Posted tagged ‘President Barack Obama’

Obama Defends Islam, Smacks Israel, American Racism at UN

September 24, 2014

Obama Defends Islam, Smacks Israel, American Racism at UN

via Obama Defends Islam, Smacks Israel, American Racism at UN.

24 Sep 2014, 8:26 AM PDT

 

On Wednesday, on the first anniversary of President Barack Obama’s speech to the United Nations in which he called for ouster of Syrian dictator Bashar Assad, Obama attempted to rally support for his airstrikes against Assad’s terrorist opposition. Taking on issues ranging from Iran to Russia, from Ukraine to Syria, from global warming to Ebola, Obama pledged to utilize American might in service to the United Nations, speaking grandly of the beauty and power of the world’s least effective and most morally bankrupt international institution.

Obama opened with a Dickensian world of Manichean opposites:

Mr. President, Mr. Secretary General, fellow delegates, ladies and gentlemen: we come together at a crossroads between war and peace; between disorder and integration; between fear and hope.

He then offered delegates a choice between paper and plastic.

Actually, he stated that the world has never been better off, praising the increase of member states at the UN and the decrease in poverty (neglecting, of course, that that decrease in poverty is a direct result of the rise of global capitalism), as well as the iPhone. “I often tell young people in the United States that this is the best time in human history to be born, for you are more likely than ever before to be literate, to be healthy, and to be free to pursue your dreams,” Obama said, apparently forgetting the last two decades of human history.

But, said Obama, there are a few problems with which we have to contend: Ebola, Russian aggression, “brutality of terrorists” in Syria and Iraq. And those problems, Obama continued, are “symptoms of a broader problem – the failure of our international system to keep pace with an interconnected world.” Incredibly enough, the rise of disease, Obama believes, is because we haven’t invested enough in the United Nations, not because incompetent regimes upheld by the UN have failed their people. In amazingly hypocritical fashion, Obama – a man elected on the basis of his undercutting of George W. Bush’s Iraq war, a war based almost entirely on enforcement of UN resolutions — said that terrorism has flourished because “we have failed to enforce international norms when it’s inconvenient to do so.”

Obama said America chooses “hope over fear.”

According to Obama, that choice entails standing up to Russia – presumably, by doing nothing. Obama stated that Russia’s worldview was that “might makes right,” that their vision was of a “world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed.” Obama then contrasted that vision with America’s:

America stands for something different. We believe that right makes might – that bigger nations should not be able to bully smaller ones; that people should be able to choose their own future.

Right, of course, does not make might. To believe in that vision is idiotic. Right must build might in order to enforce right. But Obama’s unceasing belief in the power of his own verbiage means that he thinks he can simply talk Russia into backing off:

We call upon others to join us on the right side of history – for while small gains can be won at the barrel of a gun, they will ultimately be turned back if enough voices support the freedom of nations and peoples to make their own decisions.

Obama went on to suggest that Russia should use “the path of diplomacy and peace,” citing our signing of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which Russia has been routinely cheating. “That’s the kind of cooperation we are prepared to pursue again,” Obama said.

To which Vladimir Putin has formally responded: “ROFLMAO.”

Obama then turned to Ebola, stating that we’re sending troops to West Africa; he turned to Iran, where he said that “we can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful.”

To which the mullahs have formally responded: “LOLWUT.”

Obama next addressed China’s aggression in the South China Sea, suggesting that America will insist “that all nations abide by the rules of the road, and resolve their territorial disputes peacefully, consistent with international law.”

To which China has formally responded: “SMDH.”

Then Obama went on his world-beating rant: he said that America would help “eradicate extreme poverty by 2030.” Not through capitalism, mind you: through foreign aid. He said that America would cut our own carbon emissions. He spouted trite slogans: “On issue after issue, we cannot rely on a rule-book written for a different century. If we lift our eyes beyond our borders – if we think globally and act cooperatively – we can shape the course of this century as our predecessors shaped the post-World War II age.”

Finally, he turned to the actual pressing issue of the day, Islamic terrorism. And he proceeded to explain that Islam is a religion of peace, no different from any other, and defend his reactive foreign policy as somehow proactive.

I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Rather, we have waged a focused campaign against al Qaeda and its associated forces – taking out their leaders, and denying them the safe-havens they rely upon. At the same time, we have reaffirmed that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace. Muslims the world over aspire to live with dignity and a sense of justice. And when it comes to America and Islam, there is no us and them – there is only us, because millions of Muslim Americans are part of the fabric of our country.

He stated that America rejected “any suggestion of a clash of civilization.” Our opponents have not done the same, of course. But Obama stated that we could fight those “religiously motivated fanatics” – fanatics who have nothing to do with Islam, of course, even if they are universally Muslim – by providing food and water and jobs. Obama’s Marxist foreign policy has never wavered: he believes that inequality, not religious conflict, lies at the root of Islamist enmity for the West.

Obama laid out a four-pronged plan for fighting terrorism.

First, he said that ISIL had to be “degraded, and ultimately destroyed.” And once again, he emphasized that ISIL was not Islamic, and once again, he ruled out utilizing American troops.

Second, Obama said that Muslim communities had to “explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of al Qaeda and ISIL.” In the process, he praised Islam as part of a family of religions that “accommodate devout faith with a modern, multicultural world,” and added that “All religions have been attacked by extremists from within at some point, and all people of faith have a responsibility to lift up the value at the heart of all religion: do unto thy neighbor as you would have done unto you.”

His solution: talking about how ISIL and al Qaeda and Boko Haram are bad. Obama’s faith in words is absolutely unshakeable, as he made clear: “The ideology of ISIL or al Qaeda or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed, confronted, and refuted in the light of day.” Hilariously, Obama explained that the UN Security Council would pass a resolution about combating “violent extremism,” but refused to explain what steps would actually be taken to do so, instead putting that discussion off for “next year.”

