Increasingly Anti Israel

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2014/09/17/total-freaking-idiot-maxine-waters-says-shariah-law-is-compatible-with-us-constitution/ So Obama is blackmailing Israel. What else is new? We are supposed to have Jewish defense organizations. Notice the silence. Where are they? Afraid to speak truth to power obviously. What are they for?  Wall street Journal"  ...And the bottom line is that Obama Inc. is now making it clear that it will use weapons transfers to blackmail Israel and that it’s blaming Israel for this policy. The Times of Israel reports confirmation of suspensions.     A senior Israeli official confirmed to Israeli media that the US had suspended a shipment of Hellfire missiles to Israel amid worsening ties over fighting in Gaza     The decision to hold off on the transfer was most likely on grounds of increased diplomatic tension, the official said, corroborating a Wall Street Journal report earlier in the day that claimed the White House and State Department had been angered by a transfer of arms to Israel and had ordered greater oversight into future sales. David Horovitz at the Times of Israel comments further.     After the abandonment of Israel by the UK, with its promise to limit arms sales to Israel if Hamas restarts its attacks on our civilians, we now learn that the US is already restricting arms sales to Israel, having halted a planned supply of the Hellfire precision missiles that enable Israel to strike at the rocket launchers set up by Hamas in the heart of Gaza’s residential areas.     It is frankly astounding to the overwhelming majority of Israelis that Israel is being blamed for and pressured to end a war it manifestly sought to avoid — against a terrorist-government sworn to its destruction that repeatedly breaches the ceasefire efforts Israel consistently accepts."

