Archive for March 19, 2010

Haaretz poll: Most Israelis see Obama as fair and friendly – Haaretz – Israel News

March 19, 2010

Haaretz poll: Most Israelis see Obama as fair and friendly – Haaretz – Israel News.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s popularity may be declining in American public opinion, but a sweeping majority of Israelis think his treatment of this country is friendly and fair, according to a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted this week.

The poll also found that most Israelis don’t believe politicians who call Obama anti-Semitic or hostile to Israel, or who say he is “striving to topple Netanyahu.”

The poll, which was conducted Tuesday and Wednesday and supervised by Professor Camil Fuchs, comes after reports of a crisis in diplomatic relations due to Israel’s announcement during a visit by U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that it will build 1,600 housing units in East Jerusalem.

Advertisement

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s aides said they had hoped the public would rally around him and see him as a victim of overly strict treatment by the Obama administration.

However, there was no significant change in the level of public satisfaction with Netanyahu since the previous poll, conducted six weeks earlier. Respondents’ evaluation of his suitability as premier also remained stable.

It appears the public was relatively unfazed by the Israeli and American media frenzy over the diplomatic drama. Perhaps Israelis are too busy cleaning and shopping for Passover or looking for cheap vacations.

The survey indicates that Netanyahu emerged from the crisis unscathed in the eyes of Israeli public opinion, but the continued construction in Jerusalem should cause him some concern.

Nearly half the respondents (48 percent) said Israel must keep building in the capital, even at the expense of a rift with the United States, while 41 percent said Israel must accept the American demand (and Palestinian ultimatum) to stop building in Jerusalem until the end of the negotiations (which haven’t begun yet). Netanyahu may conclude that at the moment he may have some room to maneuver, but the balance between supporters and opponents of continued construction could easily shift.

A large majority believes Netanyahu is not deliberately causing a crisis to thwart talks with the Palestinians, as some have argued. A smaller majority does not believe Netanyahu should fire Eli Yishai, whose Interior Ministry announced the construction during Biden’s visit. Yishai is not particularly liked by the mainstream, but Israelis aren’t that interested in seeing heads roll – or the coalition destabilized – over this incident.

Though the public remained composed in the face of the diplomatic fracas, poll respondents are not thrilled with the prime minister’s conduct in the affair.

More people said Netanyahu’s behavior was irresponsible than said he acted responsibly. The public seems to be treating Netanyahu harshly; after all, he didn’t plan the badly timed announcement and he did apologize several times. So why is he seen as irresponsible nonetheless?

Perhaps the words “Netanyahu” and “conduct” are a disastrous combination for a prime minister who lost power a decade ago because of improper behavior.

His performance in the first year of his current term is not especially encouraging. As soon as people hear those two words in the same sentence, they give Netanyahu an F. No matter that he didn’t rant and rave, that he made an effort to soothe the Americans.

The prime minister’s aides waited tensely for the weekend newspaper surveys. They believed the public’s heart would be with their man, whom they see as the underdog who was scolded though he did no wrong.

The public has not turned its back on Netanyahu, but it hasn’t applauded his performance either. Perhaps average Israelis cannot, and do not want to, imagine themselves living in a far worse reality than this – without the warmth and light of an American alliance.

Investors.com – Iran As Al-Qaida Base

March 19, 2010

Investors.com – Iran As Al-Qaida Base.

Terrorism: The connections between Islamofascist Iran and al-Qaida have been clear for many years. Maybe now that the architect of the Iraq surge is warning about it, the alarming truth will be accepted.

Gen. David Petraeus, the counter-insurgency expert now heading the U.S. Central Command after successfully turning around the war in Iraq, told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday of Tehran and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist group working together.

Al-Qaida “continues to use Iran as a key facilitation hub, where facilitators connect al-Qaida’s senior leadership to regional affiliates,” Petraeus said. “And although Iranian authorities do periodically disrupt this network by detaining select al-Qaida facilitators and operational planners, Tehran’s policy in this regard is often unpredictable.”