Third, Obama stated, sectarian conflict must end. How? Obama didn’t say. But he did pooh-pooh Muslim sectarian conflict as the religious norm:

There is nothing new about wars within religions. Christianity endured centuries of vicious sectarian conflict. Today, it is violence within Muslim communities that has become the source of so much human misery. It is time to acknowledge the destruction wrought by proxy wars and terror campaigns between Sunni and Shia across the Middle East. And it is time that political, civic and religious leaders reject sectarian strife. Let’s be clear: this is a fight that no one is winning.

Flipping through his trusty rhetorical playbook, Obama neglected any realistic solution to these sectarian conflicts, but did come up with this hackneyed chestnut:

Cynics may argue that such an outcome can never come to pass. But there is no other way for this madness to end – whether one year from now or ten. Indeed, it’s time for a broader negotiation in which major powers address their differences directly, honestly, and peacefully across the table from one another, rather than through gun-wielding proxies. I can promise you America will remain engaged in the region, and we are prepared to engage in that effort.

Fourth, Obama proposed, Arab and Muslim countries had to focus on “the extraordinary potential of their people – especially the youth.” He said that young Muslims “come from a great tradition that stands for education, not ignorance; innovation, not destruction; the dignity of life, not murder. Those who call you away from this path are betraying this tradition, not defending it.” That is the same message Obama and his minions have been braying for years at this point. No one, apparently, is listening.

And then Obama dropped the other shoe. After spending fifteen minutes blabbering about the glories and wonders of Islam, even as he decried extremism and sectarianism, Obama proceeded to blame Israel for conflict in the Middle East:

Leadership will also be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will never give up the pursuit of peace. The situation in Iraq, Syria and Libya should cure anyone of the illusion that this conflict is the main source of problems in the region; for far too long, it has been used in part as a way to distract people from problems at home. And the violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace. But let’s be clear: the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort – not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am President, we will stand up for the principle that Israelis, Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just with two states living side by side, in peace and security.

The Israelis may not be the “main source of problems in the region,” but by pressuring Israel before the entire world just weeks after Hamas continuously fired rockets into Israel and shielded its own rockets with children, Obama demonstrates his distaste for the Jewish State, and his desire to cast them as a bleeding abscess leading to more violence. The moral equivalence here was stunning, unjustifiable, and purely disgusting.

As Obama moved toward his conclusion, he finally turned inward, apologizing for America yet again:

I realize that America’s critics will be quick to point out that at times we too have failed to live up to our ideals; that America has plenty of problems within our own borders. This is true. In a summer marked by instability in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, I know the world also took notice of the small American city of Ferguson, Missouri – where a young man was killed, and a community was divided. So yes, we have our own racial and ethnic tensions. And like every country, we continually wrestle with how to reconcile the vast changes wrought by globalization and greater diversity with the traditions that we hold dear.

Ferguson? Really? This is just the latest incident in which President Obama has condemned a private citizen before the world. In 2012, it was a filmmaker who guilty of provoking Islamic rage; today, it’s Officer Darren Wilson in Ferguson, Missouri, who has provoked America’s racial conflict. The United Nations has become a wonderful place for President Obama to convict American citizens.

Obama concluded with his campaign stump speech:

After nearly six years as President, I believe that this promise can help light the world. Because I’ve seen a longing for positive change – for peace and freedom and opportunity – in the eyes of young people I’ve met around the globe. They remind me that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like, or what God you pray to, or who you love, there is something fundamental that we all share.

America shares virtually nothing with the other member states at the UN. But President Obama shares a lot with them: a desire for America to take a secondary role in the world affairs, a desire for Israel to surrender in the face of its enemies, a desire for talk rather than action, a desire to demean the United States on the global stage.

Obama Calls on UN to Dismantle ISIS ‘Network of Death’

September 24, 2014

Obama Calls on UN to Dismantle ISIS ‘Network of Death

‘Wednesday, 24 Sep 2014 10:56 AM

via Obama Calls on UN to Dismantle ISIS ‘Network of Death’.

 

U.S. President Barack Obama addresses the 69th United Nations General Assembly
at U.N. headquarters in New York. (Kevin Lamarque/Reuters/Landov)
 

Declaring the world at a crossroads between war and peace, President Barack Obama vowed at the U.N. on Wednesday to lead a coalition to dismantle an Islamic State “network of death” that has wreaked havoc in the Middle East and drawn the U.S. back into military action in the region.

Speaking to the annual gathering of the United Nations General Assembly, Obama said the U.S. would be a “respectful and constructive partner” in confronting the Islamic State militants through force. But he also implored Middle Eastern nations to take the lead in addressing the conditions that have sparked the rise of extremists and to cut off funding to terror groups.

“Ultimately, the task of rejecting sectarianism and extremism is a generational task — a task for the people of the Middle East themselves,” Obama said. “No external power can bring about a transformation of hearts and minds.”

The president’s remarks came against the backdrop of an expanded U.S. military campaign against the Islamic State group, with airstrikes now hitting targets in both Iraq and Syria. A coalition of five Arab nations joined the U.S. this week in the strikes in Syria: Bahrain, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and Qatar.

The U.S. also opened another military front with airstrikes this week against a new al-Qaida cell that the Pentagon said was “nearing the execution phase” of a direct attack on the U.S. or Europe.

The threats have drawn Obama back into conflicts in the Middle East that he has long sought to avoid, particularly in Syria, which is mired in a bloody three-year civil war. Just months ago, the president appeared to be on track to fulfill his pledge to end the U.S.-led wars he inherited in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Yet the militant threat in the Middle East is just one in a series of global crises that have tested Obama this year. Russia has repeatedly flouted warning from the U.S. and Europe to stop its threatening moves in Ukraine. And leaders in West Africa have criticized Obama for not doing more to help combat an Ebola outbreak that is believed to have infected more than 5,800 people in Liberia, Sierra Leone, Guinea, Nigeria and Senegal.

Obama took on Russia directly in his remarks, accusing Moscow of sending arms to pro-Kremlin separatists, refusing to allow access to the site of a downed civilian airliner and then moving its own troops across the border with Ukraine.

“This is a vision of the world in which might makes right, a world in which one nation’s borders can be redrawn by another, and civilized people are not allowed to recover the remains of their loved ones because of the truth that might be revealed,” Obama said. “America stands for something different.”

