Obama’s “Values” Red Herring

Posted on June 3, 2015 by First.One.Through

On May 21, 2015, Jeffrey Goldberg from The Atlantic published an interview with US President Barack Obama on ISIS, Iraq and Israel. Here is a review of Obama’s comments on Israel and his deliberate attempt to minimize his threats to Israel. It would appear that the president needs a reminder that the primary Jewish value is the sanctity of life.

Photo of President Obama from The Atlantic May 2015

OBAMA’S CLAIM OF JEWISH SUPPORT AND
PRO-ISRAEL POSITIONS

1) Obama stated that he enjoys broad Jewish support. “I consistently received overwhelming majority support from the Jewish community, and even after all the publicity around the recent differences that I’ve had with Prime Minister Netanyahu, the majority of the Jewish American community still supports me, and supports me strongly.”

Comment: Obama’s Jewish support has declined considerably. Obama received weaker Jewish support than any of the recent Democratic candidates for president (going back to the loser Michael Dukakis in 1988).

2012 Obama 69%
2008 Obama 78%
2004 Kerry 76%
2000 Gore 79%
1996 Clinton 78%
1992 Clinton 80%
1988 Dukakis 64%

Obama’s poll numbers continued to collapse among Jews, especially during the six months prior to the interview. The latest Gallup poll had Obama’s approval rating among Jews at 54%, only 8% above the national average. That was the narrowest gap ever in Obama’s presidency. This precipitous drop-off coincides with Obama’s decision to encourage 58 Democratic loyalists to walk out on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s address to the joint session of Congress

2) Obama said “political” opportunists are portraying him as anti-Israel and anti-Jewish because he questions Israel’s policy regarding Palestinians. “there has been a very concerted effort on the part of some political forces to equate being pro-Israel, and hence being supportive of the Jewish people, with a rubber stamp on a particular set of policies coming out of the Israeli government. So if you are questioning settlement policy, that indicates you’re anti-Israeli, or that indicates you’re anti-Jewish. If you express compassion or empathy towards Palestinian youth, who are dealing with checkpoints or restrictions on their ability to travel, then you are suspect in terms of your support of Israel. If you are willing to get into public disagreements with the Israeli government, then the notion is that you are being anti-Israel, and by extension, anti-Jewish. I completely reject that.”

Comment: Obama’s critics and his collapsing poll numbers are about OBAMA’s policies regarding Israel, not Israel’s policies regarding Palestinians. Obama’s poll numbers among Jews were fairly consistent during his first term, but with a downturn which could be attributed both to his criticisms of Israel’s permitting Jews to live anywhere they choose as well as the Democrat’s gutting of their pro-Israel platform in 2012. The more precipitous drop in Jewish support for Obama had to do with his Iranian nuclear negotiations and his treatment of the Israeli PM during that time.

Comment: Obama is being a hypocrite by stating that his “public disagreements with the Israeli government” should not be construed as anti-Israel, while Netanyahu’s public criticism of Obama’s policies were attacked. Obama has criticized Israel repeatedly on the world stage for Israel’s handling of disputed lands. However, when Netanyahu disagreed with Obama, it was over a matter that was an existential threat to Israel. Yet Obama chose to belittle Netanyahu’s argument and berate the Israeli leader.

3) Obama believes that Israel is simply a safe haven for Jews. “There’s a direct line between supporting the right of the Jewish people to have a homeland and to feel safe and free of discrimination and persecution, and the right of African Americans to vote and have equal protection under the law. These things are indivisible in my mind”

Comment: Obama has never internalized that Israel is THE homeland of the Jewish people. There has always been an important and significant disconnect that Obama has about Israel: Israel is not simply a safe haven where Jews are “free of discrimination and persecution.” Such a safe space could have been created in Uganda too. Israel is not just “a homeland” as if Jews had been self-governing in many other places on earth for centuries; as if the Jewish religion did not have an exclusive and unique relationship with the holy land. Israel is THE homeland of the Jewish people as it has been for 3700 years. That is why the San Remo Conference in 1920 specified Palestine for the Jews.

4) Obama has hung all of his pro-Israel credentials on his support of Israel militarily. “I have maintained, and I think I can show that no U.S. president has been more forceful in making sure that we help Israel protect itself, and even some of my critics in Israel have acknowledged as much.”

Comment: Obama’s goal for Israel is not particularly unique. Obama has stressed that the Iraqi government needs to protect Iraq; the Afghani government needs to protect Afghanistan, and so on. Obama has sought to pull American forces out of conflict zones and put the onus on the local governments to protect themselves. That is a broad Obama policy decision – with which one can agree or not regarding America’s role as the world policeman.

What is not subject to debate, is that the policy is not unique and is hardly the great shining example for Obama to underscore as his complete bona fides in being pro-Israel. His stance for Israel’s security is part-and-parcel of his broad position regarding military support and cooperation around the region.

OBAMA’S DOUBLE STANDARDS
AND THREATS

5) Obama was highly critical of Netanyahu’s comments as being counter to Israel’s democratic laws. Obama came out forcefully against Netanyahu’s comments to get out the vote when Bibi feared he was losing the election. “what I [Obama] did say is that when, going into an election, Prime Minister Netanyahu said a Palestinian state would not happen under his watch, or there [was] discussion in which it appeared that Arab-Israeli citizens were somehow portrayed as an invading force that might vote, and that this should be guarded against—this is contrary to the very language of the Israeli Declaration of Independence, which explicitly states that all people regardless of race or religion are full participants in the democracy. When something like that happens, that has foreign-policy consequences.”

Comment: Obama was curiously selective in focusing on certain comments which portrayed Netanyahu only as an extremist. Obama chose to focus on Netanyahu’s comments on election eve when Netanyahu was worried he was going to lose the elections and was trying to rally groups to get out and vote for him. Obama ignored Netanyahu’s later comments which back-tracked and explained his intentions regarding election night. Obama ignored the many years that Netanyahu negotiated with the Palestinian Arabs (Netanyahu ran three prior Israeli governments). Obama ignored Netanyahu’s handing over cities to the Palestinian Authority in showing his willingness to swap land-for-peace.

Comment: Obama ignored comments from repressive regimes. Obama is putting forward sanction reliefs for Iran while the regime chants “Death to America”. Obama has back-tracked from his no nuclear capability for Iran pledge, while Iran chants “Death to Israel”. Obama pushed Israel to negotiate with acting President of the Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas and to release Arab terrorists convicted of murder, while Abbas celebrated the killers of innocent Israelis.

Comment: Obama ignored undemocratic regimes. Obama’s reference to Israel’s Declaration of Independence suggested that he only treats countries with liberal values as allies. How does Obama send billions of dollars to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia which is one of the most repressive regimes in the world?

Comment: Obama threatened Israel. While Obama ignored the many statements and long history of Netanyahu negotiating with the Palestinian Authority, and ignored the actions and statements of surrounding Arab governments, he threatened Israel. Threatening a country is a far cry from having a difference of opinion or being upset with momentary excited statements from an individual. When Turkish leader Erdogan called Zionism a “Crime against Humanity”, the White House denounced the statement but never threatened Turkey. When Erdogan called for Muslims to conquer Jerusalem, the White House was silent; no threats were issued. Indeed, Obama considered Erdogan one of his closest friends among world leaders.

As detailed in FirstOneThrough “International-Domestic Abuse: Obama and Netanyahu”, the relationship between Israel and the United States is both unique and not one of peers. Israel relies on the US on many levels. Therefore, Obama’s double standards for Netanyahu, coupled with Obama’s global pronouncement that he will punish the entire country of Israel, is an abuse that has angered Israel supporters around the world.

