New York Times Editorial, "Israel Says Dissenters Are Unwelcome": More Israel Bashing

Tweet

I sent the following email to Liz Spayd, the public editor of The New York Times, today. Let's see if she responds.


Dear Ms. Spayd,

Editorial Headline: "Israel Says Dissenters Are Unwelcome"
Date Published: March 9, 2017

My Concern: This editorial already needed to be corrected on March 10 ("An earlier version of this editorial incorrectly stated the United States’ position on settlement building in the occupied territories. It has been highly critical of the activity, but has not consistent [sic] held it to be illegal."), which in and of itself is indicative of the Times's bias and further evidences the Times's preoccupation with and hostility to Israel.

More to the point, the editorial states:

"No doubt there are haters of Israel among B.D.S. supporters. But there are also many strong supporters of the Israeli state, including many American Jews, who ardently oppose the occupation of the West Bank and who boycott products of the Israeli settlements in occupied territories."

"Many strong supporters of the Israeli state" among B.D.S. supporters? Excuse me, but where are the facts to back up this claim?

And if there are haters of Israel among B.D.S. supporters, shouldn't the Times provide data explaining whether these "haters" compromise the majority or even an overwhelming majority of B.D.S. supporters/leaders?

And shouldn't the Times examine whether the B.D.S. movement has been known to publish falsehoods and disseminate grotesque anti-Semitic remarks?

And shouldn't the Times have noted that there has not been a new Israeli settlement in almost 20 years, and that whereas existing settlements have grown, territorial swaps involving existing settlements have been a principle underlying all negotiations between the Palestinian Authority and Israel?

As reported by The Jerusalem Post on December 7, 2016:

"[Angela Merkel's Christian Democratic Union] likened BDS to the National Socialists who boycotted Jews in the 1930s. BDS dresses up antisemitism in the 'new clothes of the 21st century' as anti-Zionism, the party said.

'The German CDU declares with this motion its disapproval and rejection of every form of BDS activity and condemns these activities as antisemitic. The CDU will decisively oppose every hostile action that Israel faces. The CDU professes its deep friendship toward Israel and continues to work toward a peaceful solution to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians,' the resolution read."

I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter, but first, as a favor, I would be extremely grateful if you might be willing to read the following article that I recently published, "New York Times Editorial, "Donald Trump’s Answer to Anti-Semitism? You Don’t Want to Know": Look Who's Talking!"

Regards,
Jeffrey

German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier: The Israeli Government Should "Look More Closely at the Agreement"

Concerning this week's so-called "understanding" between the P5+1 and Iran, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier stated on Friday, "We ask the Israeli government to look more closely at the agreement."

You would think that the 59-year-old Steinmeier, whose country not so many years ago murdered 70 percent of European Jewry, would know better than to advise Israel how to assess a purported nuclear "understanding" - not an agreement - with a nation whose Supreme Leader is calling for the Jewish nation's annihilation.

Believe me, Steinmeier, we in Israel know an existential threat when we see one, and it is you who should reconsider the implications of providing a barbaric regime, pledged to Israel's destruction, with a nuclear weapons arsenal in 15 years at most.

More specifically, Steinmeier should begin by reading yesterday's Washington Post editorial entitled "Obama’s Iran deal falls far short of his own goals," which states:

"THE 'KEY parameters' for an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program released Thursday fall well short of the goals originally set by the Obama administration. None of Iran’s nuclear facilities — including the Fordow center buried under a mountain — will be closed. Not one of the country’s 19,000 centrifuges will be dismantled. Tehran’s existing stockpile of enriched uranium will be 'reduced' but not necessarily shipped out of the country. In effect, Iran’s nuclear infrastructure will remain intact, though some of it will be mothballed for 10 years. When the accord lapses, the Islamic republic will instantly become a threshold nuclear state.

That’s a long way from the standard set by President Obama in 2012 when he declared that 'the deal we’ll accept' with Iran 'is that they end their nuclear program' and 'abide by the U.N. resolutions that have been in place.' Those resolutions call for Iran to suspend the enrichment of uranium. Instead, under the agreement announced Thursday, enrichment will continue with 5,000 centrifuges for a decade, and all restraints on it will end in 15 years."

