DeYoung, Eilperin and Miller, "U.S. will not directly confront Russia in Syria, Obama says": "Thank You, Vladimir, May I Have Another?"

Tweet

In a Washington Post article entitled "U.S. will not directly confront Russia in Syria, Obama says" by Karen DeYoung, Juliet Eilperin and Greg Miller, we are informed:

"President Obama has decided not to directly confront Russia over its new air offensive in Syria, believing that President Vladi­mir Putin will soon find himself in a Syrian 'quagmire,' but he has approved a new escalation of U.S. efforts against the Islamic State.

. . . .

At the same time, the president also approved proposals, made prior to this week’s Russian actions, to strengthen the U.S. fight against the militants. Those measures were recommended by Obama’s new Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr.

They include direct U.S. weapons shipments, overland from Iraq, to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters who in recent months have pushed the Islamic State from a major portion of northern Syria along the Turkish border."

Question: Why must Putin be informed in advance that he will not be confronted? Is this not the equivalent of undertaking a "surge" in Afghanistan, while concurrently informing the Taliban of a departure date for US forces? This is no longer "leading from behind." Rather, if you are familiar with the 1978 comedy "Animal House," Obama is effectively telling Putin, "Thank you, sir, may I have another?"

Weapons shipments overland from Iraq to Syrian Kurdish and Arab fighters? Let's see how many of those shipments - if they are ever made - will be intercepted by Iranian forces and Shiite militias in Iraq and transferred over to Hezbollah.

The WaPo article additionally informs us:

"Current and former U.S. officials voiced concern that the Russian bombing would damage a covert program already struggling to gain traction in the fight against Assad. It is also likely to increase frustration among the rebels 'that the Americans don’t do as much as the Russians do for their side of the conflict,' said Robert Ford, the former U.S. ambassador to Syria who resigned that position in part out of frustration with administration policy.

. . . .

A former senior U.S. intelligence official said the U.S. failure to respond to the strikes or bolster support for CIA-trained units is likely to anger CIA paramilitary teams in the region that have for several years chafed at White House-imposed limits on the level of support given to moderate rebel groups.

'There is a huge amount of frustration with the indecision and ability to commit by this administration,' said a former senior U.S. intelligence official with extensive experience in the Middle East. 'The agency has a problem,' the former official said. U.S.-backed fighters 'look at the CIA or DOD trainers as reflecting the U.S. government. They believe that we know what’s going on and can influence what’s going on. If we’re not influencing it, it makes them insecure. They will defect, go home or join the refugee stream heading to Europe.'"

Ford and this "former senior U.S. intelligence official" are both correct. However, this is not the first time that we have witnessed Obama's abject indecisiveness in the Middle East. As Michael Oren wrote in "Ally":

"[T]he deeper disillusionment arose from Obama's handling of the Arab Spring. The president at first coddled Gaddafi and then aided his killers, cosseted Assad and then applauded the insurgency against him, and courted Mubarak only to cast him out. Such a leader could not be esteemed. And the eagerness with which Washington sought a nuclear deal with Iran - a regime actively working to undermine Middle Eastern governments while brazenly provoking America - only deepened Arab mistrust."

Needless to say, the repercussions of Obama's inaction in Syria extend beyond the Middle East. American allies in Asia and Eastern Europe are watching as Obama once again waves his white flag, tattered and frayed from overuse. It's not a pretty sight.

Shmuel Rosner, "Israel Needs New Friends": Actually, Israel Needs a New American President

Tweet

Have you taken the time to read "Ally," the recently published book by Michael Oren, Israel's former ambassador to the United States? Although not on a par with Oren's masterful "Six Days of War," Oren effectively describes in "Ally" the systematic efforts of the Obama administration since 2009 to create public crises between Israel and America. Oren writes in the last chapter of "Ally" of the need to "repair" the US-Israeli alliance:

"The world, meanwhile, watches us. Friends and adversaries alike - the French and the Iranians, the Japanese and the jihadists - all look at the alliance as a litmus of America's willingness to stand up for its fellow democracy and even to stand up for itself. The alliance is vital not only for its two partners, but also for the security of all nations.