6) Obama has no issue criticizing Israel on the global stage, as he stated: “the one argument that I very much have been concerned about, and it has gotten stronger over the last 10 years … it’s less overt than the arguments that a Sheldon Adelson makes, but in some ways can be just as pernicious, is this argument that there should not be disagreements in public”

Comment: Obama has double standards about criticism in public. Obama lectured Netanyahu that Bibi’s election eve comments and actions ran counter to Israel’s laws. Would Obama feel it is appropriate for Netanyahu to lecture him about America’s ongoing use of the death penalty which most of the western world abolished? Would Obama care to hear about Netanyahu’s views on how the US should treat gay marriage or gays in the military as running afoul of America’s foundation documents? Or would Obama feel that such comments have nothing to do with Israel and that he doesn’t need to listen to a lecture about his own country’s laws from a foreign leader?

Yet, when Netanyahu criticized Obama’s negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program – which poses a direct existential threat to Israel – Obama did not just get offended, but rallied his Democratic loyalists to boycott Netanyahu’s speech in D.C.

OBAMA’S “VALUES” RED HERRING

7) Obama received talking points from liberal rabbis. Obama’s interview was peppered with remarks specifically intended for a Jewish audience: “we creating a safe Jewish homeland, but also we are remaking the world. We’re repairing it.” Obama also said “when you show intolerance and when you are persecuting minorities and when you are objectifying them and making them the Other, you are destroying something in yourself,”

Comment: Obama learned only half a lesson from the rabbis. The phrases used by Obama are uniquely Jewish referring in English to Tikkun Olam, repairing the world, and “Acher”, the Other. The choice of language was so out of place that it would be the equivalent of a Jewish person littering a conversation with “Grace”. The Atlantic’s Goldberg even made the comparison stating “Obama, when he talks about Israel, sounds like a rabbi in the progressive Zionist tradition.” The aggressive Obama sales tactic was clearly courtesy of a progressive rabbi to parrot to a Jewish audience.

Regrettably, Obama only learned (or was taught) half of the lesson. The most important Jewish value of all is the preciousness and sacredness of life. Protecting life supersedes almost every other commandment. It is precisely for that reason that Jews have turned against Obama and his poll numbers have dropped. Enabling Iran to get a nuclear weapon threatens millions of people in Israel. Obama’s threats to suddenly withhold support for Israel at the United Nations risks putting Israel’s border security and economic viability at risk.

8) Obama has higher expectations for Israel. “it’s true, I have high expectations for Israel, and they’re not unrealistic expectations, they’re not stupid expectations, they’re not the expectations that Israel would risk its own security blindly in pursuit of some idealistic pie-in-the-sky notions”

Comment: Obama has double standards for Israel. There is no crime in having high expectations for someone; indeed, it is often thought of as a compliment. However, if one uses those higher expectations to punish the party, that is a form of discrimination. For example, Obama cannot make demands on Israel for preconditions for final status talks but make none on Palestinian Arabs. Obama cannot wage wars thousands of miles from his shores against enemies who cannot possibly destroy the US, while berating Israel for fighting against an enemy on its borders that threaten to destroy Israel.

9) Obama thinks there is nothing unique about Jewish values or a Jewish State. “Goldberg question: you want Israel to embody Jewish values. Obama: I want Israel, in the same way that I want the United States, to embody the Judeo-Christian and, ultimately then, what I believe are human or universal values that have led to progress over a millennium”

Comment: There is one Jewish State called Israel and its Jewish Values stress the sanctity of life. Obama managed to roll Judaism into Christianity and ultimately human and universal terms. While I am sure that he intended this as a compliment, it also undermined the uniqueness of Israel.

By way of comparison, does Obama have dreams that Turkey will embody Judeo-Christian values? How about Norway or Greece? Costa Rica? He probably does, but he would never make such a statement as those countries have distinct Islamic or Christian characters. To state that he wished they embody several cultural values does several things:

It minimizes the difference between the religions
It suggests that the country does not live up to those values

Regarding the first point, Obama minimized the fact that there is only one Jewish state. While Israel has religious freedom for all, it is the Jewish homeland. Israel’s goal is not to embody Obama’s dream of a Star Trek-like future of universalism.

Regarding the second point, Obama needs to be re-educated by the progressive rabbis that coached him, about the paramount Jewish value of the sanctity of life. It is precisely for that reason that Netanyahu came to address the joint session of Congress to talk about the Iranian nuclear threat. That exact value and speech that Obama boycotted.

10) Obama thinks Jewish Values are about freedom and human rights. Obama continued from his comments above about Judeo-Christian and universal values: “The same values that led to the end of Jim Crow and slavery. The same values that led to Nelson Mandela being freed and a multiracial democracy emerging in South Africa. The same values that led to the Berlin Wall coming down. The same values that animate our discussion on human rights and our concern that people on the other side of the world who may be tortured or jailed for speaking their mind or worshipping—the same values that lead us to speak out against anti-Semitism. I want Israel to embody these values because Israel is aligned with us in that fight for what I believe to be true. And that doesn’t mean there aren’t tough choices and there aren’t compromises. It doesn’t mean that we don’t have to ask ourselves very tough questions about, in the short term, do we have to protect ourselves,”

Comment: Obama doesn’t know that Israel is the most liberal country from Greece to Singapore to South Africa. What was this Obama rant? Was there an insinuation that Israel is an apartheid state (why mention Jim Crow or Nelson Mandela)? Was there a suggestion that Israel’s Security Wall which it built to stop Palestinian terrorism in 2002 is like the Berlin Wall? Does he think that people are being tortured or jailed for speaking their mind or worshipping in Israel? Israel is a thriving liberal country in the heart of a backwards Middle East. What were these bizarre comparisons? Why does Obama say that he “wants Israel to embody these values” rather than acknowledge that it DOES embody those values?

Should Netanyahu wax about his dream for America to not shoot unarmed black people?

11) Obama claimed to understand the need for protecting Jerusalem. As he stated above and continued: “I was the first one to acknowledge that you can’t have the risk of terrorists coming up right to the edge of Jerusalem and exposing populations”

Comment: Obama lied about understanding security for Jerusalem. If Obama understood the need for security for Israel’s capital, how can he condemn Jews LIVING in Jerusalem? Why did Obama condemn Jews moving into homes they legally purchased?

How can Obama state that Israel’s development of E1 which protects Jerusalem from the east, is a bad idea that hinders a final agreement? Obama in March 2013 to Palestinian Arabs: “You mentioned E1, in particular. I think that is an example of at least a public statement by the Israeli government that would be very difficult to square with a two-state solution.” E1, which connects Jerusalem to Maale Adumim, a city which every Israeli Prime Minister has always insisted on retaining, is the exact solution for keeping “terrorists [from] coming up right to the edge of Jerusalem and exposing populations.”

12) Obama thinks he is a better at Jewish Values than Netanyahu. Obama concluded the thought above with “So this isn’t an issue of being naive or unrealistic, but ultimately yes, I think there are certain values that the United States, at its best, exemplifies. I think there are certain values that Israel, and the Jewish tradition, at its best exemplifies. And I am willing to fight for those values.”

Comment: Obama continued to move the discussion away from defending Israel’s security to defending its values. In a fitting conclusion of delusion, Obama placed himself in the center of defending Israel. How is he doing it? By enabling Iran to get nuclear weapons and withholding support for Israel at the United Nations. Doesn’t seem logical to you? Well, let me explain the Obamian logic:

Since Obama said he has Israel’s back, you must believe him. Just ignore that his words about preventing Iran to get nuclear capacity have been meaningless; that the Syrian red line was crossed without consequence; that Obama has ignored US’s treaties to support Ukraine and let Russia take over half of the country.
Since Obama said he is willing to fight for Jewish Values, you must believe him. Just ignore that he doesn’t understand that the primary Jewish value is the sanctity of life. Ignore that he thinks Israel isn’t the most democratic and humane country for thousands of miles in every direction.

Obama clearly does not appreciate the values that Israel lives each day. If he did, he would be doing the opposite of his current actions by nixing a bad Iranian deal and by standing proudly next to Israel in international fora like the United Nations.

