Posted tagged ‘President Barack Obama’

Stupidity or malice? The US plans to return stolen Jewish artifacts to Iraq

September 12, 2017

Stupidity or malice? The US plans to return stolen Jewish artifacts to Iraq | Anne’s Opinions, 12th September 2017

Looted Jewish artifacts from Iraq

When the news hit the headlines this week that the US plans to return Jewish artifacts to Iraq – artifacts, it should be noted, that were stolen from the Iraqi Jewish community by the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq and rescued by US forces – I thought the story sounded familiar. A quick search on my blog revealed that this decision had already been discussed 4 years ago! To be honest, I thought that this absurd decision to return the artifacts to their unlawful owners had been shelved once Donald Trump became President. Sadly this is not the case.

The JTA reports:

NEW YORK (JTA) — The United States will return to Iraq next year a trove of Iraqi Jewish artifacts that lawmakers and Jewish groups have lobbied to keep in this country, a State Department official said.

A four-year extension to keep the Iraqi Jewish Archive in the U.S. is set to expire in September 2018, as is funding for maintaining and transporting the items. The materials will then be sent back to Iraq, spokesman Pablo Rodriguez said in a statement sent to JTA on Thursday.

Rodriguez said the State Department “is keenly aware of the interest in the status” of the archive.

“Maintaining the archive outside of Iraq is possible,” he said, “but would require a new agreement between the Government of Iraq and a temporary host institution or government.”

Detail of Tik (Torah case) and Glass Panel from Baghdad, 19th-20th centuries, part of the Iraqi Jewish Archive. (National Archives)

The archive was brought to America in 2003 after being salvaged by U.S. troops. It contains tens of thousands of items including books, religious texts, photographs and personal documents. Under an agreement with the government of Iraq, the archive was to be sent back there, but in 2014 the Iraqi ambassador to the U.S. said its stay had been extended. He did not say when the archive was to return.

Democratic and Republican lawmakers and Jewish groups have lobbied to renegotiate the deal, arguing that the documents should be kept in the U.S. or elsewhere where they are accessible to Iraqi Jews and their descendants. JTA reached out to lawmakers who have sponsored resolutions urging a renegotiation of the archive’s return but did not hear back in time for publication.

Iraq and proponents of returning the archive say it can serve as an educational tool for Iraqis about the history of Jews there and that it is part of the country’s patrimony.

Addressing the points that I highlighted above in bold, Caroline Glick scathingly attacks the “State Department’s strange obsession” while also answering the question in my headline:

The law of Occam’s Razor, refined to common parlance, is that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

If we apply Occam’s Razor to recently reported positions of the US State Department, then we can conclude that the people making decisions at Foggy Bottom have “issues” with Jews and with Israel.

The books and documents were looted from the Iraqi Jewish community by successive Iraqi regimes. They were restored by the National Archives in Washington, DC.

Before Treatment: Passover Haggadah, 1902. One of very few Hebrew manuscripts recovered from the Mukhabarat, this Haggadah was hand-lettered and decorated by an Iraqi youth.

The Iraqi Jewish community was one of the oldest exilic Jewish communities.

It began with the Babylonian exile following the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem 2,600 years ago. Until the early 20th century, it was one of the most accomplished Jewish communities in the world. Some of the most important yeshivas in Jewish history were in present-day Iraq. The Babylonian Talmud was written in Iraq. The Jewish community in Iraq predated the current people of Iraq by nearly a thousand years.

It was a huge community. In 1948, Jews were the largest minority in Baghdad.

Jews comprised a third of the population of Basra. The status of the community was imperiled during World War II, when the pro-Nazi junta of generals that seized control of the government in 1940 instigated the Farhud, a weeklong pogrom. 900 Jews were murdered.

Thousands of Jewish homes, schools and businesses were burned to the ground.

With Israel’s establishment, and later with the Baathist seizure of power in Iraq in the 1960s, the once great Jewish community was systematically destroyed.

Between 1948 and 1951, 130,000 Iraqi Jews, three quarters of the community, were forced to flee the country. Those who remained faced massive persecution, imprisonment, torture, execution and expulsion in the succeeding decades.

When US forces overthrew the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein in 2003, only a dozen or so remained in the country.

Today, there are none left.

As for the current Iraqi government that the State Department wishes to support by implementing its 2014 agreement, it is an Iranian satrapy. Its leadership and military receive operational orders from Iran.

