Arlene from Israel

I had recently shared my assessment that Iran and Syria and not “peace talks” with the PLO would be the main items on the agenda when President Obama visits Israel.

Now you might want to now see this article, “Barack Obama’s visit to Israel ‘will focus on Iran, not peace talks'” (emphasis added):

“…Israeli diplomats said talks with Benjamin Netanyahu would focus on Iran.

“‘The peace process may be the subject that is initially emphasized in public but there are other issues on the table that must be addressed before the summer,’ one diplomat said, alluding to Israel’s spring deadline for Iran to stop enriching uranium. ‘The deal they will have done may be on the subject of war, not of peace.’

“‘There are currently bigger and much more urgent issues to address than the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,’ one Israeli official said.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9853686/Barack-Obamas-visit-to-Israel-will-focus-on-Iran-not-peace-talks.html

~~~~~~~~~~

What I’ve been reading is that Obama has wised up since his first term: he knows that there is not going to be a deal between Israel and the PLO, and understands that pushing on this too hard merely renders him foolish and will cause him to have to backtrack.

Please, don’t write to me telling me not to trust Obama. I don’t trust him, but this is not the issue here. What is important is analyzing what Obama thinks is in Obama’s best interests, for this is the critical factor in understanding how he’s likely to play the situation.

As a result of the latest assessments of the situation, the prospect of pressure on our prime minister by Obama with regard to freezing settlements and the like seems diminished.

What also seems clear is that Netanyahu and Obama need to speak face to face on the subject of Iran.

Since Iran has been obstinate in its behavior and has rejected American outreach, it seems (speculatively) not beyond the realm of possibility that Obama would now be reassessing his position with regard to this country as well.

~~~~~~~~~~

However, I make mention of this, which for me remains unconfirmed. According to the JPost today, “unnamed officials” (whose own motivation and political orientation are unknown) told Army Radio that Obama is coming to warn Netanyahu not to take on Iran.

The urgency on Obama’s part, say these officials, “is because in his speech to the United Nations in September, Netanyahu had flagged the spring of 2013 as a significant time in the context of the Iranian nuclear threat.”

It is not for nothing that Netanyahu is talking about a unity government to take on the challenges ahead.

However, Obama would have to secure Netanyahu’s trust, something he does not have at present, in order to convince the prime minister to “let me handle matters with the Iranians according to my understanding, and if necessary I will take action, we have capabilities that you do not.”

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=302768

Not a simple matter, as there is no issue on which Netanyahu stands firmer or has greater concern. What would Obama have to do to convince Netanyahu to step down here? That the US has capabilities — including more powerful bunker-busters — that Israel does not have is absolutely the case. We’d love to let the US handle this.

But according to Obama’s understanding? There’s the rub. The US would let matters in Iran progress a great deal further than Netanyahu believes is either safe or advisable. There is a genuine disagreement here.

So perhaps the question should be reversed: What would Netanyahu have to do to convince Obama to truly act on Iran in a timely fashion? We cannot rule out that quid pro quo possibility.

~~~~~~~~~~

And while Obama may have wised up with regard to the possibility of securing an agreement between Israel and the PLO, there is nothing wise at all about the approach of Secretary of State Kerry. It is Kerry who is most likely to be, shall we say, “bothersome” on this issue. Thus does Aaron David Miller — who served as an adviser on the Middle East for multiple administrations — counsel, “Chill Out, John Kerry”:

“The last thing we need (or Kerry needs) is another abortive effort to get talks going. The inconvenient truth is that if you put Benjamin Netanyahu and Mahmoud Abbas in a room tomorrow, their talks would fail galactically. The gaps on the two least contentious issues (borders and security) are large; the divide on the identity issues (Jerusalem and refugees) are yawning.”

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112351/john-kerry-israel-palestinian-peace-process-not-race#

~~~~~~~~~~

The findings, which were released last week, of an investigation by Bulgaria into the terrorist murders of five Israelis, plus the Bulgarian bus driver, in the sea resort of Burgas last July, point the finger firmly at Hezbollah:

The investigation uncovered the fact that a Canadian and an Australian citizen — believed to be the bomb maker — were involved, and that both had been living in Lebanon, since 2006 and 2010, respectively.