Still, Obama held open the prospect of a resolution to the monthslong conflict between Russia and Ukraine. While he has previously expressed skepticism about a fragile cease-fire signed earlier this month, he said Wednesday that the agreement “offers an opening” for peace.

If Russia follows through on the agreement, Obama said the U.S. will lift economic sanctions that have damaged Russia’s economy but so far done little to shift President Vladimir Putin’s approach.

As Obama spoke, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov sat in the audience at the U.N., staring down at a stack of papers without glancing up at Obama.

Campaign to Destroy ISIS Could Take Years

September 8, 2014

Campaign to Destroy ISIS Could Take Years

via Campaign to Destroy ISIS Could Take Years.

 

Islamic State fighters in Syria’s northern Raqqa province. (Stringer/Reuters/Landov)

Monday, 08 Sep 2014 08:02 AM

By Melanie Batley

This can not be just plain stupidity

The Obama administration is gearing up for a campaign against the Islamic State (ISIS) that is expected to take up to three years to complete, The New York Times reported.

According to senior officials, the operation will be conducted in three phases, continuing past the end of President Barack Obama’s term in office, but as the president has previously stressed, there are no plans to use ground troops.

“What I want people to understand is that over the course of months, we are going to be able to not just blunt the momentum” of ISIS. “We are going to systematically degrade their capabilities; we’re going to shrink the territory that they control; and, ultimately, we’re going to defeat them,” Obama said in an interview aired Sunday on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

The first phase of the mission, currently underway, has consisted of air strikes to halt the advance of the extremist group and protect religious minorities as well as American diplomatic, intelligence, and military personnel.

Phase two will be intended to train, advise, and equip the Iraqi military, Kurdish fighters, and possibly members of Sunni tribes, and is expected to begin after Iraq forms a more inclusive government which is scheduled for this week.

The last part of the offensive would destroy the group’s military capabilities inside Syria, with a campaign lasting at least 36 months. This part of the operation is expected to be the most politically controversial, according to the Times.

Meanwhile, the administration is working to solidify an international coalition to join the effort. Officials say that the countries committed to varying levels of help include Britain, Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel is also working to secure the support of Turkey, whose location is seen as strategically crucial to stopping foreign fighters from joining ISIS and allowing the American military to launch operations from bases in the country.

Differences, however, are expected to emerge on the issue of airstrikes in Syria.

“Everybody is on board Iraq,” one administration official told the Times. “But when it comes to Syria, there’s more concern” about where airstrikes could lead.

At the same time, the official said that the administration expects countries to ultimately agree to the plan because “there’s really no other alternative.”

Off topic: Ex-NSA Director, US Intelligence Veterans Write Open Letter To Merkel To Avoid All-Out Ukraine War

September 2, 2014

via Ex-NSA Director, US Intelligence Veterans Write Open Letter To Merkel To Avoid All-Out Ukraine War | Zero Hedge.

Ex-NSA Director, US Intelligence Veterans Writes Open Letter To Merkel to Avoid All-Out Ukraine War

Alarmed at the anti-Russian hysteria sweeping Washington, and the specter of a new Cold War, U.S. intelligence veterans one of whom is none other than William Binney, the former senior NSA crypto-mathematician who back in March 2012 blew the whistle on the NSA’s spying programs more than a year before Edward Snowden, took the unusual step of sending the following memo dated August 30 to German Chancellor Merkel challenging the reliability of Ukrainian and U.S. media claims about a Russian “invasion.”

Via AntiWar and ConsortiumNews, highlights ours

MEMORANDUM FOR: Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Ukraine and NATO

We the undersigned are longtime veterans of U.S. intelligence. We take the unusual step of writing this open letter to you to ensure that you have an opportunity to be briefed on our views prior to the NATO summit on September 4-5.

You need to know, for example, that accusations of a major Russian “invasion” of Ukraine appear not to be supported by reliable intelligence. Rather, the “intelligence” seems to be of the same dubious, politically “fixed” kind used 12 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-led attack on Iraq. We saw no credible evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq then; we see no credible evidence of a Russian invasion now. Twelve years ago, former Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, mindful of the flimsiness of the evidence on Iraqi WMD, refused to join in the attack on Iraq. In our view, you should be appropriately suspicions of charges made by the US State Department and NATO officials alleging a Russian invasion of Ukraine.

President Barack Obama tried yesterday to cool the rhetoric of his own senior diplomats and the corporate media, when he publicly described recent activity in the Ukraine, as “a continuation of what’s been taking place for months now … it’s not really a shift.”

Obama, however, has only tenuous control over the policymakers in his administration – who, sadly, lack much sense of history, know little of war, and substitute anti-Russian invective for a policy. One year ago, hawkish State Department officials and their friends in the media very nearly got Mr. Obama to launch a major attack on Syria based, once again, on “intelligence” that was dubious, at best.

Largely because of the growing prominence of, and apparent reliance on, intelligence we believe to be spurious, we think the possibility of hostilities escalating beyond the borders of Ukraine has increased significantly over the past several days. More important, we believe that this likelihood can be avoided, depending on the degree of judicious skepticism you and other European leaders bring to the NATO summit next week.

Experience With Untruth

Hopefully, your advisers have reminded you of NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen’s checkered record for credibility. It appears to us that Rasmussen’s speeches continue to be drafted by Washington. This was abundantly clear on the day before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq when, as Danish Prime Minister, he told his Parliament: “Iraq has weapons of mass destruction. This is not something we just believe. We know.”

Photos can be worth a thousand words; they can also deceive. We have considerable experience collecting, analyzing, and reporting on all kinds of satellite and other imagery, as well as other kinds of intelligence. Suffice it to say that the images released by NATO on August 28 provide a very flimsy basis on which to charge Russia with invading Ukraine. Sadly, they bear a strong resemblance to the images shown by Colin Powell at the UN on February 5, 2003 that, likewise, proved nothing.

That same day, we warned President Bush that our former colleague analysts were “increasingly distressed at the politicization of intelligence” and told him flatly, “Powell’s presentation does not come close” to justifying war. We urged Mr. Bush to “widen the discussion … beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.”