The Iraqi Jewish archive was not created by the Iraqi government. It is comprised of property looted from persecuted and fleeing Jews. In light of this, it ought to be clear to the State Department that the Iraqi government’s claim to ownership is no stronger than the German government’s claim to ownership of looted Jewish property seized by the Nazis would be.

On the other hand, members of the former Jewish community and their descendants have an incontrovertible claim to them. And they have made this claim, repeatedly.

To no avail. As far as the State Department is concerned, they have no claim to sacred books and documents illegally seized from them.

When asked how the US could guarantee that the archive would be properly cared for in Iraq, all State Department spokesman Pablo Rodriguez said was, “When the IJA [Iraqi Jewish archive] is returned, the State Department will urge the Iraqi government to take the proper steps necessary to preserve the archive, and make it available to members of the public to enjoy.”

It is hard not to be taken aback by the callousness of Rodriguez’s statement.

Again, the “members of the public” who wish to “enjoy” the archive are not living in Iraq. They are not living in Iraq because they were forced to run for their lives – after surrendering their communal archives to their persecutors. And still today, as Jews, they will be unable to visit the archives in Iraq without risking their lives because today, at a minimum, the Iraqi regime kowtows to forces that openly seek the annihilation of the Jewish People.

And the State Department knows this.

The question then arises, surely this new American administration under President Donald Trump would be more sympathetic to Jewish concerns, and would overturn this surreal decision made by the Obama administration?

Apparently it’s not so clear-cut. It appears that Trump’s Chief of Staff John Kelly has been blocking most conservative news sites from reaching Trump, thus limiting his awareness of what is happening outside of his immediate circle (h/t Dan Miller in Panama).

Daniel Greenfield reiterates his call to the President – which he made in 2013 to Barack Obama (and which I quoted in my blog post at the time) – and demands that Trump should block Obama’s move to return these stolen artifacts to Iraq: (emphases are added):

… The archive doesn’t belong to the Iraqi government, but to the Jewish population that was ethnically cleansed from Iraq.

The United States recovered the archive and should have turned it over to the Jewish community. Instead we had a bizarre Kafkaesque process in which the archive was restored to be turned over to the thieves who stole it.

Jewish political leaders have invested a lot of energy into looted art in Europe. And that’s a worthwhile cause. Yet this is a far more compelling issue. The archive contains the history of a Jewish community. It matters far more than a Klimt painting. Sadly, the priorities are those of a secular Ashkenazi leadership that is uninterested in the Iraqi Jewish archive because it’s Sephardi and religious.

“This is Jewish communal property. Iraq stole it and kept it hidden away in a basement. Now that we’ve managed to reclaim it, it would be like returning stolen goods back to the thief,” Urman told JTA on Friday.

It’s exactly like it. Meanwhile here’s the bizarre anti-Semitic justification on the Iraqi side for wanting the archive. Here’s Al Arabiya’s explanation

Experts add that Israel is keen on obtaining the manuscripts in order to prove their claim that the Jews had built the Tower of Babel as part of its attempt to distort the history of the Middle East for its own interests.

Wonderful.

Harold Rhode, who discovered the trove while working as a Defense Department policy analyst assigned to Iraq’s transitional government, said he is “horrified” to think the material would be returned when it had been “stolen by the government of Iraq from the Jewish community.”

“It would be comparable to the U.S. returning to the German government Jewish property that had been looted by the Nazis,” he told The Jewish Week.

It’s exactly like it.

I don’t expect Tillerson to care. Between McMaster at the NSC, Mattis on Defense and Tillerson, foreign policy is under the control of the usual Islam Firsters who are very concerned with Muslim feelings, particularly in the oil states, and very little else. And so the old Obama plan to turn over stolen Jewish religious items to a hostile Islamic regime is moving forward.

But President Trump can and should block the move. It’s the right thing to do. And Jewish activists should make that case.

If at the end the State Department’s decision cannot be overcome by President Trump’s executive veto (or whatever it is called in American politics), we can safely say that this decision is motivated more by malice than stupidity.

As before in 2013, there is a petition (possibly still the same one) which you should all sign, demanding that the artifacts do not return to Iraq.

Please sign and share the petition.

FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email

September 24, 2016

FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email

by Neil W. McCabe

23 Sep 2016Washington

Source: FBI Dump Reveals Obama’s Pseudonym Use, Private Email Traffic with Hillary’s Private Email – Breitbart

Is it possible that it goes crazier than this, only if the tell us that the aliens from mars are coming !

