board appointments with the likes of the Carlyle Group and honors by the barrow-load and peace prizes for waging mega-war on civilians.

If ordinary people in the democratic world don’t wake up very quickly, purge their administrations of corruption, run a psychological assessment on all candidates for power, and reverse course, we’re sunk.

In the UK, the Prime Minister David Cameron is concerned only that British troops are out of Afghanistan before the next election. That’s in five years’ time, during which we’ll see countless more homeward bound coffins and many more thousands of local citizens shredded and maimed.

At the Foreign Office, British foreign secretary William Hague, a besotted admirer of Israel since he was in short trousers, loudly threatens Iran with sanctions and worse. And Liam Fox, now British defense secretary, has been credited with the immortal words that, “we must remember that in the battle for the values that we stand for, for democracy against theocracy, for democratic liberal values against repression, Israel’s enemies are our enemies and this is a battle in which we all stand together or we will all fall divided.”

We are at a time in history when those with dangerous views and evil intentions are rising to the top of the political cesspit, usually by default because the others wallowing in it can be relied on not to make waves.

Yet, considering the Zionist regime’s unhinged mentality and notorious lack of restraint, it is obvious that Israel’s 200 (or is it 400?) nuclear warheads pose a massive threat not only to the Middle East but also to the rest of the world. Those warheads can be targeted on European cities and, some say, already are.

Why hasn’t Israel signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention? And why hasn’t it ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty or the Chemical Weapons Convention? Because being a menace is necessary to its ambitions.

But the US government now considers any “strong anti-Israel sentiment” to be anti-Semitic. Indeed, US politicians are so scared of the pro-Israel lobby that sales of congressional diapers have skyrocketed. In March, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) persuaded more than three-quarters of the House of Representatives to sign a letter calling for an end to public criticism of Israel and urging the US to “reinforce” its relationship with the Jewish state.

This was underscored by the nauseating spectacle of the Senate and the House of Representatives giving virtually 100 per cent endorsement to a resolution praising Israeli war crimes against Gaza, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity.

In November 2009, they suspended the rules to cut short debate on Resolution 867, which the House of Representatives passed by 344 to 36. It called on the US president and the secretary of state to oppose unequivocally any endorsement or further consideration of the Goldstone Report on the Israeli assault on Gaza. The House rejected the report’s findings that Israel committed war crimes during its military assault on the Gaza Strip as “irredeemably biased.”

Then, In the middle of the horrendous Cast Lead onslaught against Gaza’s civilians, and after Israel deliberately breached the ceasefire with Hamas, the House of Representatives passed a resolution “recognizing Israel’s right to defend itself against attacks from Gaza” by a majority of 390-5. They noted that the humanitarian situation in Gaza was “becoming more acute” but dared not rebuke Israel.

For a flavor of how the minds of American lawmakers work, take Senate Resolution 548, passed only last month. It includes in its preamble that “whereas since 2001, Hamas and other Palestinian terrorist organizations have fired more than 10,000 rockets and mortars from Gaza into Israel, killing at least 18 Israelis and wounding dozens more.”

And “whereas according to Michael Oren, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, ‘If the sea lanes are open to Hamas in Gaza… they will acquire thousands of rockets that will threaten every single citizen in the state of Israel and also kill the peace process… Hamas armed with thousands of rockets not only threatens 7,500,000 Israelis but it’s the end of the peace process.'”

And “whereas upon the boarding of the Mavi Marmara by the Israeli Navy, the Mavi Marmara’s passengers brutally and violently attacked the members of the Israeli Navy with knives, clubs, pipes, and other weapons, injuring several of them.”

And “whereas the members of the Israeli Navy, under attack and in grave danger, reacted in self-defense and used lethal force against their attackers on the Mavi Marmara, shooting and killing nine of them; whereas in the time since the attack, the United Nations has unjustly criticized the actions of the Government of Israel and called for an investigation of such actions; and “whereas the actions of the United Nations are undermining Israel’s inherent right to self-defense, compromising its sovereignty, and helping to legitimize Hamas.”

And so on. The resolution is framed in terms that paint Israel, the brutal oppressor, occupier and sea pirate, as the victim. The crude disinformation is easily shot down in flames, but you mustn’t criticize or question. Ignorance is such bliss to American decision making.