Which is why, after a half decade of tensions, we must begin the process of repair. The greatest single quality in a leader, I have long observed is clearsightedness. The greatest single quality in a leader, I have long observed is clearsightedness. The foreign relations field is dense with fog, and the ability to see through it is essential. American and Israeli leaders must discern their confluent interests and work to restore them. They must restore those three 'no's' - no surprises, no daylight, no public altercations - in their relations. They must revisit the meaning of ally."

All true, but the US-Israeli alliance cannot be restored until Obama leaves the White House. Nothing is more instructive concerning Obama's view of long-term alliances with Western friends than his removal of the bust of Winston Churchill from the Oval Office. Regarding Obama's view of America's alliance with Israel, one need only recall how - just one year ago - Obama attempted to impose hostile Qatari and Turkish mediation upon Israel while Hamas was firing thousands of missiles at Israel, and also cut off military supplies in the middle of this conflict in order to bend Israel to his will. You see, great man that he thinks he is, Obama is intent upon creating a new world order, although he now bears personal responsibility for the deaths of more than 200,000 people in Syria and the cataclysmic rise of the Islamic State.

In a New York Times op-ed entitled "Israel Needs New Friends," Shmuel Rosner observes the tensions caused to the US-Israeli relationship by Obama's nuclear deal with Iran's Supreme Leader Khamenei and concludes:

"For the foreseeable future, the United States will likely remain Israel’s main ally. But it must not be Israel’s only ally.

It can no longer be the 'no-plan-B' type of ally or a 'no daylight' ally. The Obama administration now believes that the United States has certain critical interests, and Mr. Netanyahu’s government believes that Israel has certain critical interests — and they are not the same. As a result, the policies of the two countries are no longer compatible on several key issues. For Israel, finding a way to supplement its ties with Washington is therefore not a luxury; it’s an urgent necessity."

But to whom might Israel turn? Rosner alternatively suggests India, China, Saudi Arabia and Europe. But whereas India is hungry for Israeli military goods, China has heavily invested in Israeli hi-tech companies, and Saudi Arabia is an implacable enemy of Iran, these countries do not share the cultural affinity that Israel has with America. Moreover, these countries are not committed to Israel's existence at a time when Iran is moving troops into Syria and continuing to threaten Israel with annihilation.

Europe? No way. An economically moribund Europe is awash with anti-Semitism, owing in part to mass immigration from the Muslim Middle East. This, in turn, has led to inexorable changes in its demographics and foreign relations.

Israel has no "alternative" other than the US, and notwithstanding Obama's efforts to rend this union asunder, it is and will be, for the foreseeable future, a marriage for the most part made in heaven.

Yes, I know, prior to the advent of the Obama administration, there were spats between the United States and Israel, as recounted in Yehuda Avner's marvelous book "The Prime Ministers." However, prior presidents did not, as a matter of policy, seek to publicize these differences, as has been done by the Obama administration.

Bottom line: In another year and four months, the United States will have a new president, and whoever she/he may be, Republican or Democrat, the relationship between America and Israel will begin to heal.

In the meantime, however, how much more damage can Obama do to America's relationship with Israel? Stay tuned . . .

Colbert King, "How Israel may be damaging the alliance between blacks and Jews": Ridiculous

Tweet


I just sent the following email to Michael Larabee, op-ed editor of The Washington Post, concerning Colbert King's WaPo opinion piece entitled "How Israel may be damaging the alliance between blacks and Jews":

Dear Mike,

On the online homepage of The Washington Post today, we find the following:

 

Opinions

How Israel may be damaging the alliance between blacks and Jews

Colbert I. King

Israeli politicians have launched racially charged affronts toward Obama over Iran.

 

Note how WaPo refers to "Israeli politicians," i.e. in the plural.

