We now know that the US State Department funded an organization that used the money to oppose Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's reelection in 2015. We also know that the US State Department yesterday expressed concern over Israeli legislation that would require Israeli NGOs receiving more than half of their funding from overseas to disclose this information in their advocacy literature or be fined some $7,500. The legislation primarily affects left-leaning organizations taking donations from European governments, and according to US State Department spokesman John Kirby, "We are deeply concerned that this law can have a chilling effect on the activities that these worthwhile organizations are trying to do."
Yup, 400,000 dead and 10 million refugees and displaced persons in neighboring Syria, yet Obama and friends are "deeply concerned" by this Israeli legislation, notwithstanding the fact that the US Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 ("FARA") is intended to "to insure that the U.S. Government and the people of the United States are informed of the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of persons attempting to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws."
The Israeli legislation, providing for a fine of $7,500, could have a "chilling effect"? Violations of FARA can result in a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment of up to two years.
Meanwhile, Obama is threatening to veto three bills aimed at enhancing sanctions against Iran and encumbering Iranian financial transactions, notwithstanding warnings from Germany that Iran continues to seek components for its nuclear weapons program, and despite Iranian threats that 100,000 missiles will soon be launched against Israel.
In his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "The (G.O.P.) Party’s Over," would-be Middle East expert Thomas Friedman ignores this embarrassing treatment of an ally and instead turns his attention to America's presidential election. Without reference to FBI Director Comey's condemnation of Hillary Clinton's extreme carelessness involving her use of a home server while secretary of state, and ignoring the flagrant lies that she disseminated to the public over the past year to justify this abomination, Friedman sees fit to unequivocally endorse the Democratic candidate:
"Our country needs a healthy center-right party that can compete with a healthy center-left party.
. . . .
The [Republican] party grew into a messy, untended garden, and Donald Trump was like an invasive species that finally just took over the whole thing.
. . . .
A Clinton sweep in November would force more Republicans to start rebuilding a center-right party ready to govern and compromise. And a Clinton sweep would also mean Hillary could govern from the place where her true political soul resides — the center-left, not the far left."
Don't misunderstand me: I regard Hillary as the lesser of the two evils. But for Friedman to claim that there is anything healthy about a center-left party nominating Hillary Clinton is nothing less than rank hypocrisy.