OBAMA UPSET AT BEING CRITICIZED BY ISRAEL SUPPORTERS

13) Obama knows that double standards are wrong. “you should be able to align yourself with Israel when it comes to making sure that it is not held to a double standard in international fora”

Comment: Obama hasn’t internalized his own double standards for Israel. Obama spoke about Israel’s history and the history of anti-Semitism even until today which makes it easy to align himself with Israel. However, his personal higher expectations of Israel and the unique role that the United States has in defending Israel in international for a has made him use double standards for the country.

14) Obama feels his moral convictions and role as defender of Jewish values can let him criticize Israel without being hostile. “we can have a debate, and we can have an argument. But you can’t equate people of good will who are concerned about those issues with somebody who is hostile towards Israel”

Comment: Threats and actions that have dire consequences are not debates. Of course anyone can debate and disagree (in a democracy!) The two questions are 1) how do you do it and 2) what are the ramifications.

Regarding how one disagrees, the notion of being publicly hostile and rallying party loyalist to blacklist the Israeli prime minister is NOT the way to disagree. When the animosity is so public that fellow world leaders would approach you and share their disgust with Netanyahu (French PM Sarkozy in 2011), you have clearly let it be known to the world that you seriously despise the man. Politics is an art of subtlty and getting things moivig along. Mission Failed.

To the second point, on the ramifications of disagreeing, in a civil society, people just go back to their corners and disagree. However, in this situation, the disagreement leads to Iran – which has sworn to destroy Israel – obtaining nuclear weapons. Here the disagreement has led to the threat of the US not siding with Israel at the United Nations to make Israel become a pariah state and subject to various sanctions.

This is not simply “it’s OK to disagree”. Those disagreements will seriously harm the very viability of the State of Israel. And to somehow suggest that putting Israel in grave risk REPEATEDLY should not lead anyone to question the “good will” of those people is puzzling. To argue that the actions themselves are not “hostile towards Israel” is absurd.

While Obama may have won over some Israel-supporters with his heavily coached- discussion on values, the red herring he is marketing is foul.

Netanyahu’s View of Obama: Trust and Consequences

Posted on March 12, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama has asked Netanyahu to trust him on an issue (Iranian nuclear power) that is an existential threat to his country, even though Obama hasn’t earned that trust on more basic issues. Obama then compounds Netanyahu’s fear by stating Obama will act completely alone in controlling the outcome. Netanyahu’s nightmare is not just becoming “1938 Czechoslovakia”, but “2014 Ukraine”.

Netanyahu and Obama

TRUST

Trust is the bedrock of a functional relationship. It enables one party to rely on the other. A trust that includes both intention and capability permits a sharing of responsibility and workload.

The relationship between US President Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu started off badly and further deteriorated over the years. Personalities aside, the lack of a shared vision about the path to peace and security in the violent Middle East damaged relations. However, it was a series of bad decisions which destroyed the trust between the two leaders.

Negotiation with Palestinians. Obama’s actions early in his presidency, hurt his credibility with Netanyahu. Obama insisted on an Israeli settlement freeze as a pre-condition to negotiations with the Palestinians- a pre-condition that was never introduced before, even by the Palestinians. Despite Netanyahu’s serious reservations, he instituted a ten-month freeze on building new homes in the west bank of the Jordan River. In exchange, Obama could not get acting-Palestinian President Abbas to even show up to talk for the first nine months, and when he did, all Abbas offered was extending the freeze even longer.

When US Secretary of State John Kerry tried another round of negotiations with Abbas in the fall of 2013, the US again asked Israel to give up something to start talks while it made no demand of the Palestinians. Israel released dozens of terrorists that were convicted of murder from its prisons. In exchange, Kerry could not even get Abbas to recognize Israel as a Jewish State, let alone any compromises for a Palestinian state. The negotiations failed again.

In both situations the US pressured Israel to give up something just to initiate negotiations and asked nothing of the Palestinians. In the end, the Palestinians continued to give exactly the same: nothing.

Giving it away upfront. The Obama administration has used the tactic of giving away bargaining points upfront in the hope of gaining something in the negotiations down the road. In Cuba, Obama has pulled back sanctions, in the hope that the country reforms. In Iran, the US eased sanctions to get Iran to consider allowing monitors to watch it build nuclear power.

Netanyahu does not believe in such negotiating tactics and it has not worked out well for Israel.

Giving up on Allies. The disagreement on negotiating style is only part of Netanyahu’s issue. Israel and the Middle East watched the Obama administration turn its back on its allies. Egyptian President Mubarak was once a close ally of the United States. One day, the Obama administration decided it would no longer stand by its ally and called for Mubarak’s ouster. He was rushed off to jail.

The US’s Middle Eastern allies were dumb-founded by Obama’s action. A senior Arab government official stated “[The Saudis] are at odds with the U.S. position, publicly pushing Mubarak out. And frankly so are we—this isn’t how you handle issues in region.”

Failure to Understand Regional Dynamics. Obama’s turn on Egypt’s Mubarak was followed by an embrace of the democratically-elected Muslim Brotherhood. Obama’s infatuation with the “Turkish model” of democratic Islam made him welcome the new Egyptian ruler Mohammed Morsi. Morsi reopened Egypt’s ties with Hamas (the Muslim Brotherhood in Gaza) , much to the chagrin of Israel’s Netanyahu. Those actions also undermined the more moderate (on a relative basis) acting PA President Abbas.

Obama back-tracked from his support of democracy in Egypt by not objecting to the replacement of Morsi via a takeover by Abdul Fattah el-Sisi. El-Sisi clamped down on Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood which won praise in Israel. From Israel’s perspective, a mistake was rectified to some degree, but the damage done by Obama of not standing by an ally and not appreciating the regional dynamics was etched in memory.

Obama not standing by Treaties or Comments. In addition to not standing by allied leaders, Obama has not stood by his own word or by US treaties with governments. For example, Obama’s declared “red line” on Syria’s use of chemical weapons came and went without ramifications for Syrian President Assad. While Obama claimed credit for negotiating a solution to get rid of Syria’s known chemical weapons, there was no personal penalty for Assad. Assad continues to remain in power and murder his countrymen.

Saudi Arabia was incredulous and stated ““We’ve seen several red lines put forward by the president, which went along and became pinkish as time grew, and eventually ended up completely white…When that kind of assurance comes from a leader of a country like the United States, we expect him to stand by it.”

Obama asserting a “red line” on Syrian chemical weapons

The Ukrainian situation is even more telling. In 1994, Ukraine signed onto the Budapest Memorandum which was to guarantee its territorial integrity in exchange for giving up its nuclear weapons. While it adhered to its upfront part of the bargain by giving up its weapons, the Obama administration refused to enforce its end of the agreement by coming to the aid of Ukraine when Russia invaded and annexed Crimea in 2014. Russian leader Putin correctly assessed the temperament of Obama that he would fail to honor his obligation, just as he failed to take action in Syria. Putin has continued to move past Crimea to other parts of Ukraine while the US not only fails to come to the defense of Ukraine, but drags its feet in sending weapons to defend itself.

The situation is not lost on Netanyahu (while it is on the knee-jerk liberal New York Times which stated in its lead editorial on March 12, 2015 that “Republicans are perfectly willing to diminish America’s standing as a global power capable of crafting international commitments and adhering to them.” As detailed above, Obama has made very clear that HE has diminished America’s commitments, not the Republicans).

Obfuscation. The last loose thread in the unraveling fabric of trust is the lack of transparency.

While Obama touted his goal of transparency when he ran for office, his administration has been one of the least transparent. Witness Obamacare, where House Speaker Nancy Pelosi famously said “We have to pass the bill to that you can find out what is in it.” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ran her own email server outside of the State Department and deleted emails at her own whim. Now, Obama refuses to provide details of the Iranian negotiations with Israel.

The trust between Obama and Netanyahu is broken.

ACTING ALONE

Compounding the Israeli frustration with the lack of trust in the Obama administration’s dealing with Iran, is the unilateral course that Obama has taken. Obama has effectively barred Israel from attacking Iran and is attempting to seal negotiations without legislative approval.