Steinmeier should also consider the conclusions of R. Scott Kemp, Assistant Professor of Nuclear Science and Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, regarding the "understanding" (my emphasis in red):

"A breakout time of three months is technically possible under the current text of the deal. This arises because of a lack of specificity about the non-uranium enrichment capabilities allowed at Fordow. The text of the JCPOA says that no uranium enrichment will occur at Fordow, and that approximately two-thirds of the current 2976 centrifuges installed there will be removed. This leaves the possibility of about 1000 centrifuges at Fordow, enriching elements other than uranium. If 1000 IR-8 centrifuges were installed there, a possibility allowed under the text of JCPOA, then the enrichment capability at Fordow would be equivalent to about 20,000 IR-1 centrifuges or three times that allowed at Natanz."

I would only observe that Professor Kemp is mistaken when he alludes to the "U.S. drafted Parameters for a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action" as the text of the deal. Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif is already denying the accuracy of this "fact sheet":

"The solutions are good for all, as they stand. There is no need to spin using 'fact sheets' so early on."

And then there is also the "conventional" threat against Israel posed by Iran's proxies in Gaza, Lebanon and Syria, which will receive increased support from Tehran as the sanctions regime is removed. As stated by Charles Krauthammer:

"If Iran is pursuing destabilization and supporting its proxies in Syria, in Iraq, in Lebanon, and now in Yemen under conditions of tremendous economic strain and diplomatic isolation, the idea that when we lift the sanctions, we allow billions of dollars to flow into the treasury so it’ll be unconstrained, it will double and triple the amount of support it is giving to the Assad regime in Syria, to Hezbollah in Lebanon, to Hamas in Gaza, and Yemen, and it will also be able to invest all the money — in the maintenance and the advance of the nuclear infrastructure which everybody agrees remains intact. And the idea that it will without isolation decrease its activities when it is on the threshold of being the hegemonic power in the region is completely contrary to all the evidence on the ground."

Hezbollah possesses some 70,000 missiles in Lebanon, all pointed at Israel, and Iran is now upgrading their warheads with guidance systems.

Shame on Steinmeier! Shame on Merkel! Shame on Germany!

Ron Prosor, "Club Med for Terrorists": What About the US Arms Sale to Qatar Totaling $11 Billion?

Earlier this month, I submitted an opinion piece to The Washington Post entitled "Kerry, Cairo and Qatar: The Mystery Surrounding an American Foreign Policy Fiasco." I observed Qatar's links to radical Islamic organizations throughout the Middle East, including Hamas, the al-Nusra Front and the Islamic State, alternatively known as ISIL or ISIS. In addition, I noted the Obama administration's demand that Israel accept Qatari mediation of the Gaza conflict, coming on the heels of the July sale by the US of $11 billion of arms (including 500 Javelin anti-tank missiles) to Qatar.

What use does a nation the size of Connecticut with a population of 2 million have for so many anti-tank missiles? None. You know as well as I do where these missiles will be headed.

Last Wednesday, the same day on which I was notified by WaPo that they were not interested in my opinion piece, German Development Minister Gerd Mueller accused Qatar of financing Islamic State terrorists. Of course, Merkel is unwilling to take a position with respect to these allegations directed against the world's richest country per capita.

Today, in a guest opinion piece entitled "Club Med for Terrorists," Israel's ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, asks that the world tell Qatar to stop financing Hamas. Prosor writes:

"In recent years, the sheikhs of Doha, Qatar’s capital, have funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to Gaza. Every one of Hamas’s tunnels and rockets might as well have had a sign that read 'Made possible through a kind donation from the emir of Qatar.'

. . . .

[Qatar] harbors leading Islamist radicals like the spiritual leader of the global Muslim Brotherhood, Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who issued a religious fatwa endorsing suicide attacks, and the Doha-based history professor Abdul Rahman Omeir al-Naimi, whom the United States Department of Treasury has named as a 'terrorist financier' for Al Qaeda. Qatar also funds a life of luxury for Khaled Meshal, the fugitive leader of Hamas."

No mention, however, by Prosor of the July sale by the United States of $11 billion of advanced armaments to Qatar. Why no mention? Perhaps given Israel's current difficult relationship with the Obama administration, he didn't wish to pour fuel on the fire.

Me? I don't need to be diplomatic. The sale of these weapons to Qatar by the Obama administration is nothing less than an obscenity.

New York Times Editorial, "Bad Move on Jonathan Pollard": Wah-Wah-We-Wah!