The Washington Times’ Bill Gertz quoted a counterterrorism official within the U.S. government who said “the Iranian government knows” that al-Qaida operatives are stationed in Iran.

The National Counterterrorism Center has reported that “Iran remained unwilling to bring to justice senior al-Qaida members it has detained, and has refused to publicly identify those senior members in its custody.” The Center noted that “Iran also continued to fail to control the activities of some AQ members who fled to Iran following the fall of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.”

For years we’ve heard claims that Shiites like the champions of the Ayatollah Khomeini’s now 30-year-old revolution in Iran and Sunni terrorists like those in al-Qaida simply won’t work together in big ways. But that view was discredited long before Petraeus’ warning this week.

Imad Mughniyah, a high-ranking member of the Iranian-supported Hezbollah terror group who served as liaison between Hezbollah and Iranian intelligence, and who was associated with the Marine barracks and U.S. embassy bombings in Beirut in 1983, was a Lebanese Shiite. But bin Laden was willing to meet with him in the Sudan in 1993 because he was impressed by the embassy attack.

“The two agreed they would work together,” Michael Ledeen notes in his book, “The Iranian Time Bomb.” “Subsequently, Hezbollah trained al-Qaida terrorists in Lebanon, Iran and Sudan. It is fair to say that a great deal of al-Qaida’s methods, technology and worldview came from the Islamic Republic, primarily from Mughniyah.” Mughniyah was assassinated two years ago, possibly by Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency.

Ledeen notes “Iran is a major center for al-Qaida, and the Germans identified roughly a dozen camps around Tehran where al-Qaida terrorists were taken care of by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards.” In addition, Ledeen says: “Al-Qaida and Hezbollah moved gold and diamonds from Karachi to Sudan, via Iran.

IAF strikes in Gaza after Kassam attack

March 19, 2010

IAF strikes in Gaza after Kassam attack.

Obama’s War Against Israel | FrontPage Magazine

March 19, 2010

Obama’s War Against Israel | FrontPage Magazine.

There’s a joke making the rounds in my suburban Chicago neighborhood about the clash between the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government: Why did Vice-President Joe Biden get angry when Israel embarrassed him by announcing new construction in Jerusalem’s Ramat Shlomo neighborhood? Because it’s usually Biden’s job to embarrass himself.

The joke has carried on far too long. The tension between the two governments is being stoked by President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in a deliberate attempt to weaken the coalition of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. If Israel had committed a real foul, the Obama administration could have used a quiet threat of public condemnation to force Israeli concessions, and the Netanyahu government would have little choice but to comply.

Instead, the Obama administration has turned a public relations snafu into a public test of Israeli sovereignty, leaving the Netanyahu government little choice but to resist. The neighborhood where 1600 homes were to be built is not a remote outpost. It is mere meters from the Green Line, in a part of East Jerusalem that is actually west of the Old City. It is likely to remain part of Israel in any future Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement.

The timing of the administration’s attack is unfortunate, for two reasons. One is that Iran continues to move towards becoming a nuclear power. Each day the U.S. and Israel spend on the Ramat Shlomo question is a day wasted, a day that ought to have been spent dealing with our common enemy.

The second reason is that thousands of pro-Israel activists will arrive in Washington, D.C., next week for the AIPAC policy conference. The contrived crisis is a provocation, a message to the grassroots representing the pro-Israel majority of Americans that bipartisan support for Israel is over.

Too late, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has tried to undo the damage that her 45-minute tirade against Netanyahu has done. She denied this week that there was any crisis at all. Yet, Israel’s ambassador to the U.S., Michael Oren–a historian who has chronicled the history of American involvement in the Middle East–has said that “Israel’s ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975.” (Oren has since denied making that statement, but there can be little doubt that the sentiment is widely held among the Israeli leadership).