Another Democrat, another Israel bashing

By Jennifer Rubin September 16 at 4:02 PM  Bill Clinton was caught off mike in Iowa this weekend “agreeing that the [Israeli] prime minister [Benjamin Netanyahu] was ‘not the man’ to make peace with Palestinians — a position at odds with his wife’s pro-Israel stance, a new report said Monday. Clinton’s spontaneous comments came during an impromptu conversation with pro-Palestinian activists after he and Hillary spent the day at a political event in Iowa on Sunday.” This is part of a pattern for Bill Clinton  – “blaming the Israeli prime minister for the lack of progress toward peace with the Palestinians.” What do we learn from this? Former secretary of state Hillary Clinton holds hands with her husband former president Bill Clinton at the 37th Harkin Steak Fry in Iowa. (Jim Young/Reuters) 1. Democrats in private seem always to bash our ally Israel and never to criticize the Palestinians. If you believe what people say in private or off-script is more revealing of their real thinking, then you can conclude an anti-Israel bias is now a sort of sign of solidarity among Democrats. At the State Department, as we have seen from John Kerry’s utterances and the Israel bashing from negotiator Martin Indyk, it’s par for the course. 2. Bill Clinton still plays loose with the facts. He opined that “don’t forget, both [former Palestinian leader Yasser] Arafat and [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas later tried to say they would take [the Camp David deal]. They said, ‘We changed our minds, we want it now.’ But by then, they had a government that wouldn’t give it to them.” This is nonsense. It was Clinton who complained bitterly to the incoming Bush administration that Arafat was a snake in the grass and not to be trusted. He of course initiated the intifada, which was Arafat’s real response to the attempt to broker peace. As for Abbas, he was given an even better deal by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and turned it down. Netanyahu in 2013, of course, confirmed Israel’s willingness to recognize a Palestinian state. Abbas has never agreed to recognize a Jewish state and give up the so-called right of return. Why does Clinton feel the need to embellish history to make Israel look bad? 3. This does complicate Hillary Clinton’s charm offensive with Israel. She’d like us to believe she’s not like President Obama when it comes to Israel, however relations reached a nadir under the Obama-Clinton administration, and she certainly took to slamming Israel in public for starting housing within existing Jewish neighborhoods. 4. If Bill Clinton is going to keep up the chatter during the presidency, voters may well attribute his comments — and ignorance — to Hillary Clinton or, worse, be reminded that his presence hovering in the White House would make for a whole lot of awkward moments. 5. The same pro-Israel liberals who would defend both Bill and Hillary Clinton also vouched for Obama’s pro-Israel sentiments. In public, Hillary Clinton, like Obama, will recite her pro-Israel credentials, but her words and action in public are more revealing; like so many other Democrats she tends to view Israel as an irritant. (Oh, and those same liberals will vote for her no matter what she says; Israel isn’t high on their priority list as we saw when they helped reelect Obama in 2012. As with defense spending, the war against the Islamic State and a more muscular foreign policy, when it comes to Israel the Democratic Party is going to be pushing against even a president to the right of Obama. He or she will be swimming upstream against a party that has been flowing away from Israel for decades. In the GOP, the dynamic is reversed. The base, especially in light of events during the Obama years, is going to be weighing in on the side of Israel and for a more robust response toward terrorists. These things make a difference. The jist: Hamas has violated many agreements. Israel has kept all. Obama promises to guarantee israel's side, but not Hamas. The man is a Jihadist sympathizer. no other explanation is possible. the evidence mounts daily. Op-Ed: The President's True Colors Finally Revealed by Steven Emerson Jerusalem Online August 17, 2014 When I first glanced at the headline on today's Jerusalem Online and reports in the Jerusalem Post and other Israeli newspapers, I thought they must have been a satire: "Washington officials have told Egypt that the US will grantee Israel's commitment to any agreement signed." But it was not a satire. The was deadly serious, confirmed by other Israeli newspapers and sources in Cairo. The US offering to Hamas to "guarantee" Israeli commitments to any agreement signed? As if anyone needed proof of the Obama Administration's antipathy to Israel, here it was in black and white. If anyone party needed a commitment to enforce its agreements in any deal, it would have been Hamas, that has been known to break every commitment it ever made. To pick just a few at random: Hamas recently violated 9 cease fire agreements, including two of its own Hamas illegally siphoned thousands of tons of cement and steel shipments it received from international donors and Israel that it had committed to use the build the civilian infrastructure in Gaza for hospitals, schools and apartment buildings; instead it spent upwards of $500 million of these humanitarian shipments to covertly build numerous tunnels buried deep underground into Israel in order to carry out murderous raids on Israeli civilian communities intended to kill tens of thousands of Israelis Hamas violated the 2012 Cease Fire negotiated by then State Department Secretary Hillary Clinton together with then Egyptian Muslim President Mohammed Morsi in which Hamas committed to stop smuggling weapons and missiles into Israel, of which nearly 4000 were recently launched into 80% of Israel's population centers Hamas violated the commitment to the Palestinian Authority that it would never launch a coup d'état against the PA after Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. But in 2007, Hamas did exactly that in a bloody takeover of Gaza, kicking out and killing PA officials. Hamas violated a publicly solemn commitment to its own civilians that it would uphold the rule of law (yea, right) when it took over Gaza only to subsequently execute hundreds of dissident Gazans, torture and imprison thousands of political opponents, violently persecute the minority of Christians still living in Gaza and imprison and prosecute suspected gay Gazans. Violating a commitment it made in the Clinton negotiated 2012 truce that it would cease its missile attacks on Israel. And at the same time, it should be noted that President Obama personally signed an official letter at the time of the 2012 negotiated cease fire to Prime Minister Netanyahu that the US would provide Israel with the technology to defeat and stop Hamas smuggling of weapons. But subsequent to that empty promise, Hamas soon received in massive quantities from Iran, Sudan, and North Korea. That promise was never carried out. Israel on the other hand meticulously fulfilled its part of the bargain by severely relaxing the blockade on Gaza, allowing tons of previously restricted cement and steel into Gaza, increasing the number of daily truckloads of food, medical stuff and building equipment through the two Israeli checkpoints into Gaza by more than 250 truckloads a day ( a commitment is still upheld during the Hamas war against Israel, a fact mostly ignored by the mainstream media blindly committed to the Hamas narrative that Israel was the aggressor). Remember when Obama spoke to the annual AIPAC conference a few years back and ceremoniously declared, "I got your back." This is the same President who, as the Wall Street Journal disclosed last week, personally held up the Israeli request for additional Hellfire missiles that it had depleted in its war with Hamas. As far back as 1967, the United States had made a firm promise to Israel that it would never allow the Egyptians to blockade the Straits of Hormuz, considered the lifeline of Israel. But when the Egyptians blockaded the Straights of Hormuz in May 1967, what did the US do? Nothing. And in the current round of negotiations being held in Cairo now, according to leaked details in Egyptian newspapers reported by today's Jerusalem Online Israel agreed to make the following astonishing concessions: "Israel will stop its attacks in Gaza - in land, sea and air. No ground operations will be conducted." Israel has agreed to the "opening of crossings between Israel and Gaza [in which] Movement of people and merchandise will be allowed, to rebuild Gaza." "Eliminating the buffer zone in the North and East of Gaza and deployment of Palestinian military forces starting from January 1, 2015" "Freedom of fishing and action in the territorial waters of the Palestinians in Gaza to a range of 6 miles. The range will gradually be increased, to no less than 12 miles…" "Israeli authorities will assist the Palestinian Authority to restore the foundations in Gaza, as well as help provide the necessary living needs for those who were forced to leave their homes due to the battles. Also, Israel will provide emergency medical attention to the wounded and will supply humanitarian assistance and food to Gaza as soon as possible." It should be noted that even during the recent murderous war waged by Gaza, Israel had opened up its borders to treat wounded Gaza civilians in Israeli hospitals and continued to supply daily more than 500 tons daily of humanitarian assistance and food to Gaza even as the Hamas launched thousands of rockets and attempted mass murder of Israeli civilians by attempts, fortunately thwarted by Israel, to infiltrate dozens of fully armed Hamas terrorists into Israel via the tunnels dug by Hamas. And what did the Hamas commit to? "All Palestinian factions in Gaza will stop the attacks against Israel, in the land, the sea and the air; also, building tunnels from Gaza to Israeli territory will be stopped." That was it. Virtually the same identical commitments it agreed to in December 2012. Quite interestingly, Hamas insisted—which Israel did not agree to—to the immediate opening of a Gaza seaport and airport. But the party that suggested to Hamas that they insist on these demands was none other than the Qataris, the country—which is the top financial patron in the world today to Hamas, the Muslim Brotherhood and many of its terrorist offshoots—curiously selected personally by Obama to be the official diplomatic interlocutor in the Cairo talks. The role that Qatar was supposed to play was to convince the group to make concessions. But curiously the opposite happened. Qatar, the country to which that the US just sold $11 billion worth of military weapons, actually sabotaged the negotiations. So far, the President has been studiously silent on this betrayal. In light of the fact that Hamas has manifestly never upheld any of the commitments it has ever made, the salient question that has to be asked is why Obama did feel compelled to assuage Hamas with an assurance that the US would "guarantee" that Israeli upheld its commitments? The word "guarantee" has a rather expansive and vague latitude for definition. The most recent demonstration of an American guarantee that Israel would halt its defensive war against Hamas was the suspension of critical military deliveries to Israel during the height of the conflagration instigated by Hamas. Indeed, for all the public affirmations made last week—after the WSJ expose-- by the Obama Administration that the US was "totally committed to the security of Israel," Obama suddenly decides to make a promise to Hamas—whose covenant differs not one bit from the fascist radical Islamic doctrine adopted by ISIL—that it would enforce the commitments made by Israel, which in fact have historically been studiously upheld by Israel. If Obama was truly sincere in his now obviously contrived promises to "watch [Israel's] back", he would have offered to guarantee Hamas commitments, a terrorist group that has repeatedly violated its commitments in previous agreements. But with his statement that he would "guarantee" Israeli commitments and not those made by Hamas, the President has revealed his true colors for everyone to see. Steven Emerson is Executive Director of the Investigative Project on Terrorism (www.investigativeproject.org), a non profit group that investigates the threat of radical Islam, author of 6 book on terrorism and national security and executive producer of the award winning 2013 documentary "Jihad in America: The Grand Deception" (www.granddeception.com) Op-Ed: The President's True Colors Finally Revealed When I first glanced at the headline on today's Jerusalem Online and reports in the Jerusalem Post and other Israeli newspapers, I thought they must have been a satire: "Washington officials have told Egypt that the US will grantee Israel's... investigativeproject.org|By Steven Emerson Obama: Whose Back Has He Got? Israel's Or Hamas'?