The Federal Bureau of Investigation revealed Friday that President Barack Obama used a private email address and pseudonym to communicate with Democratic presidential nominee Hillary R. Clinton and her own private email account as early as June 2012.

Posted at the FBI’s Vault site, the revelation was part of a 189-page document dump of interview notes from conversations its agents conducted about how Clinton handled classified electronic correspondence, other documents, and her private email scheme during her tenure as secretary of State.

Clinton confidante Huma Abedin was interviewed April 5, 2016 in a meeting in the FBI’s Washington field office with FBI agents, her attorneys, and a representative from the Department of Justice’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Office.

During the interview Abedin was showed a June 28, 2012 email sent to Clinton with the subject header “Re: Congratulations!

The Supreme Court ruled that day that the president’s landmark healthcare reform legislation, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, was not unconstitutional.

Abedin told the FBI she had no idea who the email’s sender was and when agents told her it was the president’s pseudonym, she exclaimed: “How is this not classified?”

The confidante also told the agents that the president’s official email account had filters, so that certain emails could not get through to him–which came to her attention because when the former first lady changed private email accounts, her emails were bounced from the president’s official email account.

In addition to the news that the president, like many other members of his administration, used a fake name and his own private email account, it also means that Obama’s public statements about Clinton’s email arrangement were contrary to his own working knowledge and experience.

Obama told CBS News March 7, 2015 that he did not know about Clinton’s private email while she was his secretary of state from Jan. 21, 2009 to Feb. 1, 2013.

Q: Mr. President, when did you first learn that Hillary Clinton used an email system outside the U.S. government for official business while she was secretary of state?

Obama: The same time everybody else learned it through news reports.

In March 2013, The Smoking Gun website posted an article describing Clinton’s private email scheme, but it was not until The New York Times reported March 2, 2015 a full description of how Clinton used not only a private email address, but also a private server, and used this setup for all of her official electronic correspondence when she led State.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest walked back the president’s outright denial March 9:

The president was referring specifically to the arrangement associated with Secretary Clinton’s email. Yes, the president was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her. That shouldn’t be a surprise that the president of the United States is going to trade emails with the secretary of state. But the president was not aware of the fact that this was a personal email server and that this was the email address that she was using exclusively for all her business. The president was not aware of that until that had been more widely reported.

Allen West Warns: Look to Israel For What’ll Happen If We Let Liberals ‘WUSSIFY’ America

March 17, 2016

Allen West Warns: Look to Israel For What’ll Happen If We Let Liberals ‘WUSSIFY’ America

By Breitbart Jerusalem

16 Mar 2016

Source: Allen West Warns: Look to Israel For What’ll Happen If We Let Liberals ‘WUSSIFY’ America

David Silverman/Getty

TEL AVIV – Colonel Allen West compared President Barack Obama to Israeli left-wing NGO head Yariv Oppenheimer, saying, “Oppenheimer and Obama are the reason why we have ISIS beheading, crucifying, slaughtering, enslaving, raping, and committing acts of genocide.”

In an article published Tuesday on West’s website, the former congressman slammed Oppenheimer’s claim that Israelis are “executing” terrorists, and warned that U.S. society was also in danger of breeding “miserable creatures” like Oppenheimer.

On Thursday, Breitbart Jerusalem reported that Peace Now head Oppenheimer had blasted a stabbing victim’s act of self-defense in a terror attack on Tuesday, calling it an “extrajudicial killing.”

Despite having been stabbed multiple times, the victim, Yonatan Azarihab, managed to pull the terrorist’s knife from his own neck and use it to stab his attacker to death.

Oppenheimer also condemned police for shooting and killing the Palestinian terrorist who went on a stabbing spree in Jaffa later the same day, wounding 10 and murdering tourist and U.S. Army veteran Taylor Force.

The Palestinian Authority subsequently made use of Oppenheimer’s words, saying that Israel’s so-called “executions display the depth of the radicalism and the fascism that still rules in the circle of decision makers in Israel in their different political, judicial, military, and media institutions, and they express a wide infrastructure of violent radicalism in Israel in the shadow of the ongoing development of the radical right.”

West laid into Oppenheimer, accusing him of having a “depraved mentality and abject cowardice” for blaming the victims of terrorist attacks.