Consider Iraq today. Worse than catastrophic. Although President Vladimir Putin has until now showed considerable reserve on the conflict in the Ukraine, it behooves us to remember that Russia, too, can “shock and awe.” In our view, if there is the slightest chance of that kind of thing eventually happening to Europe because of Ukraine, sober-minded leaders need to think this through very carefully.

If the photos that NATO and the US have released represent the best available “proof” of an invasion from Russia, our suspicions increase that a major effort is under way to fortify arguments for the NATO summit to approve actions that Russia is sure to regard as provocative. Caveat emptor is an expression with which you are no doubt familiar. Suffice it to add that one should be very cautious regarding what Mr. Rasmussen, or even Secretary of State John Kerry, are peddling.

We trust that your advisers have kept you informed regarding the crisis in Ukraine from the beginning of 2014, and how the possibility that Ukraine would become a member of NATO is anathema to the Kremlin. According to a February 1, 2008 cable (published by WikiLeaks) from the US embassy in Moscow to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, US Ambassador William Burns was called in by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, who explained Russia’s strong opposition to NATO membership for Ukraine.

Lavrov warned pointedly of “fears that the issue could potentially split the country in two, leading to violence or even, some claim, civil war, which would force Russia to decide whether to intervene.” Burns gave his cable the unusual title, “NYET MEANS NYET: RUSSIA’S NATO ENLARGEMENT REDLINES,” and sent it off to Washington with IMMEDIATE precedence. Two months later, at their summit in Bucharest NATO leaders issued a formal declaration that “Georgia and Ukraine will be in NATO.”

Just yesterday, Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseny Yatsenyuk used his Facebook page to claim that, with the approval of Parliament that he has requested, the path to NATO membership is open. Yatsenyuk, of course, was Washington’s favorite pick to become prime minister after the February 22 coup d’etat in Kiev. “Yats is the guy,” said Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland a few weeks before the coup, in an intercepted telephone conversation with US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt. You may recall that this is the same conversation in which Nuland said, “Fuck the EU.”

Timing of the Russian “Invasion”

The conventional wisdom promoted by Kiev just a few weeks ago was that Ukrainian forces had the upper hand in fighting the anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine, in what was largely portrayed as a mop-up operation. But that picture of the offensive originated almost solely from official government sources in Kiev. There were very few reports coming from the ground in southeastern Ukraine. There was one, however, quoting Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, that raised doubt about the reliability of the government’s portrayal.

According to the “press service of the President of Ukraine” on August 18, Poroshenko called for a “regrouping of Ukrainian military units involved in the operation of power in the East of the country. … Today we need to do the rearrangement of forces that will defend our territory and continued army offensives,” said Poroshenko, adding, “we need to consider a new military operation in the new circumstances.”

If the “new circumstances” meant successful advances by Ukrainian government forces, why would it be necessary to “regroup,” to “rearrange” the forces? At about this time, sources on the ground began to report a string of successful attacks by the anti-coup federalists against government forces. According to these sources, it was the government army that was starting to take heavy casualties and lose ground, largely because of ineptitude and poor leadership.

Ten days later, as they became encircled and/or retreated, a ready-made excuse for this was to be found in the “Russian invasion.” That is precisely when the fuzzy photos were released by NATO and reporters like the New York Times’ Michael Gordon were set loose to spread the word that “the Russians are coming.” (Michael Gordon was one of the most egregious propagandists promoting the war on Iraq.)

No Invasion – But Plenty Other Russian Support

The anti-coup federalists in southeastern Ukraine enjoy considerable local support, partly as a result of government artillery strikes on major population centers. And we believe that Russian support probably has been pouring across the border and includes, significantly, excellent battlefield intelligence. But it is far from clear that this support includes tanks and artillery at this point – mostly because the federalists have been better led and surprisingly successful in pinning down government forces.

At the same time, we have little doubt that, if and when the federalists need them, the Russian tanks will come.

This is precisely why the situation demands a concerted effort for a ceasefire, which you know Kiev has so far been delaying. What is to be done at this point? In our view, Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk need to be told flat-out that membership in NATO is not in the cards – and that NATO has no intention of waging a proxy war with Russia – and especially not in support of the ragtag army of Ukraine. Other members of NATO need to be told the same thing.

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

  •     William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center (ret.)
  •     David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
  •     Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
  •     Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
  •     Todd E. Pierce, MAJ, US Army Judge Advocate (Ret.)
  •     Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
  •     Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret.); Foreign Service Officer (resigned)

GOP Demands Obama Take Action on ISIS

August 25, 2014

GOP Demands Obama Take Action on ISIS

via GOP Demands Obama Take Action on ISIS.

 


Rep. Mike Rogers. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

Monday, 25 Aug 2014 09:16 AM

By Sandy Fitzgerald

 

President Barack Obama returned from his two-week vacation in Martha’s Vineyard on Sunday night to a rising chorus of demands from Republicans wanting to know what strategy he plans to use for defeating the Islamic State before more American lives are lost to the terrorist group.

Republicans have been demanding answers about the IS situation for some time, but after the president’s much-maligned response to the beheading of American journalist James Foley, the questions dominated most of the Sunday morning news programs.

While Obama has been roundly criticized for being on vacation during the Foley murder and the rioting in Ferguson, Missouri, over the shooting death of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, many lawmakers commenting Sunday said they didn’t really begrudge the president taking some time off.

New Hampshire Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte, who is from Foley’s home state, told CBS “Face the Nation” host Bob Schieffer  that she does not mind that the president took a vacation with his family, but said he needs to examine the perception he caused when he went golfing the day after he addressed the nation about Foley’s killing.

“What I want from him is a strategy to defeat ISIS,” Ayotte, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee said of the terrorist group, formerly known as the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). “A containment strategy is not going to cut it: we need a strategy to defeat ISIS.”

And South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham  told CNN “State of the Union” host Candy Crowley that Obama and lawmakers should be looking at ISIS “as a direct threat to the United States, a threat to the region that cannot be accommodated. The strategy has to meet the threat.”

But still, Graham said that he wants a full explanation from Obama if he decides to spread the U.S. action to Syria.