Said Tsvetan Tsvetanov, Bulgaria’s interior minister, “We have well-grounded reasons to suggest that the two were members of the militant wing of Hezbollah.” He indicated that three of the people in the cell had fake driver’s licenses that had been forged in Lebanon. (Emphasis added)

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/06/world/europe/bulgaria-implicates-hezbollah-in-deadly-israeli-bus-blast.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

That Hezbollah was implicated was, of course, precisely what Prime Minister Netanyahu said from the beginning. And also of course, the Lebanese immediately put this down as a report predicated on unreliable information.

~~~~~~~~~~

The mind-blowing matter here has been the stance of the EU in the wake of these findings. Until now, the EU has not been interested in listing Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It was widely believed that the Bulgarian investigation would turn the trick and convince the Europeans to change their position. Bulgaria is, after all, a member of the EU.

Hah! What we have seen instead is a model of perversity, cowardice, and lack of willingness to crack down on Hezbollah operations — financial schemes, infrastructure, etc. — within several European countries. As the NY Times (in the above cited article) explains,

“…countries including France and Germany have been wary of taking that step, which could force confrontations with large numbers of Hezbollah supporters living within their borders.” (Emphasis added)

Or, as was explained in a JPost article (emphasis added):

“..the EU-observer, an online newspaper devoted to EU politics, reported that the union’s top counter-terrorism official, Gilles de Kerchove, said responsibility for that blast will not necessarily qualify Hezbollah for the terror blacklist.

“‘There is no automatic listing just because you have been behind a terrorist attack,’ he said in a comment that forces a double-take.

“No, de Kerchove said, it is not only ‘the legal requirement that you have to take into consideration, it’s also a political assessment of the context and the timing.

“‘You might ask, given the situation in Lebanon, which is a highly fragile, highly fragmented country, is listing it going to help you achieve what you want?’ There will, indeed, be many inside the EU asking that exact question, foremost the French, who are fearful that if the EU places Hezbollah on the list, then Paris will lose its leverage inside Lebanon.

“Placing Hezbollah on the list, these same voices will argue, could lead it to pull out of the Lebanese government, something that could significantly destabilize that country at an extremely volatile time in the region.”

http://www.jpost.com/International/Article.aspx?id=302237

~~~~~~~~~~

But let’s look more honestly at the EU concerns. There is fear of Hezbollah retaliation on their soil, or against their nationals. And fear of loss of investment by Arab nations.

As the Jpost article explains (emphasis added):

“The irony is that not all the EU feels this way. The Netherlands, for instance, has placed the group on its terror list, and Britain has blacklisted the organization’s military wing.

But it is precisely against that phenomenon – splitting the organization into a military wing and a political one – that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu warned Tuesday in responding to the attack by saying, ‘there is only one Hezbollah, it is one organization with one leadership.’

“The Bulgarians may have opened the door to this type of division by determining that at least two of those involved in the attack were ‘members of the militant wing of Hezbollah.’

“That could give the EU, which needs the consensus of all 27 member states, the wiggle room to ban part of the group, but not all of it.

“But that would, of course, only be a partial solution. Hezbollah, as The New York Times reported Tuesday, has thousands of operatives and supporters fanned out across Europe raising money.

“Declaring that the military wing is a terrorist organization will do little to hamper the activities of these fund-raisers, since they will always maintain that they are merely raising money for the ‘good’ part of the Lebanon-based organization.”

Were Hezbollah, without those artificial distinctions, to be declared a terrorist organization by the EU, it would be forbidden to transfer funds from the EU countries to Hezbollah in Lebanon.

~~~~~~~~~~

Such is the world with which we must deal. A world filled with people — fools that they are — who are prepared to let the bad guys thrive, somehow imagining that they will be safe.

Iran has now announced that it is downgrading diplomatic relations with Bulgaria and recalling its ambassador, because Bulgaria had the temerity to name Hezbollah. According to Tsvetanov, there were pressures put on him from within the country not to name Hezbollah. Fear of repercussions is pervasive.