Has President Barack Obama 'got Israel's back'? When policy is compared to rhetoric, the answer is no. Thus, when Hamas, a terrorist organization which calls in its Charter for the worldwide murder of Jews, launched a new round of rocket assaults on Israel, Obama declared, "We support [Israel's] military efforts ... No nation should accept rockets being fired into its borders or terrorists tunneling into its territory." But Obama's policy is entirely different -- imposing what he calls "an immediate, unconditional humanitarian cease-fire that ends hostilities now." Moreover, Secretary of State John Kerry informed Hamas via Qatar that Hamas' demands for weakening the Israeli blockade would be met. In attempting to reach this cease-fire, Obama has bypassed the Palestinian Authority and Egypt -- Hamas antagonists-- and worked closely with Qatar and Turkey -- both munificent Hamas supporters. In short, the idea that Israel should stop defending its citizens and territory from Hamas assault is not President Obama's policy position -- merely his policy objective. It is surely obvious that if one supports a country dealing militarily with terrorist assault, then calling for an immediate cease-fire that preserves the terrorists' infrastructure and awards them concessions flatly contradicts and nullifies this support. Other developments in recent weeks also suggest that Obama has Hamas' back, not Israel's: 1. He supported the formation of a Hamas/Fatah Palestinian Authority (PA) unity regime, meaning that Hamas, a Nazi-like terrorist organization that calls in its Charter for the worldwide murder of Jews, would be part of the PA. 2. He had Secretary of State John Kerry announce last week $47 million in additional aid to Gaza, which, as Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has observed, "is in effect $47 million for Hamas ... Aiding Hamas while simultaneously isolating Israel does two things. One, it helps our enemy. Two, it hurts our ally." 3. He had the the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) impose, not merely a warning, but an astonishing ban on flight to Israel -- something not see on far more hazardous destinations like Iraq, Pakistan or Ukraine -- creating the suspicion that it was a form of pressure on Israel to agree to his ceasefire. More troubling still is that this fits a pre-existing pattern. Consider the following: Egypt: When in June 2009, Obama addressed the Muslim world in Cairo, he insisted on inviting members of the (then-banned) radical Muslim Brotherhood over the objections of U.S. ally, Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak - though the Obama administration later denied that it did so. (A furious Mubarak refused to attend.) When a groundswell of opposition to Mubarak's rule arose in February 2011, Obama called for Mubarak to step down "now" while his spokesman called for early elections involving "non-secular actors" -- despite the near certainty that radical Muslim groups would triumph in elections. When the Muslim Brotherhood senior leader and candidate for president Mohamed Morsi was, unsurprisingly, elected president, Obama did not discontinue arming the regime. Conversely, when in July 2013 Morsi was ousted by the Egyptian military under Field Marshal Abdul el-Sisi, Obama suspended military aid. Iran: In 2009, when Iranians were brutalized on Tehran's streets for protesting the rigged re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Obama did not call for Ahmadinejad to step down and back democracy protesters -- he pointedly refused to get involved. Last year, following somewhat tightened UN Security Council sanctions on Iran, Obama agreed  to weaken them, granting Iran some $20 billion in sanctions relief over 6 months (not merely $6-7 billion, as the Administration initially claimed) under the terms of the Geneva interim agreement. This permitted Iran to retain intact all the essential elements of its nuclear weapons program - its Arak plutonium plant; continued uranium enrichment; intercontinental ballistic missile programs, even its enriched uranium stocks. (Iran was simply required to reduce these to an oxide, which can be restored in weeks to weapons-grade uranium.) Afghanistan: Last month, President Obama freed five senior Taliban terrorist commanders in exchange for an American serviceman who may have been a deserter.This record speaks for itself. Obama favors accommodation with and empowerment of radical Islam. He has less interest in traditional U.S. allies and is willing to pick fights with them or abandon them. This now appears to be true in respect of his policy toward Israel and Hamas.Indeed, Obama already assisted Hamas' current aggression at the last Israel/Hamas cease-fire in 2012: hepressured Israel then into allowing Hamas to import into Gaza previously prohibited cement and steel. With these, Hamas has spent over $1 billion on constructing, not schools or hospitals, but a sophisticated terror tunnel network that we now know was designed to enable Hamas to dispatch 200 jihadists to carry out mass casualty terror attacks and kidnappings inside Israel on Rosh Hashanah. And yet Obama wants Israel's operation to destroy the Hamas tunnels and rocket launchers to end now, ensuring that Hamas can resume its offensive at any moment of its choosing. This is a prescription for renewed and intensified bloodshed. It certainly not a matter of having Israel's back. Given Obama's record, we shouldn't be surprised. Morton A. Klein is National President of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). Dr. Daniel Mandel is Director of the ZOA' s Center for Middle East Policy and author of  H.V. Evatt & the Creation of Israel (Routledge, London, 2004). This article was originally published by the San Diego Jewish Journal.

 Undermines Israel in Gaza

   Now as Israel goes into Gaza to destroy missile launchers and tunnels used for terror, Obama and Kerry  demands ceasefire. World Jewish digest headline is “Obama undermines Israel”. So what else is new from this terrorist loving president of ours? Recall this? .