“My concern is that the president’s strategy of leading from behind and [having a] light footprint has failed,” Graham told Crowley. “He has to realize, as President George W. Bush did, that his strategy is not working. President Bush adjusted his strategy when it was failing, and he brought about a surge that worked. President Obama has to admit to himself, if no one else, that what he’s doing is not working.”

Michigan Republican Rep. Mike Rogers,  who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, called ISIS a “a very real threat” that is “one plane ticket away from U.S. shores.”

“One of the problems is it’s gone unabated for nearly two years, and that draws people from Britain to across Europe, even the United States, to go and join the fight,” Rogers said on NBC’d “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

“They see that as a winning ideology, a winning strategy, and they want to be a part of it,” he explained to NBC’s Senior White House correspondent Chris Jansing. “And that’s what makes it so dangerous.”

Meanwhile, House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, R-Wis., also on “Face the Nation,” said that he gets the sense that Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey “understand the gravity of the situation,” reports The Hill.

However, the onetime vice presidential nominee said that he doesn’t necessarily want to hear the president’s response to victories such as the retaking of the Mosul Dam, which had been captured by ISIS earlier this month.

“What I want to hear from our commander in chief is that he has a strategy to finish ISIS off. To defeat ISIS,” Ryan said. “If we don’t deal with this threat now thoroughly and convincingly, it’s going to come home to roost.”

Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain also demanded Sunday that Obama expand his airstrike plan to Syria, so that ISIS will not have a base of operation, reports The Hill.

“There is no boundary between Syria and Iraq,” McCain said on “Fox News Sunday,” telling host Chris Wallace that “one of the key decisions the president is going to have to make is air power in Syria. We cannot give them a base of operations. And we have got to help the Free Syrian Army.”

He said Foley’s killing would hopefully push the Obama administration to define its strategy not only for Iraq, but other parts of the world.

“This is an administration, which the kindest word I can use is ‘feckless,’ where they have not outlined a role that the United States has to play. And that is a leadership role,” he said. “No more ‘leading from behind,’ no more ‘don’t do stupid stuff,'” he added.

Former CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell, now a CBS national security analyst, said the ISIS threat is “the most complex terrorism problem that I have ever seen,” but “there are no magic bullets,” CBS News reports.

“We have to take away their safe haven, their territory. That requires a political solution in Iraq, which is going to require us to continue to press the Iraqis to do the right thing, our Gulf Arab allies to press the Iraqis to do the right thing, Iran to press the Iraqis to do the right thing, and then we need to get a solution in Syria to take that territory away,” Morell said. “The other thing we need to do is take the leadership off the battlefield. We need to identify them through intelligence and then either capture or kill them.”

State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said the Obama administration has “been watching this group for quite a long time.”

The White House has been “assessing its strength and working with partners on the ground, particularly in Syria, the moderate opposition, to help them develop capabilities to go against ISIS … we are actively looking at what other options we have, what other tools we can use now to try to degrade this terrorist group’s capability,” Harf said.

Meanwhile, House Homeland Security Chairman Michael McCaul, R-Texas, said Sunday on ABC’s “This Week” that should Obama decided to expand the United States’ attacks against ISIS into Syria, he should consult with Congress. House here has been a call to expand the United States’ efforts against ISIS, and McCaul said that if President Barack Obama is considering that action, his administrations should be in consultation with Congress.

“So far, they have, under the War Powers Act,” said McCaul. “Once that period of time expires, we believe it’s necessary to come back to Congress to get additional authorities and to update, if you will, the authorized use of military force.”

Whatever Obama’s strategy is, McCaul said, the United States should not try to act alone when it comes to defeating ISIS, as “we have allies that can bring a lot of pressure.”

Meanwhile, the ISIS fight can’t be won with Obama’s containment plans.

“His administration, thus far, has only dealt with containment,” said McCaul. “We need to expand strikes to ultimately defeat ISIS. I would rather eliminate them there than in the United States.”

Washington Post correspondent Bob Woodward, appearing on “Fox News Sunday,”  said nobody knows just what Obama plans to do.

“One key point about Obama is he doesn’t like war, and he’s trying to avoid the next one,” said Woodward. “But let’s not kid ourselves. There’s an inconsistency here. I mean, Hagel and the chairman of the joint chiefs have said — and [John] Kerry, the secretary of state, made it very clear, all options are on the table, and the president has said no boots on the ground.”

UK and US special forces form hunter killer unit to “smash the Islamic State”

August 25, 2014

UK and US special forces form hunter killer unit to “smash the Islamic State”

Robert Spencer Aug 25, 2014 at 7:42am

via UK and US special forces form hunter killer unit to “smash the Islamic State” : Jihad Watch.

 

 

This will be interesting. Will these forces actually do what they have to do to topple the Islamic State, or will they be hampered by impossible politically correct rules of engagement that hamstring their ability to do much of anything beyond act as a shooting gallery for local jihadis, as in Afghanistan?

And will Muslim Brotherhood groups in the U.S. such as Hamas-linked CAIR that have issued vague and pro-forma denunciations of the Islamic State applaud this attempt to “smash” it, or will they start whining about the victimization of Iraqi civilians and disproportionate force?

“SAS and US special forces forming hunter killer unit to ‘smash Islamic State,’” by Aaron Sharp, Mirror, August 23, 2014:

Elite British and US special forces troops are forming a hunter killer unit called Task Force Black – its orders: “Smash the Islamic State.”

The undercover warriors will aim to “cut the head off the snake” by hitting the command structure of the Islamist terror group responsible for a trail of atrocities across Iraq and Syria, reports the Sunday People.

PM David Cameron has told the SAS and UK spy agencies to direct all their ­resources at defeating IS after a video of US journalist James Foley being beheaded shocked the world.

British special forces will work with America’s Delta Force and Seal Team 6. The move sees a rebirth of top secret Task Force Black, which helped defeat al-Qaeda terrorists in Iraq .

This time the counter-terrorist ­experts will be targeting Abu Bakr ­al-Baghdadi, leader of IS and now the world’s most wanted terrorist.

A source said: “We need to go into Syria and Iraq and kill as many IS members as we can. You can’t ­negotiate with these people.