However, when one goes to Mr. King's opinion piece, one is told of two comments made by Israeli rabbis. Mr. King also refers to an offensive tweet by Judy Mozes. I would note, however, that Mozes is not a politician, but rather a television personality and the wife of  Israeli Vice Prime Minister Silvan Shalom. Her disgraceful attempt at humor was made at a time when her husband was out of the country, and created an uproar throughout Israel. As reported by The Jerusalem Post:

"Followers of Mozes responded immediately to the tweet with criticism, such as: '@JudyMozes no doubt racism has no connection to brains.'

Others responded in Hebrew with tweets such as, 'Have you gone mad,' and 'You'd better erase this...frighteningly racist.'"

After deleting her tweet, Mozes subsequently wrote that she hoped her husband wouldn’t divorce her over the social media uproar. Although some regarded this as another attempt at humor, Mozes was obviously concerned by her husband's response.

Regarding Mr. King's charge that Michael Oren is engaging in "racially charged affronts," this is pure rubbish. Mr. King writes:

U.S.-born Michael Oren, Israel’s former ambassador to the United States, has done his own anti-Obama number. Citing President Obama’s upbringing, Oren suggested in a series of recent articles in Foreign Policy that the president’s “abandonment” by his mother’s “two Muslim husbands” created in him a desire for “acceptance by their co-religionists” that has now influenced his foreign policy. Conspiracy theorists and birthers could hardly have said it better — Obama’s Christianity notwithstanding.

I would note that Islam is a religion and not a race, and although one can certainly argue that Oren's "psychoanalysis" of Obama was misplaced and absurd, this is not racism. I would further note that I served in the army with Michael Oren, and he is no racist.

Mr. King would also have us believe that Netanyahu's most recent appearance before the US Congress in opposition to the nuclear deal with Iran was racist:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before Congress drew rave reviews from his Republican hosts and most — but not all — of Israel’s supporters. Many members of the 46-member Congressional Black Caucus were outraged that Netanyahu would go behind the back of the White House and arrange with Republicans to use the U.S. Capitol as the stage to challenge the president’s Iranian nuclear negotiations. Several chose to stay away.

U.S. representative and caucus member James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, the third-ranking House Democrat, said he regarded Netanyahu’s speech as an “affront to America’s first black president.”

Well, it has been argued by many in Israel that Netanyahu's speech was ineffective, disrespectful and counterproductive, but where was there any reference to race in Netanyahu's speech? Netanyahu wouldn't have gone to Congress if, for example, a white president was seeking to sign a nuclear deal with a country that calls for the eradication of Israel every week? Sorry, but this is an obscene allegation which, to the best of my knowledge, has not even been made by Israel's left-leaning press, which is implacably opposed to Netanyahu. In addition, I never heard any such allegation from Israel's sizable Ethiopian community.

In short, I believe that Mr. King's opinion piece is ridiculous; however, I also understand that it is an opinion piece with which readers can agree or disagree. On the other hand,  to state on WaPo's homepage that "Israeli politicians [in the plural] have launched racially charged affronts toward Obama over Iran" is going too far, and I believe that even Mr. King, if asked, would acknowledge as much.

Best,

Jeffrey

Philip Gordon, "Bibi’s man in D.C., still spinning for the boss": A Hatchet Job of a Book Review

Tweet

On Friday night, the White House was awash with the colors of the rainbow to celebrate the Supreme Court’s decision that marriage equality is a constitutional right. The light show came at a time when the Obama administration was seeking to finalize a nuclear agreement with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which hangs homosexuals. Of course, Obama has always voiced his opposition to the murder of gay men by Iran . . . or has he? As observed by Dr. Majid Rafizadeh, who serves on the board of the Harvard International Review at Harvard University, in a Front Page Magazine article entitled "An Execution Wave Against LGBT Iranians":

"President Barack Obama has long depicted himself as a defender of women’s and LGBT rights not only in the United States but across the world as well. Yet, where is his voice when it comes to the growing number of executions and the persecution of the gay and lesbian community as well as the repression of women in the Islamic Republic of Iran? In addition, why has the LGBT movement not criticized the Obama administration or made a movement over these injustices, egregious actions, and human rights violations committed in the Islamic Republic against the gays and lesbians?