~~~~~~~~~~

What must be noted, however, is that the US has taken a strong stand against the EU position. John Kerry urged nations around the world but particularly in Europe, “to take immediate action to crack down on Hezbollah.”

~~~~~~~~~~

I said I wouldn’t write about the rumors surrounding the formation of the coalition here. But I cannot resist mentioning this: Yair Lapid, who is totally without diplomatic experience, and wants a “two state solution,” to boot, has been vying for the plum of Foreign Minister.

But according to Israel Hayom, as of today, Netanyahu has rejected this bid, and will be bringing back Avigdor Lieberman, once he has moved past his current legal difficulties. According to Lieberman, this arrangement was set in place even before the elections and was made public. As I understand it, in the interim, Netanyahu will serve as Foreign Minister. Lieberman told the “Meet the Press” TV show yesterday that:

“It is not possible to reach a permanent peace agreement with the Palestinians…This [situation] is impossible. It is not possible to solve the conflict here. The conflict can be managed and it is important to manage the conflict…” We take what we can get here.

~~~~~~~~~~

What portfolio will Lapid get? Finance Ministry is frequently mentioned. Not that he knows the first thing about finance, either.

Here is the major flaw in our coalition system. Parties are enticed to enter the coalition via positions that are offered to them, as much as by platform positions. This hardly guarantees that the most competent person will fill each major position. I’m not sure exactly what Lapid’s experience as a TV journalist qualifies him to do. But he has 19 mandates.

~~~~~~~~~~

Today is Rosh Chodesh Adar, the beginning of the new month of Adar. This is a month when we are meant to be happy: “Mishe’nichnas Adar Marbin Be’simcha” — when Adar comes joy increases — we are told. Two weeks from today is Purim, the silliest, most joyous holiday of the year.

In the spirit of silly, I provide this link, which will provide a variety of Mishenichnas Adar song versions. Enjoy.

http://www.veengle.com/s/Mishenichnas%20Adar.html

Silly and joyous can preserve sanity, I think.

By: Nelson Abdullah
Conscience of a Conservative

Imagine if during World War II President Franklin Roosevelt appointed a member of the Nazi Party to be the head of the OSS? The OSS was the Office of Strategic Services, it was the United States intelligence agency formed during World War II. It was a predecessor of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). The OSS was formed in order to coordinate espionage activities behind enemy lines for the branches of the United States Armed Forces. Would that have raised any eyebrows in the news media? Well, now suppose in the midst of our war against terror, the one-time Muslim, mentored by a Communist, Democrat Barack Hussein Obama nominated a Muslim to head the CIA? Nominated a Muslim to fight a war that was started by Muslims following the Muslim hijacking of four U.S. airliners who flew them on a religious suicide mission into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. A war that has pitted us against radical Islamic groups such as al Qaida which was led by Osama bin Laden and the Taliban, both of which were created by The Muslim Brotherhood. A war that has cost us over 8,000 American lives which include almost 3,000 civilians killed on September 11, 2001 and the remainder in U.S. servicemen and women killed in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Well, suppose no longer because that is exactly what is happening today. Now read the details from the Australian web site Winds of Jihad and The Investigative Project on Terrorism.

“John Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia.”
by sheikyermami on February 9, 2013

Don’t say I told you so:

John Brennan, President Obama’s nominee for Director of the Central Intelligence Agency, converted to Islam while working in Saudi Arabia, states former FBI agent, John Guandolo. John Guandolo wrote the first Muslim Brotherhood training manual for the FBI. Watch the detailed story in this explosive interview.

Rasool Obama wants to make John Brennan director of the CIA.

Brennan calls Jerusalem “al Quds”, lawmakers call for his firing.

Brennan “marvelled at the majesty of the hajj and the holy two mosques” while he was the station chief of the CIA in Soddy Barbaria.

This is the turd who told us that the Muslim Brotherhood is “largely secular”, “jihad is a legitimate tenet of Islam”and the same Brennan called for a stop to “Iran bashing.”