As a result, they resolved:

– Israel has an inherent and undeniable right to defend itself against any threat to the safety of its citizens.

– To reaffirm that the United States stands with Israel in pursuit of shared security goals, including the security of Israel.

– To condemn the violent attack and provocation by extremists aboard the Mavi Marmara, who created a highly destabilizing incident in a region that cannot afford further instability.

– To condemn any future such attempts to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza for the purpose of creating or provoking violent confrontation or otherwise undermining the security of Israel.

– To condemn Hamas for its failure to recognize the right of Israel to exist, its human rights abuses against the residents of Gaza, and its continued rejection of a constructive path to peace for the Israeli and Palestinian people.

– To condemn the government of Iran for its role, past and present, in directly supporting Hamas and undermining the security of Israel.

– To encourage the Government of Turkey to recognize the importance of continued strong relations with Israel and the necessity of closely scrutinizing organizations with potential ties to terrorist groups.

Thanks largely to US gullibility, Israel has been re-established and must next pass through the fires of tribulation before receiving the Godly pat on the head. So all this chicanery is presumably to prepare the ground for accelerating the “end times”, or Armageddon, and to provoke the ultimate destruction-fest and max out the suffering that millions of believers are so looking forward to.

When it’s all over, mankind will simply have defeated itself, with America’s help. So, while Obama and Netanyahu take the floor for the Armageddon waltz, let us pray, fervently.

The above article can be found here:

Who Is Behind Barack Obama’s Rise to Stardom?

Posted in ZioBama on July 17, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

American Free Press

August 17, 2009

By Victor Thorn

Is Barack Obama the product of a vast socialist conspiracy designed to undermine the fundamental tenets established by our Founding Fathers, all bankrolled and organized by elite financiers? The answer is unequivocally yes.

To deconstruct this labyrinth-like network, one must start at the top with global slash and burn speculator George Soros and his ties to the world’s most powerful banking family. Journalist, historian and economic researcher William Engdahl sets the stage.

Soros has been identified as a front man for the Rothschild banking group. Understandably, neither he nor the Rothschilds wants this important fact to be public.” He continues, “Soros’s connection to the ultra-secret international finance circles of the Rothschilds is not just an ordinary or accidental banking connection.”

Finally, in a November 1, 1996 article, Engdahl writes, “From the very first days when Soros created his own investment fund in 1969, he owed his success to his relation to the Rothschild family banking network.”

Soros, through his Open Society Institute, funnels approximately $300 million a year into various liberal venues, including the influential, which he owns. According to veteran researcher Anton Chaitkin, Soros also hand-picked Barack Obama to challenge Hillary Clinton (and ultimately defeat GOP nominee John McCain). On Sept. 5, 2008, he wrote, “Barack Obama came under special Soros sponsorship in the 2004 U.S. Senate race [and] raised $60,000 for his campaign.” After attaining victory, Obama met personally with Soros, then attended a fundraiser at his home.

Chaitkin elaborates further in “Soros Runs British Foreign Office Coup Against U.S. Elections,” an online article. “On December 4, 2006, two years after getting into the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama went to Soros’s New York office to be interviewed for higher office. Soros then took Obama into a conference room for other politically subordinate billionaires. With money and connections assured, Obama announced for the presidency soon afterward.”

Lets look at the words of Michelle Obama from a June 19, 2008 speech. She said, “We’re going to have to change our traditions and our history.” She explained further on Aug. 25, 2008. “All of us are driven by a simple belief that the world as it is just won’t do. We have an obligation to fight for the world as it should be.”

Who, precisely, will determine how our world should be? Mrs. Obama’s poignant phrase was lifted directly from Saul Alinsky, a Chicago-based Jewish extremist who penned the handbook for far-left causes, Rules for Radicals.

To implement his plans to undermine America, an intricate network needed to be established that would spread its tentacles throughout every aspect of society. One of the primary vehicles they utilized was the Tides Foundation, to which Soros contributed $13 million from 1997-2003. Established by Jewish antiwar activist Drummond Pike in 1976, this tax-exempt organization serves a very important function. According to researcher Ben Johnson of Front Page Magazine in September 2004, they “allow high-profile individuals to fund extremist organizations by ‘laundering’ their money through Tides, leaving no paper trail.”