Does the United States spy against its allies? Absolutely. Just ask German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Does the United States engage in electronic spying against Israel? Wah-wah-we-wah! Wah-wah-we-wah? This is Hebrew slang, which can be loosely translated "And how!" Specifics? Sorry. Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies.

Today, in an editorial entitled "Bad Move on Jonathan Pollard" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/opinion/bad-move-on-jonathan-pollard.html?ref=opinion&_r=1), The New York Times takes the position that Jonathan Pollard, who spied on behalf of Israel against the US, should not be released in order to keep the fanciful negotiations sponsored by Secretary of State John Kerry from entirely unraveling. Declaring that the Obama administration proposal to free Pollard is a "bad idea," the editorial tells us (my emphasis in red):

"After nine months of talks, there is no sign of progress on any of these issues. In addition, Israel has refused to follow through on a promise made in July to free 104 prisoners in four groups in exchange for a Palestinian vow to refrain from pressing the statehood issue in United Nations agencies and the International Criminal Court.

Mr. Netanyahu and other Israelis have long demanded the release Mr. Pollard, who has spent nearly 30 years in prison; the Americans have long resisted. He is up for parole next year and said to be ailing, so it might conceivably be worth releasing him early if it could help Mr. Netanyahu take the leap on a truly big decision, like a final peace agreement. But releasing him as a small-bore tactical step to persuade Israel to do what it had already promised? That is not a price worth paying.

The Americans have proposed that Israel free more prisoners and show restraint in building in the West Bank. But the proposal would not prohibit new construction in East Jerusalem, which Palestinians consider their future capital. The Palestinians were asked extend peace talks into 2015 and refrain from moves at the United Nations."

Free "104 prisoners"? Excuse me, but no small number of these prisoners are convicted murderers. Sure, it's easy enough for the editorial board of the Times from the safety of Manhattan to call for Israel to free these "prisoners," even if the Palestinian Authority has no intention of signing a peace agreement with a Jewish state of Israel.

"[I]f it could help Mr. Netanyahu take the leap on a truly big decision, like a final peace agreement"? And all this while I thought it was Abbas who was refusing to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, as provided for by UN resolution 181, and demanding that Palestinian "refugees" be given the right to return to Israel, thereby creating a Palestinian majority. (Remarkable how easy it is to forget that an equal number of Jews emigrated to Israel from the Arab states with only the clothing on their backs, following the establishment of the Jewish state.)

"[N]ew construction in East Jerusalem"? I suppose the editorial board of the Times is referring to the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and also those communities built on the barren hills along the narrow highway leading into Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, which, pursuant to prior negotiations with the Palestinian Authority, would be swapped for Israeli land. The alternative, of course, would be to return the communities to the Palestinian Authority, thereby creating a "sniper alley" preventing Jews from entering or leaving the city.

But let's get back to Pollard. First, let it be known that Jonathan Pollard engaged in unconscionable behavior.

Second, the release of Pollard is not going to save the peace talks. As stated above, Palestinian Authority President Abbas, currently serving his tenth year of his four-year term of office, has no intention of recognizing Israel as a Jewish State and waiving the Palestinian "right of return."

But is there still a reason why Pollard, currently serving his 29th year of a life sentence, should be released? Why do people serve prison terms? Pollard, who is in frail health, has been sufficiently punished. Moreover, he no longer poses a threat to the US. Finally, a warning, for purposes of deterrence, has been communicated loud and clear: Persons engaging in espionage against the US will be severely punished.

That being the case, why is Pollard, who has been punished far more severely than others incarcerated for spying against the US, still in prison? As we are told by a Jerusalem Post article entitled "Former CIA director accuses US of anti-Semitism on Pollard" (http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Former-CIA-director-accuses-US-of-anti-Semitism-on-Pollard-340881) by Gil Hoffman:

"Pollard has served more than 28 years of a life sentence for spying for Israel. Others convicted of spying for allies of the US have received sentences of no more than eight years.

British spy Samuel Morrison was sentenced to two years, South African Steven Baba was sentenced to two, Filipino spy Jean Baynes to three and a half, and Egyptian Abdelkader Helmy three years and 10 months. None of them served their entire sentence."