He has helped strip language about “radical Islam” and similar terms from government vernacular, choosing instead to refer to “violent extremism.” When it comes to jihad, he stubbornly maintains the word does not belong in conversations about terror, no matter what the terrorists themselves say.

Video: Former FBI Agent Confirms CIA Nominee John Brennan a Convert to Islam

Creeping Sharia asked this very question back in a February 2010 post. In that video, Brennan stated “Those Who Are Anti-Islam are a National Security Threat.” It has since been deleted from the web.

Yesterday, a former U.S. Marine and FBI agent confirmed on the trentovision radio/tv show that indeed John Brennan did convert to Islam. Watch to the end.

“Mr. Brennan did convert to Islam when he served in an official capacity on behalf of the United States in Saudi Arabia.”

Islam ‘Helped to Shape’ CIA Nominee John Brennan’s World View

Brennan’s Feb. 13, 2010 address to a meeting at the Islamic Center at New York University, facilitated by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), provided an insight into his views on Islam, a faith which he said during the speech had “helped to shape my own world view.”

Like the president during his childhood years in Jakarta, I came to see Islam not how it is often misrepresented, but for what it is – how it is practiced every day, by well over a billion Muslims worldwide, a faith of peace and tolerance and great diversity.”

Previous posts:

• CIA nominee Brennan urged AGAINST bin Laden attack before 9/11
• Counter-terror adviser Brennan bolts when asked about jihad (video)
• Counter-terrorism advisor Brennan: We are not at war with Islamic Jihadists
• Hamas-Linked ISNA “Facilitated” Brennan’s NYU Speech (video)
• Obama’s Nat’l Security Adviser Brennan does Q&A with former coordinator for Hamas-funding Islamic “charity”
• White House admits national intelligence chief Brennan clueless on UK terror arrests
• Counterterror chief’s company linked to “Innocence of Muslims” video

Brennan Lets Radical Islamists Dictate Policy
During his time as a White House advisor, Brennan displayed a disturbing tendency to engage with Islamist groups which often are hostile to American anti-terrorism policies at home and abroad. Those meetings confer legitimacy upon the groups as representatives of all Muslim Americans, despite research indicating that the community is far too diverse to have anyone represent its concerns.

A Feb. 13, 2010 speech Brennan gave at the New York University School of Law serves as an example.

Organized by the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the talk became an outlet for Brennan’s argument that terrorists benefit from being identified by religious terms, including “jihadist.” In doing so, Brennan waded into theological revisionism by denying the Quranic foundation exists, even though jihadists routinely cite chapter and verse.

“As Muslims you have seen a small fringe of fanatics who cloak themselves in religion, try to distort your faith, though they are clearly ignorant of the most fundamental teachings of Islam. Instead of creating, they destroy – bombing mosques, schools and hospitals. They are not jihadists, for jihad is a holy struggle, an effort to purify for a legitimate purpose, and there is nothing, absolutely nothing holy or pure or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said. “We’re trying to be very careful and precise in our use of language, because I think the language we use and the images we project really do have resonance. It’s the reason why I don’t use the term jihadist to refer to terrorists. It gives them the religious legitimacy they so desperately seek, but I ain’t gonna give it to them.”

Like his positions on Iran and Hizballah, Brennan’s views about using religious references like “jihad” have been uttered repeatedly and consistently. “President Obama [does not] see this challenge as a fight against jihadists. Describing terrorists in this way, using the legitimate term ‘jihad,’ which means to purify oneself or to wage a holy struggle for a moral goal, risks giving these murderers the religious legitimacy they desperately seek but in no way deserve,” Brennan said in an Aug. 6, 2009 speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS).

He returned to the narrative in a May 26, 2010 speech, also at CSIS.

“Nor do we describe our enemy as ‘jihadists’ or ‘Islamists’ because jihad is a holy struggle, a legitimate tenant of Islam, meaning to purify oneself or one’s community, and there is nothing holy or legitimate or Islamic about murdering innocent men, women and children,” Brennan said.