“This is not a war of choice. They are cash rich and have a plentiful ­supply of arms. If we don’t go after them, they will soon come after us.

“In Iraq, Task Force Black was carrying out strike operations every night.

“It was an unrelenting, intelligence-led assault on al-Qaeda. It took a lot of hard work and no small amount of sacrifice – but it worked.

“Defeating IS cannot be done by air strikes alone. You have to get on the ground and take out the commanders – cut off the snake’s head.

“The organisation will then begin to collapse. IS targets civilians and has yet to get into a real fight with a ­modern Western military.

“The SAS and US special forces will do untold damage to them.

“They’ll focus on the high command. This is going to be a long campaign, probably lasting years.

“And it will be like nothing the West has ever had to confront before.”

The new task force will comprise a squadron of the SAS, special forces aircrews from the RAF and agents from MI5 and MI6.

The operation will be led by America’s CIA spy agency….

DUNETZ: Obama’s Strategy For Fighting Terrorism: ‘Except When The Terrorists Are Targeting Jews’

August 23, 2014

DUNETZ: Obama’s Strategy For Fighting Terrorism: ‘Except When The Terrorists Are Targeting Jews

8.22.2014 Commentary Jeff Dunetz

via DUNETZ: Obama’s Strategy For Fighting Terrorism: ‘Except When The Terrorists Are Targeting Jews’ | Truth Revolt.

 

 

he pundits on both sides of the political spectrum are confused about President Obama’s strategy for fighting terrorism. He seems to say one thing and then a few days later orate something quite different. Ye his recent actions have made his strategy clear. As a service to readers of TruthRevolt and the political punditry of America, we will explain Obama’s terrorism-fighting strategy, which in his administration seems to be outspoken “except when the terrorists are targeting Jews.”

This is how it works.

While talking about ISIS and the murder of Jim Foley on Wednesday, President Obama said:

They have rampaged across cities and villages — killing innocent, unarmed civilians in cowardly acts of violence. They abduct women and children, and subject them to torture and rape and slavery. They have murdered Muslims — both Sunni and Shia — by the thousands. They target Christians and religious minorities, driving them from their homes, murdering them when they can for no other reason than they practice a different religion. They declared their ambition to commit genocide against an ancient people.

A few hours after Obama’s speech, Israeli Prime Minster Netanyahu gave one of his own, accurately explaining that Hamas is guilty of the same horrific acts as ISIS.

Hamas is ISIS. ISIS is Hamas. They’re the enemies of peace, they’re the enemies of Israel, they’re the enemies of all civilized countries, and I believe they’re the enemies of the Palestinians themselves.

Netanyahu explained that the Foley beheading “shows you the barbarism, the savagery of these people,” He added:

We face the same savagery. People who wantonly rocket our cities and conduct mass killings, and when they can, they murder children, teenagers, shoot them in the head, throw people from the sixth floor, their own people, and use their people as human shields.

During the daily State Department briefing that same day, Deputy Spokesperson Marie Harf was asked about Netanyahu’s comparison. Harf refused to concede that the two terrorist groups were similar.

I think by definition, they are two different groups. They have different leadership, and I’m not going to compare them in that way. I’ll let him [Netanyahu] speak for himself, but I’m not going to use that comparison.

http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=hmQpzV2KkPU

Why would the Obama administration refuse to accept the Netanyahu comparison? There is one major difference between ISIS and Hamas. As the President said above, ISIS attacks people of all religions including their own. On the other hand, Hamas’ primary target is the Jewish people. Their stated objective is killing all of the Jews in Israel and once that is done, killing all of the Jews in the rest of the world.

Civilian casualties are another example of the “Except when the terrorists are targeting Jews” strategy.

Since the start of the Gaza war, President Obama has constantly attacked Israel for the tragedy of civilian casualties despite the fact that Israel goes even further than the U.S. to avoid civilian casualties and that Hamas uses its population as human shields.

During an interview with the New Yorker this past January, Obama told David Remnick that he “wrestle[s]” with civilian casualties. But he also said he has

“a solemn duty and responsibility to keep the American people safe. That’s my most important obligation as President and Commander-in-Chief. And there are individuals and groups out there that are intent on killing Americans — killing American civilians, killing American children, blowing up American blowing up American planes. That’s not speculation. It’s their explicit agenda.”

Why would Obama go out of his way to criticize this country’s number one ally in the Middle East about civilian casualties when he knows that Hamas puts non-combatants in the line of fire and the lengths Israel goes to avoid killing civilians? That’s because the President believes Netanyahu’s “solemn duty and responsibility” to keep his citizens safe is different than Obama’s. Each of the countries has pluralistic societies recognizing the freedom of its people, but only one of them is comprised mostly of Jews.

Obama believes the civilized world should weed out and fight terrorism wherever they may find it, except, of course, if the terrorists are targeting Jews.

During that same Wednesday speech the President said:

From governments and peoples across the Middle East there has to be a common effort to extract this cancer, so that it does not spread. There has to be a clear rejection of these kind of nihilistic ideologies. One thing we can all agree on is that a group like ISIL has no place in the 21st century.

Since the start of the Gaza operation, Obama has allowed Israel to go only so far in trying to destroy Hamas before demanding a cease-fire. Contrary to America’s ally Israel, Obama’s strategy is to bring Hamas to the negotiating table as opposed to extracting “this cancer, so that it does not spread.”

Why is Obama’s goal to eradicate ISIS but only to bring Hamas to the bargaining table? There can be only one answer, as there is only one difference between the two terrorist groups: unlike ISIS which targets everyone, Hamas’ primary target is the Jews, not only in Israel, but in America, and indeed across the world.

Talking heads on both sides of the aisle have declared their consternation about President Obama’s strategy for fighting terrorism. It’s quite easy to understand when one realizes there is one rule for the terrorists who want to kill the Jews and a different rule for the terrorists who target a broader range of people.

1st Cavalry soldiers headed to Poland, Baltics

August 15, 2014

1st Cavalry soldiers headed to Poland, Baltics

By Jon Harper

Stars and Stripes Published: August 13, 2014

via 1st Cavalry soldiers headed to Poland, Baltics – News – Stripes.