Riots broke out across Jerusalem yesterday, orchestrated by Palestinian leaders, who have linked the argument over settlement construction to Israel’s reconstruction of a synagogue in the Old City that was destroyed by Jordan after 1948. Their goal is to spark a third intifada by appealing to religious passions among Palestinians and throughout the Arab and Muslim worlds. If they succeed, the administration will not only have harmed U.S.-Israel ties, but it will also have sparked a new terrorist war that could threaten American interests.

As the White House escalates its attacks on Israel, the chorus of anti-Israel voices in Washington grows louder. In 2008, only 27 congressmen–almost all Democrats–could be found to vote against Israel’s Gaza offensive, Operation Cast Lead. In 2009, the anti-Israel ranks swelled to 39 in a vote on the Goldstone Report. And this year, 54 congressmen–all Democrats–signed a letter protesting the Israeli “blockade” of Gaza. Obama leads, and they follow.

The White House wants to make pro-Israel Americans decide: either an Israel within the 1949 armistice lines, or no Israel at all. It is a false choice, because the two options yield the same result. A forced retreat to the Green Line–rejected by U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, rejected by every previous U.S. President, and rejected over two decades of Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy–is an invitation to Israel’s enemies to press ever further.

It is time that pro-Israel activists turned the tables. We must make our elected officials decide: either continue with the current policy of appeasement, which finds new ways to separate the U.S. from Israel; or a policy of strength, which focuses on the values and interests the countries share. A world that is not safe for Jews and for Israel is not safe for America, either. That is the grim lesson of history and, under the Obama administration, we seem doomed to repeat it.

Joel B. Pollak is the Republican nominee for U.S. Congress in the 9th district of Illinois.

Anti-Defamation League Goes After Petraeus, Calls His Views ‘Dangerous’

March 19, 2010

Anti-Defamation League Goes After Petraeus, Calls His Views ‘Dangerous’.

Petraeus

General David Petraeus has come under fire from the Anti-Defamation League for comments he made before the Senate Armed Services Committee this week in which he suggested that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict foments anti-American sentiment due to the perception that the US favors Israel.

“Enduring hostilities between Israel and some of its neighbors present distinct challenges to our ability to advance our interests in the area of responsibility,” Petraeus said Wednesday. “Arab anger over the Palestinian question limits the strength and depth of U.S. partnerships with governments and peoples [in the region].”

In a statement released Thursday, the ADL labeled Petraeus’ views on the issue “dangerous and counterproductive.”

“Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel,” the statement said.

Here’s the full statement via the Washington Independent.

The assumptions Gen. Petraeus presented to the Senate Armed Services Committee wrongly attribute “insufficient progress” in the Israeli-Palestinian peace process and “a perception of U.S. favoritism for Israel” as significantly impeding the U.S. military mission in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan and in dealing with the Iranian influences in the region. It is that much more of a concern to hear this coming from such a great American patriot and hero.
The General’s assertions lead to the illusory conclusion that if only there was a resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the U.S. could successfully complete its mission in the region.

Gen. Petraeus has simply erred in linking the challenges faced by the U.S. and coalition forces in the region to a solution of the Israeli-Arab conflict, and blaming extremist activities on the absence of peace and the perceived U.S. favoritism for Israel. This linkage is dangerous and counterproductive.

// <![CDATA[
document.write(”);
document.write(”);
var debugadcode = ”;
debugadcode = debugadcode.replace(/\’ \+ HPAds.ads_client_side_qvs\(\) \+ \’;/gi,HPAds.ads_client_side_qvs());
document.write(debugadcode);
]]>

Whenever the Israeli-Arab conflict is made a focal point, Israel comes to be seen as the problem. If only Israel would stop settlements, if only Israel would talk with Hamas, if only Israel would make concessions on refugees, if only it would share Jerusalem, everything in the region would then fall into line.

Obama has crossed the line

March 19, 2010

Obama has crossed the line.