“What form of stupid would refer to an act of self-defense in killing the person who just stabbed you as a damn ‘execution?’” he wrote.

Where I come from that’s called self-defense. Does Mr. Oppenheimer prefer the Israeli citizen just stay down, bleed out, and die? I laud that man as a hero who stood up and said, you will not flee, I will pursue and kill you with the weapon you just used to try and take my life. That’s the message we need to send to Islamic jihadists.

I’m sorry, but this is exactly what the world does not need: Another doggone Islamapologist who would rather live in subjugation and mask his weakness under some banner of “peace.”

According to the ex-Lieutenant Colonel, the Oppenheimer case is indicative of a huge problem brewing in the U.S., in which liberals expect to make peace with killers.

Referring to Obama’s Iran nuclear deal, West stated, “This is the same idiocy that says we have to have a nuclear agreement with Iran and give them billions of dollars in order to avoid a confrontation.”

West expressed his concern that by giving “wussy boys” and “punks” a platform to express their opinions, Western society is cultivating an environment that shuns “real men of leadership, conviction, and courage.”

He also blasted Obama for throwing a Rose Garden celebration for the family of a deserter who served with “honor and distinction,” while sentencing another soldier – paratrooper, and first lieutenant Clint Lorance – to prison for premeditated murder for killing the enemy.

“It is this society that has demeaned strong men and created a Yariv Oppenheimer — and a Barack Obama,” he wrote.

These types of males are the reason why Parisians were gunned down. These types of males are the reason why women in Cologne, Germany were sexually assaulted and across Europe they’re being raped. These males are the reason why 14 were killed and another 21 wounded in San Bernardino and the response was “gun control.”

 

The Danger of a New Arms Race in Europe versus Russia

June 27, 2015

Cold War Resurgent: US Nukes Could Soon Return to Europe

Washington is once again talking about stationing nuclear warheads in Europe. Russia, too, is turning up the rhetoric. Europeans are concerned about becoming caught in the middle of a new Cold War. By SPIEGEL Staff

via The Danger of a New Arms Race in Europe versus Russia – SPIEGEL ONLINE.

 

It’s been more than three decades since the vast peace protests took over Bonn’s Hofgarten meadow in the early 1980s. Back then, about half a million protesters pushed their way into the city center, a kilometer-long mass of people moving through the streets. It was the biggest rally in the history of the German Federal Republic.

Today, the situation isn’t quite that fraught, but it seems feasible that a similar scene may soon play out in front of the Chancellery in Berlin. For some time now, the Americans have once again been thinking about upgrading Europe’s nuclear arsenal, and in the past week, a rhetorical arms race has begun that is reminiscent of the coldest periods of the Cold War.

Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier warned of an “accelerating spiral of escalating words and then of actions.” He described them as “the old reflexes of the Cold War.”

Berlin is concerned that Europe could once again become the setting of a new East-West confrontation — and that Germany might once again become a deployment zone. A source in the Defense Ministry suggested that “more (military) equipment may once again be stockpiled in Germany.” Washington plans to station tanks, weapons and heavy equipment for 5,000 soldiers in Germany and the eastern NATO countries. US President Barack Obama hopes that doing so will soothe the fears of the Baltic States and countries in Eastern Europe, which, since the Ukraine crisis, are once again fearful of Russian aggression. He also hopes to quiet his critics in US Congress.

For German Chancellor Angela Merkel, this prospect is not a pleasant one. She shies away from publicly criticizing her American allies, but Merkel is loathe to do anything that might heat up the conflict with Moscow. Furthermore, a new debate on rearmament would hardly be winnable on a domestic front. The chancellor would potentially look like a puppet of the United States, one who not only allows herself to be spied on, but who also stands by as her carefully established link to Putin is damaged.

Avoiding Open Disagreement

Moscow sees the American plans as a further proof that Washington intends to expand its military sphere of influence in Europe. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s spokesman has said that “Washington and its partners are clearly aiming for the final break-up of the NATO-Russia Founding Act.”

Berlin, however, does not want to abandon the treaty. Consistent with the treaty, the German government has fundamentally ruled out the “substantial” or “permanent” stationing of NATO troops in the former Eastern Bloc. That wording was chosen to assuage Russian concerns about NATO’s eastward expansion.