Obama Most incompetent, anti American Anti Israel foreign policy ever
1. His administration continually leaks classified documents that endanger our soldiers and especially our ally Israel
2. Said he wants to bring daylight between Israel and 
3 .He bragged about killing Bin Laden, when he hypocritically campaigned against the means they used to find him. That got the actual Seals who killed him so mad they are campaigning against him
4 He hired Muslim brotherhood tied terrorists to be in the USA government
5 Aided Muslim Brotherhood dominated Egypt by reducing helping overthrow Mubarack, their debt and doing military exercises with them, while scaling back our exercises with Israel. 
6.He has stalled and delayed and appeased Iran as they march forward to develop nuclear weapons and daily say they want to wipe out Israel
7.. He has tried to bully, threaten, intimidated and repeatedly turned his back on Israel ( 49 borders, no building in Jerusalem) and had the word Jerusalem removed from the DNC platform as well as Hamas as terror, and Palestinians no right of return,. He realized that Jerusalem's omission was an error and lied and said he did not know, and when he instructed them to put it back, they did, but over a majority loud chorus of boos from the delegates. DNC convention has featured a large Muslim extremist sub convention.
8. Foolishly encouraged and embraced Arab Spring, which is turning into Arab nightmare. g. He forbade the CIA and FBI from using the words Muslim or Islam when they investigate, making it impossible to do their job and called Fort Hood massacre of a Muslim killing our soldiers shouting allah akbar workplace violence.
9. Obama refused to push for Israel to be included in an international terrorist conference. 
10. Makes us more dependent on Arab oil that funds terror 
11. Massive spread of Islamic jihad under his watch-
Libya: he helped push out Quaddafi
Iraq-pulled out after war was won opening way for ISIS
Syria: drew red lines and then ignored them when breached
Hamas: secret talks with this terrorist group while they toss missiles daily at Israel for 6 months and continued to fund PA even after the have unity government with Hamas
Iran: weakened sanctions consistently and now extends talks while they move forward 
12. His record before he entered high electoral politics in 2004, especially his associations with radical anti-Zionists

13. Obama’s favorite foreign leader calls Israelis Nazis Erdogan calls Israel more barbaric than Hitler It is no surprise, with this violent, hateful rhetoric, that there are violent protests against Israel in Turkey. It is also no surprise that Obama would name this vicious Jew-hater as his closest friend among world leaders. “Erdogan calls Israel more barbaric than Hitler,” Times of Israel, July 19, 2014

True anti Israel colors come out
Politics to go: Jeff Dunetz

Hillary Clinton goes anti-Israel in ‘Hard Choices’
    
By Jeff Dunetz
 

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should be happy the news of the Bergdahl release and the ISIS terrorist march on Baghdad overshadowed her gaffe-filled “Hard Choices” book tour. Beginning with her interview with Diane Sawyer where she spoke about being broke and looked foolish answering questions about Benghazi, to her tense exchange about gay marriage to NPR, the content of Ms. Clinton’s book as well as her interviews were panned by pundits and columnists on the left as well as the right. Some of the big left-leaning names bashing the Clinton effort include MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, John Heilemann of Bloomberg, and David Ignatius of the Washington Post among others.

Not mentioned in the criticism are the sections within “Hard Choices” where Clinton makes comments about Israel that may concern people who support the Jewish State.

For example:

On page 302: “When we left the city and visited Jericho, in the West Bank, I got my first glimpse of life under occupation for Palestinians, who were denied the dignity and self-determination that Americans take for granted.”

It’s interesting that when Chris Christie called Judea and Samaria “occupied,” supporters of Israel forced him to apologize. It’s OK however, when Hillary Clinton says it. Additionally, nowhere does Ms. Clinton mention the fact that during her husband’s presidency Yasser Arafat turned down a deal that would have given him about 98 percent of what he wanted (at least that’s what Bill Clinton said).

On page 308: “There has been nearly a decade of terror, arising from the second intifada, which started in September 2000. About a thousand Israelis were killed and eight thousand wounded in terrorist attacks from September 2000 to February 2005. Three times as many Palestinians were killed and thousands more were injured in the same period.” Like many whose political leanings are anti-Israel, Hillary Clinton draws a false equivalency between the terrorist attacks on Israel and Israel’s attempts to defend herself. To follow her ridiculous logic, the U.S. should be chastised because more al Qaeda terrorists died in the War on Terror, than Americans were killed on 9/11/01

 

 

Hillary Clinton's Anti-Israel History

An article appearing in the Jewish Daily Forward announced the formation of "Jewish Americans Ready For Hillary!" A truth those progressive Jews for Hillary ignore, with the possible exception of the time from her first campaign New York’s Senate seat in 2000 to her resignation from the Senate to become Secretary of State in January 2009, except for the time she needed New York’s Jewish voting bloc, Hillary Clinton has never been pro-Israel.

On their website, "Jewish Americans Ready For Hillary!" claim, "Throughout her career, Hillary Clinton has fought for the issues that matter most to Jewish Americans."

Of one issue that "matters most to Jewish Americans," Hillary Clinton is most certainly not a supporter that is the health and security of the Jewish State of Israel.

Even before her marriage to Bill, Hillary Clinton was opposing Israel and promoting the forces of terrorism.  In his book American Evita on page 49, Christopher Anderson writes.

At a time when elements of the American Left embraced the Palestinian cause and condemned Israel, Hillary was telling friends that she was "sympathetic" to the terrorist organization and admired its flamboyant leader, Yasser Arafat. When Arafat made his famous appearance before the UN General Assembly in November 1974 wearing his revolutionary uniform and his holster on his hip, Bill "was outraged like everybody else," said a Yale Law School classmate. But not Hillary, who tried to convince Bill that Arafat was a "freedom fighter" trying to free his people from their Israeli "oppressors."

On page 50 the author relates an experience that Hillary and and her future husband had during a trip to Arkansas in 1973.

It was during this trip to his home state that Bill took Hillary to meet a politically well-connected friend. When they drove up to the house, Bill and Hillary noticed that a menorah-the seven branched Hebrew candelabrum (not to be confused with the more common and subtler mezuzah)-has been affixed to the front door.

"My daddy was half Jewish," explained Bill's friend. "One day when he came to visit , my daddy placed the menorah on my door because he wanted me to be proud that we were part Jewish. And I wasn't about to say no to my daddy."

To his astonishment, as soon as Hillary saw the menorah, she refused to get out of the car. "Bill walked up to me and said that she was hot and tired, but later he explained the real reason." According to the friend and another eyewitness, Bill said, "I'm sorry, but Hillary's really tight with the people in the PLO in New York. They're friends of hers, and she just doesn't feel right about the menorah."