In essence, after taking a 10 percent cut, Tides has fed over $300 million to entities such as cop killer Mumia Abu-Jamal, and those who advocate abortion-on-demand, all the while assuring contributors that
they won’t be publicly linked to these causes. One look at the Tide Foundation’s board reveals who calls the shots.

Drummond, senior vice president Gary Schwartz, and executive vice president Ellen Friedman are all Jewish. Pike also used his leverage to bail out ACORN’s welfare rights leader Wade Rathke, after he embezzled $948,507. To protect Rathke, ACORN never contacted law enforcement officials or sought prosecution. Instead, Stephanie Strom of The New York Times wrote on Aug. 17, 2008, “The organization announced that an anonymous supporter had agreed” to pay off the debt. That man was Drummond Pike. To cover their tracks, Arthur Schwartz (also Jewish) now coordinates their slippery public relations.

Of course, Barack Obama began his political career as the chief national trainer for ACORN, which now faces lawsuits in 14 states for voter fraud. Obama’s mentor as a community organizer in Chicago was Gerald Kellman, a Saul Alinksy protegé. To begin his meteoric rise toward the White House, money originated from what Clarice Feldman of American Thinker calls the “Gang of Four”— Soros, Peter Lewis, Stephen Bing and Herbert & Marion Sandler. All are Jewish billionaires.

One of Obama’s most important backers was Marilyn Katz (Jewish), who oversaw security for the SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) and advocated violent guerrilla tactics toward the police (as did Obama associate William Ayers of the Weather Underground). Katz became a fundraising bundler for Obama, as well as hosting fundraisers and serving as an Illinois delegate at the 2008 Democratic National Convention.

The Tides Foundation controls the San Francisco-based Apollo Alliance,
which “absolutely believes that government is the solution to all social and economic problems.”

On July 28, Phil Kerpen of Americans for Prosperity described how the “Apollo Alliance is designed to bring together the elements of organized labor with community organizers and green groups.” More importantly, Kerpen revealed that the Apollo Alliance “put out a draft stimulus bill in 2008 . . . that included almost everything that ended up being in the final stimulus bill.”

Van Jones, Obama’s new “green jobs czar,” described the Apollo Alliance as a “grand unified field theory for progressive left causes.” Who exactly is Van Jones? After participating in the 1992 L.A. riots (for which he was arrested and incarcerated), Jones told the East Bay Express on November 2, 2005, “I met all these young radical people of color—I mean, really radical Communists and anarchists. And it was like: this is what I need to be part of. I spent the next 10 years of my life working with
a lot of these people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary. I was a rowdy black revolutionary on April 28th, and when the verdicts came down on April 29th, I was a Communist.”

To round out this list, the SEIU (Service Employees International Union) is primarily responsible for what is contained in Obama’s socialized health care bill. Andy Stern and Anna Burger lead the SEIU, both of whom are Jewish cronies of George Soros. Their vice president is Gerald Hudson (Jewish). Pushing this bill and the stimulus package to various media outlets is Robert Borosage (Jewish) of the Institute for America’s Future (also a huge recipient of Soros’s funding). Overseeing the housing and banking industries is none other than Barney Frank (Jewish), chairman of the House Financial Services Committee. Last but not least, Key members of Obama’s inner circle—David Axelrod, Lawrence Summers and Rahm Emanuel are Jewish and Bilderberg.

Putting this complicated matter into perspective is educational theorist and critic David Solway. On July 7, 2009 he wrote, “We Jews are a sly and surreptitious people . It pains me to admit this, but candor compels. . . . [T]he best way to bring America to its knees, to weaken its will to survive, to cleverly turn it against itself, was to do everything in our considerable arsenal of means to deliver the White House to Barack Obama.”

The conspiracy has been completed, and now the Jewish Rothschild-Soros connection controls voter registration (ACORN), money laundering (Tides), billions in stimulus spending (Apollo), possibly the future of health care (SEIU), finance (Franks), and the Oval Office’s inner workings (Emanuel, Axelrod and Summers).