Brennan’s interpretation of jihad stands in stark contrast with how the term has been consistently understood, especially by the intellectual founders of the global Islamist movement.

Muslim Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna, whose ideas have influenced all subsequent Islamic extremists including Hamas and Al-Qaida, rejected the definition of jihad that Brennan suggests is correct.

In a pamphlet titled “Jihad,” al-Banna wrote: “Many Muslims today mistakenly believe that fighting the enemy is jihad asghar (a lesser jihad) and that fighting one’s ego is jihad akbar (a greater jihad). The following narration [athar] is quoted as proof: ‘We have returned from the lesser jihad to embark on the greater jihad.’ They said: ‘What is the greater jihad?’ He said: ‘The jihad of the heart, or the jihad against one’s ego. This narration is used by some to lessen the importance of fighting, to discourage any preparation for combat, and to deter any offering of jihad in Allah’s way. This narration is not a saheeh (sound) tradition …”

Sayyid Qutb, al-Banna’s successor in defining Islamist thought, clearly endorsed the idea of violent jihad, suggesting that it should not be fought merely in a defensive manner.

“Anyone who understands this particular character of this religion will also understand the place of Jihaad bis saif (striving through fighting), which is to clear the way for striving through preaching in the application of the Islamic movement. He will understand that Islam is not a ‘defensive movement’ in the narrow sense which today is technically called a ‘defensive war.’ This narrow meaning is ascribed to it by those who are under the pressure of circumstances and are defeated by the wily attacks of the orientalists, who distort the concept of Islamic Jihaad,” Qutb wrote in his book Milestones. “It was a movement to wipe out tyranny and to introduce true freedom to mankind, using resources according to the actual human situation, and it had definite stages, for each of which it utilized new methods.”

Even Brennan’s NYU host advocated violent jihad. A December 1986 article appearing in ISNA’s official magazine Islamic Horizons notes that “jihad of the sword is the actual taking up of arms against the evil situation with the intention of changing it,” that “anyone killed in jihad is rewarded with Paradise,” and that “a believer who participates in jihad is superior to a believer who does not.”

Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, the senior Muslim Brotherhood imam who the Obama administration reportedly has used in its negotiations with the Taliban, connects jihad with fighting in his book Fiqh of Jihad. In it, he says that Muslims may engage in violent jihad in the event Muslim lands are threatened by or occupied by non-Muslims as he contends is the case with Israel.

These Brotherhood treatises are relevant because Brennan’s host, ISNA, was founded by Muslim Brotherhood members in the United States, some of whom remain active with the organization. And, although it denied any Brotherhood connection in 2007, exhibits in evidence in a Hamas-support trial show ISNA’s “intimate relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood.” In addition, the federal judge in the case found “ample evidence” connecting ISNA to Muslim Brotherhood operations known as the Holy Land Foundation, the Islamic Association for Palestine and Hamas.

ISNA has sought to publicly moderate its image, yet it has kept radicals such as Jamal Badawi on its board of directors and granted a 2008 community-service award to Jamal Barzinji, a founding father of the Muslim Brotherhood in America, as well as a former ISNA board member.

Badawi has defended violent jihad including suicide bombings and has suggested that Islam is superior to secular democracy. Barzinji was named in a federal affidavit as being closely associated with Palestinian Islamic Jihad and Hamas.

Barzinji’s name appears in a global phone book of Muslim Brotherhood members recovered by Italian and Swiss authorities in November 2001 from the home of Al-Taqwa Bank of Lugano founder Youssef Nada, one of the leaders of the international Muslim Brotherhood and an al-Qaida financier.

At the NYU event, Brennan was introduced by then-ISNA President Ingrid Mattson, who made Qutb’s writings required reading in a course she taught. Mattson has advocated against using terms like “Islamic terrorism” since the earliest days after 9/11. During his speech, Brennan praised Mattson as “an academic whose research continues the rich tradition of Islamic scholarship and as the President of the Islamic Society of North America, where you have been a voice for the tolerance and diversity that defines Islam.”

