The Democratic Party shakes Israel all about 1
You put Israel in
You put Israel out
And you shake it all about.
Barack Obama said in a speech to AIPAC that Jerusalem must remain the undivided capital of Israel.
But that was back in 2008 when Obama was still taking some trouble to woo Jews and other pro-Israel voters to support him.
The present Democratic National Convention omitted any mention of Jerusalem being the capital of Israel.
It also left out old platform statements about the status of Palestinian refugees, and of Hamas as a terrorist organization not to be dealt with or supported in any way. Obviously the guide to these decisions came from Obama whose State Department, since March this year, refused to call Jerusalem the capital of Israel, and who tried to order Israel to return to its indefensible 1967 borders. He wants to fund UN agencies that accept Palestinians as a member "state".
Acceptance by Israel of the millions of Palestinians who claim to have been dispossessed when the State of Israel was declared, or a return to its 1967 borders, would be acts of suicide. As Obama must know this, he must desire the consequence. It could hardly be clearer that Obama does not like Israel and likes Islam very much, especially the Muslim Brotherhood (of which Hamas is a calf).
But then something happened on the way to the third day of the DNC. Obama and the Democratic Party as a whole came under fierce criticism for making the changes, presumably from quarters they do not want to antagonize. So, according to the Wall Street Journal, the "language describing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel" was "swiftly reinserted … in an attempt to defuse controversy on the eve of President Barack Obama's speech accepting his party's nomination".
Convention delegates, by a voice vote, approved a resolution restoring language the party had put in its 2008 platform, as well as earlier ones, referring to Jerusalem as the capital of the Jewish state. But the vote was disputed. Three separate voice votes were called, and only after the third was the issue declared decided—and some delegates then booed.
(To our regret, the omission of "God" from the convention, which we praised in a post earlier, was also reversed.)
Far more maliciously and seriously, anti-Israel action is being taken by the Obama administration.
This is from Front Page by David Hornik:
In the same week that 120 "nonaligned" nations of the world were gathered in Tehran to give their blessing to its open genocidal anti-Semitism, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported that Iran had doubled the number of centrifuges at its underground Fordo site since May, while increasing its stockpile of 20%-enriched uranium to within 50 kilograms of a bomb. All this while continuing to block access — as it has been since November — to its Parchin facility for nuclear-explosives testing.
And that wasn't all. Even though the IAEA's findings vindicate all the warnings by Israeli leaders that Iran was exploiting the period of sanctions and diplomatic talks to race ahead toward the bomb, the Obama administration reacted — again — by coming down on Israel rather than Iran.
On Thursday the U.S. chief of staff, Gen. Martin Dempsey, told reporters in London that an Israeli attack on Iran would delay but probably not stop its nuclear program, could unravel the "international coalition" supposedly "pressuring" Iran, and that "I don't want to be complicit if they [Israel] choose to do it."
"Complicit"? As if such a pre-emptive act of self-defense would be a crime? Yes:
With a few words, then, Dempsey managed to convey that Israel was militarily incapable, a potential spoiler of an effective international strategy, and that it would be somehow criminal or illicit — "complicity" usually referring to illicit activity — if Israel did move to preempt the genocidal threat, something the U.S. would want no part of.
It was further reported by Time magazine that the U.S. was substantially scaling back a planned joint U.S.-Israeli military drill, though so far that account has evoked denials from some of the officials quoted in media reports. But, on the whole, the developments didn't impart the sense that the Obama administration "has Israel's back" as it has been ritually claiming.
"… ritually and mendaciously claiming", that should read.
As for "the U.S. substantially scaling back a planned joint U.S.-Israeli military drill", this source gives some concrete details of the reported reductions, leading us to think they are very likely true.
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Ehud Barak are silent in the face of the avalanche of bad news coming in from official Washington.
In accord with the Dempsey shout, this:
The Patriot anti-missile systems scheduled for what was to have been the biggest joint US-Israel anti-missile drill in October will remain packed in tarpaulin because they come without crews; even one – much less two – Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense warships may not be dispatched to Israeli waters; and the number of US servicemen sent over for the annual exercise is to be cut by more than two-thirds to 1,500.
This downgrade of US participation in an annual war exercise with Israel is more than striking. It adds up to the dismemberment by the Obama administration of the entire intricate strategy US and Israel have built over years for the deterrence – and interception if need be – of any Iranian/Hizballah/Syrian missile assault on Israel.
The inferences are cruel: The US defense or second-strike elements – which had been slotted into place by the military strategists of the two armies – will not be there. Their absence slashes the time available for Israel's alarm-and-interception systems to spring into action – the moment the engines of Iranian ballistic missiles heading its way are fired – right down from the originally estimated 14 minutes' notice.
It also means that Barak's estimate of 500 dead in the worst case of a war with Iran must go by the board.
So Israel is to be punished by Obama because Iran is intransigent. Or would it be more accurate to say that Obama is positively helping Iran advance towards nuclear capability?
A story is going round that he sent messages to Iran through two unnamed European countries that he would "hold back" Israel, but the mullahs must agree not to attack US shipping in the Gulf. The Dempsey insult was perhaps part of this plot.
For instance, The Blaze reports:
The Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronot published a startling report Monday detailing a message it says was conveyed by the Obama administration – via two European countries – to Iranian officials. The request: if Israel decides to strike Iranian nuclear facilities, the U.S. will not support it and the Islamic Republic should refrain from retaliating on U.S. military installations in the Persian Gulf.
The story has of course been denied by the White House.
But then it also denies disliking Israel, or wishing it anything but peace, prosperity, security and the continuing warm friendship of the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.
Posted under Commentary, Iran, Islam, Israel, jihad, middle east, Muslims, Palestinians, United Nations, United States, War by Jillian Becker on Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tagged with Democratic Party and Israel, DNC, hamas, Jerusalem the capital of Israel, Muslim Brotherhood, Obama and Israel, Obama anti-Israel, Obama pro-Islam, UN and the Palestinians