As the Obama administration continues to communicate and diplomatically negotiate with Iranian officials in Vienna, New York, and elsewhere, President Obama has not even slightly expressed his concern about the unfair actions, executions, discriminations and prosecutions of LGBT individuals, as well as the increasing repressions of women under the Rouhani administration."

Also in the news on Friday, we learned that a Geocartography Institute poll has determined that a whopping 48.5 percent of Jewish Israeli respondents said that Obama's proposed nuclear deal with Iran was a threat to Israel’s existence. Moreover, 44.5 percent of the respondents said they did not trust Obama to maintain Israel’s security. But what could Israelis possibly know about their own survival?

Against the backdrop of the foregoing, today The Washington Post has published an opinion piece/book review entitled "Bibi’s man in D.C., still spinning for the boss" by Philip Gordon of Michael Oren's "Ally." As noted by the opinion piece/book review, Philip Gordon "is a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations" and "[f]rom 2013 until this spring he was the White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Persian Gulf region." Michael Oren was the Israeli ambassador to the US from 2009 to 2013 and is now a member of the Israeli parliament, although he does not belong to Prime Minister Netanyahu's Likud Party.

Acknowledging that Obama's desire to reach a nuclear deal with Iran is "a signature foreign policy initiative of the U.S. president," Gordon writes of Oren's book, whose release was timed around the June 30 deadline for an agreement between the P5+1 and Iran:

"The value of the book is that it reflects a view genuinely held by many Israelis: that the Obama administration, naively seeking to repair U.S. ties to the Muslim world and failing to appreciate Israel’s value to the United States, broke with decades of U.S. policy toward the region by systematically siding with the Palestinians and seeking a reconciliation with Iran. The problem with the book is that Oren’s main argument is a caricature, bolstered by exaggerations and distortions that will probably contribute to the deterioration of the very relationship the author purports to cherish.

Take, for example, Oren’s contention that by publicly airing differences with Israel, Obama broke with a long-standing principle that there should never be 'daylight' in the relationship. Really? To take just a few examples, Dwight Eisenhower slammed Israel for the 1956 Suez operation and forced it into a humiliating retreat; Gerald Ford froze arms deliveries and announced a reassessment of the relationship as a way of pressing Israel to withdraw from the Sinai; Jimmy Carter clashed repeatedly with Prime Minister Menachem Begin before, during and after the 1978 Camp David summit. Ronald Reagan denounced Israel’s strike on the Osirak nuclear reactor in Iraq and enraged Jerusalem by selling surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia; George H.W. Bush blocked loan guarantees to Israel over settlements; Bill Clinton clashed publicly with Israel over the size of proposed West Bank withdrawals; George W. Bush called for a settlement freeze in the 2002 road map for peace and afterward repeatedly criticized Israel for construction in the West Bank. In other words, Oren has a point — except in the case of virtually every Republican and Democratic U.S. administration since Israel’s founding."

Or stated otherwise, Gordon would have us know that Obama's difficulties with Israel are no different from those of other US presidents (Jonathan Broder makes a similar argument in Newsweek) . . . or are they? You see, Obama declared in a December 2014 NPR interview:

"So, when I came into office, the world was divided and Iran was in the driver's seat. Now the world's united because of the actions we've taken, and Iran's the one that's isolated.

They have a path to break through that isolation and they should seize it. Because if they do, there's incredible talent and resources and sophistication inside of — inside of Iran, and it would be a very successful regional power that was also abiding by international norms and international rules, and that would be good for everybody. That would be good for the United States, that would be good for the region, and most of all, it would be good for the Iranian people."

Excuse me, Phil, but which other US president ever envisioned Iran as "a very successful regional power"? Iran is a country that hangs gays, stones to death women accused of adultery, brutally persecutes Baha'is, Christians, Kurds and Sunnis, executes poets for "waging war on God," supports the murderous Assad regime in Syria, exports terror via Hezbollah, and routinely threatens Israel with annihilation. Obama is apparently convinced that he can export "Change" to a savage Iranian theocracy, and is therefore willing to sign a deal whose sunset clause will allow the mullahs to build nuclear weapons within 10 years (if they don't cheat before that time - which they will). Who is being naive?