Victor Thorn is a hard-hitting researcher, journalist and the author of many books on 9-11 and the New World Order. These include “9/11 Evil” by Victor Thorn — Israel’s Central Role in the Sept. 11 Attacks and Phantom Flight 93

(Issue # 33, August 17, 2009)

The above article can be found at: Who Is Behind Barack Obama’s Rise to Stardom?

Rabbi to give invocation on Obama’s big day (2008)

Posted in ZioBama with tags , , on May 13, 2009 by The 800 Pound Gorilla

saperstein-082208The Jewish Daily Forward
August 21, 2008

WASHINGTON — Presidential historians and convention observers believe this year’s Democratic convention will be the first time that a rabbi gives an invocation before the presidential nominee’s acceptance speech since the advent of modern American political conventions nearly a century ago.

Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, will be making history on August 28 as he opens the Democratic convention’s last day, in front of an expected crowd of 70,000 in the audience and millions more watching from afar.

The choice of a Jewish religious leader to give the prime-time invocation is only one part of a move by the Democratic Party to raise the profile of faith in its rhetoric and activities, a move from which Jewish religious activists and evangelical Christians seem to be benefiting more than other faiths. Both groups are seen as key constituencies for the Democrats in the November elections.

“This shows how critical the party and the campaign believe the Jewish community is in the upcoming elections,” said Matt Dorf, Jewish outreach coordinator for the Democratic National Committee.

Saperstein, who was approached by convention organizers only two weeks before the scheduled invocation, said he does not see his role as a show of support for Senator Barack Obama or the Democrats, but rather as common tradition “so ingrained in American life that it cannot be perceived as a political endorsement.”

Advisers for the Obama campaign, as well as convention organizers, chose Saperstein, who for the past 34 years has led the Reform movement’s Washington political arm, after joint consultations. An official involved in the process said that Saperstein was picked because he is widely respected by members of all faiths, thanks to years of activity in building advocacy coalitions on social issues as well as on foreign policy. Saperstein has been a leading force in the Save Darfur Coalition, which strives to raise public awareness of the genocide in Sudan. [One wonders how interested Saperstein is in raising public awareness about Israel’s ongoing genocide against the 1.5 million Palestinians of the Gaza Strip — 800]

But Saperstein, according to the official, was also favored because of his firm support for the separation of church and state. “If anyone was concerned the Democrats are going too far toward faith, then all the rabbis featured in the convention are very strong on church-state separation,” the official said, referring to Saperstein and six other rabbis who will attend formal events at the convention.

Not all are convinced. Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which advocates strict limits on the role of religion in the public arena, called the decision to feature religious leaders in political conventions a mistake. “It seems that this year, both parties will try to prove they are holier than the other,” he said, which in his view is no more than a form of pandering.

Naturally, faith leaders participating in the convention reject that argument. Among them is Rabbi Steve Gutow, head of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs.

“One of my principal goals is to help Jews engage in faith in the context of their activism,” said Gutow, a Reconstructionist who will participate in the convention’s panel on “Getting out the Faith Vote.”

Saperstein’s big moment will take place at Denver’s Invesco Field and, after Obama’s acceptance speech, will be followed by a benediction by Joel Hunter, an evangelical pastor from Northland, a church in Florida.

The creation of a “faith caucus” and a variety of planned events featuring religious leaders will bring to the Denver convention a record number of rabbis. In addition to Saperstein and Gutow, the convention will feature Orthodox rabbis Tzvi Hersh Weinreb, executive vice president of the Orthodox Union, and Marc Schneier; Reform rabbis Amy Schwartzman from Virginia and Steve Foster of Denver, and Jack Moline, a Conservative rabbi.

In an attempt to respect sensitivities of Orthodox participants, who do not support mixed prayer, organizers made an effort to define the interfaith meetings as “gatherings” rather than services.

The Republicans have yet to announce their plans for including faith groups at their convention, which will open in St. Paul, Minn., a week after the Democrats’. An initial agenda released on August 20, however, reveals that at least three Jewish politicians will speak at the convention: Republican Senator Norm Coleman of Minnesota, Hawaii Governor Linda Lingle and Independent Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman.

The above article can be found at: Rabbi To Give Invocation on Obama’s Big Day