Friends and enemies, and how to tell the difference

May 3, 2011

Consider this a bookend to yesterday’s post about Hamas eulogizing bin Laden and thus declaring itself an enemy of the United States.  Here’s what a friend, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, had to say:

This is an historic day for the United States of America and for all the countries engaged in the battle against terrorism.  I want to congratulate President Obama and the American people.  I want to congratulate America’s soldiers, and its intelligence personnel for a truly outstanding achievement.  It took ten years to track Osama bin Laden down.  It took ten years to bring a measure of justice to his victims.

But the battle against terrorism is long and relentless and resolute.  This is a day of victory – a victory for justice, for freedom and for our common civilization.

And here’s the video:

Friends and enemies. It’s not hard to tell them apart at all.

via Power Line

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Barbarians: Brave jihadists murder family of five, including an infant

March 12, 2011

Tell me again these are civilized followers of a Religion of Peace. I dare you:

Israel hunted for the perpetrators of a grisly murder of a family of five in a remote West Bank settlement Saturday, appealing for help from the Palestinian Authority, which sent security forces to join the manhunt.

The knife attack, which killed two young children, a baby and their parents as they slept, was the deadliest in years. It comes at a delicate moment, with pressure building on Israel to launch a new peace initiative and the Palestinians pushing for world recognition of an independent state – with or without a peace deal.

Israeli forces set up checkpoints throughout the area surrounding the Itamar settlement in the northern West Bank and were still sweeping the region late into Saturday. Military officials said they had made some arrests, but wouldn’t provide details.

Sure, the Palestinian Authority is “helping.” Meanwhile, Palestinian civilians are celebrating:

Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.

Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy “is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank.”

The article then quotes the PA prime minister condemning the attack, but he draws the usual vapid moral equivalence between jihadist terrorists (which his government sponsors) and Israeli efforts to defend their own people.

Tell me, Mr. Prime Minister, when was the last time an Israeli solider knifed a month-old infant? And how many Israelis  handed out candy and praised God afterward? How is there any equivalence at all between Israel and the sick and depraved society you govern?

Go ahead, I’m waiting.

LINK: More at The Jawa Report.

(Crossposted at Sister Toldjah)


Bizarro World foreign policy: Israel apologize to Turkey?

July 6, 2010

Really, the Bizarro explanation is the only one that fits the Obama Administration’s conception of foreign affairs. After Turkey sponsors a jihadist flotilla aimed at breaking a legal naval blockade in order to give aid to Hamas, a jihadist terror group, the Obama Administration wants Israel to apologize to Turkey:

Tensions between Turkey and Israel escalated Monday as Turkey’s foreign minister said his country would sever diplomatic relations with Israel unless it either apologizes for its deadly raid on a Turkish aid ship or accepts an international inquiry into the incident.

The threat came as Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu prepares to meet Tuesday in Washington with President Obama. A Western diplomat, who spoke on the condition of anonymity before the foreign minister made his comments, said Obama plans to press the Israeli leader to apologize to defuse tensions.

“The president is very concerned about the breakdown in Turkish-Israeli relations,” the diplomat said. Asked if he thought Obama could persuade Netanyahu to apologize, the diplomat added: “I’m sure he’ll give it the college try.”

Senior Obama administration officials would neither confirm nor deny the president’s intentions for the meeting with Netanyahu.

If the President really does ask the Prime Minister to apologize for Israel’s act of self-defense, I have Netanyahu’s answer already prepared for him: אגוזים!

Translation

(via Hot Air)


Victor Davis Hanson: War and History, Ancient and Modern

June 14, 2010

Michael Totten, a journalist I highly recommend who specializes in the Middle East, the Balkans, and the Caucasus, conducts a wide-ranging interview of historian Victor Davis Hanson. It’s long, but read the whole thing; you’ll learn quite a bit.

One item that jumped out at me came at the end, when VDH discusses an exchange he had with a European admiral just prior to Obama’s election. It’s revelatory on several levels of European attitudes toward and dependency on the United States, and their fear of us becoming like them:

I had an interesting conversation two years ago just before Obama’s election with some military people in Versailles. They were at a garden party, and everybody was for Obama. But an admiral said to me, “We are Obama. You can’t be Obama.”

Everybody looked at him. And I said, “What do you mean?”

He said, “There’s only room for one Obama.”

I said, “So we’re supposed to do what? Take out Iran while you trash us?”

And he said, “Right out of my mouth. I couldn’t have said it better. Bush understood our relationship. We have to make accommodations with our public, which is lunatic. You don’t really believe there’s going to be an EU strike force, do you? Nobody here believes that. If you become neutral, what are we supposed to do?

That’s what he said. I was surprised at his candor. And it’s worrisome. On the one hand I like it because they’re getting just what they asked for, but on the other hand, it’s tragic. And it’s dangerous. We shouldn’t be doing this.