Gordon accuses Oren of "leveling the outlandish charge that Obama made 'deliberate mistakes' to damage U.S.-Israeli relations — a notion not just oxymoronic but inconsistent with the story and analysis in the book." Gordon, however, makes no reference to recent calls for "Death to America" from Iran's parliament (when people threaten to kill me, I believe them) or Iranian efforts to build ICBMs, which will bring the Iranian nuclear threat to American shores. Of course, all this and more (e.g., Iran's support of the Houthi insurgency in Yemen) should be ignored in order to realize Obama's "signature foreign policy initiative." Who is being moronic (as opposed to "oxymoronic")?

Gordon concludes his opinion piece/book review by accusing Oren of "peddl[ing] a false narrative of American abandonment of Israel." Sorry, Phil, but no one is talking about "American abandonment of Israel." Rather, we are talking about Obama's abandonment of Israel, and yes, I agree with Mike.

Judging from the panicky response of Obama's inner circle, Oren obviously touched a raw nerve.

Owen West, "Why Obama’s Plan to Send Advisers to Iraq Will Fail": Actually, Obama Is More Interested in Neutralizing Israel

In a must-read New York Times guest op-ed entitled "Why Obama’s Plan to Send Advisers to Iraq Will Fail," Owen West, who "served two tours in Iraq with the Marines," explains why Obama's "lily-pad" strategy to prop up Iraq is destined for failure. West writes:

"LAST week President Obama approved an additional 450 troops to join the roughly 3,000 already in Iraq. Living inside secure bases nicknamed 'lily pads,' they will train Iraqi soldiers for a few weeks via lecture and drill instruction. The graduates will then be sent outside the wire to fight the Islamic State.

This strategy is no more resolute than a lily pad, and our generals know it. It is tokenism that reflects confusion at the top, and it will fail.

Mr. Obama has declared that advisers are not combat troops. But in fact, to influence battlefield performance, the adviser’s first job is to set the example in combat. The goal is to instill in the local force a sense of professional aggression — of seizing the offense — that must be demonstrated firsthand.

Put simply, if the president wants to destroy the Islamic State, he will eventually renege on his ephemeral pledge not to engage in ground combat."

I agree with Mr. West that Obama's "lily-pad" strategy will fail; however, the opinion piece does not consider the possibility that Obama and friends don't care if it fails. The "lily-pad" strategy is not designed to succeed. Rather, it is window dressing intended to allow the president to finish his second term of office without making waves and leave the problem to his successor.

Mind you, I am not suggesting that the US return to Iraq with ground forces to confront the Islamic State. Iraq no longer exists as a country, and there can be no motivating Sunni troops in the service of the government to fight the Sunni Islamic State while Iranian-backed Shiite militias are perpetrating atrocities against Sunni villages.

Moreover, it is only a matter of time until one or more US soldiers are captured by the Islamic State, notwithstanding their confinement to "lily-pads." How will Americans react to a video of the beheading of a US soldier available on the Internet? Will Obama again respond by expressing his outrage and then hit the links, as he did in the case of American journalist James Foley?

Does the president want to destroy the Islamic State? I don't know. Meanwhile, he appears more intent upon empowering Iran to neutralize Israel. In this regard, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has just refused US Ambassador Dan Shapiro's request to publicly disassociate himself from former Israeli Ambassador to the US Oren's contention in his new book "Ally" that Obama has abandoned Israel.

Michael Oren, "How Obama Abandoned Israel": Does "Abandoned" Include Unconditional Surrender to Iran?

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece entitled "How Obama Abandoned Israel," former Israeli Ambassador to the US (now Member of Knesset) Michael Oren writes:

"From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.

The first principle was 'no daylight.' . . . [I]mmediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and America.

. . . .

The other core principle was 'no surprises.' President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.

. . . .

The abandonment of the 'no daylight' and 'no surprises' principles climaxed over the Iranian nuclear program."