Blocking an Israeli attack. As soon as Obama began to negotiate with Iran, it became impossible for Israel to attack Iran. How could Israel attack the facilities while the US was pursuing a diplomatic initiative? The start of Obama’s talks signaled the end of Israel’s ability to destroy their nuclear program.

Skipping Congress. Obama repeatedly stated that he does not believe that he needs congressional approval to sign a deal with Iran. As such, he has asserted that he has complete authority to negotiate and finalize a deal. The Republicans, which now have majority control of both the House and Senate, strongly disagree and have taken steps to make their position known to both the Obama administration and Iran itself.

COMPETENCIES and CONSEQUENCES

Israel’s Netanyahu is left in a precarious situation. As his country is under threat of annihilation by Iran, its close ally has put itself in the lead seat in negotiations. However, Netanyahu is looking at the current US president as:

Lacking an understanding of regional dynamics;
Incapable of negotiating;
Refusing to be transparent about the negotiations;
Unwilling to stand by statements and treaties in support of allies;
Determined to act alone without the legislative branch of government

The Trust in Competencies and Fear of Consequences leaves Israel in a vulnerable and lonely spot. While Israel fears it will be sacrificed at the alter of larger players like Czechoslovakia in 1938, it sees how the lead negotiator will not enforce any security agreements that may be struck, as in the embattled Ukraine today.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Arab states agree with Netanyahu in speech to Congress: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/08/missing-netanyahus-speech-those-not-listening-and-those-not-speaking/

Conservative focus on safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

The need for a global public reaction to Iran’s nuclear aspiration: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/hidden-reactor-silent-reaction/

Missing Netanyahu’s Speech: Those not Listening and Those Not Speaking

Posted on March 8, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: The media highlighted the Democrats that snubbed the Israeli Prime Minister’s address to Congress. They failed to mention the coalition of countries that Bibi represented. Will the world’s safety rest with those that party-with-their-party or those that bomb-the-bomb?

US President Obama made a deliberate attempt to marginalize Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his address to Congress in March 2015. Obama aired a number of complaints about the nature of the invitation and later said that Netanyahu didn’t offer any new ideas in dealing with Iran. His efforts to turn public attention away from the incredibly important topic to a sideshow of partisanship was sad on many levels.

Obama and Biden skipped Netanyahu’s Address to Congress,
March 2015

There were many people who were not at Congress on March 3rd: Democrats that didn’t listen, and Arab States that echoed Netanyahu’s message.

Those not Listening: Democrats Partying with their Party

The Obama administration managed to convince 58 members of Congress to skip Netanyahu’s speech. All were his fellow Democrats. They were:

SENATE – 8 members

Sen. Al Franken (Minn.)
Sen. Martin Heinrich (N.M.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (Va.)
Sen. Patrick Leahy (Vt.)
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Sen. Brian Schatz (Hawaii)
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.)
Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (R.I.)

HOUSE – 50 members

Rep. Karen Bass (Calif.)
Rep. Earl Blumenauer (Ore.)
Rep. Corrine Brown (Fla.)
Rep. G.K. Butterfield (N.C.)
Rep. Lois Capps (Calif.)
Rep. Andre Carson (Ind.)
Rep. Joaquin Castro (Texas)
Rep. Katherine Clark (Mass.)
Rep. William Lacy Clay (Mo.)
Rep. James Clyburn (S.C.)
Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.)
Rep. Steve Cohen (Tenn.)
Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman (N.J.)
Rep. John Conyers (Mich.)
Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.)
Rep. Danny Davis (Ill.)
Rep. Peter DeFazio (Ore.)
Rep. Diana DeGette (Colo.)
Rep. Lloyd Doggett (Texas)
Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.)
Rep. Donna Edwards (Md.)
Rep. Chaka Fattah (Pa.)
Rep. Keith Ellison (Minn.)
Rep. Marcia Fudge (Ohio)
Rep. Raúl Grijalva (Ariz.)
Rep. Luis Gutiérrez (Ill.)
Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D.C.)
Rep. Eddie Bernice Johnson (Texas)
Rep. Marcy Kaptur (Ohio)
Rep. Rick Larsen (Wash.)
Rep. Barbara Lee (Calif.)
Rep. John Lewis (Ga.)
Rep. Dave Loebsack (Iowa)
Rep. Zoe Lofgren (Calif.)
Rep. Betty McCollum (Minn.)
Rep. Jim McDermott (Wash.)
Rep. Jim McGovern (Mass.)
Rep. Jerry McNerney (Calif.)
Rep. Gregory Meeks (N.Y.)
Rep. Gwen Moore (Wis.)
Rep. Beto O’Rourke (Texas)
Rep. Donald Payne (N.J.)
Rep. Chellie Pingree (Maine)
Rep. David Price (N.C.)
Rep. Cedric Richmond (La.)
Rep. Jan Schakowsky (Ill.)
Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.)
Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.)
Rep. Mike Thompson (Calif.)
Rep. John Yarmuth (Ky.)

Eleanor Holmes Norton (D, DC)

It is wrong to say that these Democratic Congressmen are anti-Semites for skipping Netanyahu’s speech. They are just small-minded, petty, partisan politicians.

Those who were seen not Speaking: Arab States agree with Netanyahu

While Israel is in the crosshairs of the Iranian regime which has singled out the country for annihilation, several Arab countries are also very against Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. They supported Netanyahu’s position and address.

Saudi Arabia. KSA has made its objections to the P5+1 negotiations very clear: it feels that the US lied and deceived Saudi Arabia about the negotiations; and it is extremely concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon. The Saudis stated that they would both attack Iran and obtain their own nuclear weapon as soon as Iran would get one. Saudi journalists openly praised Netanyahu’s speech.
Egypt. Egyptian leader El-Sisi has been openly critical of Obama’s policies throughout the Middle East, including the US’s soft approach on ISIS and its desire to pursue a political process on militant Islam in Libya, rather than fight the extremists with force.
United Arab Emirates. UAE has stated “We cannot live with a nuclear Iran” and has voiced its support of an attack on Iranian facilities.

Egyptian President Fatah El-Sisi calling to reform Islam,
January 2015

The difference between the absent deaf audience (Democrats) and the silent approving chorus (Arab states) is a contrast between politics and policy. The difference between Obama and Netanyahu regarding Iran is between hope and action.

Those Talking and Hoping: Obama and Kerry

Obama has essentially articulated that US intelligence is flawed, so the best solution for managing the Iranian nuclear program would be to rely on the Iranians’ openness. His negotiation tack will conclude with faith that the Iranians:

will disclose the entirety of their nuclear program;
will provide full access to all of the facilities; and
will not covertly move towards nuclear weapons.

It can best be called a policy of “hope”.

US Secretary of State John Kerry negotiating with Iran,
March 2015

Those Acting: Israel Bombing the Bomb

If Israel is convinced that the Iranians are good on their word, than they have reason to be concerned as Iran has threatened to destroy Israel.

Israel has long taken the approach that hope is not a policy. It sits in too volatile a region to believe in the good faith of its neighbors that have declared war on the country. Peace is something that is fought for and defended.

Decisive action has led to extended windows of peace for Israel. In 1981, Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor that was due to go live. In 2007, Israel bombed the Syrian nuclear reactor that was being constructed with the help of North Korea. In 1967, Israel acted preemptively to thwart the attacks of Egypt and Syria which enabled a very quick victory. When Israel decided to remain passive, such as the Yom Kippur War of 1973, the country was almost overrun.

Netanyahu has pleaded for very tough sanctions against Iran. It has used malware and cyber-attacks against Iran. Israel has reportedly assassinated Iranian nuclear scientists (to the chagrin of the United States). It has advocated for putting all options on the table, including military force as it used against the facilities in Syria and Iraq.

The way forward with Iran has two very different paths:

Obama has advocated a policy of hope and has enlisted a quorum of party loyalists who will not listen to alternatives.
Israel has deployed policies of actions and has an eclectic group of Arab neighbors that support its position.