The US plans appear designed with an eye toward avoiding an open disagreement. That is why Washington only intends to send a few companies to the border nations, say sources at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The larger part of the brigade will be initially stationed in Grafenwöhr, in the German region of Upper Palatinate. The same is apparently true of the heavy weaponry. The Bundeswehr, Germany’s armed forces, estimates that it will include approximately 100 battle tanks. The German Defense Ministry believes that US Defense Minister Ashton Carter will be discussing the details with German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen during his visit on Monday.

Still, many NATO member states are critical of the plans, particularly in Western Europe. Internally, some are warning against escalating the conflict with Russia. Stationing weapons in Europe is not characteristic of “an exit strategy,” said Luxembourg Prime Minister Xavier Bettel on Tuesday during a visit to Berlin.

The new US plans are only the latest step in an overall period of rearmament, a dangerous development that had already started before the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis. Washington and Moscow have cancelled or undermined one disarmament treaty after another. The end of the Cold War saw the signing of a number of far-reaching agreements pertaining to conventional and nuclear disarmament, from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe to the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty. But now, the agreements, some of which took decades to hammer out, are losing their value. “Moscow no longer believes the West and the West doesn’t believe Moscow. That’s terrible,” declared Mikhail Gorbachev told SPIEGEL in January. “If one side loses its nerves in this inflamed atmosphere, then we won’t survive the coming years,” he said.

Wild Threats

At issue are longer just conventional weapons, but also nuclear arms as well. Moscow is working on modernizing its nuclear arsenal, and has issued some wild threats. A high-ranking official in the Russian Foreign Ministry spoke in March about possibly stationing nuclear weapons in Crimea. And the Americans, too, are considering expanding their nuclear arsenal in Europe. For some time now, Washington has been thinking about positioning nuclear-equipped cruise missiles in Europe, as it did in 1979 during the NATO Double-Track decision that led the trans-Atlantic alliance into the worst crisis in its history.

The American logic is as follows: For some time now, Washington has been accusing Russia of violating the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The legendary agreement, which was signed by US President Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev in 1987, signaled the end of the Cold War. In the agreement, both superpowers agreed to scrap all land-based intermediate-range atomic weapons and to renounce them in the future. Now Washington believes this treaty has been violated, and is threatening to react. NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe Philip Breedlove has already announced that the introduction of a weapon that violates the INF Treaty “can’t go unanswered.”

“We would like Russia, and our Allies, to know that our patience is not unlimited,” said Frank Rose, who is in charge of arms control at the State Department, a few weeks ago. And Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense at the Pentagon Brian Mckeon announced that Washington would develop a response to safeguard the security interests of the United States and its allies and that such a response would involve the stationing of land-based cruise missiles in Europe.

In Europe, these considerations are being viewed critically. When the Americans placed the subject on the agenda of the NATO defense ministers meeting in February, the Germans and the French spoke out against NATO retaliatory measures, not least because there was only shaky proof of what weapons the Russians had actually tested.

The allies are having trouble evaluating whether Moscow actually has violated the INF Treaty, which the Russians vehemently deny. Although none of the European intelligence services have better surveillance capabilities than the Americans, nobody wants to rely purely on US findings. It has become known that Washington is particularly concerned about the R-500 cruise missile, with an estimated range of 500 kilometers, and the RS-26 ballistic missile, which could threaten the entire NATO territory. The US believes that both have been tested in a manner that violates the INF Treaty.

Casting Doubt

The Europeans don’t think that’s necessarily the case. Members of NATO’s Nuclear Planning Group concluded during the last ministers meeting that the refurbishment planned by Moscow does not violate any treaty. Weapons expert Oliver Meier, from the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP) in Berlin, also doubts the US claims: “The RS-26 definitely does not violate the INF Treaty,” he says.

But President Obama is under enormous pressure from Congress, wiht lawmakers accusing Obama of being far too willing to give in to Putin. During a hearing several months ago, a number of representatives repeatedly interrupted Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Rose Gottemoeller.

But Moscow too is increasly casting doubt on the INF Treaty. “It is only a scrap of paper,” says military expert Victor Murachovski. “If NATO planes can now already reach Saint Petersburg in five minutes from Estonia, and NATO warships are cruising around the Baltic Sea and Black Sea, then this agreement is worthless for Russia.”

In German military circles, though, people are interpreting the Russian saber-rattling as a sign of weakness. Unlike during the Cold War, the Russians do not have as many conventional weapons as NATO. In response, Moscow — like the West during the Cold War — intends to rely on nuclear deterrence.