In fact, notwithstanding the disagreement of US Ambassador Dan Shapiro who would have us know that Oren simply wants to sell books, the "abandonment of the 'no daylight' and 'no surprises' principles" has yet to climax. As reported today by DEBKAfile:

"DEBKAfile’ sources reveal that Washington is preparing to give way on the snap inspections mandated by the Additional Protocol, and agree to limit inspections to facilities unilaterally designated 'nuclear' by Tehran and only after two weeks' notice.

But President Obama has made his most substantial concession yet, by accepting Tehran’s demand to divide the final accord into two parts. The first would be made public and the second, carrying the technical protocols, would be confidential. The senior US negotiator Undersecretary Wendy Sherman fought hard to have both parts of the accord released, explaining that the president could not otherwise get it through Congress. But she was overruled.

The US president has employed the same stratagem on the issue of sanctions. While declaring that they will not be lifted until Iran complies with its commitments, he has allowed American companies to enter into business negotiations with Iranian firms."

Or stated otherwise, if DEBKAfiles's sources are correct, a vindictive Obama, anxious to get even with Bibi, has unconditionally surrendered to Iran. Do you remember how Obama and friends repeatedly pledged, "No deal is better than a bad deal"? Bullshit!

The Times of Israel, "Israel’s former US envoy: PM should cancel Congress speech": I Disagree

Former Israeli ambassador to the US Michael Oren is a friend with whom I have served in the Israeli army and for whom I have the highest respect. As I write this blog entry, Mike's marvelous book, "Six Days of War," sits on a shelf opposite me. However, we disagree regarding the stance he has taken with respect to Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's speech to Congress on March 3.

As reported by The Times of Israel in an article entitled "Israel’s former US envoy: PM should cancel Congress speech":

"Oren, who is running for Knesset on the Kulanu list led by popular former Likud minister Moshe Kahlon, told Channel 2 Saturday that it was 'advisable to cancel the speech to Congress so as not to cause a rift with the American government. Much responsibility and reasoned political behavior are needed to guard interests in the White House."

Iran is an existential threat to Israel, as most recently evidenced by the presence of Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Mohammad Ali-Allah Dadi on the Syrian border with Israel. One week ago, an Israeli army helicopter killed General Dadi together with six top Hezbollah commanders, while they were mapping out future missile strikes against Israel to be launched from the Syrian Golan Heights.

Meanwhile, Obama is willy-nilly determined to reach an agreement with Iran concerning its nuclear weapons development program. As was noted last January by Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes regarding a nuclear deal with Iran:

"This is probably the biggest thing President Obama will do in his second term on foreign policy. This is healthcare for us, just to put it in context."

However, as stated by former White House advisor Dennis Ross, Eric Edelman and Ray Takeyh in a Politico article entitled "Time to Take It to Iran":

"During the course of the nuclear negotiations over the past year, Iran has been the beneficiary of a generous catalogue of concessions from the West. The 5-plus-1 has conceded to Iranian enrichment, agreed that Tehran need not scale back the number of its centrifuges significantly or dismantle any facilities and could have an industrial-size program after passage of a period of time. The Iranians have, during the course of the ten years of negotiations, grown accustomed to having their interlocutors return to the table with concessions meant to meet their mandates while offering only limited compromises of their own.

. . . .

Hence it is time to acknowledge that we need a revamped coercive strategy, one that threatens what the Islamic Republic values the most—its influence in the Middle East and its standing at home. And the pattern of concessions at the negotiating table must stop if there is to be an acceptable agreement. Iranian officials must come to understand that there will be no further concessions to reach an accord and that time is running out for negotiations."

Mike Oren claims that Israel needs to guard its interests in the White House. My belief, however, is that Obama is obsessively determined to reach agreement with Iran no matter what the consequences for Israel, and that Israel can expect nothing but hostility from Obama during the next two years.

As such, Netanyahu has an obligation to present Congress with evidence of the full extent of the Iranian threat, including ongoing development of nuclear weapons at Iran's Parchin facility, to which Tehran is denying access to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors.

Amos Yadlin, "To Save Gaza, Destroy Hamas": Is Obama a Friend of Israel?