Hillary's attitude did not change when she became first lady. In May 1998 Ms Clinton became the first member of any presidential administration ever to call for a Palestinian State. She told a youth conference on Middle East peace in Switzerland, that she supports the eventual creation of an independent Palestinian state. Her spokesperson, Marsha Berry told reporters: "These remarks are her own personal view."

In November 1999, while on a purported State visit to the Middle East, she publicly appeared with Yasser Arafat's wife Suha. Mrs. Arafat made a slanderous fa allegation:

"Our [Palestinian] people have been submitted to the daily and intensive use of poisonous gas by the Israeli forces, which has led to an increase in cancer cases among women and children." Suha also accused Israel of contaminating much of the water sources used by Palestinians with "chemical materials" and poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gases."

Mrs. Clinton sat by silently listening to a real-time translation, and the terrorist's wife hug and a kiss when she finished speaking.

Later, many hours after the event, and only after a media furor put her on the spot for what many view as a bit more than a mere political "boo boo Mrs. Clinton called on all sides to refrain from "inflammatory rhetoric and baseless accusations," including Israel, whose leaders made no such accusations.

Glossing over this repugnant affair, Hillary Clinton has yet to specifically contradict and denounce the monstrous lies uttered by Yasser Arafat's wife in her presence. Only years later did she make feeble attempt at an excuse, the translator screwed up.

Before her tenure in the State Departing, Bill and Hillary Clinton made mega dollars from their extensive involvement with Dubai. Besides being a leader in the movement to boycott Israel, Dubai is the "Hong Kong" of the Arab world. And a major commerce and shipping point for the "business-side" of terrorism. Bill and Hilary are major friends of Dubai, to the point where the Clinton Foundation have established Dubai Study departments in universities in the US and London. They worked hard at granting legitimacy to this Jew-hating, terrorist supporting nation.

While she was running for President in 2007, San Francisco Examiner columnist P.J. Corkery, wrote that Clinton made $10 million a year from Yucaipa a Dubai firm. Ron Berkle, the owner of Yucaipa companies was a major fund-raiser for Bill and Hillary.

The Clintons also had a connection to the worlds biggest exporter of terrorism, Saudi Arabia, the Saudi Royal Family donated $10,000,000 to the Clinton Library.

According to a 1993 New York Times article, Prince Turki bin Feisal was a college classmate of Bill’s at Georgetown University and (at the time of the article’s writing) was the head of the Saudi Arabian intelligence service. While he was still governor of Arkansas, it looks like Bill Clinton cashed in on that relationship, “work[ing] hard to secure a multimillion-dollar Saudi donation to a Middle Eastern studies program at the University of Arkansas.” Due to the intervention of the Gulf War, the first installment of $3.5 million didn’t arrive until 1992, with another $20 million arriving after Bill Clinton’s first inauguration.

During her Senate years Ms. Clinton became a vocal supporter of Israel because she needed the Jewish vote.

One of her first actions after leaving the Senate to become Secretary of State was to ignore a previous deal with Israel and call for the end of the construction of new homes in existing settlement neighborhoods. Five years later her call for the end of building is till is haunting Israeli/Palestinian peace talks.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton first demanded the "settlement" freeze in 2009 and was quickly backed up by Obama. What she perceived as a minor concession (a "settlement" freeze including no new housing units in existing communities) was for Israel a grave sacrifice. For all intents and purposes Clinton was telling Israeli parents their married children could no longer live in their neighborhoods

This was a major error by the Clinton State Department and it was compounded by their inclusion of Jerusalem in the mix and the constant public berating of the Jewish State by Clinton and Obama.

Clinton's demand for a building freeze in existing settlement communities broke a US/Israel agreement made during the Bush administration. Ms Clinton said there was never an agreement between Israel and the US about natural expansion of existing settlements. But Elliot Abrams who negotiated the agreement for the United States said Clinton’s contention is simply not true.

Immediately the Palestinians seized upon the Hillary-created settlement issue. Seeing an opportunity to avoid talking, they used the administration's demands, to make a "settlement" freeze a precondition to further talks even though there were negotiations and construction going on simultaneously before Hilary Clinton became Secretary of State.

In August 2009 Prime Minister Netanyahu announced a ten-month "settlement" freeze. It was approved by the cabinet and implemented on November 25, 2009 and was to run till September 25, 2010. Despite pressure from the United States, the Palestinians refused to join any talks the first 9+ months of the freeze; they did not come to the negotiation table till September 2010, three weeks before the freeze ended.

As the end of the construction halt approached, the US began to negotiate with the Israel to extend the freeze. Based on their experience with Clinton denying the deal negotiated by Elliot Abrams during the Bush Administration, Israel demanded that any proposal be presented in writing, as any oral deal with Clinton and the Obama administration was worth the paper on which is was printed on.

The written offer never came; the Secretary of State wasn’t negotiating in good faith. Instead Ms Clinton was playing "Bait and Switch." As Israel waited for a letter clarifying America's guarantees in exchange for a proposed building ban for Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria, a diplomatic source finally came forward saying that no such letter is on its way.  The United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton misled Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.The source, a senior diplomat with inside knowledge of Netanyahu's recent meetings in Washington, said Clinton made commitments when talking to Netanyahu, but later slipped out of them by claiming that she had not been speaking on behalf of U.S. President Obama – who, she said in the end, did not give his approval.

In 2011 speaking at the at the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at the liberal Brookings Institute, Clinton expressed concern for Israel's social climate in the wake of limitations the regarding female singing in the IDF and gender segregation on public transportation. Both were accommodations made to the Orthodox communities in Israel

She referred to the decision of some IDF soldiers to leave an event where female soldiers were singing; she said it reminded her of the situation in Iran. It did? Wow! In Iran the women would have been lashed or executed. In Israel they sang, but the people who felt it was against their religious beliefs walked out. Most senior officers in the IDF supported the women's right to sing. 

Clinton also poke of her shock that some Jerusalem buses had assigned separate seating areas for women. "It's reminiscent of Rosa Parks," she said, taking the typical progressive position that faith should not matter outside a place of worship. Clinton's statement was part of the continued attempt by the Obama administration/Clinton State Department to de-legitimize the Israeli democracy and destroy one of the reasons for American support of Israel, the fact it is the only democracy in the Middle East.