Emphasis added.


When is 140 less than nine?

June 10, 2010

When it’s 140 Muslims killed by Chinese police, as opposed to nine killed by Israeli soldiers on the Gaza flotilla. In the latter case, the world’s reaction has been to scream outrage at the Israelis. The UN demands an investigation. Even the US is stabbing its ally creating distance between itself and Israel.

And the reaction to the deaths of 14 times that number at the hands of the Chinese police? Why, I believe I can hear the proverbial pin drop.

So, what’s the difference? Why are nine lives worthy of more outrage than 140? Could the deciding factor be that they were killed by Jews?

Nah. Couldn’t be.


On the Gaza flotilla incident

June 1, 2010

I haven’t much to say about the Israeli seizure of a “humanitarian aid” boat that climaxed with the deaths of several “peaceful aid workers” (read as much sarcasm into that as you would like), but I will note a few things:

Roger Kimball, who pretty much covers my feelings in the matter, provides a ready-made explanation that even EU foreign ministers should understand:

  1. Israel (and Egypt) decided some time ago to blockade the Gaza strip because the Palestinians could not break their unfortunate habit of launching rocket attacks against Israel.
  2. On May 31, the six-ship “freedom flotilla” approaches the Gaza bloackade. The Israeli Navy repeatedly warns the ships to turn back or divert to the port of Ashod where their cargo can be inspected.
  3. Those commanding the ships ignore the order.
  4. After further warnings, Israeli commandos board the ships from helicopters. The commandos are instantly set upon by Palestinian “peace activists” who beat them with metal clubs and other objects.
  5. The Israelis, in self-defense, shoot several of those threatening them.
  6. The firefight being over, the Israelis arrest nearly 600 “peace activists” who refuse to identify themselves.

He also has a couple of interesting videos.

Given the support shown by the Islamic-supremacist Turkish government for a convoy organized by a group with known jihad-terror connections, maybe it’s time we began to reevaluate our ties to Turkey.

Power Line has good coverage here, here, and here.

ADDENDUM: Israel’s Foreign Ministry has a good background paper on the international law concerning the Gaza blockade and the interception of the convoy. Also, see this one on the amount of genuine aid the Israelis let through the Gaza border checkpoints. Had the organizers truly been interested in getting aid to Gaza, they could have stopped at an Israeli port and shipped the goods from there – as the Israelis had offered. But that wasn’t what they were after, their real goal being the opening of a maritime corridor for Hamas to smuggle weapons through. Remember the Karine-A?

UPDATE: Joel Pollak looks at “Israel, the Truth and the Asymmetric Warfare Of Embedded Journalism.”


Presidential mistakes

April 21, 2010

At NRO, David Pryce-Jones, author of Betrayal: France, the Arabs, and the Jews and The Closed Circle: an interpretation of the Arabs, lists four mistakes President Obama is making regarding Israel and its conflict with the Arabs. Here’s the second:

From his way of thinking, Obama goes on to conclude that Israeli-Palestinian peace holds the key to Middle East stability. Second mistake. If there was genuine peace tomorrow and a state of Palestine, it would make no difference to the Sunni-Shia divide, to the ambitions of Osama bin Laden or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the civil war in Yemen, to the sectarian conflict in Lebanon, to the hard-wired despots in Egypt and Syria, and so on and on.

Click for the other three.

The key isn’t Israeli occupation of Arab lands, but Israel’s very existence and the hatred of the Jews hardwired into Islam itself.


Smart Power: How to lose friends and influence no one

March 28, 2010

In the nearly 15 months since Barack Obama was inaugurated as President and Hillary Clinton installed as his Secretary of State, our Smart Power team has done something I thought impossible: make me yearn for the days of Jimmy Carter as a model of a strong and effective foreign policy. Consider three recent items:

First, he has managed to do almost certainly fatal damage to our “special relationship” with Great Britain, an alliance forged between FDR and Winston Churchill in crucible of the Second World War. After that, the two nations cooperated closely in the Cold War against Soviet communist aggression, operating hand-in-glove whether the governments in Washington and London were Democrat or Republican, Labour or Conservative. In the years since the fall of the Berlin Wall and the welcome death of the USSR, America and Britain have continued to work together, even to the point war.

No more. The special relationship is dead, and Obama and Clinton own the corpse:

BRITAIN’S special relationship with the US — forged by Winston Churchill and Franklin Roosevelt in the second world war — no longer exists, says a committee of influential MPs.

Instead, America’s relationship with Britain is no more special than with its other main allies, according to a report by the Commons foreign affairs committee published today.