 

WASHINGTON — Approximately 600 soldiers from the Army’s 1st Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division will deploy to Poland and the Baltic states to help reassure European allies who feel threatened by Russian military moves, the Pentagon announced Wednesday.

The troops and their equipment — which include M-1 Abrams tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, and armored personnel carriers — will go to Europe in October for a three-month series of training exercises.

The soldiers, based at Fort Hood, Texas, are replacing about 600 paratroopers from the Army’s 173rd Airborne Brigade, which is based in Vicenza, Italy. The “Sky Soldiers” have been conducting exercises with Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia since April as part of ongoing Operation Atlantic Resolve.

“These land training exercises … help foster interoperability through small unit and leader training,” Pentagon spokesman Col. Steve Warren said.

In addition to ground forces, the U.S. has also sent F-16 combat aircraft to Poland and participated in NATO air policing missions over the Baltics.

The exercises came at the request of host nations that fear a resurgent Russia, which annexed the Crimea region of Ukraine earlier this year and continues to support a pro-Russia separatist movement in eastern Ukraine.

For months, the Russian military has massed forces along the border with Ukraine and provided advanced weaponry and other assistance to the rebels. In recent days, Moscow has announced its intention to send a convoy of trucks into Ukraine to deliver what it says is humanitarian aid to separatist-held areas under pressure from Ukrainian government forces.

Kiev has said it will allow Russian humanitarian aid into the affected region, but only if it is delivered by the International Red Cross. Russia wants to deliver the supplies directly.

Ukrainian and Western officials are concerned that the alleged humanitarian mission might be a ruse to enable Russia to provide more military help to the separatists.

On Tuesday, Warren warned that Russian aid convoys could be a “Trojan horse.”

harper.jon@stripes.com
Twitter: @JHarperStripes

No change in policy on weapons deliveries to Israel, US says

August 14, 2014

No change in policy on weapons deliveries to Israel,US says

By MICHAEL WILNER, HERB KEINON 08/14/2014 21:46

Without issuing full denial of report that White House ordered halt of delivery of Hellfire missiles, administration officials say claims were a mischaracterization of inter-agency procedure, unchanged policy.

via No change in policy on weapons deliveries to Israel, US says | JPost | Israel News.

 

US President Barack Obama.
Photo: REUTERSWASHINGTON — The Obama administration denied on Thursday that it was surprised by the processing of a munitions delivery by the Pentagon to Israel during its operation in Gaza last month.
 

Without issuing a full-throated denial of a report that the White House issued a halt on the delivery of Hellfire missiles, administration officials said the claims, first surfacing in the Wall Street Journal, were a mischaracterization of inter-agency procedure, and of a policy unchanged.
Related:

Report: US halted weapons transfer to Israel during Gaza offensive
Politicians weigh in on ‘crisis in US-Israel relations’

“Let me be clear: there has been no change in policy, period,” State Department deputy spokeswoman Marie Harf said. “Given the crisis in Gaza, it is natural that agencies take additional care with deliveries as part of an inter-agency process.”

During Operation Protective Edge, the Pentagon said that the delivery was standard, and part of the United States’ commitment to Israel’s qualitative military edge, both through their maintaining broad defensive and offensive capabilities.

Harf said that the “additional care” taken by the administration does not represent a “permanent change in process.”

At the initial revelation of the July sales, media outlets in the Middle East slammed the administration for the timing of the deliveries, in the heat of the crisis.

But Harf also pushed back strongly at the notion that the US reviewed its process due to media pressures. “This has nothing to do with publicity,” she said.

Earlier Thursday, Israeli officials reaffirmed the oft-repeated mantra Thursday that under the Obama administration US-Israel security ties have never been better, even as the Wall Street Journal reported that the White House is holding up the sale of precision Hellfire missiles to Jerusalem.

According to the piece, the Obama administration has tightened its control of arms transfers to Israel, requiring White House and State Department approval for even routine munitions requests by Israel.

“Instead of being handled as a military-to-military matter, each case is now subject to review—slowing the approval process and signaling to Israel that military assistance once taken for granted is now under closer scrutiny,” the story said.

The report came out on the same day that the Hurriyet Daily News reported that the US cleared a potential $320 million advanced medium-range air-to-air missiles (AMRAAM) sale to Turkey “amid increasing security risks in the region.”

The decision for White House and State Department oversight over arms requests by Israel is the seeming culmination of a series of very public disagreements between the two allies over the Gaza conflict, with Israel unhappy with the way the US tried to bring Qatar and Turkey into cease-fire negotiations last month, and Washington upset at what it considered the often “heavy-handed” way Israel fought the war and caused civilian casualties.

The Wall Street Journal piece was just the latest in a series of stories over the last few weeks reporting of a “new low” in relations between Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and US President Barack Obama.

Other incidents in recent weeks that added fuel to the sense of a crisis in the ties were the following

* Netanyahu allegedly telling US envoy Dan Shapiro earlier in the month, after Hamas violated a cease-fire and killed three IDF soldiers in Rafah, that the US should never “second guess” him on Hamas.

* The leak of an alleged transcript of an Obama-Netanyahu conversation where an angry Obama demanded that Israel agree to a cease-fire

* The White House calling the shelling of a UN facility that lead to innocent deaths as “disgraceful.”

* Israeli anger at a US cease-fire proposal that would have given an enhanced Turkish and Qatari role, followed by US anger that Israel allegedly leaked the draft proposal and was disrespectful in its criticism of US Secretary of State John Kerry.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the phone conversation between Netanyahu and Obama on Wednesday was also “combative,” a characterization denied in Jerusalem.

The paper said that the Gaza conflict has convinced many administration officials that Netanyahu and his national security team were “both reckless and untrustworthy.” Israeli officials were quoted as saying that the Obama administration was weak and naive, and that they were trying to bypass the White House in favor of allies in Congress and elsewhere in the administration.

A senior Obama administration official was quoted as saying “We have many, many friends around the world. The United States is their strongest friend. The notion that they are playing the United States, or that they’re manipulating us publicly, completely miscalculates their place in the world.”