The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, currently does “not see any substantial change to the danger” posed by Russia. The nuclear threats by Moscow — Putin announced his intention to acquire 40 intercontinental missiles — were described by BND Vice-President Guido Müller, in a secret meeting in front of select lawmakers, as little more than a “propaganda show.”

According to Müller, the refurbishment plans are well known. Since a speech by Putin at the end of 2014, the upgrade has been seen as a fait accompli by the German intelligence agency. But analysts at the BND believe the chances of success are not high: Purely from a technical standpoint, the modernization of the 40 nuclear warheads in such a short period of time is hardly possible, the BND vice-president said. Russia experts at the BND describe it as “passive aggressive behavior.” What’s important to Putin is its effect on his opponent, not the degree to which his statements are true.

‘A Great Deal of Concern’

For the German government, the prospect of nuclear rearmament would be a nightmare. In the early 1980s, millions of people in Germany, as well as in Italy and the Netherlands, took to the streets because they feared a nuclear war in Europe. As an answer to the Soviet SS-20 nuclear missiles, the Western allies had provided Moscow with a proposal: They were prepared to negotiate about the disarmament of these types of systems, but if the Soviet side wasn’t prepared to compromise, the West would station about 600 nuclear missiles on its side. And that’s exactly what happened.

For the German government, even the discussion about intermediate-range missiles is touchy. A huge majority of Germans don’t want new American nuclear weapons in Europe. On the contrary, they would prefer to see the last American B-61 atomic bombs stored near Büchel, in western Germany, removed.

The Social Democrats in particular remember the Nato Double-Track Decision with horror. It indirectly cost Chancellor Helmut Schmidt his office in 1982, and led the SPD to the precipice of division. It also contributed significantly to the rise of the Green Party. A new rearmament would test the party’s ability to stay together, and also erase all chance of a new coalition with the Green Party for the foreseeable future. Rolf Mützenich, deputy floor leader of the SPD in German parliament, is watching developments with “a great deal of concern.”

At the end of the 1970s, NATO’s armament plans were tied to an offer of dialogue. Today too, the West is emphasizing the need to remain in talks with Putin, but the venues that existed for such dialogue before Ukraine crisis, like the G-8 and the Nato-Russia Council, have all been put on ice. For this reason, Green politician Jürgen Trittin is pushing the German government to immediately begin an initiative to revive the Nato-Russia Council. “We are experiencing a dynamic that can quickly lead to a real arms race,” the senior Green Party member warns. Measures need to be put into place, he believes, to interrupt the “tit-for-tat” spiral. For this, the Nato-Russia Council would once again need to become a “site of dialogue.” What’s needed at the moment, he argues, is “talking instead of arming.”

Reported by Florian Gathmann, Matthias Gebauer, Christiane Hoffmann, Gordon Repinski, Matthias Schepp, Christoph Schult and Klaus Wiegrefe

Obama Hosts Israel-Haters at Iftar Dinner ‘President’s Table’

June 24, 2015

Obama Hosts Israel-Haters at Iftar Dinner ‘President’s Table’

by Jordan Schachtel23 Jun 2015Washington, DC

via Obama Hosts Israel-Haters at Iftar Dinner ‘President’s Table’ – Breitbart.

Rex Features via AP Images

 

President Barack Obama hosted two radical anti-Israel activists, Riham Osman and Batoul Abuharb of Houston, Texas, on Tuesday night. They both had the honor of sitting at Mr. Obama’s exclusive “President’s Table” at the annual White House Iftar dinner. Both have publicly stated that they consider Israel and its leadership to be sponsors of terroristic acts.

Riham Osman, seated at the “President’s Table” Tuesday night, is the communications coordinator for the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), a group founded by members of the Muslim Brotherhood that has challenged the U.S. designation of Hamas and Hezbollah as terrorist groups.

Osman herself has engaged in toxic rhetoric when it comes to the state of Israel.

In March, she described Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as sponsors of terrorism. 

On July 28, 2014, during Israel’s defensive war against Palestinian terror group Hamas, Osman claimed that the Jewish state “murdered 1,000 innocent civilians.” The same day, she opined that if “the devil was in human form,” it would “look, speak, and act like Netanyahu.”

Screen Shot 2015-06-23 at 8.48.57 PM

Batoul Abuharb, who was listed as having attended the White House dinner and was seated at the president’s table, has in the past revealed herself as a fierce opponent of Israel. 