Brennan met privately around the time of the NYU speech with another advocate of ignoring the Islamic motivation driving many terrorists. Both Salam al-Marayati and his organization, the Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) have long records of defending suspected terrorists and terror supporters and of arguing the terrorist threat in America is exaggerated.

During a 2005 ISNA conference, al-Marayati blasted the idea that Muslims would be used as informants to thwart possible terrorist plots. “Counter-terrorism and counter-violence should be defined by us. We should define how an effective counter-terrorism policy should be pursued in this country,” he said. “So, number one, we reject any effort, notion, suggestion that Muslims should start spying on one another.”

The White House invited al-Marayati to attend the NYU speech despite his prior comments suggesting Israel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, condemning the FBI’s use of informants in counter-terror investigations, and his argument that Hizballah engages in “legitimate resistance.”

After the meeting, MPAC claimed credit for the administration’s policy of sugar-coating terrorist motives. “Mr. Brennan made two important points in his address that signified the importance of MPAC’s government engagement over the last 15 years in Washington,” an MPAC statement said. Among them, “He rejected the label of ‘jihadist’ to describe terrorists, because it legitimates violent extremism with religious validation, a point MPAC made in its 2003 policy paper on counterterrorism.”

Terrorists Disagree
While Brennan and his associates like Mattson and al-Marayati may wish to disconnect terrorism from religion, this strategy has proven meaningless among those who plot attacks against Americans. Many describe acting out of a belief that America is at war with Islam. Asserting that religious motivation doesn’t exist does nothing to lessen the threat.

When Army Pvt. Naser Jason Abdo’s mother asked her son what would drive him to plot a bombing and shooting attack on a restaurant that serves personnel at Fort Hood, Tex., his answer was succinct.

“The reason is religion, Mom,” he said.

Read the whole thing, here…

End note: In the wartime annals of American history, putting a Muslim in charge of the CIA is not the first time American soldiers have fought a battle with an enemy who had one of their own running the show. The Korean War was fought by American troops fighting under the flag of the United Nations. While communist North Korea was being aided by communist China and the Soviet Union, the United Nations office of Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs was coordinating all of our U.S. Military troop movements.

For decades, since the founding charter of the U.N. was written, only Communist leaders would be appointed to fill the UN’s highest military post, Under-Secretary-General for Political and Security Council Affairs. Fourteen of the fifteen men who held this vital post up until 1995 (and probably into the new century) represented the USSR. The one exception was Dragoslav Protitich, a Communist from Yugoslavia. So when American soldiers fought Communism in Korea and Vietnam in partnership with the UN, the top UN military leaders were Communists. No wonder American soldier fought two futile and deadly wars.**

Since the founding of the U.N. in 1945, when delegates from 50 countries met in San Francisco to sign the UN Charter, U.S. State Department employee and Communist spy, Alger Hiss, co-authored that founding charter and served as the first acting UN Secretary-General.**

** http://www.crossroad.to/Excerpts/chronologies/un.htm

Hat Tip: BB

Read more at Freedom’s Lighthouse…

AL-ARABIYA NEWS: Hundreds of thousands of people marched on Sunday in Tehran and other cities chanting “Death to America” as Iran marked the 34th anniversary of the Islamic revolution that ousted the U.S.-backed shah.

In the capital, crowds waving Iranian flags and portraits of revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini walked toward the landmark Azadi (Freedom) Square, in a government-sponsored rally which is now a cornerstone of the regime.

Marchers also chanted “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” as they headed for the square, some waving posters of supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, where President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was expected to make an address…. Read More