Letter: Obama’s Pretext for Pressuring Israel Is Disingenuous.
Obama’s pretext for pressuring Israel, which JTA reported in its story, “At White House, U.S. Jews offer little resistance to Obama policy on settlements," is disingenuous. Obama asserted that when there was “no daylight” between the U.S. and Israel under President Bush there was no peace progress. This excuse, however, is invalid... Read more »
Opinion: Obama’s Threat to the Middle East Balance of Power
Opinion: As commentator Jonathan Tobin recently stated, President Obama’s Cairo speech was “morally unserious.” Read more »
RSS Feed Breaking News
Updated 11/22/09 @ 05:02PM EDT
- Hundreds of Jewish and non-Jewish Brazileans protested in Rio de Janeiro on the eve of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit.
- "Real progress" has been made in negotiations to release a captured Israeli soldier, President Shimon Peres confirmed.
- The online auction Web site eBay said it took down an ad offering biological samples from Benito Mussolini before anyone could bid on them.
- Turkey has given Israeli defense contractors 50 days to deliver 10 promised drone aircraft.
- Iran began an air defense drill designed to protect its nuclear program, Iranian state television reported.
- Brazileans protest Ahmadinejad visit
- Peres: ‘Real progress’ in Shalit talks
- The Mofaz plan—state now, ask questions later
- eBay removes Mussolini brain, blood samples
- Turkey demands delivery of Israeli drones
- Iran begins air defense drill
- More Israeli recruits seeking to join combat units
- Haredim return to protest Jerusalem Intel factory
- Female Orthodox scholars helping women talk about sex
- Obama half-brother has Jewish roots
- Lieberman: Fort Hood could be terror attack
- J Street confab shows generational divide on Israel
- What really happened at the Reform biennial in Toronto
- Rubashkin convicted on 86 charges
- Pro-Israel fliers confiscated at campus speech
- Obama shifts to Israel’s corner, but tries not to show it
Get this feed
Posted in: Letter: Obama's Pretext for Pressuring Israel Is Disingenuous.
08/18/09 07:51 PM
Von Roth asserts that the issue is no longer "who is to blame," evidently referring to the violation of peace commitments. However, the irrefutable evidence is that when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, Judea and Samaria (Oslo) and Gaza, all she received in return was the antithesis of peace-a continuous onslaught of terror. Von Roth's assertion, therefore, advocates a policy not based on the difference between right and wrong; in other words, a policy both immoral and amoral, and not conducive to true peace. His comment does not merit any further response.
Posted in: Indyk: Stop settlement activity to advance peace
08/08/09 04:52 PM
Furthermore, the "settlement" issue is far more complicated than Mr. Indyk represents. It involves historical right-the right to live in Israel's historical homeland--as well as security. Israel at her narrowest point based on the 1949 armistice line is only 9-11 miles wide. Israeli leaders have recognized that these lines are indefensible. Israel cannot be expected to retreat to them. Geography and topography are important elements to defense, a subject for which Mr. Indyk does not appear to have any special expertise If Israel could be assured of real peace, then perhaps there might be room for compromise as to some these settlements, but certainly not all of them. Even then, this issue would have to be negotiated, not compromised by unreciprocated , unilateral concessions. However, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon, significant parts of Judea and Samaria under Oslo, and Gaza, she received not peace but the antithesis of peace. As Shakespeare wrote ("The Tempest"), in words also engraved at our National Archives in Washington, "What's past is prologue."
Posted in: Indyk: Stop settlement activity to advance peace
08/08/09 04:39 PM
The problem with Mr. Indyk's argument -that Israel must cease settlement activity for peace--is that it is unsupported and historical evidence undermines it. There were three major wars-Israeli War of Independence (1947-49), Suez/Sinai War (1956) and Six-Day War (1967) --all initiated or provoked by Arabs--in which there were few if any "settlements" in Judea and Samaria. Those wars were directed soley at Israel's right to exist. Furthermore, when Israel withdrew completely from Gaza--dismantling ever settlement, disposessing every Israeli citizen and withdrawing every Israeli soldier--all she received in return was Hamas and a massive rocket-missile assault.
Posted in: Obama, Dennis Ross and the Iran conundrum
08/05/09 09:00 PM
Indyk believes Israel would not strike Iran's nuclear weapons because "Israel has second-strike capability." However, he lacks any military competence to support that opinion. He admits "It wouldn’t be easy to live with an Iran that’s a virtual nuclear power." That is an understatement. Israel would have to live with a sword of Damocles over her head and her people. Indyk also asserts that if Iran obtained nuclear arms,"at the end of the day, it’s not a complete disaster.” He thus impliedly admits that this would be at least a partial disaster. Indyk also lacks any known training or competence in weapons of mass destruction. He has no expertise to evaluate the blast, thermal and radiation effects that a nuclear detonation would have on Israel. I remember Indyk taking a hard-line on Israel when he held office. He has little if any credibility in pretending to advocate anything in Israel's interest. By now, it is clear that Obama is ingratiating himself with the Muslim world by denigrating and scapegoating Israel. Obama, however, will not hold office forever. But a nuclear-armed Iran could very well be forever. Israel has to act solely in her own interest, and not seek to appease inexperienced and hostile officials like Obama.
Posted in: At White House, U.S. Jews offer little resistance to Obama policy on settlements
08/05/09 04:48 PM
Let's hope our Jewish leadership is capable of doing a better job than as reported. Those leaders who were or are political supporters, contributors and fund-raisers for Obama must realize that they owe undivided loyalty to 1) the United State of America, and, next, 2) the Jewish, pro-Israel organizations and causes they lead. For example, Obama's pretext for pressuring Israel-when there was no "daylight" there was no peace progrsss--was disingenuous. When Administrations pressure Israel (eg,Clinton inviting Arafat to the White House and Bush supporting the Roadmap, Palestinian State, and Annapolis conference, there also was no peace process. No Jewish leader challenged him on this at the meeting, although ADL subsequently spoke out. The acquiesence of Jewish leaders may have encouraged Obama to start pressing on Jerusalem. It's time we recognized that Obama seeks to ingratiate himself with Muslim potentates by denigrating and scapegoating Israel. Pleae see my letter under Readers Report for further information and discussion. Thank you very much for your consideration.
View all comments »