Now Hillary Clinton is running for President. She will campaign on the basis that she is a friend of Israel, just as Barack Obama did in 2008. The truth is as Secretary of State; she was the architect of the policy of the most anti-Israel president since the rebirth of Israel in 1948. It was a policy which reflected views she has held her entire life, with the exception of the nine year period where she ran for and held the office of U.S. Senator from New York State.

Obama's complete betrayal of Israel again
From today's world Jewish Digest  6/3/14
Remember all that bunk about Barack Obama being the most pro-Israel president ever, the chief executive who was going to save Israel from itself, the one who always had Israel's "back"?

That same president has sided with unrepentant terrorists who wish to destroy the Jewish state. Indeed, Hamas is proud of its mission, which it broadcasts daily on Palestinian television.

In a turn of events that surprised Obama critics, the president has said he will work with a new Fatah-Hamas alliance whose only purpose is to destroy any chance of peace and work toward the destruction of the Jewish state. The State Department claimed that Mahmoud Abbas had formed a government of "technocrats" with whom the United States could work.

Yes, a government of technocrat puppets whose strings are pulled by terrorists.

Israeli officials were swift to the condemn the move, which they rightly characterized as a betrayal of the longstanding U.S. -Israel relationship.

Reacting to the news last night, Israel's ambassador to Washington, Ron Dermer, said:


“Israel is deeply disappointed with the State Department’s comments today on the Palestinian unity government with Hamas, a terrorist organization responsible for the murder of many hundreds of Israelis, which has fired thousands of rockets at Israeli cities, and which remains committed to Israel’s destruction,” Dermer wrote in a Facebook post. “This Palestinian unity government is a government of technocrats backed by terrorists, and should be treated as such,” he said. “With suits in the front office and terrorists in the back office, it should not be business as usual.”

Another Israeli official added:


“Cooperation with Hamas, designated in the US as a terror group that murders women and children, is unfathomable,” he added.

"Unfathomable" because no one could have imagined that Obama would sink this low, that he would betray the Jewish State to such a degree. But such is his hatred for Israel (and in particular Binyamin Netanyahu) that he will go so far as to contribute to the cause of terrorists whose only purpose is to "liberate Palestine" and murder the Jews.

Any Jew who supports such a president should be ashamed.

Carolyn Glick Sept. 1 2013

For the past two-and-a-half years, Israel has been doing an exemplary job of securing the first interest. According to media reports, the IDF has conducted numerous strikes inside Syria to prevent the transfer of advanced weaponry, including missiles from Syria to Hezbollah.

Rather than assist Israel in its efforts that are also vital to US strategic interests, the US has been endangering these Israeli operations. US officials have repeatedly leaked details of Israel's operations to the media. These leaks have provoked several senior Israeli officials to express acute concern that in providing the media with information regarding these Israeli strikes, the Obama administration is behaving as if it is interested in provoking a war between Israel and Syria. The concerns are rooted in a profound distrust of US intentions, unprecedented in the 50-year history of US-Israeli strategic relations.

Israel, sadly is a partisan issue right now. The problem is ONLY 53% of Dems support Israel by polls while 80% and more of Republicans , Jerusalem was booed at the Dem Convention, Israel has been almost totally surrounded by jihadists under Obama's watch, iran is 4 years closer to a bomb., Obama said early on he wanted to bring daylight to the Israel Us relations. The liberal Democratic Christian denominations just threw Israel under the bus. All 54 Congressmen who signed the Gaza letter were Democrats. i could go on and on. if anyone supports Obama, then that makes it partisan. It is sad, but we have to face reality, We are not writing them off. But in the real world, a vote for many Democrats, especially Obama, is harmful to Israel. Maybe they will be turned around but the trend of Democratic party support for Israel gets worse and worse.

19. DNC removed the word Jerusalem removed from the DNC platform as well as Hamas as terror, and Palestinians no right of return . When they tried to put it back, but over a majority loud chorus of boos from the delegates. DNC convention has featured a large Muslim extremist sub convention.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/SiJqA064idA?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>



The many ways Obama threw Israel under the bus

16. He has stalled and delayed and appeased Iran as they march forward to develop nuclear weapons and daily say they want to wipe out

17. He told Israel no building in Jerusalem

  

18. He told Israel they must return to 49 borders

 Israel, sadly is a partisan issue right now. The problem is ONLY 53% of Dems support Israel by polls while 80% and more of Republicans , Jerusalem was booed at the Dem Convention, Israel has been almost totally surrounded by jihadists under Obama's watch, iran is 4 years closer to a bomb., Obama said early on he wanted to bring daylight to the Israel Us relations. The liberal Democratic Christian denominations just threw Israel under the bus. All 54 Congressmen who signed the Gaza letter were Democrats. i could go on and on. if anyone supports Obama, then that makes it partisan. It is sad, but we have to face reality, We are not writing them off. But in the real world, a vote for many Democrats, especially Obama, is harmful to Israel. Maybe they will be turned around but the trend of Democratic party support for Israel gets worse and worse.

19. DNC removed the word Jerusalem removed from the DNC platform as well as Hamas as terror, and Palestinians no right of return . When they tried to put it back, but over a majority loud chorus of boos from the delegates. DNC convention has featured a large Muslim extremist sub convention.