Will the future safety of the world belong to those that party-with-their-party or those willing to bomb-the-bomb?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Fairness versus Safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian Red Line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Red Herrings on the Red Line

Posted on March 4, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: Obama’s anger at Israel’s Netanyahu was about Netanyahu’s anger at White House policy on Iran. All of the other excuses that Obama threw out proved inaccurate. However, Obama’s actions have introduced a partisan split over Israel into DC politics.

Netanyahu and Obama

US President Obama took umbrage with Republican House Speaker John Boehner’s invitation to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. Obama aired a number of reasons, which all proved to be red herrings:

Break in Protocol: Obama initially criticized the break in protocol of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu accepting an invitation without consulting the White House. A report later came out that the White House was informed about the invitation before Netanyahu accepted. The White House anger should have been directed at Boehner, not Netanyahu, even if this reason held any truth.
Israeli elections: Obama offered another excuse to skip Netanyahu’s address: Obama said that it was US policy to not invite a foreign leader to address Congress in an election season as it would be seen as influencing the elections of another country. In fact, US President Bill Clinton invited then Israeli Prime Minister Shimon Peres to speak to Congress one month before the Israeli election. Further, the timing was a function of Secretary of State John Kerry’s announced Iranian deal deadline on March 24, not the timing of Israeli elections.
Bi-partisan Support: The Obama administration then offered another reason why he and members of his cabinet would leave town during Netanyahu’s visit to D.C.: that Netanyahu was playing partisan politics. The reality is detailed below.

President Clinton and Israeli PM Shimon Peres,
Before Israeli elections in 1996

Israel and the United States have been strong allies regardless of the party in the White House. Israel’s relationship with Bill Clinton (D) was much better than with George HW Bush (R); and better with George W Bush (R) than with Barack Obama (D). There is no benefit or desire for an Israeli leader to choose one party over the other as Netanyahu reiterated in his remarks in the US in March 2015. The dynamics of particular leadership personalities play a role in the tone, but not the substance of the overall relationship between all of the elected US parties in government and the Jewish State. Netanyahu and Obama have dealt with each other for six years where at times they’ve agreed or disagreed on a variety of issues; in each case, the parties in Congress maintained their support of Israel.

At this moment, Netanyahu strongly disagrees with Obama’s position in the Iranian nuclear negotiations. It happens to be that Republican leadership also disagrees with the Obama administration. It was solely on that topic that Netanyahu spoke to a joint session of Congress – a major “existential” issue of direct significant impact on Israel.

The difference in opinion about a particular policy does not mean that Netanyahu or Israel now prefer Republicans to Democrats, nor should it mean that elected Democrats or Republicans should treat Netanyahu or Israel any differently. However, the Obama administration made the claim that this was partisan politics, and kept members of the administration from meeting with Netanyahu and asked Democratic party members to stay away from the address, thereby creating a partisan issue.

That may very well have been the goal of Boehner. But the Democrats seemed all too willing to take the bait and insult Israel and Netanyahu by snubbing him. Democrats decided that a distorted idea of party loyalty was more important than hearing the concerns of an ally that has been threatened with annihilation by the very country with which the administration is creating a pathway for nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu addressing Congress about Iranian nuclear weapons,
March 2015

The gulf in the support of Israel between the right and left of the American public is not new. Republicans support Israel by almost a 2-to-1 ratio compared to liberals around the country. Liberals support opening warmer relations with Muslim countries by over a 2-to-1 ratio over conservatives. But those statistics are in the general population of the United States. Obama has now brought that partisanship into the legislative branch of government in D.C. itself. At the administration’s urging, 58 Democrats boycotted Netanyahu’s speech to Congress. No Republicans missed the address.

Perhaps Obama used Netanyahu’s speech to pivot the party into a closer position with his loyal base of liberal Americans. If so, the implications for Israel will be very negative.

The only silver lining to the shattered red lines of Iran’s nuclear program will likely be that the Palestinian Arabs might return for peace talks with Israel as they will never have such an advocate in the White House as President Obama. What price will Obama make Israel pay? How much will it matter in the coming nuclear tinderbox of the Middle East?

Related First.One.Through articles:

On accepting invitations: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/on-accepting-invitations/

Liberal preference for fairness and conservatives preference for safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Hidden Reactor, Silent Reaction

Posted on March 3, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: As the world negotiates with Iran about their nuclear program, it is worth remembering lessons from Syria’s nuclear plant in 2007.

In September 2007, something significant happened in the Middle East. While the details were very murky as the news reports were cryptic, it was clear that a major event came-and-went. Over the following months and years, more information emerged about Syria’s nascent nuclear program and Israel’s attack that destroyed it.

Syrian nuclear reactor, 2007

Failure to Detect

Syria began to investigate the feasibility of a nuclear program in the 1990s and by the mid-2000s it was building a nuclear facility with the help of North Korea. The facility was being constructed roughly 100 miles from the Iraqi border. During its construction, hundreds of thousands of American troops were busy a few miles from the construction site during the Iraq War. Many reconnaissance missions repeatedly flew over the Syrian site, but US intelligence failed to detect that Syria had embarked on plans to build a weapon of mass destruction. For years.

The New York Times stated that “the Americans were somewhat blindsided…. By their own account, they…only identified the plant at Al Kibar, named for the nearest town, after they received photos of the interior of the plant last spring from Israel… But even this victory [of destroying the plant], some experts note, raises questions about the [CIA]’s focus. The reactor was built within 100 miles of the Iraqi border yet never identified even though the administration was searching for any form of such arms programs in Iraq…. Graham Allison, a Harvard professor and author of “Nuclear Terrorism,” who was in Washington on Thursday to testify about Iran’s nuclear program [said] ‘if you can build a reactor in Syria without being detected for eight years, how hard can it be to sell a little plutonium to Osama bin Laden?’”

Location of Syria’s nuclear plant

The Power of Pride

The incident of the secret nuclear facility remained quiet considering the enormity of both its construction and destruction. Not surprisingly, the Syrians wanted to keep the plant hidden as they saw what Israel did to Iraq’s nuclear reactor in 1981. Israel’s silence on its actions against Syria was a calculated move on the part of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

Israel refused to broadcast its strike out of fear that doing so would provoke Syrian President Assad to respond with an attack on Israel. By maintaining silence, Olmert hoped he could allow Assad an escape from reacting to his bruised pride from the crushing setback of Israel’s destroying his plan to become the first Arab nuclear power.

Indeed, the news reports that emerged from Syria about the event were inconsistent. Some reports stated that Israeli planes entered Syrian airspace and were forced to flee due to Syrian fire. Later, the Syrian government said that Israeli planes did enter its airspace, but the warplanes only hit an empty military building. As such, there was no need for an immediate large-scale confrontation with Israel. War averted.

Lessons for the Iranian Nuclear Program

DETECTION: The United States administration is actively negotiating with Iran about the extent to which Iran could build nuclear power. Early reports on the negotiations indicate that the terms would necessitate an examination of the Iranian facilities to make sure that they would not migrate an energy program towards nuclear weapons. However, as the Syrian reactor incident makes clear, inspections are flawed. The US’s track record about bad intelligence of Iraq developing a nuclear weapon must also be considered.

Further, consider that the Iranian facilities (that are known) are spread all over the country. This agreement may enable Iran to operate those current facilities freely. If the US failed to identify the building of large facilities over many years, can the world really be sure it can make a thorough accounting of the thousands of centrifuges and the fissile materials warehoused inside many buildings spread around the country? The Obama Administration essentially has conceded that it cannot, so it will rely on Iran to show them what they have: “Without an agreement we don’t have any of this insight into Iran’s nuclear program.”

In other words, the current working agreement is to let the fox guard the chicken coop.

Iranian nuclear research facility

PRIDE: The second lesson from Operation Orchid, as the Israeli bombing mission was known, was the significance of Arab pride. Israel understood that Syrian pride would have demanded a large response to the Israeli attack. By its keeping its role and the target silent, Israel avoided a large scale war.