In a similar vein, Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus observes today in an opinion piece entitled "Free Jonathan Pollard" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ruth-marcus-free-jonathan-pollard/2014/04/01/9c8ee61c-b9c9-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html?hpid=z4):

"Aldrich Ames was similarly sentenced to life in prison — but his spying led to the death of at least 10 Soviet intelligence officers. John Walker Lindh, an American who joined Taliban fighters in Afghanistan, received a 20-year sentence. CIA officer William Kampiles, who sold the Soviets the operating manual for a spy satellite, was sentenced to 40 years and released after 18."

Gil Hoffman's Jerusalem Post article goes on to quote Ex-CIA head Admiral James Woolsey as saying with regard to Pollard's time in prison:

"I certainly don’t think that it is universally true, but in the case of some American individuals, I think there is anti-Semitism at work here."

Interesting.

As an aside, has there ever been evidence of anti-Semitism at The New York Times over recent years? Wah-wah-we-wah (see, for starters: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/08/new-york-times-moderators-now-tolerate.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/07/ongoing-tolerance-of-anti-semitism-by.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2010/06/anti-semitism-again-in-lede-at-new-york.html; http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.co.il/2013/10/roger-cohen-jew-not-quite-english.html)!

Huge Corruption Scandal Hits Turkey: Obama's Friend Erdogan Blames US for "Dirty Plot"

Do you remember how President Obama used to brag about his special relationship with Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan? In a 2012 Time interview with a sycophantic Fareed Zakaria (http://swampland.time.com/2012/01/19/inside-obamas-world-the-president-talks-to-time-about-the-changing-nature-of-american-power/?iid=sl-main-lede), Obama declared:

"I think that if you ask them, Angela Merkel or Prime Minister Singh or President Lee or Prime Minister Erdogan or David Cameron would say, We have a lot of trust and confidence in the President. We believe what he says. We believe that he’ll follow through on his commitments. We think he’s paying attention to our concerns and our interests. And that’s part of the reason we’ve been able to forge these close working relationships and gotten a whole bunch of stuff done."

Well, given NSA spying on Angela Merkel, I doubt that she still has "a lot of trust and confidence in the president." Erdogan? The Turkish prime minister is now enmeshed in an enormous scandal, which will ultimately force him out of power, but meanwhile he is busy blaming the US for his sorrows. The question remains whether this imbroglio, involving the laundering of payments for Iranian oil and construction bribes (see: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-25514579), could also engender another Turkish financial crisis.

As reported by Yahoo! News on Saturday (http://news.yahoo.com/two-turkish-ministers-39-sons-39-charged-graft-100614961.html):

"Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan claimed a huge graft probe in which the sons of two ministers were charged Saturday was an international conspiracy.

The case that erupted on Tuesday and targeted 89 people, including some of Erdogan's closest allies, has triggered a crescendo of reactions from Turkey's strongman.

Rattled by the worst scandal of his 11-year rule and with crucial polls three months away, Erdogan has already purged the police command for cooperating with the investigation and on Saturday took it out on foreign ambassadors.

He described the probe into widespread bribery by members of his moderately Islamist regime as 'smear campaign' with international ramifications.

'Some ambassadors are engaged in provocative actions... Do your job,' Erdogan said in televised remarks in the Black Sea city of Samsun. 'We don't have to keep you in our country.'

Erdogan's remarks were considered a veiled threat to US Ambassador Francis Ricciardone, after he was reported to have commented on the unfolding bribery scandal."

Notwithstanding Erdogan's attempts to blame the US, the scandal is beginning to spiral out of control. As reported yesterday by The New York Times in an article entitled "Graft Scandal Is Approaching Turkey Premier" (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/26/world/europe/turkish-cabinet-members-resign.html?hpw&rref=world&_r=0&pagewanted=all) by Tim Arango:

"A corruption investigation that has encircled the Turkish government moved an ominous step closer to Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Wednesday, as three top ministers whose sons have been implicated abruptly resigned — and one of them, on his way out the door, said Mr. Erdogan should step down as well.

. . . .

The public has been riveted by a flow of sordid details of the investigations leaked to the news media — with photographs of piles of cash in the bedroom of a minister’s son and reports that the chief executive of a state-owned bank had $4.5 million in cash packed in shoeboxes.

Another major worry for Mr. Erdogan now is that anger with his administration will spread to the streets, as it did in the summer with the violent suppression of demonstrators trying to protect a beloved Istanbul park from development. On Wednesday night sporadic protests erupted in some neighborhoods of Istanbul and other cities, with people calling on the government to resign and shouting: “Everywhere bribery! Everywhere corruption!”