  

MORE on his mistreatment and endangering of Israel 

a.http://www.worldjewishdaily.com/netanyahu-attacks-us.php position on Iran

b. Scaled back exercises with Israel and increased them with Muslim brotherhood led Egypt while forgiving another billion to them. US 'significantly scales down' military exercise with Israel...http://drudge.tw/TKuosb A smaller U.S. contingent may make it more difficult for the Israeli government to launch a pre-emptive strike on Tehran's nuclear program.

c. Did not press for Israel to be included in worldwide terror conference

d. Blamed Israel 100% for failure to reach deal with Palestinians.

e.Blames Israel for anti semitism through surrogate

 http://rabbisforromney.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-spokesman-blames-israel-for-anti.html semitism

f.Blames israel for gas prices

 http://rabbisforromney.blogspot

.com/2012/08/obama-blames-israel-for-gas-prices.html

g. Won't acknowledge Jerusalem as capital

http://rabbisforromney.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-spokesman-wont-say-jerusalem-is.html

h. Honors anti semites http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/p/honors-antisemites.html

i.. Aiding jihadist nations surround Israel,

 Israel is almost now, under his watch, totally surrounded by jihadist nations, and Jordan will go next. Forced Mubarack, closest US Arab ally out of Egypt, to be replaced by Muslim Brotherhood terrorists.http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/06/obama-betrays-usa-and-israel-encourages.html

http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-acheives-goal-of-muslim.html brotherhood in charge of Egypt

and blames Israel for it

http://rabbisforromney.blogspot.com/2012/08/israel-blames-obama-for-rise-of-muslim.html

j-Israel want Obama defeated

. http://rabbisforromney.blogspot.com/2012/08/from-israel-top-priority-is-defeating.html

k. Betrays Israel with Intelligence leaks

 http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-intel-leaks-betray-israel.html

l. Understanding his anti israel mind set

. http://rabbisagainstobama.blogspot.com/2011/12/obama-anti-israel-president.html

 Why is he anti Semitic and anti Israel

http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/09/why-obama-wants-to-weaken-us-and-israel.html

m. Betrays Israel by weakening Iranian sanctions and opposing helping them with Iran

http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-renders-iran-sanctions.html ineffective with waivers

http://rabbisforromney.blogspot.com/2012/09/wall-stret-journal-today-why-israel.html

n.  helps terrorists

http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/08/obama-more-brazen-is-support-of.h terrorism

http://mustdefeatobama2012.blogspot.com/2012/07/obama-hires-muslim-brotherhood-for-high.html

o Poor defense cooperation, vs what Obama claims

http://rabbisforromney.blogspot.com/2012/09/obama-stabs-israel-in-back-again-and.html appeases Iran

Obama has been a nightmare for Israel, the USA and all our allies, and does nothing as our enemies grow.

What Are the Stakes for Israel? Part One

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary11.04.2012 - 6:25 PM

If you listen to President Obama’s Jewish surrogates, you hear them tell you that Barack Obama is the best friend Israel ever had in the White House. According to the president’s Jewish detractors, he is one of its worst foes and his re-election could lead to its destruction. Where does the truth lie?

Let’s start with one clear fact. Israel’s survival does not depend on who is elected president of the United States. As important as the U.S.-Israel alliance may be — and it is absolutely vital to the state of Israel’s well-being and security — the Jewish state will not collapse if Barack Obama is re-elected. Nor will it enter a new golden age if Mitt Romney wins. Responsibility for Israel’s defense falls primarily on the shoulders of someone who is not on the ballot on Tuesday: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If the president of the United States seeks in the next four years to pressure Israel to do something that will undermine its security, Netanyahu — or one of his opponents, should he fail to be re-elected in parliamentary elections that will take place the day after the American president is inaugurated — can say no, just as his predecessors have done. Israel’s leaders have rarely been shy about taking unilateral or pre-emptive action to forestall a threat, and that won’t change. It should also be pointed out that the infrastructure of the U.S.-Israel relationship is so deeply entrenched into America’s political culture that even should the president seek to significantly alter or undermine that alliance, the political price for such a decision would be so costly as to deter all but the most fanatical ideologue.

That said, there would be significant differences between a second Obama administration and a first one for Romney in terms of the impact on Israel.

The first and most obvious difference will be in terms of the tone of the relationship. Though Democrats have spent the last year trying to make the public forget about it, President Obama has spent most of his time in office feuding with the Israeli government about a number of different issues.

Though Obama has not overturned and has, in fact, strengthened the security relationship between the two nations in some respects (something for which he deserves credit but which was nothing more than a continuation of the policies of his predecessors, as his defenders claim), Obama came into office determined to reverse what he thought was his predecessor’s mistake in being seen as too close to Israel. He succeeded in putting more daylight between the two allies, but that was about all he accomplished. His foolish decision to push hard for another round of talks with the Palestinians just at the time that the latter had signaled their inability to negotiate a peace deal on any terms was his first misjudgment. He compounded that error by pushing the Israelis to make unilateral concessions on settlements that did nothing to appease Arab demands, but ironically put the Palestinian Authority in the position of having to sound as tough on Israel as the Americans. Even when Netanyahu agreed to a settlement freeze, the Palestinians balked at talking.

Even worse, the president established a position on the status of Jerusalem in 2010 that did more to undermine Israel’s claim on its capital than that of any previous American administration. That led to unnecessary and quite bitter fights with Netanyahu that strengthened the Israeli at home and convinced the majority of his people that Obama wasn’t their friend.

Then in 2011, Obama tried to push hard on Israel to agree to the 1967 lines as the starting point for future negotiations. This was a slight, though significant, alteration of previous American positions that was made worse by Obama’s repudiation of Bush’s promises to respect the changes on the ground since 1967 (i.e. the major settlement blocs and new Jewish neighborhoods in Jerusalem).

Even the Iranian nuclear threat, an issue on which Obama has always paid lip service to Israeli concerns, the president managed to turn agreement into dispute by refusing to agree to Netanyahu’s request for “red lines” that would put some limits on the time allowed for diplomacy before action was contemplated. While there are genuine differences between the two allies on Iran, this was one point that could have been finessed had Obama wished to do so. But even after nearly a year of an election-year charm offensive, the president refused to meet with Netanyahu and produce even a limited consensus on the issue.

The irony is that Obama’s spats with Israel were completely unnecessary, as the Palestinians took no advantage of his attempts to tilt the diplomatic playing field in their direction. Nor have the Iranians used the time Obama has granted them, first by his engagement policy and then by a belated sanctions regime that has allowed them to get closer to a nuclear weapon, to come to an agreement that would remove the possibility of a conflict.

Since Netanyahu is the odds-on favorite to be re-elected in January and, barring an unforeseen development, be in office for all of the next four years, should Obama win, the one thing we can be certain of is that relations between the two countries will not be smooth. The variables involve how much Obama has learned from the failures of his policies over the past four years and how much they would differ from what Romney would do.