In a guest New York Times op-ed entitled "To Save Gaza, Destroy Hamas" (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/26/opinion/to-save-gaza-destroy-hamas.html?ref=opinion&_r=0), former head of Israeli military intelligence Amos Yadlin writes:

"The latest round of warfare showed that Hamas had become more dangerous, and its offensive capacity stronger, than we had known. Its ability to threaten Israeli towns through its tunnels and to rain rockets on Israeli cities raised what had been a nuisance to a challenge of strategic proportions.

For these reasons, Hamas’s rule over Gaza must be brought to an end, its military wing disarmed, and Gaza’s people given the chance to elect new leaders."

Yadlin's determination is identical to that of Michael Oren, former Israeli ambassador to the United States, who stated two days ago in a Washington Post opinion piece entitled "Israel must be permitted to crush Hamas" (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-oren-israel-must-be-permitted-to-crush-hamas/2014/07/24/bd9967fc-1350-11e4-9285-4243a40ddc97_story.html):

"U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary of State John Kerry and the foreign ministers of Great Britain and France all are rushing to achieve a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. Their motive — to end civilian suffering and restore stability to the area — is noble. The images of the wounded and dead resulting from the conflict are indeed agonizing. However, these senior statesmen can be most helpful now by doing nothing. To preserve the values they cherish and to send an unequivocal message to terrorist organizations and their state sponsors everywhere, Israel must be permitted to crush Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

. . . .

Though bitter, the fighting between Israel and Hamas raging in Gaza’s alleyways is merely part of the far vaster struggle between rational nations and the al-Qaeda and Islamic State-like forces seeking their destruction. Relative to that global conflict, Operation Protective Edge may seem small, but it is nevertheless pivotal. To ensure that it concludes with a categorical Israeli win is in the world’s fundamental interest. To guarantee peace, this war must be given a chance."

Regrettably, Barack Obama and John ("Botox") Kerry do not see it this way, and yesterday, Israel was forced to reject a seven-day cease-fire proposed by John Kerry, which, according to The Times of Israel (http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-and-us-openly-at-odds-over-gaza-ceasefire-terms/) would have prevented Israel from continuing to destroy the Hamas tunnel network.

All of which calls into question the priorities of Obama and Kerry. Does Obama truly regard Israel as an ally? If so, why did Kerry first stop in Cairo to discuss the terms of a cease-fire, before traveling to Israel? Why did the Obama administration not interfere with the determination by the FAA to prevent American planes from landing at Ben Gurion Airport? By the way, does anyone really wish to claim that landing at Ben Gurion is more dangerous today than landing in Kiev or Baghdad? Kerry landed at Ben Gurion, despite the FAA order.

According to the old proverb, "A friend in need is a friend indeed." Obama is no friend of Israel. As observed by Commentary's Tom Wilson (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2014/07/25/kerrys-unacceptable-ceasefire-seeks-to-appease-hamas/):

"If nothing else, the fact that the Egyptians came up with a ceasefire that Israel could accept, whereas Kerry has come up with something that Israel appears poised to reject, certainly says something about just how far down the rabbit-hole the Obama administration has gone with its foreign policy."

Of course, Israel does have friends in Washington. Listen to what Senator Marco Rubio has to say about the conflict in Gaza:

Benny Morris Harassed in London

The Jerusalem Post has reported that Professor Benny Morris, his wife and another woman were harassed by a group of Muslims on his way into the London School of Economics in order to give a lecture on the Israeli War of Independence. Morris, one of Israel's "New Historians," is the author of "1948" (which I read), a controversial account of the first Arab-Israeli war, which was declared "fair minded" by both The New Yorker and The New York Times Book Review.

In The Jerusalem Post article written by By Mackenzie
Green (http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=226696), Morris is quoted as saying of those who accosted him:

“'They crowded around me in a threatening way, calling me ‘racist’ and ‘fascist.’”

. . . .

'It sounded a bit like Nazis hounding a Jew on the streets of Berlin.'

. . . .