On Wednesday morning, Economy Minister Zafer Caglayan and Interior Minister Muammer Guler, whose sons are among 24 people arrested in the corruption investigation, stepped down. A few hours later the environment and urban planning minister, Erdogan Bayraktar, closest among the three to Mr. Erdogan, said in a live television interview that he had resigned under pressure. He also said Mr. Erdogan was personally involved in unspecified property deals that are a focus of the investigation."

Could rioting again erupt in Turkey? How long will it take for Erdogan to resign? Will the scandal impact upon Turkey's financial system?

Stay tuned.

[On Thursday, Muammer Akkas, the Turkish prosecutor responsible for the investigation of this matter, was taken off the case by the Erdogan regime.]

More Iranian Threats of Destruction Against the US: Just "Noise"?

Although you won't find it in the US news media, Iran is again threatening the US with destruction. As reported yesterday by Iran's Mehr News Agency in an article entitled "Iran can target any military bases in the world: general" (http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1706231):

"QOM, Sept. 26 (MNA) – Brigadier General Hossein Salami, the deputy chief of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps, said on Wednesday that Iran’s armed forces are able to target any military base around the world.

'Our military might has reached such a point that today, we are able to target any point or base in the world at any moment and with any intensity,' the Tehran Times quoted Salami as telling a gathering of armed forces in Qom.

Brigadier General Ali Ostad Hosseini, the IRGC commander in Semnan Province, also said on Tuesday that thirty-five U.S. military bases are within the range of Iran’s missiles."

Meanwhile, Obama still refuses to establish "red lines" regarding Iran's nuclear weapons development program.

Obama also refuses to put personal differences aside in order to discuss with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a coordinated approach to the Iranian nuclear menace, which German Chancellor Angela Merkel acknowledges as a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/17/238533.html).

Obama insists that he needs to "block out" Israeli "noise" concerning this issue (see: http://www.mehrnews.com/en/newsdetail.aspx?NewsID=1704330)

Apparently, America's president is also "blocking out" unpleasant Iranian "noise."

After all, there is nothing more important than being re-elected.

Seth Anziska, "A Preventable Massacre": More Israel Bashing From The New York Times

The Middle East is indeed a savage region. In 1982, Syrian President Hafez al-Assad, father of Bashar al-Assad, killed some 25,000 Sunni civilians (there are higher and lower estimates) in the town of Hama. In 1988, Saddam Hussein killed some 5,000 civilians when he attacked the Kurdish town of Halabja with poison gas. Over 1,200 Israelis have been killed by Palestinian terrorists since September 2000. And more recently, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has killed some 30,000 civilians while attempting to quell the current uprising of his country's Sunni majority.

Further afield in Central Asia, some 1,300 Afghan civilians have accidentally been killed by US-led military forces since Obama became president in 2009.

But never mind any of the above. Today, The New York Times would only have us focus on the 1982 Sabra and Shatila massacre. Over the course of this abomination, Lebanese Christian militiamen murdered some 800 Palestinian civilians in Palestinian refugee camps in Beirut, after the Israeli Army allowed the Christians, hungry for revenge, access to the camps.

In his guest New York Times op-ed entitled "A Preventable Massacre" (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/17/opinion/a-preventable-massacre.html?pagewanted=all), Seth Anziska, a doctoral candidate in international history at Columbia University, informs us:

"Israel’s involvement in the Lebanese civil war began in June 1982, when it invaded its northern neighbor. Its goal was to root out the Palestine Liberation Organization, which had set up a state within a state, and to transform Lebanon into a Christian-ruled ally."

Oh really? The 1982 Israeli operation had nothing to do with rooting out terror?

Seth fails to mention the "Coastal Road Massacre" of 1978, when Palestinians from Lebanon landed on Israel's coast, hijacked a bus, and killed 38 Israeli civilians, including 13 children.

Seth also forgets to tell us about the massive 1981 rocketing of civilian targets in Northern Israel by the PLO.

And then there was also the June 1982 attack in London on Israel’s ambassador to the United Kingdom, Shlomo Argov, by the Iraqi-backed Abu Nidal terrorist organization. But why should Seth be troubled with such minor details?

Alleging deception and "browbeating" of US officials on the part of Ariel Sharon leading up to the Sabra and Shatila massacre, our darling doctoral candidate goes on to say:

"The Sabra and Shatila massacre severely undercut America’s influence in the Middle East, and its moral authority plummeted. In the aftermath of the massacre, the United States felt compelled by 'guilt' to redeploy the Marines, who ended up without a clear mission, in the midst of a brutal civil war.