On the first point, there is room for debate.

It is entirely possible that Obama has learned his lesson, at least as far as the Palestinians are concerned. Anyone who believes that Mahmoud Abbas has the will or the ability to actually negotiate or sign a peace accord hasn’t been paying attention to anything he’s done during the eight years of his four-year term as president of the Palestinian Authority. There is even less reason to believe Abbas’s Hamas rivals will be willing to recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish state no matter where its borders are drawn. Would Obama really be so foolish as to risk another bruising battle with a re-elected Netanyahu for the sake of a peace process that even he must know is doomed?

Maybe. Given Obama’s loathing for Netanyahu and his lack of general sympathy for Israel (as Aaron David Miller memorably put it, he’s the only U.S. president in a generation “not in love with the idea of Israel”), it’s a certainty that he will be picking more fights with the Israeli if he is re-elected.

While, as we have seen, the alliance can survive even four years of near-constant tension, one shouldn’t underestimate the damage these battles do to Israel. They encourage, as they have in the past four years, Israel’s Palestinian antagonists to be even more intransigent. They also help isolate Israel at a time when a rising tide of anti-Semitism is causing Europe to be even more hostile to the Jewish state.

There is little doubt that, despite the ardent defense of his pro-Israel bona fides by Democrats, a re-elected Obama will be inclined to be even more intolerant of Netanyahu and Israel’s insistence on standing up for its rights in the peace process and on the question of the Iran threat. Though Romney’s relationship with Netanyahu is probably not as close as some Republicans imply, it is a given that there will, at least for a time, be more cooperation and a lot more trust between the two governments, even if the vital security relationship won’t be altered all that much.

What Are the Stakes for Israel? Part Two

Jonathan S. Tobin | @tobincommentary11.04.2012 - 8:00 PM

As I discussed in part one of this post, the discussion of the impact of the U.S. presidential election on Israel tends to be exaggerated. Just as it is absurd to speak of a man who clearly has little genuine sympathy for the Jewish state as its best friend ever to sit in the White House (as Democrats falsely assert), it is equally foolish to claim that Israel’s survival hangs on the outcome, since the alliance between the two countries is so entrenched in our political culture that severing it is probably beyond the capacity of even a re-elected president. However, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that four more years of Barack Obama will mean more tension between the U.S. and Israel that will undermine the relationship and encourage the Jewish state’s foes, to no purpose. Yet the inevitable spats over the peace process with the Palestinians pale in significance when compared to what may be Israel’s greatest current security challenge: a nuclear Iran.

Any account of the last four years of U.S. policy toward Iran must begin with the fact that President Obama has left himself very little room to maneuver out of a commitment to stop Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon. The president has been consistent in stating that he will not allow this to happen on his watch since he was first running for president in 2008. Since then, he has repeated this mantra and significantly elaborated on it while running for re-election. He has acknowledged that a nuclear Iran is a danger to U.S. security, rather than just an existential threat to Israel. This past March, the president specifically repudiated the possibility of “containing” a nuclear Iran but said that it must be stopped from attaining such a weapon. During the third presidential debate, he said the only deal he will accept with Iran is one that precludes their having a “nuclear program,” something that would preclude the sort of compromise favored by America’s European allies that would allow Tehran to keep its reactors and fuel–leaving open the possibility of a North Korea-style evasion of international diplomatic efforts.

Yet the question remains what will a re-elected President Obama do if the belated sanctions he imposed on Iran (and whose loose enforcement is itself an issue) do not convince them to give in to his demands? Will he keep the “window for diplomacy” open to allow the Iranians to go on delaying until they reach their nuclear goal? That’s something no one can know for sure, but which must haunt friends of Israel.

The worries about Obama and Iran center on doubts about whether he will keep his word about containment and no nukes for Iran. Given the president’s “hot mic” promise to Russia that he will be “more flexible” with the Putin regime if he is re-elected, it is reasonable to ask whether he will show just as much flexibility on this issue and either punt or craft some compromise that will leave the door open to a nuclear Iran some time in the future.

Obama’s defenders insist that he means what he says about stopping the Iranians. But critics ask why a president who has always shown a greater inclination to talk about the danger than to do anything about it would ever move on Iran. Obama’s instincts have always inclined him toward pursuing the sort of diplomatic activity that allows the Iranians to keep spinning their centrifuges. The president insists that he will not allow himself to be played for a fool by a series of talks whose only purpose is to let the Iranians run out the clock until their program becomes unstoppable. Yet he has specifically refused to agree to the sort of “red lines” that Iran would not be allowed to cross without risking U.S. action. The president’s palpable anger at Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for making such a request reminded observers that throughout his presidency he has always seemed a lot more anxious about preventing the Jewish state from acting on its own against Iran than in stopping the ayatollahs.

Even if one takes Obama at his word on Iran in terms of his intentions, the idea that he has another year or two or three that he can use to wait out the ayatollahs while sanctions weaken them may be mistaken. The staying power of the Islamist regime should not be underestimated. Nor should we assume that there are years rather than months before the Iranian stockpile of enriched uranium safely stored in underground bunkers is so great that force will no longer be an option.

Lack of faith in Obama’s willingness to act on Iran is not just the product of the fact that he seems an unlikely candidate for launching a limited war on Iran over its nuclear program, though that is certainly true. The bigger problem is that the president is so in love with the United Nations and the idea of negotiations that it is hard to imagine that he will ever come to a moment where he will be willing to accept that diplomacy is no longer an option.

It is hardly an exaggeration to say that if Obama cannot be trusted to do the right thing on Iran — even if that means the use of force — that this will have a tremendous impact on Israel’s security as well as that of the United States. Should Israel ever conclude that Obama has no intention of doing more than talk about Iran it may decide to act on its own, a course that brings with it a host of military and diplomatic problems that are almost too great to contemplate.

While there is no way of knowing for sure what Obama will do, the reasonable doubts about him are part of the reason why the Iranians have been so confident about their ability to outwait the West.