In the midst of the 2014 war between Israel and Hamas, Abuharb wrote a perfervid article in the Huffington Post titled, “Dispatch from Gaza: Four-Letter Words.”

Abuharb described her “paralyzing fear” in Gaza during Israel’s “military assault,” without bothering to mention that Israel was responding to Hamas rocket fire on Israeli population centers. Abuharb, who lays blame on the “occupation” for the problems in Gaza, not once mentions the existence of Hamas, the militant jihadist group that rules the strip. In another interview, Abuharb described what she witnessed was “true terror” on the part of Israel.

The 2014 war was initiated by Hamas, a Palestinian jihadist group designated as a terrorist organization by the United States. During the war, Hamas employed several guerrilla techniques in gross violation of international law, including using women and children as human shields and storing rockets in UN children’s schools.

 

Iran Announces Film to Celebrate Israel’s Coming Destruction

April 8, 2015

Contentions

Iran Announces Film to Celebrate Israel’s Coming Destruction

Michael Rubin | @mrubin1971 04.08.2015 – 11:30 AM

via Iran Announces Film to Celebrate Israel’s Coming Destruction – Commentary Magazine Commentary Magazine.

 

President Barack Obama has dismissed arguments that U.S. negotiators should demand that Iran recognize Israel and Israel’s right to exist as part of any final agreement. To do so would be too difficult, the president argues, and not relevant to the narrow goal at hand which is simply to strike an accord to constrain Iran’s nuclear breakout ability for a decade or so. Perhaps no statement better illustrates the moral and cultural equivalence that infuses President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry.

It is akin to saying North Korea seeks South Korea’s destruction and it would be too complicated to impede Pyongyang’s murderous intent. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expansionist intent? Well, let’s not let his imperialist ambitions toward the Baltics, Poland, and the rest of Ukraine get in the way of our diplomacy.

The Iranian regime’s character isn’t some inconvenient detail; it is the central problem. And as if to underline the problem, the Islamic Republic has announced a new documentary film which will celebrate the life of Qods Force Commander Qassem Soleimani. It’s bad enough lionizing a master terrorist responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan. But the description of the film is even more telling: The film Commander will depict Iran’s and Soleimani’s strategic approach to destroy not only the Islamic State but also “the Zionist regime.” Importantly, the article describing the film was published after agreement on a nuclear framework between the P5+1 and Iran. Let’s hope that with their willful naivete, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry don’t get credit for small but important bit roles.

Kerry Says ISIS ‘Insults the Religion They Falsely Represent’

February 10, 2015

The self-appointed Secretary of Religion has ex-communicated Muslim terrorists from Islam.

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: February 10th, 2015

via The Jewish Press » » Kerry Says ISIS ‘Insults the Religion They Falsely Represent’.

I,am not able due health reasons to place a picture of this something here

 

Secretary of State John Kerry clearly placed the Islamic State (ISIS) out of the realm of Islam, or even radical Islam, and declared that its terrorists “are an insult to the religion they falsely claim to represent.”

Kerry’s statement Tuesday, following the announcement that American aid worker and ISIS hostage Kayla Mueller has been confirmed dead, came one day after President Barack Obama did not refer to radical Islamists as such but instead commented here on “vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shoot a bunch of folks in a deli in Paris.”

Kerry made it clear that “ISIL, and ISIL alone, is the reason Kayla is gone,” but he then disassociated them from Islam, to wit:

Like our friends in Jordan, our resolve is unshaken to defeat this vile and unspeakably ugly insult to the civilized world and to defeat terrorists whose actions – killing women, killing children, burning people alive – are an insult to the religion they falsely claim to represent.

Eulogizing Mueller, Kerry said that she was “a compassionate young American who represented everything good about the human spirit.”

He added, “She so purposefully had one mission in life from the very start, and that was to help people…. She embraced children who had lost their parents. She comforted the sick and the wounded…. Kayla’s sense of values, her humanity and generosity, her idealism – this is what will endure, and it will endure long, long after the barbarity of ISIL is defeated.”

If Kerry can say that the Islamic State falsely represents Islam, can he say the same about Islamic Jihad, Hamas, Taliban, Al Qaeda and their jihadist allies?

If the Islamic State is not defined as radical Islam, will its eventual defeat mean that radical Islam is guaranteed a long life?