The secrecy surrounding Israel’s own nuclear program is for the same purpose. If Israel’s Arab neighbors would publicly acknowledge the existence of their enemy having nuclear weapons, they would demand WMDs as well. By maintaining an undeclared nuclear program, the arms race in the Middle East never occurred.

That will now change.

Iran’s development of nuclear power, and the world’s tacit approval of it will force other players in the region such as Saudi Arabia to seek nuclear weapons. The very public nature of these discussions do not permit the Saudi Kingdom to swallow their pride. People will assume that a quiet side deal was made to allow Iran to get nuclear weapons, or Iran will obtain them against the terms of the agreement. Regardless, approving a nuclear program for Iran will commence an arms race in the most volatile region in the world.

Iraq’s sole nuclear plant was known and Israel’s attack was public.
Syria’s nuclear facility was hidden and Israel’s attack was kept silent.
Iran’s program is large and public and will demand a large and public response to halt the program from the global community.

Related First.One.Through articles:

The gap between fairness and safety: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/the-gap-between-fairness-and-ramifications-wmds-in-iraq-and-iran/

Obama’s Iranian red line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Murderous governments of the Middle East: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/08/01/murderous-governments-of-the-middle-east/

Obama dancing with the Asteroids: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/dancing-with-the-asteroids/

The Gap between Fairness and Safety: WMDs in Iraq and Iran

Posted on March 1, 2015 by First.One.Through

Summary: There can be a large gap between perceived fairness and ultimate safety. Liberals seem to prefer the moral value of the former, while conservatives value the comfort in the latter.

Liberals on Iraq

Many liberals in the United States love to attack former President George W. Bush for his decision to go to war in Iraq. The president acted on bad information that Iraq was involved in the attacks on the US on 9/11/01, and then doubled-down on flawed intelligence which claimed that Iraq was building weapons of mass destruction (WMDs). America engaged in a very costly war in terms of lives, cost and credibility based on that bad information.

As a presidential candidate, Barack Obama campaigned to pull American troops out of Iraq because he thought the war was wrong, and when he became president, he fulfilled that pledge. Not long after the last US troops left Iraqi soil, the terrorist group Islamic State/ISIS filled the vacuum left by America’s absence. In the wake of several thousands of murdered people, Obama is now weighing how deeply to reengage in Iraq to combat the demons his actions helped create.

Liberals on Iran

In a related policy, the liberal-minded Obama is in the process of enabling the Islamic State of Iran to become a threshold nuclear power. In Obama’s worldview, it is difficult to validate why the US, Pakistan and seven other countries should have nuclear weapons and Iran shouldn’t.

Obama obsesses over “inequality” and fairness in society and also believes that all countries consider themselves to be exceptional. In a “fair” world of complete equality, the liberal position of equal entitlement prevents Obama from negotiating forcefully against the Iranian regime that desires to enter the pantheon of nuclear states.

Obama on Iran Negotiations

As such, Obama concluded that he will allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons and use the negotiations as an opportunity repair ties with Iran that have been combative since the 1979 Iranian revolution.

Conservatives on Ramifications

While most conservatives will agree that the war in Iraq was a mistake, they argue that the decision to completely high-tail out of Iraq was a more tragic mistake. Abandoning the country left a power-vacuum which was filled by the Islamic State. Iraq became lawless and is now a foundation state for jihadists. Obama’s decision further destabilized the country, which has produced terrible security outcomes in the Middle East, the US and the world.

Senator McCain speaking against Iraq pullout

Conservatives believe that Obama’s “soft” negotiations with Iran will similarly have terrible ramifications for global security.

The US State Department has called Iran the world’s “most active state sponsor of terrorism.” It supplies Hezbullah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza with weapons, money and intelligence. Iran was involved in blowing up the Jewish center in Argentina in 1994 and attacks on US military personnel in1996.
Saudi Arabia, an enemy of Iran, has made clear that it will pursue nuclear weapons if Iran obtains such capabilities.
Iran has publicly threatened to destroy Israel.

The ramifications of enabling Iran to get nuclear weapons will likely either lead to Israel attacking Iran, or initiating an arms race in the volatile Middle East. So much for Obama’s desire to have a world with fewer nuclear weapons. The only party to have fewer nukes will be the US while human rights-abusing countries such as Iran and Saudi Arabia would be on their way to being able to cause global destruction as one considers a world of nuclear terrorism.

Conservatives are less worried about the double-standards of who gets nuclear power today if it leads to greater stability tomorrow. Liberals, on the other hand, focus on being fair today and are less fixated on the ramifications tomorrow.

Iranian bombing of Khobar Towers killing 19 Americans,
June 1996

Lessons in Safety from Experience

It would be worthwhile for Obama to consider “unfair” laws in the US. Many laws and policies are deliberately biased to counter-balance experience related to safety.

Rental car companies discriminate against youth. People under 25 years of age cannot rent a car on their own.
The US enforces seatbelt laws and helmet laws for motorcycles, limiting individual freedoms.
Insurance companies charge more for certain models of cars, particularly high-performance and sports cars, regardless of the driver’s record.

These laws and accepted biased corporate policies are in place because of experience. People under 25 get in more car accidents than older people, so the car rental companies charge them a bundle because of the perceived risks, even if the renter is a great driver. Similarly insurance companies charge all drivers of Mercedes convertibles more, which has led to police charging those drivers four times as many traffic tickets.

Seat belt laws and helmet laws are in place because they save lives. Many studies have shown the drop-off in fatalities due to these laws, which (literally) restrict a person’s freedom. State laws prevent under-age (sometimes 20 or 19) people from consuming alcohol because it helps save lives.

These are just a few examples of where society assesses risks based on historic outcomes. They exist everywhere including health insurance companies charging more to smokers than non-smokers. While a particular smoker may live much longer than a non-smoker, society draws certain conclusions based on past behavior and history.

History serves as the basis for making policies that improve safety.

Iran is not just another country

There are Islamic countries such as Pakistan that have nuclear weapons. There are repressive regimes such as China with nuclear weapons. However, the world has not seen a state sponsor of terrorism (such as Qatar) obtain a weapon of mass destruction.

The history of Iran and current statements from the government make it a dangerous player on the world stage. Endorsing Iran’s building the most powerful weapons in the world puts the entire planet at risk..

There were no WMDs in Iraq and America should not have gone to war. But Obama’s abandoning Iraq to reverse a bad decision ignored the reality of the existing paradigm. His decision to be fair had terrible ramifications for regional peace.

Enabling Iran to get WMDs ignores the actions of that government. Obama’s deep belief in equality cannot be allowed to jeopardize global safety.

Related First.One.Through articles:

Obama’s Iranian Red Line: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/24/obamas-iranian-red-line/

Obama’s foreign policy: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/27/obamas-foreign-policy/

Obama dancing with the asteroids: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/14/dancing-with-the-asteroids/

Obama’s Iranian Red Line

Posted on November 24, 2014 by First.One.Through

The world watched Israeli Prime Minister draw a red line over Iran’s nuclear program at the United Nations two years ago. US President Obama also described a “Red Line” for Syria’s chemical weapons- from which he quietly back-tracked.

The cartoon of Obama’s “Red Lines”

The cartoon of Obama’s red line is being spread around the Internet right now, as US Secretary of State John Kerry kicked-the-can on Iran once again, and Obama fired Defense Secretary Hagel:

Obama as Bug Bunny:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttfhSJQPDlY

Sources:

Netanyahu Iranian nuclear red line: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/27/us-un-assembly-israel-iran-idUSBRE88Q0GI20120927

Obama Syrian red line: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-issues-syria-red-line-warning-on-chemical-weapons/2012/08/20/ba5d26ec-eaf7-11e1-b811-09036bcb182b_story.html

Kicking the can on Iran: http://online.wsj.com/articles/iran-nuclear-talks-likely-to-close-without-result-1416830109

Canning Defense Secretary Hagel: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/hagel-said-to-be-stepping-down-as-defense-chief-under-pressure.html

Seeing Security through a Screen

Posted on November 24, 2014 by First.One.Through

The 44^th US President is surrounded by high walls
and peers out at the world through pretty screens.