'They feel free to break the law in this way and threaten people. The idea is to threaten people so they don’t show up again. With the increase in the number of Muslims and their power in Britain and around the world, they will feel more emboldened to harass those they disagree with. This will curtail the freedom to speak freely in Britain and in Western Europe as a whole.'”

Freedom of speech is only being threatened in Western Europe by Muslim fanatics and their leftist allies? Observe the attempts to interfere with the speech of Netanyahu before the U.S. Congress and with the speech of Ambassador Michael Oren at The University of California at Irvine (see: http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/california-university-suspends-muslim-union-for-heckling-israel-envoy-as-killer-1.296147). At least in the U.S. as opposed to the U.K., those attempting to interfere with the right of free speech still face criminal charges (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/07/irvine-11-charged-for-dis_n_819596.html).

Kai Bird: Israel the Aggressor in the Six Day War

In a Jerusalem Post column, "Rosner's Domain", Kai Bird is quoted as saying:

"I understand that most Israelis and Americans still believe that Egypt provoked the June War and perhaps they even believe that Egypt was the aggressor. But historians are constantly churning the archives for new evidence. Our job is to revise the historical narrative with new evidence. To this end, I am firmly persuaded that the war happened as a result of a series of miscalculations on the part of Nasser, the Syrians, and the Soviets. Moreover, it is also clear that the Israeli leadership understood that Nasser had no intention of launching an attack -- but that he had provided them the public provocations that allowed them to seize the opportunity to deal his regime a blow and seize the Sinai."

http://cgis.jpost.com/Blogs/rosner/entry/kai_bird_on_israel_s

Bird obviously chooses to disbelieve, or has never read Michael Oren's epic history of June 1967, "Six Days of War", which observes:

"[E]ncouraged by the lack of response, Israeli or American, to the closure of Tiran, [Egyptian] Field Marshall 'Amer continued to plan his offensive. 'This time we will be the ones to start the war,' he confided to Gen. Murtagi during a tour of forward fortifications. Beyond air strikes at strategic targets and the detachment of Eilat, 'Amer now broadened his objectives to include the entire Negev."

Sure, Oren is now Israel's ambassador to the U.S. (and a friend from the army); however, he is also an Israeli "moderate", and even The Guardian recognized the bona fides of this account:

"Michael Oren . . . deserves credit for producing the most detailed, the most comprehensive, and by far the best-documented history that we have on this short but fateful war."

Bird chooses to ignore Nasser's closure of the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping and all ships bound for Eilat (a non-aggressive "miscalculation"?), but how does Bird also ignore Field Marshall 'Amer's orders to the Egyptian Armed Forces on Radio Cairo on May 17, 1967:

1. The state of preparedness of the Egyptian Armed Forces will increase to the full level of preparedness for war, beginning 14.30 hours last Sunday.

2. Formations and units allocated in accordance with the operational plans will advance from their present locations to the designated positions.

3. The armed forces are to be in full preparedness to carry out any combat tasks on the Israel front in accordance with developments.

So to which revisionist history is Kai Bird referring?

Michael Oren on CNN: The Need for PR

In an earlier blog entry (see: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2010/04/open-letter-to-prime-minister-benjamin.html), I observed Israel's pressing need for a foreign minister able to meet with the press and present Israel's message clearly, concisely and forthrightly. In the comments to this blog entry, I noted Ambassador Michael Oren's ability to provide the necessary goods. Now read for yourselves Oren's interview with Candy Crowley, where Oren responds to the Obama administration canard that Israel is jeopardizing U.S. troops:

"Moreover, if there was no Israel, would American forces be more safe or less safe? Through the cooperation of Israel, Americans are incredibly more safe, because through the cooperation with Israel, American soldiers are receiving training, receiving intelligence, receiving equipment that Israel has developed jointly with the United States. And Israel is saving incalculable number of American lives through our cooperation."

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1004/04/sotu.01.html

Michael Oren has mastered the art of the five-minute interview, no small fete. It's time the Israeli foreign ministry learned from him. It is no accident that an Egyptian newspaper labeled Oren "the most dangerous man in Washington."