Israeli officials denied the allegations that it was going around the White House to secure arms deliveries. Regarding the Hellfires, the officials said that “we’ve made a request, and we believe the request will be fulfilled.”

At a press conference earlier this month with the foreign press, Netanyahu said that the US has been “terrific” during the current crisis.

Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s office, meanwhile, would not commenting on the report, saying only that there was a conversation on Wednesday between Ya’alon and US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel that went well.

In a statement released on Thursday, Ya’alon’s office quoted him as saying “we very much appreciate our relations with the United States. The relations between our security establishments are very good.”

He said that relationships like that between the US and Israel are made even more important because of the challenges posed by extremists in the region, which he listed as Hamas, ISIS, the Muslim Brotherhood, Hezbollah and Iran.

Obama and Netanayhu have worked together – some say have had to “deal with each other” – longer than any other US president and Israeli prime minister in history. Charges that the Netanyahu’s famously rocky relationship with Obama is harming the vital Israel-US relationship has been a common theme of his opponents and critics both in Israel and the US over the last six years.

Finance Minister Yair Lapid responded to the Wall Street Journal report by saying it represented a “worrisome trend, and we cannot let it continue.

“The relationship with the US,,” he said, was a “strategic asset that must not be harmed. Sometimes we simply have to know how to say thank you.”

Former president Shimon Peres, during a meeting with visiting New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, also related to the report, saying that he was “full of thanks and appreciation to the US, as are all Israel’s citizens, for firmly standing beside Israel for the 66 years of its existence.”

Meanwhile, a Fox News poll on Wednesday found that 38% of the American public does not think Obama has been supportive enough of Israel. Another 33% think his support has been “about right,” and 18% believe he has been “too supportive.” Eleven percent said they did not know.

Ben Hartman contributed to this report

History of Cease-Fires Shows Israel as the Big Loser

August 14, 2014

A course in Israeli cease-fire 101: Agree to UN and US promises and hold the bag when they are broken.

By: Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu

Published: August 14th, 2014

via The Jewish Press » » History of Cease-Fires Shows Israel as the Big Loser.

 

Obama to the rescue – of himself.
Photo Credit: White House Photo/Pete Sousa
 

President Barack Obama’s direct contact with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu to devise a long-term cease-fire plan follows a long history of American and U.N. ventures that have flopped, all of them at Israel’s expense.

Egypt has been the power broker in trying to maintain a cease-fire between Hamas and Israel, and Obama is trying to put his foot in the Middle East door to reclaim American influence based by whittling down the popularity of Netanyahu.

His “poll numbers are a lot higher than mine” and “were greatly boosted by the war in Gaza,” Obama told Thomas Friedman of The New York Times last week. . “And so if he doesn’t feel some internal pressure, then it’s hard to see him being able to make some very difficult compromises, including taking on the settler movement.”

It’s always the fault of the settlers. If it rains on the picnic, it is because of the settlers. If Obama’s popularity drops, it is because of the settlers who are an obstacle to his illusions.

The war against terror n Gaza has made Netanyahu even more popular. A Knesset Channel poll released this week shows that the Likud party that he heads would win almost 50 percent more seats than it now has in the Knesset if elections were held today. That translated into 28 mandates compared with 19.

Obama must be politically jealous of Netanyahu, considering the president’s dismal ratings.

Jealous or not, Obama has the habit of most previous presidents to pressure Israel, often by blocking or threatening to block military aid. That is what happened during the war, when Obama stopped the United States from shipping missiles to Israel, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Obama’s phone conversation with Netanyahu was reported as “combative,” nothing new for the two leaders who have distrusted each other during the president’s two terms of office.

The American government’s one-track mind for the “peace process” blocks out all reality, which is a lot different in the Middle East than in the United States. The Jewish Home party’s Housing Minister Ur Ariel said it in a matter of fact way on Thursday – “Americans don’t understand what is happening in the region.”

But that doesn’t stop Obama from throwing his weight around and bullying himself into Iraq, Syria and Egypt only to look like a fish out of water.

Like Carter, Clinton and even Regan, Obama has the freedom to exploit Israel’s democracy and run roughshod over the government to “make peace” with cease-fires that make war.

That is what happened in 2012 to conclude the Pillar of Cloud campaign against Hamas terror, and that is what happened in 2009 to conclude the Operation Cast Lead campaign against terror.

That is what happened in 2006, when the United Nations and the United States brokered a cease-fire that ended the Second Lebanese War and promised the moon, whose location has not moved since. Hezbollah was supposed to be dis-armed under United Nations supervision, which is like Hamas agreeing to dis-arm under Mahmoud Abbas’ supervision.

“For proxies such as the Palestinian Sunni faction Hamas and the Lebanese Shiite group Hezbollah, the centuries old Islamic jurisprudence of Hudna (tactical truce) and Tahadiya (temporary calm) serve as a plausibly regrouping tactic that is continuously reshaped amid the changing face of modern warfare in the Middle East,” Israel Defense noted during the war.

Enter U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry, whose “peace process” and ceasefires self-destruct.

He and U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon orchestrated a humanitarian cease-fire last month. It lasted for 90 minutes. At least five other cease-fires failed.

Israel Defense reported, “Following the inability to transmute any ceasefire, Hudna or Tahadiya over the last decade into encompassing political progress, the tone is that ceasefires only exasperate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the medium-to long-term. Paradoxically, it is the achievement of these bitesize ceasefires as a short term benefit that has trampled on the utility of ceasefire.”

And that is one of the reasons Netanyahu cannot stomach Obama, who in his words knows what is best for Israel, more than Israel knows, just as he and his foreign policy advisers knew what is best for Egypt, Syria and Iraq.

“How can you create a State of Israel that maintains its democratic and civic traditions.” He rhetorically asked Friedman in last week’s interview.

“How can you preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values of those who founded Israel? And, in order to do that, it has consistently been my belief that you have to find a way to live side by side in peace with Palestinians. … You have to recognize that they have legitimate claims, and this is their land and neighborhood as well.”

That is why Obama wants a cease-fire. He is not concerned about Hamas, he is not concerned about Israel

He is concerned about the “peace process,” which for years has proven to be the “war process.”