In November 2014, “someone” in the Obama Administration chose to belittle the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The choice of expletives aside, the call was not just revealing about how much Barack Obama and his administration disliked Netanyahu, it reflected a smugness and cluelessness of the US Administration about living in the dangerous Middle East.

America at Peace

America has been blessed with peace on its shores. While the country has waged many wars over the past 70 years, the actual fighting was on foreign lands including: Europe; Iraq; Vietnam; Korea; Japan; Libya; Kosovo; Somalia and many other countries. Other than two attacks on American soil, the US has been spared fear and death at home.

Points in Time: There were only two days that the USA had foreigners attacking the country: December 7, 1941 and September 11, 2001. America has not faced a prolonged attack on its shores for centuries.
Troops Trespassing: Pearl Harbor and the 9/11 attacks were done via airplanes. Foreign warriors did not walk the streets of America.
Families Threatened: The two attacks were on military installations (the navy fleet and the Pentagon) and financial center (World Trade Center). America did not face an enemy that threatened homes and families.
Existential Threat: America is a superpower, armed with firepower that can destroy the world many times over. It has not engaged with an enemy that could threaten the very existence of the country.
Peaceful borders: America is lucky to have only two borders despite its enormous size. Both neighbors are friends, allies and trading partners of the USA.

None of these facts are true for Israel. Israel is surrounded by several enemy countries. These neighbors have stated their intention to wipe Israel off of the map and have repeatedly gone to war and fired directly into civilian population centers over and over again through the decades of Israel’s existence.

Lawyers as Commanders-in-Chief

America’s peaceful existence has enabled it to calmly elect presidents with no military experience over the last several decades. When America fought its great wars such as the Revolutionary War, the Civil War and World War II, the American people elected the respective generals to become the Commanders-in-Chief in the following years (George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower).

Never in battle. The recent US presidents and vice presidents (particularly the Democratic ones) including Barack Obama, Joe Biden and Bill Clinton had no military experience at all. George HW Bush fought in World War II, while George W Bush served in the National Guard but was never in battle. Al Gore served as a military reporter for a short stint. Other than HW Bush, these men never faced true fear or saw friends die in battle. They led the world’s largest military machine as Commanders-in-Chief without appreciating the danger and fear of deadly combat.
No draft. America no longer has a draft so every person that serves in the military does so as a volunteer. Such a system can mask the decision of deploying troops for a military commander. Each soldier is a volunteer and trained professional. This “professional army” is very different than “citizen armies” that pull people out of the workforce and touch every corner of a country. As such, American presidents fight wars without the same direct economic and emotional impact that face other countries.
The infrequent visitor. President George W Bush launched the Iraq War in response to the attacks on 9/11 and President Obama invested heavily in the War in Afghanistan. Each president made only four short trips to the regions despite deploying well over half a million troops in each war over many years.

In Israel, every person must serve in the armed forces. Every family deals with disruption to its business and annual routine. Each citizen faces the risks on a very personal level – physical, financial and emotional. Every family in Israel knows someone who died in one of its wars.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu served in the elite unit Sayeret Matkal, and took part in a number of military operations, including the 1972 rescue of a hijacked Sebana passenger jet. His brother died leading a raid to free Israeli civilians hijacked in Entebee in 1976. Other members of the current Israeli ruling coalition include Naftali Bennett who served in two elite units including Sayeret Matkal and Maglan. Yair Lapid served as a First Sergeant in the IDF.

Israeli Prime Ministers do not just visit the frontlines in each battle they fight- they can see the missiles standing next to their families from their bedroom windows.

The Obama Detachment

The detachment from reality regarding the fear and adrenaline of battle for an American president is compounded in the case of Obama, who is generally acknowledged to be a “detached” individual.

Constitutional law. President Obama has referred to himself as a professor of constitutional law. His leadership style exemplified this attitude whether on domestic matters such as Immigration Reform or the Targeted Killing of Anwar al-Awlaki when he delved into the nuances of particular laws in large legal briefs. Despite being the Commander-in-Chief, he is most comfortable as a lawyer surrounded by other lawyers sitting around a conference room table; he is clearly not a military leader surrounded by armed forces in the field of battle.
Community organizer. Obama’s background as a community organizer focused on ways to elevate a particular community within the 330 million-population of the United States. He has no background or experience in protecting the entire country, which every leader in Israel has experienced for several years.
Competitive sports. Obama is very proud of his athletic skills and people have noted his deep competitive streak. However, talking dirt about dunks is divorced from the reality of deploying troops in your backyard against enemies sworn to your destruction while the world admonishes your right to defend itself. Beating an opponent on the court has little to do with protecting ones citizens.
Battle by Remote. The best summary of the Obama detachment is in his moniker “The Drone President”. More than any president in US history, Obama has used drones to assassinate his enemies. The pilots of the drones may be hundreds or thousands of miles from the battle scene. Obama’s army drops the missiles and departs, never personally entering the zone of combat and therefore never exposed to danger.
The Ultimate belief in Self. Despite never being in battle, (other than some competitive basketball games), and relying more and more on mechanized drones in the battlefield, Obama has a tremendous sense of his centrality to the war machine. After US marines assassinated Osama bin Laden while Obama sat and watched on a screen, his speech to the nation the next day was littered with an active “I” to describe the mission.
1. “I directed Leon Panetta”
2. “I was briefed”
3. “I met repeatedly”
4. “I determined”
5. “I, as Commander-in-Chief”

Obama and his administration sit in their comfy offices in their calm country thousands of miles from confrontation and peer into the battle through TV screens and simulators. They watch their orders for assassinations and wars, with laptops and coffee. Their added security blanket of being a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, adds yet another shield from any serious global charge. As Mel Brooks once aptly said “It’s good to be the King.”

Obama, Clinton and crew watch the attack on Bin Laden on monitors,
May 2011

Remarkably, Obama, the cloistered captain, touts his talents and has the temerity to taunt his unloved ally, the besieged Bibi Netanyahu.

The Israeli Prime Minister, the “chick*hit” that the Obama administration referred to, never had the ability to be so smug. His backyard contains a museum memorializing millions of relatives slaughtered for the crime of being a Jew just a few decades ago. He grew up with a gun in his hand to fight terrorists attacking his neighbors, and armies attacking his country. He wakes each morning knowing that his house and family are in the comfortable crosshairs of enemies sworn to destroy him, his country and his people.

In addition to his enemies, today Netanyahu has to fight against a world that admonishes him for protecting his people. He has to contend with his greatest ally, the United States, which continues to make it impossible to preemptively attack and destroy Iran’s nuclear weapons.

Insults are not a big deal for a leader who has fought for the survival of his people; Bibi has been called worse by members of his own parliament.

The insult says much more about Obama than it does about Bibi.

Sources:

The Atlantic on Obama anger at Bibi: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/10/the-crisis-in-us-israel-relations-is-officially-here/382031/

Obama visits Afghanistan: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-arrives-in-afghanistan-on-surprise-visit/2014/05/25/7df61452-e41f-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

Bush visit Iraq: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/background-bushs-surprise-visits-to-iraq-afghanistan/

Obama Constitutional Law Professor: http://www.factcheck.org/2008/03/obama-a-constitutional-law-professor/

Obama detached: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/democrats-privately-calling-obama-detached-flat-footed-incompetent_793544.html

Obama competitive sports: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/08/book-obama-driven-by-competitive-streak-/1#.VHMoCLMtCUk

Legal Case for Killing: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/world/middleeast/anwar-al-awlaki-a-us-citizen-in-americas-cross-hairs.html?hp&_r=0

Obama speech on Bin Laden: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/05/02/osama-bin-laden-dead

Dancing with the Asteroids

Posted on November 14, 2014 by First.One.Through

Mankind has always been enamored with stars. Since our earliest history, people have looked up at the stars in wonder. The bright points of lights inspired some of civilization’s greatest poetry and stories of heroism. The beacons of light in the darkness guided sailors lost at sea and eased the fear of night for children at home.