On Oct. 23, 1983, the Marine barracks in Beirut were bombed and 241 Marines were killed. The attack led to open warfare with Syrian-backed forces and, soon after, the rapid withdrawal of the Marines to their ships. As Mr. Lewis told me, America left Lebanon 'with our tail between our legs.'"

Regrettably, Seth again forgets to inform us that the barracks bombing was perpetrated by Lebanese Shiites, who, like the Lebanese Christians, also hated their Palestinian overlords. In addition, the attack was almost certainly undertaken pursuant to instructions from Iran, possibly owing to US support for Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war. Or in other words, there was little connection between the barracks bombing and Israel, unless you also wish to blame Israel for US combat deaths in the 1993 Battle of Mogadishu in Somalia.

Seth concludes:

"The lesson of the Sabra and Shatila tragedy is clear. Sometimes close allies act contrary to American interests and values. Failing to exert American power to uphold those interests and values can have disastrous consequences: for our allies, for our moral standing and most important, for the innocent people who pay the highest price of all."

"Most important, for the innocent people"? Oh really. Why isn't Seth telling us of the price being paid by civilians in Afghanistan, owing to Obama's inane escalation of that meaningless war? And why doesn't Seth bother to mention the ongoing civil war in Syria, ignored by Obama, which has claimed thousands of civilians lives?

In fact, publication by the Times of this guest op-ed by a doctoral student is all about telling us that the US shouldn't allow Netanyahu to "browbeat" the US into setting "red lines" for the Iranian nuclear weapons development program. Not by coincidence, this guest op-ed was published immediately after Netanyahu informed "Meet the Press" that Iran will be on the brink of a nuclear bomb in six to seven months (see: http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=285287).

As observed in prior blog entries, the crux of the current crisis involving Iran and Israel involves lack of faith in Obama. After witnessing his foreign policy procrastination over the past three years, neither of these countries believes that Obama means what he says. In fact, this perception of Obama as irresolute and wishy-washy, i.e. "leading from behind," is what could well lead to a disastrous war, costing thousands of civilian lives.

If the US truly believes that nuclear weapons in the hands of Iran's maniacal mullahs do not pose a threat to American interests, taking into account hostility and proxy wars between Iran and Saudi Arabia and also Iran's patronage of international terror, perhaps the US should not promulgate red lines. On the other hand, if, as stated today by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Iran poses a threat not only to Israel but to the entire world (see: http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/09/17/238533.html), then it is indeed time for tough talk.

[Columbia University lists Anziska's "Advisor" as Rashid Khalidi (see: http://history.columbia.edu/graduate/Anziska.html), a Columbia professor once linked to the PLO (see: http://www.martinkramer.org/sandbox/2008/10/khalidi-of-the-plo/). A tape of Obama's 2003 tribute to Khalidi at a farewell party in Chicago is locked away in the offices of The Los Angeles Times (see: http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/226104/i-l-times-i-suppresses-obamas-khalidi-bash-tape/andrew-c-mccarthy).]

New York Times "Talking Truth to NATO": More Hypocrisy from Obama

In an editorial entitled "Talking Truth to NATO" (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/11/opinion/11sat1.html), The New York Times commends outgoing Defense Secretary Robert Gates for publicly criticizing America's allies which have not done their fair share in the struggle against Qaddafi. The editorial states:

"Fewer than half of NATO’s 28 members are taking part in the military mission. Fewer than a third are participating in the all-important airstrikes. British and French aircraft carry the main burden. Canada, Belgium, Norway and Denmark, despite limited resources, have made outsized contributions. Turkey, with the alliance’s second-largest military, has remained largely on the sidelines. Germany, NATO’s biggest historic beneficiary, has done nothing at all."

Well, this didn't stop President Obama from hosting German Chancellor Angela Merkel at a gala Rose Garden dinner on Tuesday and presenting Merkel with the Presidential Medal of Freedom before more than 200 VIP guests.

I suppose freedom doesn't apply to Libya.

But Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize, and what has he achieved?

Then, too, Obama presented the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson in 2009, despite her meetings with Hamas, her historic antagonism to the U.S., and her involvement in the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, which degenerated into an anti-Semitic and anti-Israel hate fest.