The report also warns that the perception of the UK after the Iraq war as America’s “subservient poodle” has been highly damaging to Britain’s reputation and interests around the world. The MPs conclude that British prime ministers have to learn to be less deferential to US presidents and be “willing to say no” to America.

Gosh, I’m not sure why they would conclude that, after the respect Obama has shown for the UK, such as returning a bust of Churchill loaned by London as a show of solidarity after 9/11, or insulting Prime Minister Brown and the Queen with gifts from the Wal-Mart bargain bin. I mean, why should they be bothered by his failure to acknowledge the sacrifice made by British troops in Afghanistan and Iraq, or other acts of deliberate rudeness? And why should Whitehall care that Secretary Clinton is willing to negotiate the status of sovereign British territory? Nial Gardiner implores Conservative leader David Cameron to do all he can to preserve the relationship, but, really, what is Britain to do when Obama repeatedly spits in her eye?

Special Relationship, we hardly knew ye.

Then we come to something just appalling. Regardless of what one thinks of the Arab-Israeli conflict, Israel is a close ally of the United States, until recently the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, and certainly one of the most humane and ethical nations on the planet. Thus for the President of the United States to treat the Prime Minister of Israel as a recalcitrant child beggars belief:

For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare. For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night, according to Israeli reports on a trip viewed in Jerusalem as a humiliation.

After failing to extract a written promise of concessions on settlements, Mr Obama walked out of his meeting with Mr Netanyahu but invited him to stay at the White House, consult with advisers and “let me know if there is anything new”, a US congressman, who spoke to the Prime Minister, said.

“It was awful,” the congressman said. One Israeli newspaper called the meeting “a hazing in stages”, poisoned by such mistrust that the Israeli delegation eventually left rather than risk being eavesdropped on a White House telephone line. Another said that the Prime Minister had received “the treatment reserved for the President of Equatorial Guinea”.

Translation: Obama says to Netanyahu, “You just think about that young man, and you’d better have a different answer when I get back, or there will be no TV for you!” It reminds one of the rumors of his bizarre behavior in Copenhagen and calls into question his vaunted judgment and even his maturity. Israel is a key ally in our war with jihadist Islam and for the furtherance of Western interests in the region, in general. And yet, time and again, Obama and Clinton have gone out of their way to turn minor incidents into causes celebres requiring the public pillorying of Israel and to put it on the same moral level as the despotisms that surround it. (More at Legal Insurrection, Fausta’s blog, Hot Air, the Telegraph, Contentions, and The Jawa Report)

This is “smart power?”  Raised Eyebrow

Finally, what can be said but Russia skunked us?

Face it. The only conclusion one can draw from these and other blunders is that we are lead by callow and incompetent (and even delusional) leaders. Their conduct of American foreign policy has been a disgrace.

The only question is whether this mangling of American interests is unwitting or the fruit of deliberate choice.

You can guess my answer.  Doh

ADDENDUM: At least Obama and Clinton have created a bipartisan consensus on their policy toward Israel – both conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats hate it.


When bullies whine

October 10, 2009

Forever playing the victim, Iran’s UN ambassador complains when Israel threatens to do something about Iran’s genocidal threats against Israel:

Iran: Israel’s threats inexplicable

Iran’s ambassador to the UN, Mohammad Khazaee, sent a letter of protest to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in which he wrote that “there is no explanation for Israel’s continuing threats against Tehran”.

He was referring to an interview given by former Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh to the Sunday Times in which he said that if Iran were not further sanctioned by this Christmas Israel would attack the country.

Sneh told the paper that if Israel were forced to attack the Islamic Republic on its own it would do so, remarks the Iranian ambassador deemed “irresponsible”.

Poor Iran. It’s always being picked on by those Western-Crusader-Imperialist-Zionist Lackey tools of the Jewish Conspiracy(tm). I mean, it’s not as if Iranian officials have:

You’re right, Mr. Ambassador. It’s totally unreasonable and unfair for the Israelis to threaten Iran over its pursuit of nuclear weapons aimed at Jews peaceful nuclear power.

via Jihad Watch

(Cross-posted at Sister Toldjah)


Why do I think this is a bad idea?

September 20, 2009

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor when Carter was president, thinks the US should shoot down Israeli warplanes if they cross Iraqi airspace to attack Iran.

Now, I’d like to think even Team Obama would laugh Zbig and his lunatic ideas out the door, but, given their bizarre foreign policy that seems to consist of pimp-slapping our allies and appeasing our enemies, I’m not so sure.

At the very least, they’re all too likely to give this failed incompetent elder statesman a serious hearing.  At wits end

LINKSGateway Pundit.

UPDATE: At Conservatives for Palin, Doug Brady looks at Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter, the mystery of the pro-Democrat Jewish vote, and Sarah Palin’s position on Iran and Israel.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 12,173 other followers