Today, some of our favorite celebrities and sports heroes are referred to as “stars”. Compared to the heroes in mythology immortalized in the sky, today’s stars are modern heroes on the sports field and movie screens on earth. We cheer their successes as our own and wait anxiously for the next opportunity to watch them.

Conversely, asteroids are lightless, lifeless pieces of rock. They lack any internal source of light and warmth. Some may have, once upon a time, been a part of something greater and noble, but those days are long past.

A hit television show developed in 2005 called “Dancing with the Stars” in which famous celebrities were paired in dance competitions with ballroom dancers. The shows quickly rocketed to number one as audiences loved watching their stars compete in an entertaining new setting. The phenomenon spread to more than 40 countries around the globe, including in: Western Europe; North America; parts of South America; Australia; Russia and China. Almost all of Africa and the Middle East did not adopt the show, with the only exceptions being Israel, Lebanon and South Africa.

The map in blue of countries with “Dancing with the Stars”

The Politics of Dancing with Asteroids

In the fall of 2014, US President Obama formed a coalition of forces to fight the Islamic State or ISIS. Obama stated that: “The only language understood by killers like this is the language of force. So the United States of America will work with a broad coalition to dismantle this network of death.” Over 50 countries pledged support for the fight, but only a handful agreed to take part in military action.

Obama worked hard and touted his success in bringing Arab countries into the fighting coalition: Bahrain; Jordan; Qatar; Saudi Arabia; and the UAE. This was the US dance card Obama sought for what he claimed was “going to be a long-term campaign”.

Qatar: one of the leading financiers of terrorists, especially Hamas, but also extremists in Libya and Egypt. It’s Al-Jazeera TV has helped spread Salafism throughout the Middle East. It’s treatment of migrant workers is infamous.
Saudi Arabia: home to 15 of the 19 September 11 mass murderers. The greatest offenders of women’s rights in the world. Zero political empowerment for the masses.
Bahrain: a monarchy that successfully crushed the pro-democracy movement in its country (out of the lens of the western press or United Nations).
Jordan: a leading funnel of jihadists that cross into and out of Iraq and Syria.
UAE: another financier of terrorists

Obama’s dance card of the dark was seemingly not quite full. Reports emerged that Obama sent a secret letter to Iran to help battle the Islamic State.

Iran: perhaps the only country to finance and export terror more than Saudi Arabia and Qatar. It helped undermine the stability of Iraq. It is building nuclear capability while it threatens to destroy Israel.

US Secretary of State John Kerry (R) and Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif (L)

Those are the partners Obama chose when he claimed that the battle is larger than ISIL, and that the coalition is “fighting an ideological strain of extremism that has taken root in too many parts of the region.” That is the very definition of the coalition he assembled.

Obama may argue that allying in the fight with such parties is a necessary evil. It arguably protects the US from criticism that it is not acting alone against an Arab/Muslim foe, as fellow Arab and/or Muslim countries are alongside of America in the fight. Practically speaking, it is easier to wage a battle from nearby territory, so many of these coalition partners are simply the neighbors of ISIS. Perhaps.

It may be politically expedient to dance with the asteroids, but it is certainly not pretty to watch.

Sources:

Dancing with the Stars show: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2287630/Strictly-Come-Dancing-global-hit-BBCs-successful-export-rakes-millions.html

The coalition against Islamic State forms: http://www.defenseone.com/threats/2014/09/heres-map-obamas-coalition-against-islamic-state/95000/

Obama’s speech to the coalition: http://www.politicususa.com/2014/10/15/president-obama-talks-strategy-anti-isil-coalition.html

America’s coalition partners: http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/09/23/350877632/obama-coalition-against-isis-shows-it-is-not-americas-fight-alone

A perspective on the coalition partners: http://lubpak.com/archives/74002

Obama letter to Iran: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/07/lawmakers-slam-obama-letter-to-iran-ayatollah-ali-khamenei/

Extreme and Mainstream. Germany 1933; West Bank & Gaza Today

Posted on October 25, 2014 by First.One.Through

Many books and studies have been written analyzing Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 1940s, including the famous “Hitler’s Willing Executioners” by Daniel Goldhagen. The premise of the book revolved around the question of how Hitler – a single madman – could possibly kill millions of people. The book advanced a theory that, putting it simplistically, a single extreme individual or idea could stop being viewed as extreme if many others harbored similar thoughts. Millions of people could be actively annihilated if an entire society believed in the extreme notion that Jews, gays, gypsies and other “undesirables” should be killed. Such a society was capable – and did – murder millions. It was not a lone extremist with a gun, but a country with an army.

The dynamics of the Palestinians in 2014 runs parallel to the Germans in the 1930s in many respects.

Mufti of Jerusalem visiting Nazi troops

Position

Position of Germany: The Nazi platform in 1920 made clear its intent of stripping Jews of citizenship. It allowed Jews to live in the country as “aliens”, but forbade any new Jews from moving to the country.
Position of Palestinians: The Hamas party made clear its position of Jews in its 1988 charter, calling for their murder and destruction of the Jewish State.
The more “moderate” Fatah leadership of the Palestinian Authority has called for a new country to be void of any Jews.
The PA has established laws that call for the death penalty for any Arab that sells land to a Jew.
The major Palestinian university bans Israeli Jews entry onto its campus.

Popularity

Majority support: The Nazi party won 44% of the votes in 1933. Hamas won 58% of the seats in Parliament in 2006 with their radical platform.
Last election. The Nazis suspended elections after the 1933 vote. The Palestinians have held neither presidential elections nor parliamentary elections since their 2006 election.
Popularity of Nazis: There are no polls to show how the Nazis would have fared if additional elections were held. Perhaps the Nazis feared that they could have lost an election and therefore did not allow one.
Popularity of Hamas: There are dozens of polls that show Hamas would win the presidential elections and the parliament with over 50% of the vote, no matter what year the poll was taken. The current acting PA President Mahmoud Abbas (of the Fatah party) and the world knows this, so has suspended any new elections which would clearly show the desires of the Palestinian Arabs for war.

Palestinians in Nazi Salute

As seen above, the Hamas positions are more extreme than the Nazis at the time of the respective elections. The Palestinians voted much more overwhelmingly for Hamas than the Germans did for the Nazis. Palestinian anti-Semitism in 2014 is more extreme and mainstream than the Germans in the 1930s.

As further evidence, in May 2014, the Anti Defamation League conducted a global poll of anti-Semitism. By a substantial margin, the Palestinians held the most anti-Semitic views in the world, with almost every single Palestinian Arab (93%) in the West Bank and Gaza holding anti-Semitic views. In comparison, 26% of countries outside of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region held anti-Semitic views.

Germany rose to power in the 1930s and the world did not hold the Nazi aspirations in check. As such, Nazi Germany went on to execute its plans killing millions of civilians until the world reacted. Perhaps the world only stepped in, because Germany crossed into their backyards.

Fatah leader in Nazi Salute

Today, the Palestinians do not have significant fire power and have therefore only been able to kill hundreds, not millions of Jews.

Will the world encourage and embrace such a nation and leadership on the world stage?
Will the world enable Iran or other allies of the Palestinians to obtain nuclear weapons?
Does the world believe that “Never Again” only means in Europe?

Related First.One.Through articles:

Abbas’ Jihad is a move to the mainstream Palestinian opinion: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/11/12/mainstream-and-abbas-jihad/

Why the media ignores Jihad in Israel: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/radical-jihadists-in-europe-and-dislocated-and-alienated-palestinians-in-Israel/

Abbas’ racism: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/abbas-knows-racism/

Antisemitism, Holocaust denial and terrorism in Palestinian society and leadership: https://firstonethrough.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/what-do-you-recognize-in-the-palestinians/